The enemy within

Following the Budget, Autonomous Mind asked the question: "So where are the 81 Eurosceptic Tory MPs now?" in relation to George Osborne's announcement in the Budget about the imposition of VAT on hot-take-out food. In that post he linked to one by Richard North which pointed out that the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) allowed the UK to zero-rate most foodstuffs, but the proposal in the budget would see the UK voluntarily give up this derogation, and once it has been given away we assuredly would never get it back. Commenting that that would be an act of even deeper EU integration, AM continued:

"So, we ask, where is the supposedly heroic and infamous band of ‘81 Tory MPs‘ who profess themselves to be rebellious Eurosceptics? Were they shouting Osborne down as he committed his budget to the House of Commons? Or were these tribal drones cheering and waving their order papers with the rest of their playmates as Little Gideon took his seat on the sumptious [sic] green leather bench? Let’s remind ourselves of the facts about these 81 Tories." (My link: Waving of Order Papers: 13:30:00)

To repeat the question posed by AM: where are these supposed 'euroscpetic' MPs? Only last October Ed Stourton (BBC) was stating:

"The latest intake of Tory MPs is far and away the most Eurosceptic in the Conservative Party's history."

A point repeated by Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, who referred to "the supercharged Conservative backbencher."

Is there not though another subject about which the latest intake of what is considered to be the most far and away eurosceptic Conservative MPs in the Party's history should be more concerned, especially the 81 to which AM refers with their call for a referendum on EU membership? I refer to one matter to which they should be concerned were a referendum to be granted yet has not, it would appear, to have entered their thoughts. Let us consider those that would be eligible to vote in any referendum; the constraints of electoral law that would be imposed on both sides of any referendum; and, more importantly, those matters which remain 'unspoken'.

From about my vote we learn:

"......Commonwealth and European Union countries. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, and resident in the UK, you are eligible to register to vote in UK elections. To qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK and either have leave to remain in the UK or not require such leave. The definition of a 'Commonwealth citizen' includes citizens of British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Citizens of the European Union (who are not Commonwealth citizens or Citizens of the Republic of Ireland) can vote in European and local elections in the UK, but are not able to vote in UK Parliamentary general elections or referendums."

It may not be realised but citizens of Malta and Cyprus are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK, even though they are citizens of the European Union, as they are also members of the Commonwealth. Those voters, whilst possibly insignificantly small in the overall numbers were the result to be close, could well be decisive.


From the Electoral Commission we learn that, as with any election, there are indeed financial constraints imposed on both sides of any referendum, however there are other aspects, ones which no-one, least of all MPs or the media, appear to have taken into consideration - I refer to:

• what may be termed eurosceptic pressure groups of which there are many.
• "Third Sector" bodies (e.g. Climate Change campaigners, WWF, Christian Aid etc) which will no doubt campaign on the basis that EU membership guarantees environmental protection and saves polar bears etc)
• Other EU-sponsored bodies, coupled with the possibility of EU-wide "parties" trying to influence results
• Corruption of the electoral process through postal voting in culturally enriched areas.
• Disproportionate funding

Consider the first item: eurosceptic pressure groups, of which there are quite a few. We currently witness one such pressure group who intend holding 'mock' referendums on an in/out question in selected constituencies, the first of which is in Thurrock -  planning to roll this out country wide - a campaign for which, at the time of writing, 103,717 have 'signed up for'. Yet there is no 'plan' for what would follow, were their overall campaign to be successful and which subsequently forced the government to grant a nationwide referendum. There are other pressure groups, who need not be named as they are 'well-known', who produce masses of literature and statements on their websites, yet seem 'actionless' - they 'talk' a lot, yet appear to do nothing. If these various pressure groups meant what they say, would not logic dictate that they combine their message and their efforts? The 1975 referendum showed that the 'No' campaign was for ever playing 'catch-up' to their opponents; in other words the 'Yes' campaign dictated the 'rules' under which that campaign was conducted. At the next referendum on EU membership those roles have to - and must - be reversed, yet the performance so far of the various euroscepticMPs are but faux eurosceptics so the cynic in me considers that the existing pressure groups are no more than what may be termed a 'controlled opposition' to EU membership - or likewise, 'faux-eurosceptics'. If they are not, then where are the provisional plans for opposition come any referendum? It is well known that public opinion can force a change of policy within government, so where is the campaign that will stir public opinion to force such a change?


