Another 'look' at Ukip's 'New' Policies

Following on from my previous post, another aspect of Ukip's 'New' policy document raises yet another problem with me and this one is to do with the subject of the recall of MPs. We all know that political manifestos are worded in such loose terms as to be virtually meaningless and that that which is promised, when realised, bears no relation to the original promise.


Consider the Coalition's promise contained in their Programme for Government (paqe 27) in which was 'promised':

"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."

As we all know now, that 'power of recall' is dependent on a committee of an MP's peers agreeing to the demands of a constituency - in other words voters can force squat-diddly!


Now consider Ukip's 'promise' contained in their document "The Constitution", in which it is stated:

"Introduce a right of recall whereby electors can challenge an errant MP and force a by-election in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of expenses"

I have to ask what, exactly, is the difference twixt the two? Does not that of Ukip imply that it will not be the electorate's decision? Does that not imply that the present situation, whereby politicians 'look after their own', will continue?


How about political parties 'spelling out' that which they mean, when issuing 'promises'? How about Ukip doing likewise - or are they too, despite their Libertarian claims, a practitioner and believer of 'central control'? How about Ukip learning from the errors of another party?


Digressing slightly, Dougas Carswell complains today about civil servants 'controlling' ministers and calls for civil servants and ministers to appear before the relevant Select Committee to justify their annual budget with the proviso that no approval means no fee. Should not 'Government' also appear before their electorate for approval of their spending plans on the same basis of no approval, no fee? If Ukip maintain that they are a party for 'small government', should not that aspect of 'Referism' also be part of their manifesto?


Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts on Ukip and queries their lack of strategy. As I have commented, Ukip's problem appears to be that they believe the word 'strategy' is spelt F A R A G E! One can but hope that Alexandra Swann may be able, without ruffling too many feathers, to change their strategy!


Not another amendment to something which they have, allegedly, been doing since 2010....?

An accelerating process

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, makes the point that while yesterday marked the accession to the throne by our present queen, today marks the 20 anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty. It is worth reminding ourselves that treaty after treaty has handed over more and more powers and abrogated yet more and more responsibility, a process which has a tendency to accelerate.

As the Bruges Group has noted, the Treaty of Rome provided the groundwork for 38 vetoes to be eventually surrendered. The Single European Act added another 12, Maastricht another 30, Amsterdam another 24, Nice a further 46; and the EU Constitution would have provided another 68. Of course the EU Constitution was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty - and unfortunately we are still counting.

All this has been accomplished with the compliance of those elected supposedly to protect our country, but who have, in effect, done no such thing. An example of this compliance is exhibited in a post from Douglas Carswell, one entitled: "The Power of None". Carswell begins by posting a question, namely asking what is the common thread linking UK contributions to Eurozone bailouts, the failure to deport Abu Qatada and wind farms. These are, as one of his constituents told him: "the sort of things I voted Conservative to stop. Yet they just seem to happen anyway". Carswell continues that outside the world beyond SW1, there is a growing feeling of powerlessness - to which I would respond that obviously, within the world of SW1 there is no feeling of powerlessness, unfortunately.

That Carswell's constituent voted Conservative in the hope that bail-outs would not happen, that deportations would resume and that the march of windmills would cease, says a great deal about that constituent's lack of knowledge and the Conservative Party's ethics in allowing that constituent to believe as she did. To be fair, the Conservative Party is not alone in the apportionment of blame where Carswell's constituent is concerned because had Labour and the Liberal Democrats been as honest as the Conservative Party should have been, they would have confirmed that on those three issues it mattered not which one of them gained that constituents vote as there was nowt that they could do about it. Of course had they been truly honest all those three parties would have informed her that if those three factors were that important she would have been better casting her vote in favour of Ukip - but hey, when did truth matter where elections and politics are concerned?

There are those who appear to be 'busting a gut' for a referendum wherein they can vote to leave what they consider to be dictatorial rule imposed on us by Brussels. This may be true, however is there any point in escaping one form of dictatorial rule only to accept another, which would be one imposed by Westminster. Carswell may talk about 'localism' and 'power to the people', but in fact what he is promoting is no more than a form of communitarianism. His idea is no more than the maintenance of the 'status quo' with 600/650 MPs etc etc, with the real power still exercised by those in the SW1 world.

