Following the legislative trail......

Reverting back to this post in which it was shown how countries introduce legislation, not necessarily voluntarily but as a member of an international body at which certain 'policies' have been agreed, it is worth looking at another example.

We will all, no doubt, recall that only last month the Guardian reported that Denmark had imposed a tax on certain foods and that, lo and behold, David Cameron was reported in the Mail as being inclined to follow the Dane's lead.

Following the 'trail' we have to go back to 2006 and a conference held in Istanbul, Turkey, one promoted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), at which all EU countries signed up to the European Charter on Counteracting Obeisity (ECCO); and on which further comment can be found here. According to the November/December 2011 Newsletter, 'Free Britain', from the Campaign for an Independent Britain the treaty commits signatory nations to 'economic measures to facilitate healthier food choices'. 

There is currently, the second reading debate being on 20 January 2012, a bill going through Parliament entitled: 'Public Bodies (Sustainable Food) Bill' which will enforce low-fat, high-carb diets upon all public institutions - including schools, hospitals, care homes and prisons. Whilst this Bill may be a Private Members Bill, hey what the hell does it matter how legislation, to which agreement has previously been reached by nations, is actually put on the statute book - but I digress.....

Let us now return to the matter of honour and principle in politics and the Coalition promise of transparency in public life. From the Foreward:

"And we are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and developing new approaches to government. For years, politicians could argue that because they held all the information, they needed more power. But today, technological innovation has – with astonishing speed – developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before. So we will extend transparency to every area of public life."

So where, pray, is there any mention in the Bill, the Guardian article, or the Mail article; of the WHO, the EU, or the ECCO? Cameron and the rest of our political claque maintain that our nation is 'self-governing' - well, you could've fooled me (not)!

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

 

Catastrophe?

From Politics Home we hear Tony Blair warning of catastrophic consequences if the eurozone is broken up whilst maintaining that Britain should keep entry into the single currency as a "long-term option". We also have another 'usual suspect', in the shape of Will Hutton, warning of catastrosphe should the eurozone break-up.

We are no doubt going to hear more statements such as the above in the desperate attempt by Europhiles to save their beloved project, statements intended to frighten the population of Europe, especially the UK - included in which will no doubt be the old claim that 3million jobs depend on our being a member of the EU. It is extremely doubtful whether any form of rebuttal will come from our politicians, especially the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con who are enthralled with EU membership.

From John Redwood:

"As the rest of the EU sells us a lot more than we sell them, they will not want to disrupt it in any way. They have more to lose than we do. EU goods trade probably accounts for around £120 billion of our output. (EU exports adjusted for the entrepot factor) That’s around 8% of our total National Income. It’s important, but not nearly as important as the 92% that is not dependent on selling things on the continent. Since 2008 the government figures show that our exports to the rest of the EU have anyway fallen by 6%, whilst our exports to the rest of the world have risen by 4%. So the trend has been going against the EU before the crisis. Slowdown in the EU and collapse in the weaker EU economies will accelerate this process."

Not once has the Lib/Lab/Con published a cost/benefit analysis, always arguing that the benefits are obvious, something from which it is possible to draw one's own conclusions. Courtesy of Gerard Batten, Ukip MEP, the latest cost/benefit analysis he has done can be accessed via this post. Besides the scare of lost jobs our politicians cite figures about the percentage of trade, especially exports, that is done by the UK. In this context we have what is called The Rotterdam (and Antwerp) Effect, covered in this post from Helen at Your Freedom and Ours; one which shows that the UK's export statistics are, shall we say, flawed?

Because our politicians lie to us in order to further their own despicable ends it is perhaps pertinent to end with a quotation, the origin of which I know not, but one that is directed at the people of this country and our politicians:

"From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth - oh God of Truth deliver us!"

More on that 'democratised dictatorship' thingy (2)

Gerald Warner, writing in the New Scotsman, on Cameron:

"TOMORROW’S parliamentary debate about a referendum on Britain’s continuing membership of the European Union is, like every other travesty performed on the slime-green benches at Westminster, a complete charade."

Do read the entire article as it is vintage Gerald Warner.