What constraints are there imposed on "Third Sector" or other EU bodies regarding input into any referendum? What can be done to negate any possibility of corruption which has been shown to be endemic with the postal voting system, especially among ethnic voters?


When considering permitted expenditure for political parties during a referendum there is no level playing field within Electoral Commission rules. Note the fact that the level of expenditure for political parties is based on the proportion of the electorate who voted for the party at the previous UK Parliamentary general election. Immediately it can be seen that the one party who will be campaigning for a 'No' vote - and who took second place in the last EU elections - will be severely handicapped where the level of expenditure is concerned. Why should one party be allowed a larger expenditure than any other? Surely, if fairness is a prerequisite of any contest, all registered political parties should receive the same cap on the level of expenditure?


Are not those pressure groups that will be campaigning against EU membership but part of a 'controlled opposition' and thereby qualify to be classified as Judas Goats? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the veracity of our electoral system? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the integrity of our political elite?


The fact that the 'No' side are already on the back foot before the battle has even commenced, does not auger well. But then, as in any dictatorship, those at the head of that dictatorship will always ensure that any question put to the people elicits the required response.

Rats

Commenting on the story that the BBC's Television Centre is infested with rats, Richard North, EU Referendum, advises that the infestation is being blamed on 'neglect at the building'. The rats about which Richard North writes are of course the quadruped variety - but cannot the same accusation of 'neglect at the building' be levied where the proliferation of the biped variety are concerned in respect of our democracy and politics?


Nigel Farage (with apologies to RN for the use of bad language!) has maintained for a few years now that you cannot get a cigarette paper between the Lib/Lab/Con where policy is concerned - yet this is nothing new where that accusation is concerned. In his preceding post to the one linked to above, Richard North quotes from an article published in 1942, of events in 1939, its author being former Times foreign correspondent Douglas Reed:

"The electorate had seen that the Parliaments it returned always, invariably, did exactly the opposite of that which had been promised and that which it had been returned to do, and felt, furthermore, that there was no means of remedying this, because no clearcut difference was apparent between the two parties which faced each other in the House; appalling though the Tory Party's record was, the Labour Party offered no clear alternative."

Noticeably, the difference twixt then and now, is?


For 73 years then we, the people, have been complicit in the proliferation of these biped rats, rats which have been allowed to breed at a phenomenal rate, These rats have spread the diseases of misinformation, state dependency, social engineering, freedom diminution, destruction of sovereignty; to name but a few. It can be argued elsewhere whether this has come about as a result of our disinterest and/or ignorance, but one thing is now patently apparent - they must be culled to the point where not one remains.


When discussing our biped variety of rats one initially thinks of our politicians but we must also include their 'little helpers'. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for the last quarter of 2011 showed that public sector employees amounted to 5,942 million and this report from 2010, citing a study by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (Investigative Journalism is, I suspect, an oxymoron - but I digress), illustrates many examples of the chief biped variety of rat - which is where a start can made.


It is unfortunate that we do not possess the modern-day equivalent of the Pied Piper, consequently a cull carried out by the masses will be necessary - of course, when you are ready and feel so inclined, masses. 


Perhaps a study by the masses of "Direct Democracy with Referism Macht Frei" might just stir some immediate action?

Just what is the point of politicians?

Prompted by a couple of comments left on my blog apropos the Budget, some further observations of the problems we have in this country where our politicians are concerned.

First, I once again have to link to Richard North, EU Referendum, in which he confirms that we do, most certainly, live under a system of democratised/elective dictatorship. Where Osborne is concerned we are dictated to by a man no-one, other than a minority of those living in his constituency, elected while those constituents and us have no means of constraining him.

We are continually informed by politicians that they spend inordinate amounts of effort and time in divising policies to create jobs - yet it is a known fact that government cannot create jobs, it is private enterprise that creates jobs. Because government has no money of its own, only that which is extracted from the people by force, it cannot have any sense of economy nor sense of responsibility; and as a result it wastes huge amounts in everything it attempts to do.

To quote one commenter:

"Has education improved for all the billions spent on 'improving' it? Not that I can see. Has filling the NHS with managers instead of nurses in order to monitor compliance with government directives been worth the billions spent on it? Not that I can see. Was the £9 billion, if I recall correctly, spent on Nimrod AWAC that never flew worth it, or even the millions spent on the Blue Streak missile in the 1950s? Not that I , can see."

