NO! NO! NO!

To coin a phrase........

Anthony Browne, former Brussels correspondent for The Times and now policy advisor to Boris Johnson, has an article on Conservative Home - another in the series of "I love the EU but don't want to/cannot admit it".

Browne is right to highlight that it is both irrational and hypocritical to call for powers to be devolved down at the UK level, but simultaneously centralised at a European level, but misses the point that rationality and principle have never featured very much where political decisions are made. In his article Browne argues that the debate about the EU should, in fact, be about what powers are held at what level.

Just what is it that those like Browne do not understand? For the United Kingdom to be a sovereign nation means that any questions about what powers should lie where, stop at our borders!

To paraphrase from an earlier post, one in which I quoted from EUReferendum, when the time comes for blood to be spilt, politicians and their sycophants really are fair game!

Is, John Redwood a Eurosceptic?

John Redwood has the second part of a two-day article on his website, the first part to which I referred here. At the time I did wonder whether I had been too harsh on Redwood and misunderstood his views, however having digested part two it would seem that my fears were not misplaced.

Accepting that the British people want an end to the current relationship with Europe, Redwood continues:

"The simplest way to fix the problems in the UK’s relationship with the EU would be to restore a modified UK veto over all matters.  The new veto would allow us to say No to to any law or proposal emanating from Brussels, but would not allow us to stop them doing it for themselves without us. This would take much of  the pressure out of the situation."

There can be no 'modified veto' as I believe it correct to say that the EU would not accept, nor allow, such a modification to the existing Treaty of Lisbon - a country is either in the EU and thus accepts all the conditions that said membership entails, or it is not. To enact that which is suggested by Redwood would therefore mean ceasing our membership - which then begs the question why Redwood does not sign up to BetterOffOut?

I also have to take exception to what Redwood proposes, when he writes:

"No British government after such a change could ever again say they had to do something to comply with the EU. We restore UK democracy. Any British government that wanted to be in line with the EU, or liked what the EU was doing, could adopt as much of it as they saw fit."

Yet again we see demonstrated the political mindset that politicians rule us when such a belief is the antithesis to how democracy should work. Just who the hell gave politicians the right to play fast and loose with our constitution without asking those they are supposed to serve, ie the people? I also find it strange that Redwood should believe:

"There would be no immediate revolution. The day after such a change the UK would still have the full panoply of EU law. The government could decide what bits it wished to disapply. It would be wise to do so carefully. It would be diplomatic to give plenty of warning to the EU authorities where we were going to remove parts of the canon, and to show them we intended to use the new powers sensibly."

If as Redwood maintains, that having divorced ourselves from political rule by the EU and thus regained our democracy, under what obligation are we to show them that we intended to use the new powers sensibly?

All things considered, I still find myself viewing John Redwood's opinions on matters EU with a certain amount of distrust.

How do you solve a problem like Margaret?

As Jose Manuel Barroso famously once said: ".....You can call it 'Margaret', you can call it 'Mary-Ann', you can find any name....." - except I don't wish to find any name, so will use the correct one; namely "multiculturalism through the process of immigration". A post has appeared on EUReferendum which I believe should be required reading for every politician, quangocrat and social pressure group that is completely wrecking this country - both financially and socially - with the promotion of the need for multiculturalism. The message being fed us is that multiculturalism poses no problems as it encourages racial and ethnic harmony; that by education, people can be persuaded to accept another culture; that people can be made aware of the contributions to society that multiculturalism brings and that the problems that multiculturalism faces are those caused by people who do not believe in it and who do not therefore embrace all for which it stands.

Multiculturalism does not promote racial or ethnic harmony because the natural inclination of different races is to congregate amongst their own and thus, instead of social integration, what results is simply 'ghettoisation'. It is not beyond doubt that the problems caused by multiculturalism have been those of politicians with shortsighted political strategies and a recurring and stubborn tendency to ignore reality. When there was a labour shortage Tony Blair and his government, partly wishing to show they were at the 'heart of Europe', threw open the doors to our country without any thought to the ramifications that would ensue through the influx of alien cultures. It may be a cynical point of view, but I have to agree that this decision may well have been prompted by the idea that immigrants would be more likely to vote for the party that had provided them with increased opportunities in the areas of housing, education, healthcare and employment.

