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

Daniel Hannan, on his Daily Telegraph blog, writes about a move by MEPs to take away what is presently allowable funding from the BNP.

In respect of the BNP, Hannan writes:

"We are, without question, talking about nasty parties, extreme even within the foetid world of neo-fascism....Most of parties in question subscribe to an ideology called ‘Third Positionism’, whose roots lie in Strasserism and National Bolshevism, and whose adherents describe themselves as ‘beyond Left and Right’. They want authoritarian governments, high tariff walls, regulated economies, confiscatory taxation and the repatriation of immigrants."

"Authoritarian governments"; "regulated economies"; "confiscatory taxation" - hell, Daniel, thought you were writing about the Conservative Party for a minute......

Later, Hannan writes:

"Not that greed is the main motive here; narcissism is. No one really imagines that €289,266 will pay for a pan-European Nazi revival, but plenty of MEPs see the opportunity to preen and look important and, in effect, say: ‘Look how nice I am: I hate those evil fascists even more thanyou do!’ They are all for diversity, provided it doesn't extend to diversity of opinion."

And Conservative eurosceptics don't preen and tell us they hate the evil EU even more than we do? That they hate the EU provided it does not involve cessation of EU membership?

Tsk, tsk: it is indeed fortunate for Carswell and Hannan that their disciples among the public suffer from blinkered vision, that their disciples seem unable to see two politicians who's stated beliefs are at virtually total variance with the party under who's flag they sail, yet retain the cover of that flag purely to enable their careers to continue.

A credibility gap

Subrosa posts questioning the apparent lack of gravity in the platitudes paid to our military dead by the leaders of our political parties in the House of Commons. I, too, feel that these expressions of regret and sympathy have become routine and are now uttered with the same degree of intonation as might be the latest trade figures. That these announcements of those who fell are so closely followed by the 'Cameron/Miliband Show', in which the two participants trade what amounts to schoolboy insults, further undermines the solemnity due to our fallen.

This leads one to question whether when MPs talk about, for example, the plight of the poor or the pain felt by consumers with rising energy bills, they actually mean it. Why is it that when an MP raises the plight of one of their constituents at PMQs invariably it is done in such a manner as to make a political point?

That Subrosa is moved to raise her concerns, as I am to raise my questions, just demonstrates the nadir to which politicians have sunk in pursuit of their careers.

Just saying.........

Brilliant, Edward, just brilliant

Commenting on a post over at England Expects, Edward Spalton hits the nail on the head when the question arises as to what happened to honour and principle amongst politicians. He quotes from Gilbert & Sullivan's 'Ruddigore':

"You supple MPs who go down on your knees,
Your precious identity sinking,
Who vote black or white as your leaders indite,
(which saves you the trouble of thinking).

For your country's good fame, her repute or her shame,
You don't give the snuff of a candle -
But you're paid for your game when you're told that your name
Will be graced by a baronet's handle"

And on 'democratised dictatorship' (iron control by party leaders) I am prompted to add these words from Private Willis (Iolanthe) - also prompted by Edward Spalton:

"When in that House, MPs divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum too,
They've got to leave that brain outside
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull MPs in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves is what
No man can face with equanimity."

So all those Tory rebels were 'eurosceptics' were they?

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

With all the political commentators, Conservative Home and Jacob Reese Mogg maintaining that the Conservative Party are by nature eurosceptics and that 81 of their number voted accordingly, a small paragraph at the end of an article by James Kirkup in today's Daily Telegraph caught my eye (unfortunately it does not appear to be on line). In this article he quotes Conservative MPs who say they are worried about reselection come the new boundary changes and at the end of the article comes this:

"One rebel confessed: "I'm actually not particularly anti-European. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote to stay in. Supporting the motion was partly about keeping faith with the people who sent me here and partly about taking a swing at No10."

This unnamed rebel will not be the only one from the 81 holding similar beliefs and reasons for rebelling, hence the electorate has every reason to be doubtful when a Conservative MP declares himself a eurosceptic. The fact that this rebel is prepared to disregard his/her constituent's faith speaks volumes about polititians principle's and their sense of honour.