To which can be added matters like membership of the European Union, law and order, job creation schemes, British Leyland, RBS, Northern Rock - to name but a few. Think back, remember all that has happened as the result of political decisions and you will soon realise that, actually, they simply know not that which they do, they flail around with a view to be seen to be doing something - they get away with it because they never pay the ultimate price for their failures.

In an article in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph by Christopher Hope (doesn't seem to be online) about local authorities that are raising council tax despite pleas not to from central government, he reports that sources close to Eric Pickles describe the 37 councils so doing as 'democracy dodgers' because none of the increases have been put to a vote. One has to question therefore the difference twixt these local authorities taxing and George Osborne taxing - where has one decision that Osborne has taken in the Budget been voted on by us?

If we are talking about 'democracy dodgers', does anyone recall Bridget theMidget John the Speaker getting on his high horse and insisting that announcements should be made in the House of Commons and not to the media? As has been noted by many, so many details of this budget had been leaked beforehand, one has to question whether there was any need for Osborne to actually make a speech. On the subject of leaks, as mentioned by Michael Deacon in his sketch piece for today's Daily Telegraph, Blair must be really p'd off with all this leaking - in his day chancellors did not even leak budget details to their prime minister.

Why we continue to accept lies from politicians I know not - the latest example being this article in today's Daily Telegraph. Why should we listen to yet another politician who has, by his own admission, been found guilty of malfeasance and failing to tell the truth. Why should we believe him when he writes that with the decisions Osborne has taken there can be no doubt that we are now committed to less regulation, a smaller state and greater simplicity - when it is so obvious the exact opposite is the case. Governments for the past decades have had only one desire and that is to control us - to borrow a phrase from another commenter of mine - from womb to tomb.

Are not our politicians 'democracy dodgers' by participating in an elective dictatorship, thus denying those they are meant to serve, a voice? Perhaps the time has come for us to repeat for them the image of Julia Gillard, with terror written all over her face, being hustled to safety?

All roads lead to the taxpayer's pockets

David Cameron has today been giving us the benefit of his views on how he believes it possible to  extract yet more money from the motoring taxpayer to fund his - and his master's - vision of the future. As Richard North, EU Referendum, points out the motorist is already paying £42billion pa and only £9billion is returned - and Cameron expects the motorist to pay yet more?


Cameron suggests that improvements to the A14 could be part funded by the imposition of tolls. Let us digress slightly and consider why improvements to the A14 are being made. Back in 2004, 30 priority axes were adopted (Decision No 884/2004/EC) amongst which was the aim to improve transport links between Ireland, via the United Kingdom, to mainland Europe. Part of these 30 priority projects is the A14 from Felixstowe to Nuneaton, then connecting with existing motorways to terminate at Holyhead and Larne (Project 13). If tolls were to be introduced on the A14 then of course we will be paying three times with the road fund licence, toll charges and by means of our contribution to the €11,670,000 grant that has been made.


Of course tolls are nothing new as for some years an electronic road toll system for the EU has been the subject of both a directive and a decision and only last year Siim Kallas produced a guide for the application of the directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems. From the Foreward it is worth noting that besides being used to finance motorway and road construction it can also be effective for reaching broader transport policy objectives such as modification of users’ habits.


In common with most of what Cameron says, in that he never tells us the whole truth, there is no mention that the tolling system will need to comply with EU standards (nor what the cost of that might be), neither is there any mention that the improvements to the A14 are only being made as a result of the requirement to finalise an EU 'transport corridor'.


He is obviously able to let his own cat out of No10, but under strict instructions not to let the EU cat out of the bag.

Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

The Westminster Bubble - aka 'Them'

Gawain Towler, England Expects, posts on a meeting which is not open to the public, access being invitation only, hosted by YouGov and the University of Cambridge who have created a new think-tank called YouGov-Cambridge, which combines academic expertise and professional polling in one place. GT remarks that Goldman Sachs is well represented and that this is being organised by Cathy Ashton's husband, the boss of YouGov Peter Kellner, with a media partner in DGFT. On the subject of Peter Kellner, both Richard North EU Referendum and I have posted here, here and here - you get the picture, no doubt!

