Opening up a pro-eu(er)

Or, perhaps, reading the 'phile' of a pro-eu(er) - in one particular case. My attention is drawn to two articles that have appeared today; one in the Times (£), the other on the website of Public Service Europe, both of which contain 'irregularities'.


In the first, entry of which I have not due to the paywall, it is understood that Roland Rudd who is chairman of Business for New Europe - and who in the past was one of those who believed that this country should have joined the euro at its inception - argues that should Britain leave the EU and then forge a membership similar to that of Norway it too would be the subject of 'fax-machine diplomacy. Perhaps Rudd should be directed to posts by Richard North, here and here.  


Digressing slightly it seems that the likes of Hannan and Farage, amongst others, are 'fixated' with the idea that the only alternative available, should Britain exit the European Union, is membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). As an alternative, however, might not an arrangement such as the Swiss have - of bilateral agreements -not be better? Even though such negotiations may take time to complete, Britain's position as a market, an economy and bearing in mind the potential to the EU of any subsequently agreed 'contributions' must carry a great deal of weight.


Whilst on the subject of Norway I believe it correct to say that only just over 3.5% of Norwegians are unemployed, inflation is circa 2.5% cent and debt /deficit levels are almost the only ones in Europe that come anywhere near the Maastricht criteria, coupled with the facts that Norway export more per capita to the EU from outside that organisation than Britain does from inside, whist their trade with the EU is in surplus, whereas ours is in deficit.


Time dictates that I move on to "Nucleus" (building influence through Europe) and the article written by a Director, one Matthew Lewis, linked to above. Where to start? In fact there are so many 'irregularities' in this piece, one written by someone who appears to belong in a kindergarten, that I can't be bothered to even start - go read it for yourselves! Suffice to say, I will pick-up on one statement he makes, namely "We cannot operate as a Switzerland or a Norway, it is not in our nature" as it immediately begs the questions of why and why not? Bearing in mind the statistics quoted above, if it is not in our nature, following his 'reasoning'(?) then perhaps it would be to our own good as a nation that we changed our nature. That we have been for ages a 'trading nation' and have survived as such seems to have escaped him, something he would know had his education been better than it obviously was. Lewis' statement that "we cannot operate as a Switzerland...." illustrates that this is yet another 'robot' imprisoned in the 'current political bubble' because it is obvious that in making that statement it has not crossed his mind to think about our system of democracy. That Lewis writes in the vein he does is not surprising as he is a committed 'euro-realist'. Digressing slightly again, as their 'About' section is woefully short of information I have emailed them to ask how long they have been in existence, whether it is long enough that they have annual accounts and reports - and if so why they are not readily available on their website; if not and they have only recently been formed, from whence and from whom came their funding for start-up.


As I have said previously, if, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned - and the same exhortation applies to anyone else who wishes to influence public opinion!




Afterthought for Master Lewis: An alternative viewpoint from a 'business leader'.

We see what we see - and believe it (unfortunately)

Readers will know that I recently posted on Norway, UNECE and Farage, here. That we in the UK are not the only ones suffering from an MSM which is in the pocket of politicians would appear to be confirmed by this post from Richard North, EU Referendum (and do follow all the links!)

As bandwagons appear to be 'all the rage' - forgive me if I remount mine! When we have introduced a participatory form of democracy in this nation, one which cements the democratic basis that we the people are 'king; that we can control our own destiny and that mechanisms are in place to do just that; people will become more involved in politics (human nature?). As I posted recently, I doubt people even know that another form of democracy even exists - and when it is known, I can almost guarantee they will grasp it with both hands It is through this widening of democratic awareness that people will make use of the internet in order to seek the truth, thus forcing the MSM to start reporting the bare facts - and thus the truth - if they wish to remain in business, rather than the 'mis-information' that is presented to us as the truth.

