Politicians don't only lie about vetos.........

.......because, as Richard North, EU Referendum, posts - in the process linking to Christopher Booker's column in today's Sunday Telegraph - they lie about other matters too!

So not only are the statistics on the trade figures (follow link therein) 'skewed' but so are they where the  number of Statutory Instruments is concerned.

Of course, come a referendum, this means that any statistics quoted by the 'In' fraternity will be virtually worthless. How will the electorate be aware of that? The question is posed because, as sure as God made his proverbial little apples, our lying political class won't tell them!

Understandably perhaps, words fail me to describe the morals of the political class, a class that bestows upon itself the term "Honourable".

We are faced with a choice here, people. We either permit these ''Major' bastards to continue treating us like dirt - or we do something about it!

Apparently there are certain matters which are an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy.

According to Nick Clegg.


I would refer readers to this post from Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, one to which Richard North, EU Referendum, adds a very short, but pertinent comment. It is a subject on which I have posted previously, here, here and here.


As Helen so rightly posts:

"We shall see what those much-praised, much-vaunted Tory eurosceptics will do. HMG is unhappy with the idea of a establishing "a Committee of Inquiry into the economic implications for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Union". Who will rebel and say that it is, in fact, a very good idea, indeed?"

That this requires an MP to further the process by proposing a debate will indeed be the question, coupled of course with how much 'whipping' might negate any such intention? No doubt Lord Pearson's proposal will be answered with the 'time-honoured' response that the benefits are so obvious that no such debate need take place. With all three parties wedded to membership of the European Union, contrary to reported public opinion, coupled with which one has to remember that said MPs have 'careers', when this reaches the Commons the response will be all too predictable!


And we do not live under a system of 'democratised dictatorship'?


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

Woe is Ukip

For 'yonks' this country's membership of the European Union has never registered with the British public as an election issue; albeit that the politicians from the Lib/Lab/Con have refused to discuss it; the media have refused to raise it at election time as an issue; and the only party against said membership - Ukip - has gone about their business in what can only be described as an amateurish manner.


It is accepted that for what is considered a 'minor party', in political terms, to gain media attention is extremely difficult - especially with a media that is undoubtedly 'influenced' by the Lib/Lab/Con with their dire threats of 'non-access' should what may be termed 'negative copy' be filed. Having made that basic point, one would have thought that in the current climate, where the subject of membership of the European Union - and of that body itself - has been one of the main topics in the news, Ukip would have polled highly. That this did not happen may be due to the 'bounce' Cameron and his party received from Cameron's non-veto on the non-treaty. Digressing slightly, that was some 'bounce' when considering that the Conservative candidate actually lost votes compared to the 2010 general election.


That there is something greatly amiss in Ukip's strategy is even more self-evident, especially considering what can only be termed their dismal showing in Feltham & Heston. Ukip have, of late, made much of the fact that nationally they are polling 8%, compared to the national figure of 7% for the Liberal Democrats - but one has to say that surely, in these circumstances Ukip should have been polling in the 'upper teens' as a bare minimum. I think that all - maybe with one or two exceptions - would agree that Nigel Farage is charismatic, likable and appeals to a great number of people because he tends to speak in 'plain English', unlike most politicians. Yet the point has to be made - what is the benefit of making what some have termed 'barnstorming' speeches in the EU Parliament, or on Russia Today, when they are only available to those with internet access, said speeches and interviews being totally ignored by our MSM?


The problem that Ukip has is not just with the strategy, one presumably 'directed' by Nigel Farage - it goes much, much deeper. Those of us who are members of Ukip are continuously reminded that to gain national seats it is absolutely necessary that local seats are obtained. Yet when, in conversation with a Regional Organiser, I raised the question of how many branches had anyone conversant with election law, or had anyone with the faintest idea how to conduct an election campaign, the answer received was that the figure would be extremely few. Having done both with the Conservative Party - when I was a member - and offering to visit branches to talk about these two aspects, among others,  I was advised that it would be considered. Since then - four weeks ago, come next weekend - the response has been deafening by its silence. That a 'following' can be gained is only too apparent when considering Aylesbury or Ramsey at the time of the last local elections - yet, again, it is obvious that 'lessons have not been learnt', something 'par for the course' where politicians of any party is concerned.


Richard North, EU Referendum, together with Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, pass on their own views on this subject. Richard North is of the opinion that it may be worthwhile to formulate a gathering together of  interested parties and disaffected 'eurosceptics' to see whether there is a common, positive ideology that could unite us all, and provide a standard around which the disaffected of this nation can muster. I am of the opinion that the core already exists and it exists within Ukip. The problem is the present strategy - and those dictating said strategy - and both need changing. Perhaps it is possible that those within Ukip who recognise that a problem exists - and those ex-members, who could perhaps 'bury the hatchet', got together to discuss a way forward.


This is not to suggest creating a division within Ukip, but merely to educate a few people in that party. When considering the standard of response the Albion Alliance received from Ukip candidates during the campaign they carried out with candidates of all parties, prior to the general election of 2010, there is definitely one hell of a lot of education required where Ukip is concerned. As readers will be aware, I am a great advocate of 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' and I would have thought that those ideals would be the cornerstone of a party that has the word 'Independence' in its title - independence not only for the country, but independence for the people.






