Coup - look at this!

That our Parliament, MPs and democracy is a sham behind the facade of which the first two condone, through what can only be described as a Quisling attitude, the undermining of the third, is ironically on show today.

Item 1: Today's Order of Business in the House of Commons contains a debate the EU budget for 2014 – 2020. The European Commission has called for a 5.9% increase in 2014-2020, but the BBC reports that the Treasury has estimated this amounts to an 11% increase on current contributions, thus increasing the UK’s annual contribution to the EU by £1.4 billion. The Commons will also debate a Treasury proposal to object to the EU’s proposals on capital requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, as it proposes maximum limits and wouldn’t allow the Government to impose additional requirements on UK banks. For our 'sovereign' Parliament to spend a maximum of 1½ hours debating the first matter - plus the additional time for the second - when, whatever their decision, they cannot affect any budget increase, or any change to capital requirements, proposed by the EU Commission only bears witness to the truth of the statement contained in the first paragraph of this post.

Item 2: Ian Parker-Joseph, in his post today, also illustrates the sham that our Parliament and MPs have become when he homes in on the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph which highlights the creation of what IPJ correctly calls a Politburo. David Cameron and George Osborne have been adamant that the eurozone countries should come together to resolve their problems - and that suggestion is, I would aver, about to come back and bite them.

Not known much is the fact that the The Lisbon Treaty, in addition to expanding qualified majority voting (QMV), substituted the current voting weights in the Council with new ones based on the population sizes of the member states. These new rules are not yet in force – coming into force in November 2014 (with an option for a state to request a vote follows the old rules until April 2017 - an option the UK may well take). In addition to changing the voting weights, to the benefit of the larger more populous states, the rules also reduce the qualified majority required to pass an EU law from 71% to 65%. These two measures mean the UK will no longer be able to muster a blocking minority with the help of smaller non-eurozone states when the 17 eurozone members vote as a 'caucus', as they surely will do. Under the new rules a group of states needs votes from countries representing 65% of the EU population and the eurozone as a whole already have 66% on their own, giving them a permanent inbuilt majority.

So our self-proclaimed voices of sovereignty wasting 1½ hours of their time - although it could be said that, besides wasting all of their time, they are a complete waste of time - discussing aspects of our governance over which they have no say is indeed ironic, but at the same time extremely sad to witness.


Update: IPJ also Mary Ellen Synon who gives further proof that the EU stinks - an aroma that is now permeating our own government!

The dearth of a blitz and the lack of 'ack-ack'

'Dearth' - a lack, scarcity : 'Blitz' - from the German 'Lightning'. That Darlington was originally known as 'Dearthington' and Daniel Defoe thought the place was remarkable in that it had nothing but dirt could probably be applied to this article in that there is a dearth of logic contained therein and it does nothing but attempt to dirty the waters. Likewise the writer of this article needs a bolt of lightning to bring forth any element of knowledge to his mind.

Darlington writes:

"An October poll by IPSOS/Mori told us that only 1 per cent of voters put Europe as their highest concern. Only 4 per cent put it as among the highest concerns. By contrast, 68 per cent say that the economy is among the most pressing issues facing Britain. MPs and the Government have to strike a balance between the vehemently pronounced concerns of a minority and the quieter, more visceral concerns of a majority."

For heavens sake, just how many times does the point have to be made that if politicians won't discuss or mention the subject - unless forced to - and the media will not write about it, again unless forced to, the public will not be aware or be able to form an opinion about 'Europe'. Darlington continues:

"To quote Edmund Burke one more time: “patience will achieve more than force”. This notion of timing it right, along with a divergence with tactics, wording and content, is what MPs, in their judgement, voted for on Monday."

First, where he alive today, Edmund Burke may well be about to find that force will achieve more than patience in that I believe the public's patience with the political elite is fast running out. Second, Darlington is wrong in that MPs did not vote in their judgement - that 'judgement' had already been made for them by the Whips; and for some by the desire to retain their ministerial positions.

All one can say about the second article is that had the MSM bothered to read the blogs (EU Referendum, Autonomous Mind, The Boiling Frog, UKK41, Calling England, Ironies Too, Ian PJ on Politics, Muffled Vociferation, to name but a few*) they would have known that the subject of 'Europe' never went away - in fact, as a subject, it became even more discussed. That the idiot - because that is exactly what this 'journalist' is - who penned the FT article continues to discuss a course of political action that cannot happen just shows he has carried out no research and thus knows not about that which he writes.