A recent commenter on this post accused Richard North, amongst other things, of being an 'egotist' - but hey, are not all those blogging 'egotists'? Is not anyone who will not accept the 'status quo', for whatever reason, an 'egotist'? Are not those, who fought to preserve a way of life in which they believed, each and every one an 'egotist'? That commenter should remember that were it not for the 'egotists' throughout our history, he amongst many others - who mock 'egotists' - would not be enjoying what freedoms they still have.

This bodes well (not) for any referendum debate

Yesterday I posted a video featuring Nigel Farage rebutting Cameron's Lord Mayor's Banquet speech - and did so deliberately refraining from adding any personal opinion on what Farage said.

As Richard North pointed out in the comment section to that post much of the EEA legislation is agreed initially by bodies such as UNECE, linking to this post in which he made exactly that point. Norway, as a member of the UNECE, therefore does have a voice in the drafting of EU legislation. Cameron was likewise disingenuous when in his speech he said: "Leaving the EU is not in our national interest. Outside, we would end up like Norway, subject to every rule for the Single Market made in Brussels but unable to shape those rules", something which I failed to pick up when I posted on that speech.

For some time it has been obvious that politicians are adept at twisting, or omitting, facts to suit their own argument. That Farage omitted to mention the UNECE factor may have been due to time constraints, however it is such an important matter surely its inclusion should have been mandatory. That Cameron failed to tell the whole truth is, unfortunately, to be expected.

If, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned.

Just saying............

Farage: A rebuttal to Cameron

No, Mr. Farage, No!

Ukip has made a submission to the Commission on a Bill of Rights, one that leaves me incredulous as to his and his party's motives. Surely Ukip and Farage have not succumbed to the politician's belief that only the state knows best, that the people must accept what the state decides?

It may have escaped the attention of Nigel Farage that a Bill of Rights already exists on the Statute Book and all that is needed to cement that within our society is a return to the practise of Common Law. In that respect I would suggest Nigel Farage reads this post from Ian Parker-Joseph.

As with the party's - and Farage's - belief that taking the 'EU Shilling Euro' was a resigning matter for me, so is this latest 'idea'.

Preparing for euro breakup - video

Courtesy of Fausty's Libertarian Blog comes the following video of a Conference held in the European Parliament, Brussels, on Wednesday, 12th October 2011, Room A1E2, from 10.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The speakers were Professor Wilhelm Hankel, who last year led the challenge to the euro bailouts in the German Constitutional Court, tackled the first topic: "Currency Union or Foreign Exchange Rate Union?" He was followed by Professor Philipp Bagus, who dealt with the "Practical steps to withdrawing from the Euro." For their 'bios', see Fausty's post.

For those amongst us who have to work for a living it may be something you may wish to watch in the evening as the video is nearly 2 hours in length.

David Cameron's history - if only......

When one decides to delve back into history, it is surprising what you find. Unfortunately, due to my having only begun in December 2009, my personal 'reference book' is rather minuscule when compared to others. Richard North, EU Referendum, has very kindly sourced some of his material for me - my thanks, Richard.

David Cameron was appointed leader of his party on 6th December 2005 and has always maintained his eurosceptism burns brightly within him - which is rather odd really when you travel back in time. Digressing slightly, readers will be aware of the novel 1984 by George Orwell in which Winston Smith works in the Ministry of Truth where he is employed to change passages in past newspaper articles in such a way as to make them congruent with current party doctrine - something similar oddly enough appears to be happening today.

On the basis of one speech, made without notes at the Conservative Leadership Conference in October 2005, Cameron attained the leadership of his party. Videos of this speech were available on youtube, yet strangely they appear to have been censored  for reasons of copyright, which is also odd bearing in mind the text of that speech can still be read. A year earlier at the Conservative Party Conference, during a fringe meeting Cameron spent five minutes offering his views on how his party would win the next general election. Richard North posted on this with a link to the Conservative Party website, a link that also seems unavailable - quelle surprise.