When the indigenous population of a country observe their society, traditions and way of life disrupted, to their detriment, by what they rightly consider 'foreigners' it is not rocket science to come to the conclusion that they feel affronted, especially when they believe - rightly or wrongly - that those immigrants receive preferential treatment. In a previous post I linked to this news report from Norway and what is happening there is happening here - and now. One only has to look at Tower Hamlets in London to see how 'ghettoisation' is happening and the problems that brings. From the Tower Hamlets link we learn that the East London Mosque, situated in Tower Hamlets, is strongly linked to a fundamentalist group called the Islamic Forum of Europe, whose headquarters are in the same complex. An IFE leaflet says that it is dedicated to changing the “very infrastructure of society, its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed … from ignorance to Islam.” A further IFE training leaflet states that the goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilize these believers into an organized force for change who will carry out da’wah [preaching], hisbah [enforcement of Islamic Law] and jihad [struggle.] This will lead to social change and Iqamatud Deen - Iqamatud Deen usually being translated as "an Islamic social, economic and political order."

To consider the disruption that multiculturalism can bring, consider St Matthews Church of England Primary School in Redhill, where 44 different languages are spoken; where certain words cannot be used as they may cause 'confusion'; and where non-English speaking children have to be assigned someone to translate for them, requiring individual tuition. Yet this school does not have the largest proportion of ethnic minority children, which in London boroughs such as Tower Hamlets is as high as 80 per cent. There are apparently, according to this report, nearly one million children, 957,490, aged five to 16, who speak English as a second language, a rise of 150,000 in five years. Just how is an education system - and the teachers within that system - supposed to manage with such a burden? Extrapolate the problems of language and culture to the fields of healthcare, social services and the police and those problems become virtually insurmountable.

On 20th April 1968 a British politician made a speech on immigration, at a time when immigration from Commonwealth countries was at its height, for which he was castigated and ostracized. In this speech he related how one constituent told him that in years to come the black man would hold the whip hand over the white man; that a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman believed that this country will not be worth living in for his children; that what he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history; that to claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. He ended his speech stating that like the Roman, he saw the rivers of Tiber foaming with much blood.

Those words, so prophetic and spoken nearly 50 years ago, must weigh heavily on the present incumbents in parliament - and if they are not so doing, then our country is truly doomed. A revolution is in the offing, of which there cannot be much doubt as people's patience is finite. I would suggest that before too long an event will occur which will be the catalyst to that revolution - at which time there will be much foaming of blood. I can but end with some of the words posted on EUReferendum:

"As to Anders Breivik, it would be very foolish not to consider why he thought he had no alternative to violence. He is right about many things. The BBC, the EU and multi-culturalism.....[....].....In light of this, our leaders may well take note. There are more men like that waiting in the wings and they are watching and waiting. Soon such a time may come where those who have only a little to lose, have even that taken from them. Then there will be more blood. And while I do not condone the killing of children ever, if our leaders continue to deny us a say in our future and our lives, they themselves are fair game. I shall not shed a tear when it happens."

Its not what 'they' say that should matter

- it is what we say that should matter! To illustrate, three items of news that have emerged, which are further examples of the inexorable loss of freedoms which are being imposed on us:

John Redwood, on his blog  and writing on the subject of our relationship with the EU, believes that:

"We should go on to say we will co-operate in creating the new political and constitutional architecture they want. They will need us to vote for it. We should do  so , as long as our interests are protected. Tomorrow I will talk about what we should want in return for approving the next big step in the project to create out of Euroland a United States of Europe."

and in the London Evening Standard:

"I would like the Government to renegotiate a looser arrangement and then put it to the British people."

I have to ask Mr. Redwood just who the hell is this 'we'? The extract from his blog reads very much as if he would be prepared to accept the political and constitutional architecture they want in return for a few powers. Just what constitutes a looser relationship and who decides those 'looser terms'? This seems to me like yet another political fudge to negate the call for an in/out referendum, one which the public want; and that which Redwood proposes cannot, logically, be consistent for one who promotes himself as a Eurosceptic. It is noticeable that the name 'Redwood' does not appear on the 'BetterOffOut' website; coupled with another fact and that is, if the Conservative Party are a Eurosceptic party, then why are there only 6 Conservative MPs appearing on that website?

There are, apparently, 40 MPs under investigation for 'dubious expense claims', as reported in the Mail and the Daily Telegraph. Earlier this year, the watchdog signalled it would expose anybody who had put in dubious claims and that their hearings would be held in public, following the outcry in 2009 over the original expenses scandal. But Luke March, the body’s compliance officer, has now backtracked, saying identities will not be revealed until an inquiry is completed – and only if an MP has been found guilty. Conversely, Parliamentary Standards Commissioner John Lyon - who oversaw expenses probes until Ipsa took charge after the general election - routinely publishes names of MPs who are under investigation. The question has to be asked, therefore, just who has 'got at' who? Setting that point to one side, should not we be asked how we wish any inquiry to be conducted - when all is said and done, just whose money is it involved? Since when did a bureaucrat decide policy, one who is unelected and unaccountable to the public, but whose salary is paid by the public? As with the expenses scandal, we have the situation whereby a little 'fix' is being arranged amongst the Westminster 'Bubble' for the benefit of said 'Bubble'.