Leaving to one side my present differences of opinion with Ukip, I can but echo GT's disbelief that not one representative of the only party campaigning for this country's withdrawal from membership of the EU is not represented - nor invited. When considering the speakers listed the first question is just what the hell is Polly Toynbee doing there? If the Symposium is discussing ‘Public Opinion, Economic Governance and the Future of Europe’ and will examine how both experts and the public view the same key questions, just where is 'a member of the public'? When considering the session titles, just where is the subject of sovereignty? What we have here, as with so many discussions about matters EU, is 'the club' - aka the 'Westminster Bubble' - talking among themselves and 'at' the public, not that the latter will be present to hear them.

With the number of candidates to be strung up growing by the day, I begin to wonder whether we will have sufficient lamp posts or piano wire - but I am sure we will 'improvise' when the time comes.

Higher water bills

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on the threat that, according to the Telegraph, a water tariff that rises as householders use more may have to be imposed to discourage them using up Britain's dwindling supplies.

Probably little known by the British public is that water, per se, is an EU competence and one which they laid down their marker with the "Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy", back in December 2000.


Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents, which provides raw information from the EU as it is issued, comes notice of a report (opens in Adobe Reader) produced by the European Environment Agency (EEA). Bearing in mind this report, referring to the Directive linked to above and which is more commonly known as the Water Framework Directive, in the Foreward states that it should be more widely applied and developed, can only suggest that another directive will be forthcoming in the near future.


As Richard North notes, has not the increased population brought about the increased need for water? Yet another 'not thought through policy' by our political elite when opening the doors to unlimited immigration. Mind you, this is but another example whereby we, the public, once again pay for the mistakes made by our political elite - who, in our wisdom, we re-elect year after year; but again I digress. The Telegraph report to which Richard North links includes the words: "....better management of household usage...." which sounds to me more like politic-speak for the fluid equivalent of power cuts. I would hazard a guess that the report by Michael Norton, referred to in the Telegraph article, will be no more than a rewording of the EEA report.


Still, none of my fears can come to pass, can they - after all, we are assured by our political elite that they govern our country; but, to quote Ronald Reagan, there I go again - digressing........

People power

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts about an interesting referendum which was recently held in Switzerland, under the requirements of their direct form of democracy and while expanding on that theme very kindly links to an article of mine. That the Swiss rejected yet more 'time off' is probably due to their inherent work ethic, a characteristic which our politicians have almost managed to breed out of us.
For those readers not acquainted with the idea of direct democracy perhaps it is necessary to repeat that the matters for which the Swiss federal government (comprising of just 7 people -yes just 7) is limited in that which they are 'responsible' for, ie they have a limited portfolio. Any one of their proposals, within that limited portfolio, can be 'challenged' by the people by means of the ability to call for a referendum. All matters outside the federal 'government' portfolio are handled by Swiss cantons or communes resulting in the people of Switzerland actually having 'power' to decide the 'internal' course those within the 'locale' wish to follow - along with the course they wish their country to take internationally.
Here I must, perforce, digress slightly to explain that while Richard North and I are, I believe, in complete agreement on 'Referism' (the need for politicians to ask for our agreement to supply the funds they require - be that nationally or locally) we diverge slightly in our views of how 'deep' the requirement of direct democracy is needed. Having said that, consider:
Suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to control the 'proposals' of 'government', locally and/or nationally; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what changes were made to the constitution of your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide by whom and how you were 'governed' - and whether that should be by you or some supranational 'foreign' body; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what treaties your country entered into; suppose you the electorate, had the ability to decide whether your country should go to war; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide the education system you wished your children to receive; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot remain in your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what type of law & order you wanted; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who should and should not receive any form of state benefit; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot receive citizenship of your country; suppose you, the electorate had the ability to decide.... but need |I continue?
Which would you, the electorate, rather have? The ability, as detailed in the preceding paragraph, or the present system wherein a select few decide what you can and cannot have?
Bit of a 'no-brainer' is it not?


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

The EU circus

Richard North, EU Referendum, has picked up the story about MPs pressing for a ban of animals in circuses. The statement by Jim Paice, Agriculture Minister, in Parliament can be read in Hansard after which Mark Pritchard's comments can be read on Politics Home. It is perhaps worth noting that Richard North's opinion on Mark Pritchard is not that complimentary (here and here) and no doubt his opinion remains the same now.