The same month an edition of Question Time featured a panel comprising Nigel Farage, Patricia Hewitt, Jody Dunn, Matthew Parris and...... David Cameron. For some time now we have heard nothing from the Conservative Party but talk of repatriation of powers from the EU; we have had Hague talking about it and Useless Eustice forming his pressure group, a group presumably formed with Cameron's agreement, to further that aim. I have always maintained that repatriation of powers from Brussels was 'pie-in-the-sky' as the EU only has one aim, which is 'ever closer union', coupled with the fact that were just one power repatriated to any member state it would open a Pandora's Box whereby other member states would apply. In this QT programme both Cameron and Parris were of the belief that repatriation of powers was possible, citing the example of Margaret Thatcher who, as Richard North chronicles here, had an 'ace in the hole'. What is more important though is, as Nigel Farage stated in this programme and luckily noted by Richard North in this post, any repatriation of powers would require the agreement of the remaining member states.

Returning to Cameron's election to the leadership one has to ask just what those who voted for him were thinking. His leadership bid speech contained his aversion to the party moving to the right, he only mentioned Europe once and not in the context of EU membership and if one rereads his speech the content is so bland as to be forgettable. Just a year earlier he had been guilty of espousing the party line and then publicly attempted to be disingenuous by linking repatriation of powers to the success of Margaret Thatcher's rebate 'handbagging'. The failure of his party to secure an outright majority in 2010 may well be attributable to the fact that by then the majority of Conservative members had realised the gigantic error they had made in choosing Cameron and consequently 'did not go for it', 'did not seize it', 'did not fight for it' which resulted in 'someone or something denying them'.

Were a referendum held on our membership of the EU and which resulted in 'Out', what follows is not that simple, as Richard North explains in this post. Back in 2004 Cameron knew this, back in 2005 when he made his leadership bid he knew this, back in 2007 when he gave his cast-iron guarantee on a referendum he knew this, back in early 2010 when he he begged voters to elect a eurosceptic Conservative Party he knew this - and this year when he obviously agreed to Useless Eustice forming his pressure group urging repatriation, he knew that this is unachievable too and he is not the only one either. It stands to reason so do the likes of Cash, Redwood, Carswell, Heaton-Harris and the remainder of the supposed eurosceptic Conservatives, including Useless Eustice, Raab, and Patel.

Hopefully the EU will implode through some external factor such as the failure (at long last) of the euro but failing that withdrawal could, I still believe, be accomplished although the after effects might be painful for a time.

Politicians have known for some time now that they are not respected and are held in derision by the public. Should it cross their minds to wonder why, might I suggest they just ask David Cameron. He has not been honest with us, he has lied for personal, political gain and in so doing he has been another to have sullied his Office, his reputation and what was once a revered profession. It reflects badly on those who profess to be honourable, principled men and women that they continue to allow themselves to be led by one of questionable standards. But then, maybe, the fact that any protest is most noticeable by its absence, the fact they seem content to continue to allow themselves to be led..................

Readers may have noticed one omission above when listing prominent eurosceptics and in this regard I would recall an event during the last general election when a microphone worn by Gordon Brown was famously left 'live'. Well, it would seem a similar occurrence happened and Cameron and Hannan were overheard. Enjoy...........!

EU despises 'populism'

Mary Ellen Synon writes that the European Commission propaganda machine has started pulling the levers on its latest campaign - this one meant to smear anyone who wants to stop the transfer of fiscal powers to Brussels and Frankfurt. Anyone who fights against the so-called 'eurozone economic governance' is now to be despised as a 'populist.' In her article she links to a new paper, one published by the European Policy Centre and which can be read here. This paper begins:

"It is undeniable that populist forces are on the rise in most European countries – North and South, East and West – and that they resort to anti-EU rhetoric to increase their political and electoral support"

and later exhorts the EU, in their fight to dispel 'EU myths':

"engage in full-scale, real-time action to de-construct and rebut all the anti-Europe myths built and spread by populist forces. Some groundwork has been done by the EU Delegation in the UK as well as others in support of the 2009 'Yes' campaign in Ireland. Why not generalise this approach and make it more systematic?"