If the likes of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan really believed in localism and power to the people they would be shouting from the rooftops about the benefits of Direct Democracy and 'Referism'.

Whilst 'we' knew this.........

........it is nice to have it confirmed. From Angela Merkel, quoted in the Guardian:

"My vision is one of political union because Europe needs to forge its own unique path. We need to become incrementally closer and closer, in all policy areas. Over a long process, we will transfer more powers to the [European] Commission, which will then handle what falls within the European remit like a government of Europe. That will require a strong parliament. A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the council comprising the heads of [national] government. And finally, the supreme court will be the European court of justice. That could be what Europe's political union looks like in the future – some time in the future, as I say, and after a goodly number of interim stages."

The 'goodly number of interim stages' would appear to be well under way, as Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts. (Follow the link Helen provides to read the actual exchange in Lords Hansard). So much for the European Union Act! Meanwhile Richard North, EU Referendum, writes that "Angela Merkel, according to Reuters, has rejected as "unfounded" stereotypes about a domineering, dogmatic Germany.......".


As Captain Ranty writes - be afraid, be very afraid. However, to free yourself and your nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very unaccountable, very obviously power-hungry unelected group calling themselves the EU, first we have to free ourselves and our nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very 'unaccountable', very obviously power-hungry group calling themselves our government!


And the only way we are going to do that is by adopting direct democracy and 'referism'!

 

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!

Separating the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'

The point is often made by those commenting on blogs that the internet is the only source for 'real news, ie: 'news without spin'.

No matter where you look at sites that profess to provide 'news' - Politics Home, Conservative Home, Labour List, Liberal Democrat Voice, coupled with all those 'independent' commentators - all they do is provide 'news' from within the 'political Westminster bubble', whilst linking to each other in that 'bubble'.

Whilst in no way decrying the efforts of EU Referendum, Your Freedom and Ours, IanPJ on Politics - and many, many others all of whom are not members of the  MSM - where is the media source of unadulterated, opinion free, news and comment? (Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts) Does not a 'responsible' media have a duty to inform and question that which politicians would have us believe? Do not 'media moguls' have a duty to their readership to provide just that? Do not what are 'information sites', albeit with political affiliation, not have that same duty? Politics Home is supposed to be, so they would have readers believe, 'without 'political affiliation' yet I notice that whilst  links to EU Referendum are 'legion' - when he questions political venality, principles, behaviour; such posts seem to be studiously 'ignored' by that website.

People, beware - the internet, per se, is not an impartial source of news. As with the MSM, it is still necessary to employ the use of a filter - which begs the question why, in a free society which is supposed to be a democracy, this should be necessary. Or am I being naive? (don't answer that!)

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

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...................

The 'hole' problem with Cameron

Over the last few days David Cameron appears to be giving the impression of digging his own grave knowing that he will shortly be forced to occupy it before he has taken his last breath. This frenzied activity is undertaken by Cameron with the assistance of an additional shovel, namely his mouth.

Four years ago he talked about a referendum - dropped. Then about two years ago he talked about the repatriation of powers - dropped. He has also stated that there would be no need for a referendum - dropped. In fact this man drops more things than a trainee juggler! More recently he talks about using the veto if a new treaty is a requested, yet it is his avowed intention to help bring stability to the eurozone so how can he contemplate using the veto option? He talks about 'leverage' - the more the eurozone countries want, the more he will want in return - yet just what 'leverage' does he have? Moreover if the other Member States say 'No', just what the hell can Cameron do? He has boxed himself into a corner from which there appears no escape.

At Prime Ministers Questions, in answer to Steve Baker proposing that the UK would be better leaving the European Union, David Cameron maintained that it is in Britains interest to have access to the single market; that we are a trading nation; that there are opportunities for Britain in Europe. The obvious answer to that would be: right, take us out, we can still have access to the single market; we can still make use of the opportunities that exist; after all, are we not a trading nation?