The Guardian has reported that police forces are combining to create new regional 'surveillance units', with the aim of making it easier for the authorities to bug computers, break into properties and interfere with wireless internet networks as part of countersurveillance operations.

"Detective Chief Superintendent Ian Waterfield of Nottinghamshire police wrote in an internal paper that the new £2m-a-year organisation would improve access to hi-tech surveillance as well as the planting of bugs. Emtsu (pdf) will provide Nottinghamshire with a 'one-stop shop' approach to covert forensics, covert hi-tech crime and specialist support unit, which will include covert entry into premises, covert search and the deployment of intrusive surveillance methods" (Emphasis mine)

Neither will it have escaped readers of the Guardian article that the doyen of ACPO, Hugh Orde, believes that it would be advisable to introduce an additional element of judicial oversight in keeping with their traditions of accountability in order to secure the confidence of right-thinking people. Exactly where is Hugh Orde accountable to the people and the only right-thinking people he wishes to secure the confidence of is the politicians. In other words, anyone who does not espouse the views of the 'right-thinking' people will be labelled as fascists, terrorists and 'right-wing' and therefore subject to having their privacy invaded.

Courtesy of The Talking Clock comes a short video of Spanish protesters who have begun a march from the capital to Brussels. Perhaps we in this country should also start a march on Parliament to express our disgust and dislike of the dictatorial attitudes of those we elect - and those we don't elect!

Closing the 'Net'?

"Liberty is always unfinished business."
Anon

I have deliberately not posted on the sad events in Norway - others have, I believe, said all that is to be said, coupled with which there has been a certain amount of hyperbole included; also bearing in mind that what little I have seen on television and read in the press has appeared to be the outpourings of opinion, rather than facts. Unfortunately what the events in Norway have done is to provide politicians with the ideal opportunity to control that which they fear most - free speech.

In May the Guardian reported that Nicholas Sarkozy had called for international regulation of the web, at the G8 summit, something David Cameron was reported to be against. Forward to July and the Guardian reports that David Cameron is in favour of press regulation, but one regulated by an independent body that is free from government interference - although we have yet to see any 'independent' body that is free from government interference, one way or the other. The interconnection between the media and internet cannot be denied, as invariably that which appears in/on the media is, within minutes - if not seconds - placed on the internet by observers world-wide. Because the internet is a global medium logic would dictate that it cannot be caged within national borders.

I have on many occasions accused politicians of wishing to control how we speak, act and think; yet further reflection showed that restrictions on the freedoms of speech and action are meaningless without similar restrictions on the freedom of thought. Politicians may attempt to restrict our freedom of thought by control of the media and their output, but that does not stop the individual's ability to think and thus question the rights or wrongs on any subject.

Once either media or internet is regulated, the result is censorship with the resultant loss of free speech - and if effected it will no doubt be done in the name of prevention of terrorism and the need to negate right-wing activism - a label being applied to Anders Behring Breivik. I have no doubt that the label 'right-wing' that is being applied has been orchestrated by government officials in briefings to the media - yet no-one seems to have queried the fact that left-wing groups, such as Bader Meinhof, also committed mass murder - and the difference is.......?

Not in any way condoning the actions of Anders Behring Breivik, however is it any wonder that a man becomes so mentally confused within his own mind about the rights and wrongs of multiculturalism and what he sees as the damage to the society of his country, acts as he did? Politicians may regulate all they wish but they cannot eradicate the situation whereby one man, or one group, go on the rampage because they see their elected politicians ignoring situations such as this - which demonstrates that whilst actions of word and deed can be controlled, or at least attempts made to control the power of word and deed, the power of thought cannot; and it needs to be remembered that from the power of thought comes the power of action.

It may be that incidents such as occured in Norway could be negated by politicians ceasing their practise of obfuscation and alternately being open and honest; by ceasing to impose their ideas, ideas often originating from bureaucrats social policy dictators who in turn are funded by governments, on the societies they are meant to serve; and lastly by seeking the approval of those they are meant to serve prior to introducing any law or policy - laws and policies that have been proven to be unworkable and ill-thought through in the first place.


Update: A similar view but expressed much better than I is over at Klein Verzt.

A 'sovereign strategy' with a 'common purpose'

Andrew Gilligan has an article in today's Sunday Telegraph in which he alleges that a key part of the campaign to "reform" the press is being financed by senior Labour figures with direct personal and professional interests in muzzling the media. Interestingly, I had only just tweeted about my intention of blogging on this subject when a tweet was received from Dr. Evan Harris referring me to this rebuttal to Gilligan's piece.