Commenting that opinion polls across Europe (including the latest Eurobarometer) have started to show a tangible loss of trust in (all) EU institutions and a marginal rise in trust in national ones is probably the reason for what are considered populist forces being on the rise, although this point seems to have escaped the writer. Instead of considering the problems that are causing this distrust by people in the EU, all we get is denial and repetition that there is nothing wrong with the EU and all that is required is to dispel the 'myths' on which this supposed 'populism' is based. It would appear that the EU have learned from the Lib/Lab/Con in that that is all those three parties have done for some time, namely to repeat the message that only they know best, only they have the skill to rectify their own mistakes and that any other view is reactionary and extremist.

Richard North, in a post which continues his 'war' against Nigel Farage, makes the point that we, the people, are in thrall to the party system and that what is required for the good of our nation is a 'movement' - one that transcends party politics - in order to regain our nation's independence. Linked to this idea is the fact that I have received comments suggesting that all the anti-EU factions need to forget their 'differences' and combine into one voice against EU membership - a nice idea but one doomed to failure due to the egos involved of those leading those factions. That Richard North is correct in his view that a 'movement' is required cannot be beyond doubt, however I would argue that to enable that 'movement' to gain ground will require a new concept of what we consider to be 'democracy', one that entails an appeal to people's most basic of instincts - namely 'self'.

The main dislike of the European Union and of our three main political parties is the common belief that they all have: that they have to be 'in control' to dictate our lives, how we - and our nation - think, act and speak. By appealing to people's 'individualism' will be found the key to breaking this deadlock that the Lib/Lab/Con and the EU exert over our daily lives - and surprise (not), it involves devolution of power.

The Boundary Commission review into the 'rearrangement' of constituencies has been leaked, via Guido Fawkes. Whilst fulfilling Cameron's stated wish to decrease the number of 'deckchairs on the Titanic', it amounts no more than an exercise in maintaining the 'status quo'; in other words, continuing the elected dictatorship, whilst handing an electoral advantage to the ruling party, namely his. This is another measure by which the political elite intend to maintain their control of their masters. Political commentators have been busy with 'what ifs' and 'what it means for individual MPs', yet they forget that this is but a 'proposal' and one that is subject to 'consultation' and probably highly unlikely to be implemented in this parliamentary term - which lends argument to the suggestion that the people are not the only ones in thrall with the party political system.

Some may be pleased to hear that, at long last, the next post to appear on this blog will be the first of two in the series of 'Constitution'.

Ukip & an English Parliament

In his speech, posted here earlier today, Nigel Farage announced a policy change that meant his party now supports the creation of an English Parliament. Whilst details at the time of writing are sparse, it would appear from the party's website that this would involve the creation of a First Minister and executive which would be responsible for domestic legislation such as education, health, the environment and transport. 

I have for some time complained about Ukip's lack of ability in the areas of administration and presentation; and the announcement above illustrates that point admirably. If a party is to announce a new policy - and presumably one that has not been decided on the spur of the moment - might it not be a good idea if the details of that policy were immediately available on their website? Unfortunately, the policy for the constitution of the United Kingdom has yet to be amended, as can be seen.

In view of the fact the present policy complains that:

"Bureaucracy overrules democracy at every level, from Brussels to Whitehall to the town hall."

perhaps someone can explain the logic of creating yet more politicians and more bureaucrats? Does the club not already contain far too many self-opinionated and self-centred members? If, as Nigel Farage maintains, Ukip is a Libertarian party then surely they are in favour of small government - not increasing the existing large one?

Just asking, you understand.......................

Farage at Eastbourne

With thanks to CallingEngland comes a video of Nigel Farage's address, yesterday, to the Ukip Conference:

I understand one or two new policies are due to be announced, with amendments to existing policies, something long overdue. Now all they have to do is get their administation and presentation on to an acceptable and professional level, at which point they might just begin to make an impression.