I was remiss in the first post under this title as there is one aspect of this debate that not many, if any, have mentioned, namely that David Cameron is no believer in democracy. Witness the fact that he creates an e-petition scheme whereby the electorate can propose a subject to be debated by their elected representatives and then promptly kills the initiative by instructing his MPs to vote against it. But this is not the only example of Cameron's idea of 'democracy' as witness:

• From the Coalition's programme for government: "We will bring forward early legislation to   
  introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents. This they did, however they did not mention in their 'manifesto' (one on which no-one had the chance to vote) that the final decision would rest with a committee comprised of their own political class.
• Likewise, the promise to allow local people to demand a referendum on local matters suffers from a similar 'block'. Section 59 of the Localism Bill states that if a local authority wishes to ignore the result of any referendum, it may do so.
• There does not appear to be any haste to establish the 200 all-postal primaries, nor the 'public reading days' - both of which were promised in the same document.

All of which makes a mockery of the introduction to 'Political Reform' which is a heading in the Coalition's 'programme for government'. That introduction states:

"The Government believes that our political system is broken. We urgently need fundamental political reform, including a referendum on electoral reform, much greater co-operation across party lines, and  changes to our political system to make it far more transparent and accountable."

Cameron is quite correct to state that our political system is broken, but in acknowledging that fact he is doing his utmost to ensure it remains broken. For someone like Cameron, who has lied and used obfuscation, having previously written about the need to make our political system more transparent beggars belief and also begs the question how he sleeps at night.

As I have posted previously, Cameron and the political clique are assisted in their efforts to lie and obfuscate by members of the media and this is an example. As I posted in the comments, Jonathan Jones needs to go back to school!

That I 'bang on' about the European Union and the lack of democracy in our country is readily acknowledged - and if that bores some readers then I can only apologise. It is important though that those two subjects are brought to the attention of the 'public at large' who rely on their daily dose of 'truth' from the media, especially the BBC. To misquote an unattributed quote from Lenin; the more the truth is spoken the more chance it will be accepted as the truth!

That Cameron has 'faith' in his political beliefs, regarding renegotiation of our membership of the European Union, is best illustrated by a quote from Eric Hoffer:

"There are similarities between absolute power and absolute faith: a demand for absolute obedience, a readiness to attempt the impossible, a bias for simple solutions to cut the knot rather than unravel it, the viewing of compromise as surrender. Both absolute power and absolute faith are instruments of dehumanization. Hence, absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power."
Eric Hoffer, The New York Times Magazine 25/04/1971

Trust? Honour? Principle?

One of their own has just posted:

"Once again SW1 people have deliberately used words to create the impression of an assurance that they are now only too quick to explain was never made. They use words as a conjurer might use mirrors. But the crowd are not entertained. Their patience is wearing thin at being taken for fools for too long. The lesson to draw from today is simple; you cannot trust SW1 people on Europe. And if they won't deal straight with you, how can we possibly leave it to them to cut any new deal with Europe?"

It is fair to say that, never mind Europe, the people in SW1 have shown that they cannot be trusted on anything. They have no honour, no principle as our present form of democracy requires neither. Not only is the 'flesh' rotten, but so it would appear is the 'core'. That which is wrong with our society and democracy can be explained by paraphrasing Teresa Stover, someone who has highlighted a few salient facts.

The current state of the news media is partially to blame for the public's general lack of information vital for responsible citizenship in a democracy. The news media has become an aspect of show business, offering merely 'infotainment'. It has evolved into an entity that tends to function as a public relations agency for wealthy and powerful multinational corporations, members of Parliament and the current political leadership, including the administrations that preceded the present one. The news media is being utilized as a political tool of suppression and propaganda by those in power - and propaganda is psychological in nature. Full of half-truths and utter misinformation, it's an arrogant and very commercial strategy that is implemented because it appeals to emotions, fear being the main one with relentless talk of national security, personal and community safety.