In his article Gilligan also alleges 'links' between HackedOff, Sovereign Strategy, and Common Purpose and in connection with his accusation about 'left-wing' support, it is one perhaps understandable when looking at HackedOff's list of supporters, amongst whom are Polly Toynbee, Julia Middleton, Helena Kennedy and Chris Bryant MP. It is also worth mentioning at this stage that the Media Standards Trust, set up by 2 Common Purpose trustees - Middleton and Bell - have now got involved in the hacking scandal. In this context, regard the Board Members of Media Standards Trust and the supporters of HackedOff, names on both including Geraint Talfan Davies, Robert Worcester, Roger Graef, Albert Scardino and Sue Stapely. The Media Standards Trust is, in my opinion, a fake charity set up to re-balance how the press is regulated, presumably to the advantage of the BBC and the Guardian. If David Bell suspended his Chairmanship of Media Standards Trust, presumably for reasons involving conflict of interests, then should not the appointment of Helena Kennedy be called into question? On the matter of a conflict of interest, perhaps Lord Justice Leveson, appointed to head the 'Hackgate' inquiry, should also 'stand down'? The members of the panel, appointed by David Cameron, can be seen here.

It has long been the belief that Common Purpose was formed as a means of placing people sympathetic to the aims of the European Union within, besides other sections of 'government', the Civil Service. The 'evidence' for this belief is perhaps borne out by a copy of correspondence from Middleton to Francis Maude, on this post by nourishingobscurity, in which Middleton, writing to request a meeting with Maude, states:

Do note the phrase:"...and quite a few Common Purpose alumni from the civil service....". It is also worth noting, as mentioned in the post, that David Bell is also involved with the Civil Service Senior Leadership Committee, a committee chaired by Gus O'Donnell.

The more one delves into this quagmire of ordure, the more it becomes necessary to reach for a can of air-freshener to quell the stench; because it would seem that what we have here is the creation of a state within a state - which begs the question: Do we have enough lamp posts, come the day of reckoning?


Update: Whilst writing, notification has been received that Horatio Mortimer - presumably the same Horatio Mortimer who Gilligan reports has been seconded to HackedOff - is now following me on Twitter

Decency

"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office."
H.L. Mencken 

Matthew d'Ancona's op-ed piece in todays Sunday Telegraph (print edition) is headlined as "The hacking scandal exposes Cmeron's essential decency".

Having met David Cameron on a number of occasions, one cannot but like the man; he is indeed the most pleasant company for which one could wish.

It is, in common with most politicians, within the political arena that he unfortunately fails the first two of Mencken's 'tests'.

To PEPP or not to PEPP?

That is the question facing Ukip presently, one that may well cause a potentially damaging division within the party. The debate and subsequent ballot which is being conducted will decide the question of whether or not Ukip should become a Pan European Political Party.

luikkerland posts on the dilemma and links to articles by Gerard Batten, Trevor Coleman and Professor Tim Congdon who are all against the idea. From the links of the first two mentioned the views of those in favour can be accessed, amongst whom are Nigel Farage - and one does wonder whether the 'sheep-like' following that the latter has, within the party, might just sway the result.

On a personal level I have voted 'NO' on the basis that to enter the PEPP 'arena' would mean Ukip being subsumed and thus losing their identity, as luikkerland explains. If the vote results in a 'YES' then I would, unfortunately, be forced to end my membership of the party - although on that score, no tears will be shed by the hierarchy. It seems to me that Ukip appear to have forgotten that they have the word 'Independence' incorporated into their name.

For some time, as regular visitors to this blog will be aware, I have been of the opinion that Ukip's direction, presentation - in fact the general strategy - has been at fault, which bearing in mind that the pros and cons of our membership of the European Union has been rising within public opinion must surely be the reason that the party is still only polling an average of 6% throughout the country.

For Eurosceptics, Ukip is probably held as the best possible option in order to secure a divorce from the EU, bearing in mind the Lib/Lab/Con are all Europhile in nature, therefore unless they are able to raise their game then perhaps Richard North's suggestion of independent candidates will be the only viable alternative - laced of course with a good dose of "Referism".

Gerald Warner - acerbic as ever....

Writing on the subject of the 'Greek euro fudge' in the Scotland on Sunday:

"The notion of an administration led by the Euro-eunuchs Cameron and Osborne, with their bags carried by that bloke from the school run who is married to some Spanish woman, engaging in realpolitik in Brussels is as probable as John Prescott delivering a grammatical sentence."

Accountability? Transparency?