Of course, the 'bravado' that Cameron exhibits is the same as all British Prime Ministers before him when about to attend a Heads of State meeting. It is for public consumption, yet history shows us that what transpires behind the 'locked doors' is invariably not 'bravado' but 'surrender'. In fact it is what transpires behind the scenes, prior to the Heads of State meeting, that is important - and as Mary Ellen Synon reports, one nameless diplomat informed her that the British are being 'much more conciliatory behind closed doors.' The reported hope of Van Rompuy that something could be done 'on the quiet' with a revision of Protocol 12 appears not to be possible, at least where the United Kingdom is concerned - as Richard North explains here. Also, on the repatriation of powers thingy, Helen over at Your Freedom and Ours weighs in with two well-crafted posts, the second here.

That Cameron could not dig his hole any quicker were he to use a JCB is today undeniable - I suppose the best that we can hope for is that he does not return clutching a piece of paper!


Afterthought: Richard North has a copy of the letter Merkozy sent to Van Rompuy ahead of tomorrow's meeting.

Afterthought (2): And here is Van Rompuys letter to the Heads of States.

EU & 'Empire' building

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, has another coruscating post, this time linking to 'Der Spiegel' and the second reading of Lord Pearson's Bill in the House of Lords, from which post:

"..... Lord Stevens of Ludgate said [scroll down to Column 1248]:

I do not propose to spend much time on discussing where all the EU money goes, suffice it to say that a prime example of what appears to me as a layman to be gross duplication and waste is the new foreign service. Its budget is 20 times the cost of the UK's Foreign Office and includes among other items £33 million for 150 bomb-proof limousines for all EU ambassadors. The number of staff employed by its quangos and committees alone has tripled during the past five years, amounting to a total cost of more than £2 billion in 2011. It has just opened a new £25 million office in London, and our Foreign Secretary has claimed that the UK Government have brought the EU budget under control. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, could confirm in his reply that the UK has no liability for any losses incurred by the ECB, another potential burden on this country."

With Lord Stevens' reference to 'our Foreign Secretary', he must of course mean that over-paid jobsworth, William Hague. Just saying........ 

Why the EU is an economic mess

In quoting from this video, I would hate readers to get the impression that Daniel Hannan is, one again, 'flavour of the month'; however it seems that the nearest thing to an official cost/benefit analysis of EU membership has been conducted.

In the last Commission Verheugen carried out a survey of the cost of European regulations which found that the net impact was 600billion euros per annum. The Commission's own figures of the benefits of the single market are 120billion euros per annum. As they say: Go do the maths!

As an afterthought, I wonder if the benefits included the fiddling of trade figures?

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

Lies, damned lies and statistics (2)

"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
Aaron Levenstein

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts on an exchange twixt Lords Pearson and Sassoon during the recent debate on the former's Bill. When discussing the economic aspect of our membership of the European Union (and not, as Helen quite correctly states, our relationship with Europe), it appears that statistics were quoted by those taking part from three sources: The Pink Book, Treasury and the Office of Budget Responsibility. It is a well known fact that when in a discussion, protagonists will naturally select those statistics that are of most use to their argument. It is extremely difficult for any observer to make a judgement, following any debate on any matter, if there is not one accepted reference point.

Another question arises, which is if Pearson's Bill succeeded (which it won't - pound to a penny - probably being killed off after Committee Stage) what figures would be used in any cost/benefit analysis and from what source(s). If, in the plural, how would we be able to agree or disagree with the findings? The Office of Budget Responsibility is supposed to be 'independent', but one has to ask whether any body set up by government is independent - vested interests/pressure from the government-of-the-day........?

And there, dear reader, lies the problem with representative democracy and politicians - we can't trust either!

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

Wherefore 'art' thou, journalism?