Incidentally on the 15th February the European Commission issued a communication on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 and a conference was held yesterday and today hosted by the EU Commission and the Danish Presidency on "Empowering consumers and creating market opportunities for animal welfare". It should also be noted that in February 2011 the European Circus Association (ECA) wrote to the Commission that the ECA preferred option D which entailed a mix of a framework law, objective indicators, co-regulation, a communication strategy, and a European-wide system for licensing animal personnel.


Note the ECA's preferred option includes "licensing animal personnel"; note also that Directives when published usually have an implementation date a year or two ahead - which begs the question what 'discussions/negotiations' have been held twixt the EU and Member States on animal welfare (and in particular, circuses) and is licensing one of the agreed options? In which case is our 'toy government' just implementing one aspect of the agreed package, whilst awaiting confirmation of the 'whole package'? Just asking........


That no mention was made by our politicians of the communication, conference or even of the letter from the ECA; that the MSM likewise either had not done their homework or in collusion, or at the behest of political 'requests', they chose not to mention the foregoing does not auger well for transparency. Now did not the Coalition programme for government promise in the Foreward that: "...So we will extend transparency to every area of public life....."? 


Besides the Independent, this story was also covered by the Daily Telegraph, in which article Christopher Hope - in the print edition - wrote:

"Mr. Paice will tell MPs that an outright ban will not be enforced for up to two years because of pressures on the parliamentary timetable."

which he doesn't appear to have done and in any event it would have been a pretty feeble excuse considering only in January Jack Straw was complaining about the lack of legislative work for MPs.


Reverting to the 'transparency thingy', where politicians deliberately hide the truth from their people; where the MSM deliberately choose to do likewise, then we truly are entering an Orwellian world of mind control.


Update: Just noticed that the ECA advises on their website that Greece, on 31st January 2012, passed a law banning the use of all animal species in any form of show business. Bearing in mind that which Richard North wrote about "occupied fields", it should be interesting to see what the European Commission has to say about this intrusion to their power base. Oh, hang on - I have just realised that Greece is now but a Brussels 'protectorate', so presumably this intrusion will be overlooked.

EU Imperialism?

Open Europe, in today's press summary, reports that EU foreign ministers voted on Monday to transfer the presidency of the Union for the Mediterranean from France to the EU’s External Action Service headed by Catherine Ashton - of which not one word in the MSM have I found, but I digress. This think tank also produces a 'briefing paper' on the subject of EU aid to Mediterranean states and the effectiveness of this aid. What is surprising is that Open Europe makes no mention of the Barcelona Declaration, a subject about which I wrote previously here and here. For those readers interested more on the Barcelona Declaration, more information can be read on the EU's Summaries of Legislation website. It is also pertinent to refer to the European External Action Service website from which we learn that with the introduction of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in 2004, the Barcelona Process essentially became the multilateral forum of dialogue and cooperation between the EU and its Mediterranean partners while complementary bilateral relations are managed mainly under the ENP and through Association Agreements signed with each partner country.


What is interesting are two extracts from Open Europe's briefing paper:

"the poverty focus of EU aid cannot be measured solely on the basis of its geographical distribution…the EU institutions provide substantial financial support (including ODA) to prepare (potential) candidate countries for membership and to establish an area of stability, prosperity and democracy in our wider neighbourhood, pursuing our goal of greater political cooperation and deeper economic integration with our neighbours."

and:

"Our neighbourhood policy is a success story. We work closely with our partners to help them advance their structural reforms and bring them closer to our Union."

Note the phrases "deeper economic integration" and "bring them closer to our Union". What we have here is no more than the now normal process, one practised by the EU to increase its size and therefore its empirical aims - it is also, I would suggest, part of the process, commonly known as the New World Order and/or World Government; a process about which the people know little, if anything.


That 'agreements' can be signed that will have an effect on the future direction of our country; that since 1995, the European Commission has supported the Barcelona Process with the provision of €16 billion from the Community Budget and that loans from the European Investment Bank amount to approximately €2 billion per year, all without the agreement of the people who are funding this, amounts to an affront to democracy - but hey, when was the EU ever interested in the idea of democracy. That our MSM do not report any aspect of the foregoing, for whatever reason, is another affront to democracy. That a think tank, albeit one a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party, seems incapable of mentioning any diminuation of democracy is another affront.