In their programme for government the Coalition stated that they believed in the need for transparency and to hold politicians to account. Needless to say, as with all political promises it contained an unmentioned caveat as witness by this extract from Lords Hansard (Col: WA404) 28th June:

"Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the 2011 Bilderberg Conference at St Moritz on 9-12 June in his official capacity; and, if so, what expense was incurred, including those of his accompanying officials; and whether he will be giving a report of the proceedings at the conference to the Cabinet and Parliament.[HL10062]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Bilderberg conference in St Moritz. All travel undertaken by Treasury Ministers and officials is carried out in line with the Ministerial and Civil Service Management Codes. Details of all ministerial overseas travel are published quarterly on the Treasury website: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/minister_hospitality.htm.

In addition, the Prime Minister reports annually to Parliament on ministerial overseas travel, encompassing costs incurred by officials and special advisers. In line with the practice of previous Administrations, details of ministerial discussions on ongoing policy issues are not disclosed, as this could undermine effective Government decision-making. Any issues that require the consideration of Cabinet or reporting to Parliament will be dealt with according to the proper protocol."

Followed, on 23th July by:

"Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sassoon on 28 June (WA 404) concerning the attendance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Bilderberg conference on 9-12 June, what is the purpose of the Bilderberg Organisation; what subjects are discussed at their conferences; whether these are conducted by an agenda; whether minutes of proceedings are published; and what benefits accrue to the United Kingdom from the participation of Ministers of the Crown in these conferences.[HL10848]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bilderberg meetings are attended by politicians and business people from around the world who come together to discuss topics of significance for international policy makers. Ministers in previous Administrations have attended these meetings and they are also attended by former Ministers.

20 July 2011 : Column WA300

Copies of any agenda and minutes of the meetings are not publicly available as they are part of ongoing policy formulation and their release could prejudice UK economic interests and international relations. The informal nature of discussions provides space for wide ranging discussions and for frank and candid exchange of views.

Commenting on the Government’s response, Lord Stoddart said:

"I am disturbed to find that a Minister of the Crown, no less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can travel to another country virtually incognito and take part in a conference organised by a highly secretive organisation, at the taxpayers’ expense, but is under no obligation to provide even an outline of the matters he discussed. Even more troubling is the fact that the Government finds the Bilderberg Conference in Switzerland to be a suitable venue for discussions relating to ‘ongoing policy issues’. Just because something was common practice in previous administrations, does not make it right for this Government to engage in under-cover policy discussions."

Accountability? Transparency? 

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be,  secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

Patrick Henry, American colonial revolutionary

'Will'power - but whose 'will'?

Any loss of liberty can only bring misery because people have an inherent desire to be free, within of course specified limits of their freedom - however, it is important that those specified limits must therefore be agreed by the people.

As I have suggested previously, I hold that in a democracy there can only be two versions of government - representative democracy or parliamentary democracy and the two are polar opposites. The former rests on the belief that people have inherent, inalienable rights, rights that precede the formation of any government, therefore sovereignty must belong to the people. The latter rests on the belief that only those elected to form a government can decide those rights that people have, which results in a situation whereby those rights are not rights but privileges.

So, what is this 'sovereignty' upon which our politicians claim our democracy rests and about which they spare no effort or opportunity to preach? I hold that sovereignty for any nation is the ability of its people to make and enforce its own laws and to be the arbiter of the implementation of those laws; it is the ability of the people of a nation to decide its relationship with other countries; and it is the ability of the people of a nation to decide their own future - hence sovereignty belongs to the people, not to any government that they may elect, consequently governments cannot exercise any power that the people have not granted them. When discussing sovereignty, it is worth recalling that there are three main pillars on which a nation's sovereignty rests and they are political independence, military independence and economic independence.

At this point it is perhaps worth quoting from Dissertations on First Principles of Government by Thomas Paine:

"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another; for who is he who could be the first giver, or by what principle, or on what authority, could he possess the right of giving?...[......] The word "sovereignty" has reference to that which is supreme or the highest. Sovereignty exists within the individual because of his free will and so his natural right and power to make his own decisions and to act upon them."

The present form of democracy acts as a conduit for ambitious individuals to gain control of a nation's people; and once that power is obtained, it knows no bounds - consider history. It is also worth remembering that power, once ceded, is invariably never returned - do turkeys vote for Christmas?

We experience today a situation whereby those who are part of our representative democracy sit idly by while others, who we have not elected and cannot therefore influence, decide our future and our destiny. To compound the problem the leaders of our representative democracy, in the true fashion of dictators, deny the people a voice on this problem. When a prime minister denies the will of the people because he/she doesn't agree with their views, but is in the position to act as if empowered by the people, then he/she exhibits all the powers of a dictator. 