There is of course yet another reason, besides the one outlined in my previous post, that repatriation of powers will not happen and that comes from this article in the Guardian, one in which Nick Clegg has directly contradicted Cameron. David Cameron, on the subject of 'Europe' is fighting on a number of fronts; namely public opinion, Labour and Nick Clegg. Were his Deputy Prime Minister a member of his own party Cameron would no doubt have sacked him some time ago. Rather unfortunately for Cameron, who is intent on remaining at Number 10, he needs to keep Clegg on 'board' in order to accomplish that intention. In any event, knowing that all three party leaders are intent on keeping the UK in the European Union it is obvious that our political scene today is but a sham, one in which Cameron talks about repatriation of powers with the complicit agreement of Clegg, who in turn states that repatriation will not be condoned, a statement made with the complicit agreement of Cameron. It is all for public consumption dear reader and should be accepted as such. Whilst there may be a few MPs, such as Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone who understand why and for what they have been elected, there are others such as Nick, Enfield North, who exhibit a level of intelligence akin the proverbial plank 'de Bois'.

We all know that Matthew d'Ancona is a mouthpiece for Cameron (and his latest article in the Sunday Telegraph once again illustrates that) but when an avowed 'eurosceptic' MP - and a member of Better Off Out - pens an article for the Sunday Telegraph, one in which he too writes about how best repatriation of powers can be accomplished and in the process does not even mention that said repatriation is a 'no-no', then it becomes obvious the rot in our political system is firmly embedded. Anyone still believe Douglas Carswell is a 'eurosceptic'?

It must be as plain as can be that to remove the rotten, debased and disliked Quislings that inhabit our political system we must, to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, first take Westminster and then present the civil servants inhabiting Whitehall with an ultimatum, namely that they do as instructed or they too face a lamppost - their choice. After that, we bring in a participatory form of democracy, thus ensuring that the people of this land never ever again have to endure the purgatory that has gone before.


* With apologies to any omitted........

More on that 'democratised dictatorship' thingy

We are all now aware that a debate on a motion submitted by the Backbench Business Committee, relating to our country's membership of the European Union and proposing this should be put to the people by means of a referendum, is to be held on Monday next.

From the Parliament website we are informed that the UK public elects 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinise government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees and from the 'About Parliament' section we learn they also debate issues of the day.

Little seems to have been made in the media about the fact that the MPs, members of a  Parliament, one supposedly the guardian of our sovereignty, in deciding to hold this debate is then informed by the Executive that that debate is not binding on them. This then begs the question do we have a democracy or a dictatorship? Likewise little seems to have been made in the media about the fact that a group of people, elected to represent the views of their electorates, are then 'ordered' to obey the diktats of their respective leaders and thus to ignore the views of their electorates. Once again I have to ask whether we live under a democracy or a dictatorship. Methinks that the Parliament website, in saying that Parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, needs a re-write - only omitting the words 'Parliament' and  'legal', whilst substituting the word 'Executive' in place of 'Parliament'. With the fact the behaviour (voting) record of all three main parties being subject to the orders of their leaders and that where governance of this country is concerned the leaders all accept governance from abroad, why do we bother with general elections? The fact that whilst those parties promise change, all those elections do is replace one set of Quislings with another and that the stench of hypocrisy remains is best illustrated by a story from British Freedom:

"A company commander inspected his soldiers, and afterwards told the CSM that his men smelled bad.

The OC suggested perhaps it would help if the soldiers would change underwear occasionally. The CSM responded, “Yes sir, I’ll see to it immediately!”

The CSM went straight to the soldier’s barracks and announced, “The OC thinks you buggers smell bad and wants you to change your underwear.” He continued, “Pitman, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Wilkinson, and Brown, you change with Saddler…”

THE MORAL OF THE STORY:
Someone may come along and promise “Change”, but don’t count on things smelling any better." 

 

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

Was it all in vain?

That this nation, this United Kingdom, is now in another war and one not being fought on the military front can no longer be denied. That we are slowly being conquered, from without and within, can also no longer be denied. That we have, for the past few decades, elected and been governed by those that can only be termed 'Quislings' can no longer be denied.

Over the centuries this nation, this United Kingdom, has fought many, many armed conflicts to preserve our country, our society, our way of life and our belief in democracy; armed conflicts which culminated in World War II. During that last, almost apocalyptic conflict, many nationals from other countries fled to this nation and fought for and beside us to preserve all for which they believed the United Kingdom stood.

Are we now to sully their memory and the ultimate sacrifice which so many of them made, because of a mis-guided and totally mad political dream, one that is pursued by those who have no regard for them they are meant to represent and serve? Are we to dishonour those that made that ultimate sacrifice; and in so doing, dishonour ourselves? Are we to dishonour those who died in concentration camps? Are we to dishonour those who suffered great deprivation and maltreatment on our behalf, men like Albert Brown or women like Nancy Wake who famously said: "....I used to think it didn't matter if I died, because without freedom there was no point in living".

So to those who are content with this nation's membership of the European Union; to those who are content to see our society ravaged by political dogma; to those who are content to see Islamism proliferate in our land; to those who would willingly cede their 'rights' as free men and women; to those who wish to be considered, at the end of the day, outcasts of our society and our nation, I pose the following question:

Who amongst us would not wish to be able to say that the following words - words that undoubtedly drove those that made that ultimate sacrifice to fight for our nation - are also our words?

"That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

 In which case, people of the United Kingdom, are you 'UKers', or are you mice?