Public opinion being led astray

The despair of those of us who continually rail about the poor standard of journalism exhibited in the media is, I believe, understandable. As an example I give you the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph, from which an extracts:

"In one sense, nothing has changed. The same EU directives and regulations that Mr Cameron so rightly objected to are still looming, even though they will – thank heaven – be fought tooth and nail. The Prime Minister has chosen a course that is bound to bring hardships and indignities, especially if the new euro-bloc imposes measures that damage the single market and our financial services industry. But yesterday’s events made clear that staying on the same old course of grudging submission to the collective will would have brought exactly the same hardships and indignities – without offering Britain the golden opportunity to redefine its relationship with Europe that so many in this country have wanted for so long."

Exactly how will EU directives and regulations be 'fought tooth and nail when 17 member states comprise a majority when voting as a caucus, which they surely must do; and when that euro-bloc will impose measures that damage this nation  which they surely will do?

When reading the letters column in the same newspaper, it is little wonder that those writing appear to have been duped as a result of the 'faux journalism' to which they respond. In support of this assertion Pixijade writes that it is a shame that 99% of the media are refusing to question the PM’s side of the story; and that his version of the events suit him quite nicely, thanks very much; no referendum, no repatriation, and a heroes welcome home. On that last point Charles Moore, in his op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, writes that this is as a result of everything becoming clear to Cameron's cool mind, in that he could stave off a referendum, hold together his Coalition and win over his party. It is a great pity that Moore could not be honest and add the words "whilst retaining his own position of power and patronage". Reverting to the letters, it should be noted that at least one writer - Christopher Healy of North Ferriby - East Yorkshire, has homed in on a major problem when he asks: "Now whose aircraft carrier do we use?"

Matters are not helped when Douglas Carswell writes that we now need to make sure that the small print hammered out between now and March is not fudged - and that the new architecture to be put in place for the rest of Euroland does not emesh us. And just how are we supposed to do that? Perhaps Carswell has another 'Plan' up his sleeve - one we can but hope is a damn site better than his first attempt. Nor is it helped by the BBC allowing Heseltine to escape without any form of censure for misquoting Winston Churchill, noted here by Norman Tebbit.

To remount an ongoing hobbyhorse, of course if we had 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' our political elite would not be able to lie to us or ignore the wishes of the people, thus relegating us to the position of serfs - but I digress..........

Ah, but what exactly is 'democracy'?

He who writes the rules of 'democracy'?

Sir Norman Tebbit opines, on the subject of the views of another 'Sir', the spelling of which word - with regard to 'major' usage - should possibly revert to 'cur':

"It seems that he has told Al Jazeera TV that the growing integration of the eurozone countries threatens democracy."

Much as I admire 'Stormin' Norman', he too seems wedded to the present idea of 'democratised dictatorship', but then I suppose that belief is a 'political thing'.

If we accept that the word 'democracy' comes from the Greek 'demos' and 'kratos' then if you take the ‘demos’ out of democracy, you are left only with the ‘kratos’, with the power of a system that must compel by law what it dare not ask in the name of civic patriotism.

There is only one form of true democracy; and that is practised by Switzerland - of which more later in the week about how it could be introduced into this country!

Clegg? Clegg?? - Nooooo

Norman Tebbit posts on his belief that we should keep our eyes on Clegg as our Masters Muscles from Brussels would love to install him as our PM as he reckons that Heseltine is past his sell-by-date due to the fact that having muffed his chance to topple the Maggietollah, his extraordinary declaration that he still believes we should join the euro, his commitment not just to European political union, but to global governance, has removed him from the field of political rationality*. Digressing, one does wonder whether there exists within Cameron and Clegg's 'Granita' style stitch-up on forming the Coalition a clause on succession in the event that 'something' should happen to Cameron, bearing in mind Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister?

There are those amongst us, with a social conscience, who believe that members of our society who, as a result of a psychological disorder, require routine assistance, treatment, or a specialised and controlled environment and that when the people take over our politicians, who most definitely suffer from a  should be committed thereto. That there are those who believe politicians should be allowed to retire to such a life of luxury yet again demonstrates the nadir to which societal thought has sunk and for one nano-second I nearly succumbed to that belief - then economic reality set in and I realized that hemp and lamp posts saved the public purse much unnecessary expenditure.

* One does have to question whether Sir Norman committed a grammatical typo there, since when did 'rationality' ever become part of the political psyche?

The penny appears to have dropped with Cameron

if this report is to be believed as from the tone it appears David Cameron has ceased 'demanding' and now appears to be 'pleading' to be heard. The irony of Cameron now pleading with the 17 eurozone countries is delicious when one realises that this entire problem is one he and Osborne helped create with his insistence that the eurozone countries sort themselves out. How he intends fighting to prevent closer integration of the Eurozone countries leading to anti-competitive regulations when he is now one of the minority countries remains to be seen. If he believes he can pull that off, then I would like to see him walk on water first.

"Stormin' Norman" posts a question I have previously raised:

"Last Monday, I asked in the House of Lords whether an agreement by the seventeen eurozone member states to make agreements outside the Council of Ministers and then to vote in the Council as a bloc for such agreements would constitute a transfer of powers sufficient to trigger a referendum here. Lord Strathclyde, the Government Leader in the Lords, understood my point clearly enough. That was that the eurozone group can always outvote the remaining member states. What we said or how we voted would have no effect on the decisions which they reached.
Tom Strathclyde confirmed that as no treaty amendment was involved, no referendum would be triggered. Now it seems that the Prime Minister has understood the problem. We and the other nine states outside the eurozone have been disfranchised on many of the key questions of taxation and commercial regulation."

Any loss of ability by a country to set it's own taxation and economic policies constitutes a loss of power, treaty change or no treaty change.

One point that I fail to understand in Norman Tebbit's post is his referral to a possible 'third way'. If we are one of the countries forming a minority group within the 27, just how do we try to develop an alternative European architecture to preserve open and free markets in our mutual interest? Off with your head is correct when she writes that the European Union has consistently tried to solve the eurozone crisis by making small and insignificant gestures, which quickly crumble under scrutiny.

Interestingly one of the aims of the European Union, in their wish to create a United States of Europe, has been their attempts to 'kill' any sense of nationalism, yet is that not the card Merkel and Sarkozy are playing in their desire to be 'top dog'? It is, in my view, nationalism that will contribute to the downfall of the EU and I can but echo Fausty:

"There's nothing inherently wrong with nationalism. Countries are nations. Countries' leaders used to act in the national interest, but now work for globalism, even if that works against the national interest.
Corporations write our laws - be they from the EU or from our own government. They write them to reduce competition from the little guy and to garner tax favours or waivers for immigration/settlement laws. These global entities have become too big to fail, and yet they themselves represent the very antithesis of the free market economy.
Your homework for tonight: Explore the true meaning of nationalism and discuss its use as a firewall in a global system. "

Norman Tebbit is correct when he reminds us that the history of this kingdom has been one of having to intervene in our own interest to save the masters of Europe from their follies. First though we leave and when Europe has 'gone up in flames' (be that literal or metaphorical matters not) then once again we can indeed go in and try and set them on the path of recovery (again!).