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

Not more money to the IMF.........

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Louise Armitstead, writing in the Daily Telegraph, link to the fact that Britain may be liable for yet another 'bung' to the IMF; a story to which Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, links. This relates to a statement given by Barroso to the European Parliament about decisions made at the meeting of Heads of State on 8/9th of December, from which:

"EU leaders will decide soon on whether to provide the IMF with up to €200bn more to help debt-stricken eurozone countries."

Helen is quite correct when she writes that there was no mention of this small matter by Cameron when he 'reported' to the House of Commons on that meeting. For the record, this is the Hansard report of his opening statement, one that contained the words: "Let me take the House through the events of last week". By his omission of that little snippet from 'the events of last week' might one accuse Cameron of having misled the House of Commons?

Now I may be a tad confused, however I seem to recall Cameron making much play of the fact that Britain would no longer be liable for bail-outs to eurozone countries after 2013 under the EFSF coupled with the fact I also seem to recall that that was the date when the ESM was to become operative. Herman van Rompuy is on record as stating that he wishes the 'so-called 26' to agree 'terms' so that they can be implemented in March 2012, which one can logically assume is when the ESM will become operative. He also tweeted earlier today "@euHvR I will convene an informal meeting of the 27 heads of state or gov. in Brussels. Date to be decided: end of Jan.- beginning of Feb. 2012", a tweet timed at 13:30. Presumably it will be at that meeting that the decision will be taken by the EU Leaders to 'donate' that €200bn.

Cameron may well believe that IMF resources are for countries not currencies, and that they can’t be used specifically to support the euro, however that form of words is just semantics, is it not? It is worth recalling the €50billion would be 'split' between the remaining 10 non-euro member states. Any bets that Cameron won't pay up?

Just asking...................

And that is why we are where we are!

"But I don't want to go among mad people", Alice remarked
"Oh, you can't help that", said the Cat, "We're all made here. I'm mad. You're mad!
"How do you know I'm mad?" asked Alice
"You must be", said the Cat. "or you wouldn't be here."
Lewis Carroll

Johannes Laitenberger, head of cabinet to the European Commission president, believes that the European Union, in it's quest for legitimacy, is on the right track as, other than the usual collection of nutcases and fruitcakes, it has the tacit approval of the unspoken majority. Anna Raccoon and Helen, over at Your Freedom and Ours, have posted their views on this statement by Laitenberger, to which not much else can be added.

Laying myself open to charges that what is probably the worst pun with which I have ever come up, 'May' I suggest where the question of our membership of the European Union - and our enforced adherence to the ECHR - is concerned, the Cat is right - do you 'Ken'? That our political elite are mad is no longer a matter of conjecture, however it is worth recalling the words of Albert Einstein who stated that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That, in a nutshell, seems to encapsulate the political thinking of the last few decades, where the continued political belief that we can change the thinking of the EU by remaining a member has become their accepted and so obviously mistaken, policy.

That the logical conclusion it is the people of our nation who are mad for allowing this madness to continue is unfair because the people have yet to be asked the most basic of questions, namely do we wish to continue our membership of the EU - and that the people won't be asked is a result of the democratised dictatorship that passes for our present system of democracy. In this context it is worth recalling words of G.K.Chesteron:

"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.


The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King’s Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King’s Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk’s house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King’s Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.


And the face of the King’s Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey’s fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.


A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people’s reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.


Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.


They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.


We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia’s wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget."

Either the people are asked or, to misquote Enoch Powell, I see the rivers of politics flowing with much blood.

 

The Conservative Party and 'Europe'

Much has appeared in the press and blogosphere about the 90 Conservative MPs and their meeting tonight to discuss how to dilute the effects of our membership of the EU without causing David Cameron too much of a problem.

Amongst those who have articles are: Lord Tebbit; David Davis; Bernard Jenkin; George Osborne; John Redwood; Your Freedom and Ours; and Douglas Carswell. The latter had obviously been reading the paper published by Open Europe yesterday as he is already putting forward the idea of Euro-Localism. Reading this latest paper by Open Europe only confirms Richard North's assertion that they are but a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of our participation in the EU.

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, wonders whether Hague is looking to the future, one where Cameron and Osborne are toast and he is the only 'leader left? Bearing in mind Hague's categorical statement (foot of article) that leadership in the future was not on the cards one might say that idea is a non-starter. However, knowing that 'U' turns are all the vogue Cameron at present, Helen's thoughts may not be that far out.

Autonomous Mind has suggested that the term 'Eurosceptic' is now outmoded and that 'Europlastic' is more in keeping with the present stance of Conservative MPs. Might I suggest that for any politician who believes in the subjugation of our nation through rule from abroad, the term 'Euroturd' might be more pertinent?

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, has a post with an explanation of what constitutes imports and exports where the compilation of the various figures are concerned.

She ends her post with the words: "Is it not time to publish a more up-to-date version?" - to which I would insert the word 'correct' twixt 'up-to-date' and 'version'.

Well worth a read!