That we have 650 'Judas Goats' in Westminster is no longer deniable, consequently if our nation is to recover its independence and sovereignty; if we the people are to have any freedom; we have a desperate need to herd these 650 to the slaughterhouse immediately - followed by their lambs in Open Europe and elsewhere!

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."

Bilderberg?

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?

The joy(ce) of drink

IanPJonPolitics, The BoilingFrog and Richard North, EU Referendum, have all commented on 'L'affaire Eric Joyce'.


It will indeed be interesting to see what transpires where the police investigation is concerned and whether if charges are brought and Joyce appears in court, what sentence will be handed down should the verdict be guilty. It will indeed be interesting to see whether the people of Falkirk do demand the recall of their Member of Parliament and whether the decision of his peers will concur.


It should be remembered that Joyce is a member of a class in our society that spends most of its time dictating how we should behave - some role model (not). From They Work For You comes two quotes by this sorry example from amongst the good and the great. First: ".....I go about my constituency occasionally with the cops on a Friday or Saturday night. We see a bit of violence in the streets and recognise where it comes from, what is happening and who the bad guys are—who has been caught up in things because they have drunk too much and so on....."; and second, speaking during Public Bill Committee: Drugs Bill: New Clause 1 - inclusion of khat as a Class A drug: "....I would be very reluctant to classify alcohol as category B. This debate goes on when we talk about how we should classify any type of drug. Ultimately, one of the most serious drugs is one that we tolerate enormously in society—everyone is this Room uses it, in moderation, of course—and it is alcohol." (Emphasis mine)


Richard North is correct to query why we have elections, as is IanPJ to maintain that this 'affaire' is just another reason why this rough house where the gang known as the rotten parliament hang out must be dissolved.




Update: It would appear that Eric Joyce had a previous 'problem' with the police in 2010. In case it has been 'amended' I am grateful to Max Farquar for taking a screen grab:

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty,  Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.


Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.


From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.


IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.


Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

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




Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

Reducing Costs

Having been out most of the day it had been my intention, on returning home, to write about Cameron entering the alcohol debate, however Richard North, EU Referendum, The Boiling Frog and The Talking Clock have covered this topic exceedingly well, Richard North linking to the latter two blogs. I note from the Daily Telegraph that Cameron will attack the “scandal of our society” caused by Britain’s drinking culture which costs the NHS more than £2.7 billion annually - or so it is said.


As an aside to all that has been written, perhaps Cameron might also consider attacking an even bigger "scandal of our society", wherein the taxpayer is being stung £165million to fund a group in our society who obviously have no understanding of the meaning of the word 'representative'.  £165million may seem peanuts when compared to £2.7billion, but bear in mind that when considering the costs of idiotic and ill-informed decisions our politicians have taken over the years, the actual cost to the taxpayer probably cannot be computed!


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

'Simples' - for the masses

Richard North, EU Referendum, produces a depiction of the present political situation under which we presently live - one which I reproduce below. 

For those who don't understand the message contained therein, fear not - go back to your Eastenders and ,X-Factor - those of us who do will make life better for you.

An EU Referendum......

........would no doubt be 'rigged' in exactly the same manner as is the proposed one in Scotland on the subject of independence.

Once again, beware of that for which you wish!

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

Another sporting 'red herring' resurfaces

The BBC trumpets that: "Euro MEPs back call for sports shirts to feature EU flag" with MEPs also endorsing a plan for the EU flag to be flown at major international sporting events in Europe, but neither of the measures would be compulsory.


Bearing in mind that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Union competence in sport the statement from their spokesperson, in this article, that: "But the commission has no authority to impose such a decision and nor would it wish to." ring a tad hollow.


Of course one would have thought by now that the BBC, with all their resources, would have done their research - but one again we see yet another failure from them. Only last July Richard North, EU Referendum, succinctly summarised the position in this post. It is worth repeating his closing sentences:

"So what was approved by Thatcher in 1985 comes back to haunt the heir to Heath in 2011, 26 years later – in a treaty he could have stopped, by chose not to. Like as not, the EU won't get its badges this time, but the idea won't go away. It will keep pushing and probing until it gets what it wants, waiting another 26 years if need be, unless we (or events) destroy it first."