That the will of the people transcends the will of government surely cannot be in doubt, yet our politicians fail to do anything about restoring our rights, they fail to raise their voices about our loss of rights; and it can therefore be presumed they no longer think about our rights - only theirs. To those politicians, I can but address a quotation nicked from Calling England:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Eurosceptic fervour? Where?

George Parker, writing for the Financial Times makes mention of Cameron's team being nervous of whipping up Eurosceptic fervour - an article that makes no attempt to dent the accusations about the lack of journalistic ability within our media.

To write about something which just does not exist is, methinks, a tad disingenuous - where, exactly, has any Tory Eurosceptic fervour been exhibited when considering the voting record of the majority of Tory MPs? Cameron may well talk about this repatriation of powers, but George P seems to forget that in this particular coalition of parties the Tory dog has a tail that tends to dictate the direction the dog's BO11LUX body wishes to pursue. Or perhaps he has forgotten this and this? In any event it would seem obvious that Cameron's main intention when considering this nation's relationship with the EU was best summed up by his Foreign Secretary on 29th October last year!

A possible re-write in the offing then, George?

Update: In the contest for the best journalistic poodle, this chap is obviously 'in it to win it'!

A man obviously not into flagellation!

We might start getting somewhere in sorting out most of our problems if our MPs had the work ethic of this MEP:

"I vote in what I conceive to be the best interests of my country and my constituents: the party whip comes a poor third."

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

Another euro 'headache' in the offing?

Next year Southern Cyprus is due to assume the rotating presidency of the EU yet Ankara has warned Brussels that if a divided Cyprus is allowed to take on the EU presidency as scheduled in July 2012 then its relationship with the European Union will "freeze". So if Europe is not careful it will not only have another eurozone member needing financial rescue but have a partner in political turmoil while trying to run the presidency. So reports the Guardian in their Cif piece authored by Charlie Charalambous, but this article does not hint at the problems with reunification to which I referred here and about which little is heard in the MSM, or even from the EU. It is also noticable that the EU, when mentioning the island of Cyprus, refers to that island as an entire country, the word Southern being omitted.

With the governments of Greece and Ireland having been 'taken over' by the EU it is quite ironic that following Cyprus, according to the rotational schedule for the presidency, we have Ireland, Lithuania and then Greece. Cyprus even has a preliminary website of the Cyprus Presidency of the Council of the EU in which it states that Cyprus aspires to rise to the expectations that the role entails and also to influence and assist substantially in furthering EU ideals and enhancing the profile of the Union internationally. 

If, as it looks, that Southern Cyprus might be going the way of Greece, Ireland and Portugal and does require a bail-out, with similar 'conditions' imposed by Brussels, no doubt they will then have no problems in furthering and enhancing the EU's ideals and profile.

An interesting situation to watch the developments of, in the intervening period?

Secret EU Payments up by 464%

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that according to the Financial Transparency System a total of 342 projects worth €408m were classified as ‘confidential’ by the European Commission in 2010 and that in 2007 there were just 104 such projects worth nearly €87m.

Money is paid for projects that are considered 'confidential'? Even allowing for the €265million apparently 'mis-accounted', that still leaves €140million 'unexplained'. As it would be beneficial for all to know the reasons why a project is classified as 'confidential' and what subjects these 'projects' cover, perhaps I might exercise my rights under Article 11.2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 15.1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)? 

Once again, just asking.......

Spare us an inquiry, Guv?

Andrew Gilligan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, reports that there are 13 inquiries that have been spawned by the 'Hackgate' scandal: 

"As well as the Leveson inquiry, in two separate parts, there are: two criminal inquiries, Elveden and Weeting; two parliamentary inquiries, one now concluded, by the home affairs and media select committees; inquiries by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Inspectorate of Constabulary; a probe by the former parliamentary watchdog Elizabeth Filkin into relationships between the police and the media; an inquiry by the Met’s directorate of professional standards; a News International internal inquiry; a Press Complaints Commission review; and, finally, my own personal favourite: an inquiry into how the Commons security authorities can best interdict future supplies of shaving foam."

In this age of austerity, to have 13 inquiries running on one subject, or aspects of the same subject, does appear to be a tad 'over-kill'. Could we not divert the efforts of a few to investigate, for example:

1. The Iraq War;

2. The Afghan War;

3. The 'cash for honours' scandal;

4. The 'MP's Expenses' scandal;

5. The benefits/deficits of European Union membership; and

6. The status of Keith Vaz

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

Misplaced metaphor?

Reuters reports that Chris Huhne, during a speech at Chatham House said that World leaders who oppose a global agreement to tackle climate change are making a similar mistake to the one made by politicians who tried to appease Adolf Hitler before World War Two. He invoked the words of Churchill, that "an appeaser is someone that feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last."

