Thursday, 23 February 2012

David Owen 'spectates'

David Owen has a lengthy article on the Coffee House in which he gives us the benefit of his views on the eurozone and its present troubles, together with his idea of a 'double' EU - one with what he terms an inner zone and and outer zone. Let us leave to one side his views on the former and concentrate on his views on the latter. Do read the entire article - it is laughable in the aims that Owen proposes.

Like all europhiles, he maintains we should not walk away but remain, using quiet persistence, in order to achieve 'two Europes' -a wider and an inner - that would live in harmony one with the other (is this not more 'change from within' - a policy that has been shown to have failed already?). Just what is it that the idiot Owen does not accept about the entire reason for the EU's existence? The minute the EU allowed one member to leave, the minute the EU allowed a 'two-core-membership', its entire reason for existing is dismantled - the EU is an all or nothing membership!

Later, in this illogical piece of political thinking (but hey, when has any political thinking been logical?) Owen acknowledges that there would have to be a UK referendum on a choice of wider membership or inner membership, but fails to even mention that a third choice should be available - one of neither.  He discusses the matter of enlargement of EU membership, one possibly comprising a membership of 40 countries - which leads on to another thought.

There is much discussion about the drift to world government - which leads one to question whether the EU is part of this 'movement'? Richard N. Gardner, recent Ambassador to Spain, writing in Foreign Affairs, stated:
"In short, the 'house of world order,' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down....but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Which is basically the tenet of Jean Monnet in proposing a European union.

From Jordan Maxwell, Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge, (n.p., 2000) pp. 15-16 we read the words of David Rockfeller:
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity....But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march  towards world government....The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

The English Constitution contains two documents; the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights  of 1689 which cannot allow any of the above. From a Bruges Group 'paper' we read:
"If the British Constitution were simply followed, the rights and liberties of the British people would be placed above reproach. Recall that the collective body of documents comprising the British Constitution nullify government-imposed limitation of liberty. Even if a government were technically successful in achieving limitations on liberty, the corresponding action would be immediately void, as mandated by the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and the Magna Carta itself. As explained earlier, the Declaration requires that, “…the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration…shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration…in all time to come.” But are not rights merely words on paper if the people are not vigilant in their defense? The Magna Carta contains actionable measures designed to thwart despotic machinations."
That we the people need to become more vigilant in their own defense is not in question - and is but another reason why the introduction of direct democracy is required. A move wherein and whereby the people, being asked to assume more responsibility for their nation, would thus be able to impose vigilance for their own benefit and future.

Or put more simply - and as proposed by Richard North, EU Referendum, some months ago - would it not be simpler if the people just rose up now and slaughtered the present political elite?


Richard said...

" ... eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

Reverse engrenage ... that's why we went for repatriating fishing - and why Cameron had to stop it.

Antisthenes said...

"the people just rose up now and slaughtered the present political elite?"

Are you not coming perilously close to breaking the law as this can be construed as being an incitement to violence?

Putting that to one side I have been following you for some time now and am wholehearted behind you in your campaign for direct democracy in principle that is. However I see practical problems ones that I see faces politicians. I for one do not believe in capital punishment but the majority of the people do for instance. There are many more things that the majority are for or against that to me are not in their best interests. Direct democracy could in practice reduce progress towards a more enlightened and prosperous society to a snails pace and often be counter productive.

livescore said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

People like Owen are always banging on about the need for Britain " to have influence in the EU".

I am 50 have a university degree, get out a bit and talk to a lot of peoplre. I have yet to ever meet anybody who wanted Britain to have any input into a debate about what type of light bulbs they use in Bulgaria or protocols for the storage of drugs in a vets in Italy. In short the argument is complete and total tosh. As a country we need to exercise diplomatic skill in seeking where possible to maintain good relations with all people of goodwill! That is as far as it goes!

The other enourmous problem with the " owen's" of this world is a fundamental philosophical one. I can understand that for narrow selfish reasons he may wish to see the British poltical class exercise more influence. However if in the process you completely subsume your country into an alien state then you have ceased to exist! People like Owen never ever come up with an answer to this question. The reason being that when they talk about " influence" they are actually only concerned with the power wielded by a globalist coterie with no loyalty to any nation state. I am utterly sick and tired of the fact that no mainstream journalist is ever prepared to tear these people to pieces. If I had 10 minutes on the beeb i could make the entire political class look very stupid, devious and disloyal. I use to be wary of conspiracy theory however I am now convinced that there must be direct instructions to journalists that prevent them asking " difficult" questions to the EU nutters!!

mikebravo said...

Antisthenes says "There are many more things that the majority are for or against that to me are not in their best interests"

A job awaits you within the political elite. You will have all the benefits and privileges.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

R: Agreed.

A: What is in the people's best interests is for them to decide - not us and their decision however much we may disagree with it is one that has to be accepted. If we take your example of the death penalty, I don't believe a return of that punishment would gain a majority - you only have to look at the petition that appeared on the govt website as it stalled at a relatively low number.

Anon: Agreed.

mb: see my comment above.