The most obvious and condescending tell-tale sign that manipulation is taking place is that no one takes responsibility for the actions of the administration - it's always some other department who is to blame and never the people who have authority. Manipulators rarely advise you to seek new and diverse information or to 'learn and research' for yourself. It tends to be safer for exploitative and irresponsible leaders to keep their citizens in the dark: in their view less independent thought is better as independent thought leads to an inquiring mind, a mindset that eventually leads to the questioning of authority figures and that is the one thing that inadequate leaders and the present political class do not want. When a leader discourages questioning of his/her leadership style, actions and motivations, that is a sure sign that they have something to hide, that they are not worthy of the public's trust. The present power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, something we know to be simply not true.

When the present system of democracy, one by which anything is done - and those doing it - is known not to work, logic dictates that both must be changed. To bring that change about some would argue it is up to us to confront those who cannot see; those who cannot, or do not wish to, hear; it is up to us to spread the word. An alternative view held is that the only recourse left to those who know something is wrong is open, possibly armed, rebellion from which the bloodshed would be great - for 'them' and us.

As time is of the essence - and being an impatient sod - personally, I quite favour the latter option.

MCC

It is ironic that the initials of what were the governing body of cricket in England, Wales and throughout the world, a game that personified all that was good about our country - our sense of fair play, honour and principle - should become sullied by a politician who should have those same beliefs.

I refer to yet More Conservative Crap being reported by the Daily Telegraph and in particular the latest utterances of William Hague who, in an interview in The Times (£), is apparently blaming the LibDems for his party's inability to be more 'Eurosceptic'. From the Coffee House we learn Hague tells the paper that ‘A point of difference in our manifesto was the aim to repatriate some powers. Clearly that’s something I’m in favour of, but that’s the area we had to compromise on in return for other compromises'. That is, I believe, the first admission by a politician that two parties of opposing views were prepared to ditch sections of their manifestos in order to pursue their personal political careers. 

That Hague obviously has no honour nor principle I believe I amply demonstrated in a previous post and which coupled with this latest interview illustrates that we can no more trust what Hague says anymore than we can trust what Cast-Iron Dave says - the latter who, according to Neil Hamilton in his address to the Ukip conference in Eastbourne, appears to be suffering from metal fatigue.

With Cameron telling the Liaison Committee that he believes any Treaty change unlikely in the foreseeable future being immediately contradicted by Merkel and others, the point made by the Coffee House that any opportunity to achieve the impossible - repatriation of powers - is likely to occur during the lifetime of this Parliament whilst Hague and his cronies are dependant on LibDem voting support is one well made. I am reminded of the old adage that when in a hole etc etc..........

When considering the political elite's belief that membership of the European Union has, in Cameron's own words, "no case to answer" it is perhaps again ironic that Hague's own words may well come back to haunt him (and it won't be the first time - see previous linked post) when history comes to pass judgement on the subject. From the Telegraph article:

"would stand as a monument in time to how group–think can go so seriously away from what is realistic"

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...........................

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!

A pack of fools lead by an even bigger fool

Who but fools, led by by an even bigger fool would manage to look foolish twice in one day?

A Public Relations Fiasco: On the day announcements are made that 2,500 people in our armed forces are being informed their services are no longer required, the even bigger fool, at a ceremony marking the transfer back to Brize Norton from Lynham of military repatriations, praises our armed service personnel with the words:

"I cannot stress enough the sacrifices they make for us and we cannot thank them enough for what they do. And we cannot say enough how proud we are of them and all that they do for our country."

Lies, damned lies (and no statistics: a cost/benefit analysis is constantly refused): Who but fools led by their even bigger fool would consider it normal behaviour to lie and thus mislead those they are meant to serve? The Bruges Group have just published a letter from David Lidington (Minister for Europe) to Philip Davies MP (Conservative:Shipley) in which he makes false - and thus untruthful - statements. One of these statements is a repetition of the lie that 3.5million jobs are reliant on exports to EU member states, with the Bruges Group stating that they find it surprising that a Conservative Minister is repeating that erroneous claim.

I don't find it surprising one little bit bearing in mind the even bigger fool lies - which must mean he is also content to allow his fools to lie and mislead. Not bad for a group of people who campaigned in 2010 on the need to clean up politics.