And people are petitioning for a second debate on the referendum question? Bearing in mind the above - for what and why, exactly?

Lobbying one's MP - or as I wished, just lob!

I spent a delightful day yesterday in London, sharing the company of Mark Wadsworth, The Boiling Frog, The Talking Clock, Katabasis and Harry Aldridge amongst others. Having previously assembled on College Green where a demonstration of defiance was staged by Ukip against the impending debate and vote in the House of Commons, processed around Parliament Square, it was time for a drink or two prior to queuing to lobby our individual MPs. Having waited for two hours, the queue being allowed entry in groups of 30, it was our turn, where security is akin to that at airports. Never having visited Parliament previously it was an intriguing experience - on entering one has to obtain a green card on which it has to be stated the MP you wish to see, your name and address and the subject matter to be discussed. From 'the lobby area' a short corridor leads to another vestibule area beyond which are the doors, opposite the Speaker, into the chamber. The short corridor is guarded by two members of Plod to ensure that those members of the public who do not have the requisite piece of paper cannot proceed further. After two hours, during which my MP appeared not, I approached one Plod and requested whether it would be possible for him to go and finger the collar of my MP and inform him he was wanted for questioning. This met with a wry laugh from Plod and, needless to say, a refusal. 

At 6:15pm it was necessary to leave as The Boiling Frog and I wished to attend a debate held by the Bruges Group, the debate being entitled "Euroscepticism or Secession". The speakers were supposed to be Peter Hitchens and Mark Pritchard MP, however with the parliamentary debate having been brought forward obviously Mark Pritchard was unable to attend and his place was taken by David Campbell-Bannerman MEP who had, a few months ago, defected from Ukip and joined the Conservative Party. Peter Hitchens was on good form and tore into the Conservative Party and Cameron to the extent that both were left in tatters. At one point Campbell-Bannerman made the statement, in answer to a question, that he did not believe in 'renegotiation' and preferred a 'free trade' type of association with the EU. This prompted me to ask him the following question (verbatim):

"It would be agreed by most people gathered here that a most important deficit in our democracy is the lack of principle and honour of politicians. Bearing this in mind I would like to ask Mr. Bannerman whether it was political principle that made him join a party with whose views he was at such variance"

Needless to say the question was not answered. There will no doubt be a video of the proceedings produced by the Bruges Group and when available I will post a link to this. It was also a delight to make the acquaintance of Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, a most delightful lady and one whose views I hold in high regard.

I am now going to listen to the debate in the HoC and will be posting on that later today. 


Update: The Bruges Group have made available videos of the speeches by Campbell-Bannerman and Hitchens:

Roger Helmer (3)

Today the news broke that Roger Helmer is to resign as an MEP, effective 31st December 2011, citing amongst his reasons:

"As with any major decision, this is driven by a number of factors.  Some might say that it is high time I stood aside for a younger man.  For myself, I think that twelve-and-a-half years banging my head against the same brick wall in Brussels is perhaps long enough.  And I should certainly like to see more of my three fine grandsons. 
But it would be disingenuous to deny that my decision is dictated in part by my increasing disillusion with the attitudes of the Conservative Party.  I am finding it ever more difficult to defend the policies of the Coalition, not only on my key issues of Europe, and of climate and energy, but on a range of other matters besides. 
I will have more to say about this in coming days."

Reporting his resignation, the BBC carries this quote:

"You reach a point, in all honesty, where you cannot sit here and say I am a Tory MEP but I disagree with nine-tenths of what the party are saying.......The only honest thing to do is to say you quit."

Like Autonomous Mind, although not in as great a detail nor extent, I too have been critical of Roger Helmer for his continued membership of the Conservative Party. There are those who, like The Boiling Frog, take a more cynical view and one to which I tend to lean myself. There are also those who immediately put fingers to keyboard with the statement that it is inevitable, in their view, Helmer will join Ukip, even though the man has stated that he hopes to remain a member of his present party.