Yesterday the European Union moved to create a fiscal government for eurozone members, meaning that there will now be a two-tier EU membership. History shows us that the insidious encroachment of national sovereignty never ceases, so how long before the two-tier becomes one-tier? 

Still wish to continue feeding the EU crocodile, Mr. Huhne?

The state of the nation

The system of democracy under which we presently live, namely parliamentary democracy, has many inherent drawbacks, even though we elect the representatives to the institution known as Westminster.  Regular readers will be aware that it is a system which I term democratised dictatorship, or as some would prefer: an oligarchy. Even allowing for these drawbacks it is a far better system of government than that practised by the European Union, one that is by no means democratic but based on totalitarianism, in that, for example, those at its head are not elected by the people and have to swear allegiance to that entity, forgoing any wish they may have to safeguard their national interests.

Within the United Kingdom we presently have three political parties that perpetuate a system whereby money is taken from the people, both taxpayers and consumers  and channelled into the coffers of central government, from whence it is dispersed to their departments, non-governmental organisations and the civil infrastructure that supports the incumbent government. It is a system that has bred corruption resulting in a loss of trust in those we look to protect us; it is a system that has allowed succeeding governments to condition society to act, speak and think in ways that only they define; it is a system that has spawned - and continues to spawn - incompetence resulting in further cost; and it is a system that has been changed to the extent that honour and principle no longer matter. 

The irony that, by compartmentalising sections of society in the name of equality has resulted in minority and ethnic groups being granted special status and privileges, each thus receiving special treatment in the eyes of the majority, would appear to have escaped the political class. Or has it? The implementation of equality & diversity requirements has produced divisions within our society, divisions that argue amongst themselves, thus taking the eyes of the people from yet further restrictions to their liberty that are being introduced. Divide and Rule?

The fact that behaviour of minority groups, which to the native population of our nation is offensive and unacceptable being overlooked and condoned by means of equality & diversity, can be illustrated by a post from Inspector Gadget, who writes he was told at a police Diversity Training session in 2010 that:

"Spitting is a cultural issue. Young, jobless working-class men spit on the ground as a way of expressing frustration and powerlessness. It is also a way for young men from poor communities to mark territory, a kind of warning to other men in the street that they are present. For successful men, spitting on the ground is a way of demonstrating victory against the harsh realities of modern life, a challenge to others who may wish to rob them of their success.

It is judgemental for a police officer to challenge this behaviour. It shows an ethnocentric approach; why are the cultural norms of the young jobless community less acceptable than those of their more fortunate peers? To achieve the Public Confidence aspirations required by the National Policing Plan, police officers must begin to embed themselves in these cultures. This way, we can achieve our ultimate aim of policing our diverse communities with fairness and understanding."

Politicians continually complain about proposals that they consider would undermine the 'will of parliament', arguing that parliament is 'sovereign'. That argument is, in itself, a contradiction in that if politicians consider themselves representatives of their electorate (and should therefore reflect the wishes of their electorate), then the 'will of parliament' cannot exist as it would be the 'will of the people'. Neither can parliament be 'sovereign' as to be a 'sovereign parliament' it would need to act as a ruler and with the powers of a supreme ruler - which some would argue it tries to do, but I digress. The fact that, even if it wished to act as a supreme ruler it cannot is illustrated by parliament having ceded the powers necessary so to do to a foreign entity, namely Brussels.

As we are all aware, the political class of our nation, for days on end, have exhibited a field of vision comparable to a blinkered horse - aided and abetted by the same media about which they complain. That both have been - and still are - dependant upon each other has been the one obvious factor that has been the sole cause of the present problem that so engages their time and effort. If politicians lie and obfuscate in their dealings with the electorate then how are the people to know the truth if the media do not perform what is the core reason for their existence? Klein Verzt, writing for a Dutch readership but equally applicable to this country, queries whether journalists are really nothing more than political prostitutes and whether the pretence of being a watchdog for the people has been forgotten.

The fact this nation is in such dire straits is due to it having been in thrall to three parties with basically the same policies, albeit written in different ways, which result in the ship of state being piloted onto the rocks with headstrong and, in some cases, gay abandon. Neither is the nation served by the one party, who do have policies to avert the impending disaster, not recognising the necessity to go out advertising and selling their wares on a daily basis, instead appearing to wait for people to come and buy their products - hardly the recipe for becoming a brand leader.

When the ship of state does finally flounder, the people of this nation will then experience their own 'Titanic' moment - because they will then find out that there aren't sufficient lifeboats to go around!