They say that what goes round, comes round - we can but hope that the next time a story comes round, the BBC will have eventually got their news service staffed with those who understand the word 'research'.

Journalists & politicians are either stupid, or liars - or both!

It is not surprising that journalism is now ranked somewhere below estate agents and politicians on the scale of questionable behaviour and practices, when considering the article by David Millward, Transport Editor, in the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

That the article by Robert Millward and the utterances of our Secretary of State for Transport lead one to believe that either neither of them understand the subject of which they write or speak or that both have intentionally set out to mislead and lie to the public, is amply illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, Of the two alternatives, if one was being kind, the first would no doubt be selected; however, if one was being truthful, the second would be the only choice.

That journalism has reached such a nadir that it is highly questionable it can sink any lower cannot be in doubt. That a conspiracy exists to deny people the truth is beyond question and that where the truth is concerned we are no better than those living in North Korea.

Scared To Death

From the Introduction of the book by the same title as that of this post (Authors: Richard North and Christopher Booker):

"In the night, imagine some fear, how easy is a bush supposed to be a bear"
A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1

In the past twenty years, Western society in general and Britain in particular has been in the grip of a remarkable and very dangerous psychological phenomenon. Again and again since the 1980s we have seen the rise of some great fear, centered on a mysterious new threat to human health and wellbeing. As a result we are told, large numbers of people will suffer or die."

To 'dangerous and psychological phenomenon' I would add 'political news releases' (although same thing, really). It cannot have escaped the attention of those with a brain that when times get difficult for governments of all hues, suddenly there is a 'scare' or 'announcement of great concern'. Witness only today, when Cameron should have been skewered by his 'eurosceptic' backbenchers in the HoC (but wasn't - no surprise there, then!) another 'story' 'breaks', that of Fred the Shred being stripped of his knighthood. Ever noticed how, when awkward questions are asked of government, suddenly there is 'something' more important - an 'importance', the level of which is increased with the assistance of what is suppose to be an 'independent' media?


And we are not being 'thought-controlled'? We are not being 'led'? 'Newspeak' doesn't exist?


C'mon people - wise up!

Not so much with a bang, more like a simper.....

David Cameron's 'European Council statement' in the Commons this afternoon most definitely did not produce any outright rebellion from the so-called 'eurosceptics' as had been promised and one has to ask what happened to all the planning that was supposed to have been held in Edward Leigh's office last night?

Where were the 'searching and/or unanswerable' questions, ones to put Cameron 'on the spot'? For example, how can any action taken by those who have signed up to 'the treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' not encroach on the single market? All questions were couched in 'parliament-speak', a language which unless an MP is a wordsmith of great standing, as was Enoch Powell, ensures that any hint of sarcasm or ridicule is nullified. Even he who is held to be the greatest eurosceptic of them all, Bill Cash, missed the opportunity with what may be termed an extremely 'Cameron-friendly' question which was easily 'swatted away'.

It had been my intention to write further on this 'treaty that is not a treaty so I couldn't have actually vetoed it in the first place' but, as I write, I see that Richard North, EU Referendum, has beaten me to it. It is worth repeating the point Richard North makes; namely that Cameron still maintains the untruth he  vetoed a treaty when his own government spokesman has admitted that there was no treaty on the table. Note also that not one of the 'supposed' eurosceptics, those who were reportedly going to cause trouble, raised this point - not one and if they did it must have been when I turned the sound down on my laptop to answer a telephone call! Richard North writes that Cameron is guilty of misleading the House - but ever one to call a spade a spade, I would aver Cameron lied to the House. Unfortunately, in the HoC, one cannot utter the word 'lie'; which is probably due to the belief, one held among themselves needless to add, that politicians never lie - they just don't tell the truth!

Now watch the MSM swallow 'Cameron-speak' hook, line and sinker!

Afterthought: I see that David Cameron has stated that the decision to strip Fred the Shred of his knighthood was the right decision - if only we had the capability of stripping David Cameron of his position of Prime Minister - come to that, if only we had the capability of stripping the majority of MPs of their position........ The decision by Cameron (and he had a hand in it)  is 'democratised dictatorship' - the decision by us would just be 'democracy'........


Afterthought (2): Of course the news released now about Goodwin would not be a ploy to divert the public's attention from matters EU, would it?????