Helmer's statement to the BBC does rather show up the hypocritical behaviour of his colleagues in Westminster, who professing to have views similar to him, regularly troop through the voting lobbies at Westminster supporting their party in any matter EU! It also does place Daniel Hannan in an awkward position, does it not?

As a final thought, how many people towards the end of their lives recant and admit their sins to a higher authority (there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents)? As a magnanimous gesture, is that not how Helmer's resignation should be accepted?

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

MCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water down? You have to turn it on first!

The Daily Telegraph reports that Cameron may overrule Vince Cable by diluting controversial new EU employment laws to be introduced next month and thus 'water down' those laws. The Boiling Frog summarises this idea most succinctly when he writes:

"A Downing Street spokesman said: “We are now looking at every part of employment law as part of the red tape challenge. We want to do everything we can to help employers and drive growth.” Which in other words means; we'll pass the EU Directive as it is, pretend we've stood up to the EU because conference season is just round the corner and we want to look tough on the issue of Europe for the benefit of our stupid members."

Leaving to one side the truth contained in that statement, another question arises and this is why has this directive been 'gold-plated' by Vince Cable's department when, only last December, Saint Vince is on record as stating that EU laws must be 'copied out' to avoid gold-plating. By googling 'cameron no gold plating' and then clicking '[pdf] EU Legislation: Government action on gold-plating' access is provided to a document entitled "EU Legislation: Government action on ‘gold-plating’ Standard Note: SN/IA/5943 issued by the House of Commons Library, one which explains the 'copying out' procedure and how it should be used.

What this matter shows yet again is that Cameron, who believes he governs this country, doesn't and can't - and never will while the UK is a member of the EU, which means he has a choice to make: either he takes us out of the EU or he is content to remain but a mere servant of Brussels. As I pointed out to Roger Helmer, if one finds oneself in a group with whose views you disagree, then the only sensible course of action is to walk away. But then politics is now a career isn't it - and Cameron is nothing if not a career politician - and one which bears no relation to representing the views of those he was elected so to do. Coupled with which, the manifesto on which he stood has been shown to be nothing but a sham and a lie - yet another reason why a man of principle would walk away.

Cameron, a man of principle? Oxymoron, surely...............

Roger Helmer (2)

I join Autonomous Mind in that I too appear to have stirred Roger Helmer into 'faux indignation' at my comments in this post, one in which I referred to the 'castigation' he received from AM and in turn lent my support, condemning Helmer for his attack on Nikki Sinclair.

Helmer has commented:

"I have been absolutely clear that Britain should leave the EU, so at least we agree on that. You must allow me to differ on the best way to propomte [sic] that cause. And as I have said so often, it would be nice if more eurosceptics could turn their fire on the EU, rather than on other eurosceptics."

to which I have responded:

"Roger, you are either in our out on the subject of EU membership. As a signatory to the BOO campaign acceptance of repatriation and the rest of the smokescreen that is being put up by your Leader leads one to believe that you too are sitting on the fence.

The fact that you consider yourself a eurosceptic, when that term has been high jacked by those who would appear to accept partial membership, shows as far as I am concerned your beliefs to be questionable. In any event, the fact that Bill Cash now labels eurosceptics as eurorealists stretches the position of those like him and you even further.

If you really believe that "it would be nice if more eurosceptics could turn their fire on the EU, rather than on other eurosceptics", then how come you turn your fire on Nikki Sinclair, a renowned anti-EU MEP? 'Double standards'? But hey, I forgot you are a Conservative so double standards is 'par for the course', isn't it - a characteristic you have inherited from your Leader?

If you find yourself in the company of those whose beliefs you find unacceptable, then the obvious course of action is to get up and leave. If you are, as you maintain, an 'outer', then surely you have only one course of action and that is to leave a political party whose views you are diametrically opposed to.

But then politics is now a career, isn't it and bears no relation to representing the views of those who elected you. Coupled with which, the manifesto on which you stood has been shown to be nothing but a sham and a lie - yet another reason why a man of principle would walk away."

Roger Helmer is another 'Pushmi-Pullyu' politician, methinks..........