Farage in Witney

Along with approximately 70 other people, I attended the above this evening in the Langdale Hall, Witney where I heard a speech, the bulk of which I had heard before although in different words. Nigel was introduced by Steve Harris, S.E. Regional Organizer. A video was taken of the meeting, from which a dvd will be produced, sections of his speech put on youtube and possibly the party website. Topics Nigel covered were:

NoTW breaking the law and people should be surprised? - the need for a free press - Cameron keeping the press at arms length when in opposition, but having now got into bed with them - the Met employing 45 press officers, 10 of whom came from News International - was it any wonder that there was 'something rotten in the state of Denmark - that Yates, considered deficient in the NI matter, had also been in charge of the 'cash for honours' scandal and that that inquiry should be re-held - denunciation of NI being of 'false importance' with Greece on the point of needing a second bail-out and the people near a state of revolution - the worsening economic condition of America - his belief that the old 'party allegience' is breaking down - the bad state of affairs whereby the rights of offenders trumped the rights of the victims - that immigration had to be stopped from Europe, mentioning the strain on social services whereby EU nationals were now entitled to state benefits from the day of arrival - that the 2020 EU strategy was utter madness, citing that Germany has 22,000 wind turbines but is having to build 6 coal-fired power stations to maintain the demand for energy - that Clegg's wife is a director of a Spanish wind company - that the UK in effect has to go to Brussels with a begging bowl and ask for some of our money back, ending with the question: "Is this what a once great country has come to?"

Nigel spoke for 30 minutes, after which questions were taken, questions on:

Leaving the EU unilaterally, to which Nigel replied that were we to so do, we would be liable to a demand for payment coupled with a fine from the ECJ and that we could of course just ignore it as did the French over the 'beef war'. He hoped that it could be done amicably, by negotiation - the future of Ukip, which he said that short-term was to come first in the 2014 Euro elections after which a demand for a referendum would be difficult for the government to refuse, that after that he would campaign for small government, low taxes and self-governance - that he believes a radical change in Europe is taking place and cited the True Finns, the fact that in the age group 18-24 Ukip have a larger following than the LibDems in the North of England - that on the matter of our military defence Cameron is leading us into an EU military force, the rebuttal of which will be that the UK does not have the kit to be a major player and is thus unable to look after the security of our country.

Questions were terminated after 30 minutes by Steve Harris, at which point I left. The reason for that is at the commencement of questions he stated that he wouldn't take any from Ukip members, although he did, and that he would only accept those from 'faces he did not recognise' - which meant my raised arm was ignored, consequently my question was unable to be put.

I do not believe it advisable, nor sensible, to 'air dirty washing in public', suffice it to say that my 'sounding off', prior to the meeting, about the planning and 'pre-meeting work' which had been most noticeable by its absence, probably contributed to not being called to put my question.

Oh well, c'est la vie......................

Update: I have since been advised by the County Organizer that the attendance was in fact 98 plus two late arrivals.

Just what are our politicians thinking about?

With the tunnel vision that is being practised by our political elite on the question of their relationship with the media and our police force, a 'madfest' being aided and abetted by that self-same media, consider:

From Big Brother Watch we learn:

"The country remains gripped by the story of a newspaper caught hacking into people’s mobile phones. But there is another group of institutions which are spying on us while exciting hardly any comment at all: our local councils. They are snooping on our telephones, accessing our email systems, using covert surveillance and maintaining databases on everything from our sexual orientation to whether we were once rude on the phone to a council officer."

Setting to one side the 'Dowler aspect', which needless to say is disgusting, the difference between the NoTW hacking phones and a council hacking phones is?

From Nigel Farage we learn:

"Despite 136 people being interviewed by Yates and his team, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that it would bring no charges. It is my belief that given the clear failure to conduct a full and proper investigation, there should be a re-opening of the cash for honours investigation. Since those people benefiting from a peerage and those involved in the process either hold legislative positions, or previously did, it is too important to our democratic process to leave in doubt."

The difference between journalists 'buying' information and the political elite 'buying' honours is?

While our politicians navel-gaze, worrying about their pension contributions, trying to change the expenses system yet again, hacking of their phones, on their doorstep yet outside their peripheral vision Armageddon awaits with a second bail-out for Greece and Bank of America set to declare bankruptcy, with the country from whence that bank gets its name likely to follow.

How has our nation sunk to such a rotten state of affairs? It is perhaps due to the current political system in which the Lib/Lab/Con seem not to have any idea of governance other than Yah! Boo! Sucks!, coupled with a mafia like control of the parties by their leaders, a whipping system that would put any dominatrix to shame and MPs who put party above country.

It would perhaps benefit all members of the politcal world to remember:

"What is more important: my principles or my party? And if you can't honestly say that it's your principles, then you need to know that one of the gravest, most insidious heaps of rotten decay in the body politic looks at you in the mirror each day."