For some time, whilst bemoaning the abysmal straits into which politics and our politicians have fallen, I have also attempted to highlight the dire standards of journalism - both written and visual. Both forms of the media are no longer filled with what might be termed journalists, but mere 'cut n paste' merchants, blissfully repeating press releases given to them, which means they are practitioners of the type of journalism as formulated by Walter Lippmann, an American writer who believed that (from Wikipedia):

"journalism's role at the time was to act as a mediator or translator between the public and policy making elites. The journalist became the middleman. When elites spoke, journalists listened and recorded the information, distilled it, and passed it on to the public for their consumption. His reasoning behind this was that the public was not in a position to deconstruct the growing and complex flurry of information present in modern society, and so an intermediary was needed to filter news for the masses. Lippman put it this way: The public is not smart enough to understand complicated, political issues. Furthermore, the public was too consumed with their daily lives to care about complex public policy. Therefore the public needed someone to interpret the decisions or concerns of the elite to make the information plain and simple. That was the role of journalists. Lippmann believed that the public would affect the decision-making of the elite with their vote. In the meantime, the elite (i.e. politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, scientists, etc.) would keep the business of power running. In Lippman's world, the journalist's role was to inform the public of what the elites were doing. It was also to act as a watchdog over the elites, as the public had the final say with their votes. Effectively that kept the public at the bottom of the power chain, catching the flow of information that is handed down from experts/elites."

 From that same source we find that an alternative view of journalism existed, one proposed by John Dewey, an American philosopher, who believed that:

"the public was not only capable of understanding the issues created or responded to by the elite, it was in the public forum that decisions should be made after discussion and debate. When issues were thoroughly vetted, then the best ideas would bubble to the surface. Dewey believed journalists should do more than simply pass on information. He believed they should weigh the consequences of the policies being enacted. Dewey also believed that the shared knowledge of many is far superior to a single individual's knowledge and that conversation, debate, and dialogue lie at the heart of a democracy."

 That journalists nowadays do just listen to politicians, thus adopting Lippmann's idea, subsequently faithfully reporting what they are told without question is all too apparent. In so doing, besides showing 'slavishness' they also show their ignorance of the subject matter by accepting that which they are told as 'gospel'. Had we journalists of the school of Dewey the public would be informed and would thus know by now that our present politicians have lied to us and thus misled us and consequently cannot be trusted either now or in the future. That the Lippmann school of journalism has prevailed is not surprising because the last thing our politicians wish we, the people, to know are the real facts which would by their nature cause even more questions for those who believe they know everything, to answer.

An example of the Lipmann 'school of journalism' is James Forsyth who writes for the Spectator and the Mail. That Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, has - in modern parlance - 'ripped him a new one' is probably a waste of Helen's time and effort because Forsyth, no doubt, lacks the requisite deficit in his brain cells to understand that which Helen is writing. If Forsyth cannot understand that we can change terms of our membership only by a major treaty change, which has to be agreed unanimously, why the hell is he writing that which he is? This deficit in journalism leads on to question the ability of media editors, those who are supposed to 'edit', correct; and if necessary, discard 'rubbish'. That they do not means that any of us can fulfil the position of an editor - all we need is a rubber stamp!

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.

 

Andrea swinging the Lead som?

One of the 'faux eurosceptics' and a founder member of the group headed by 'Useless Eustice', Andrea Leadsom, has an article on Conservative Home about Greece, debt, the EU and her group:

"And Britain is certainly not immune to what is happening in Europe - almost half our exports go to the Eurozone and the crisis we are witnessing could well push us back into recession." (Emphasis mine)

We all know that politicians have no idea and appear to show no interest in what happens in the real world, however one would have thought that Andrea Leadsom, as a politician, would be aware of that which takes place in her own little political bubble. "Almost half our exports go to the Eurozone" is yet another untrue statistic of which Ms. Leadsom should be aware, but obviously isn't or chooses to ignore. In the House of Lords, as Your Freedom and Ours reported, a rather interesting question was asked, the answer to which showed that trade statistics are flawed. In my post, one in which I linked to Helen at Your Freedom and Ours, a commenter highlighted the fact that because of the EU Tariff levied on goods shipped THROUGH Rotterdam it shows the Dutch as having the highest per capita net contributions to EU Budgets even though the tariff is paid by customers in other countries who buy the goods sourced via Rotterdam, yet another fact not made in the 'official' reply to Lord Pearson. It says much for the standard of comments on this post that not one, at the time of writing, has picked up on this skewing of statistics regarding trade with the EU.

Oh and "back in recession"? And when did we get out of recession exactly?

I am of the opinion that Ms. Leadsom's article is best summed up by the commenter on ConHome, radstatser, who stated that he had read the article as he hadn't got any paint to watch dry, at the time.