Monday, 30 November 2009

The Guardian needs to be taken down a notch or two - red, black and white are Nazi colours apparently

Basically I have qualms about the entire article for it just non-sensical and goes against the whole principle of local democracy. But in particular I would like to focus on this part (my emphasis)
The Swiss People's party has tried the trick before, thriving in the 2007 federal election on the back of an even more explicit poster showing three white sheep, standing on the red background of the Swiss flag, kicking out a fourth black one, above the slogan "for more security". No one, in the context of the far right, should mistake the provocative nature of a campaign fought in the Nazi colours of red, black and white.
WTF? Since when did red, black and white in conjunction become "Nazi Colours"?! The Guardian must have seen this one coming though, surely. Anyhow I am going to indulge in this little exercise anyway, letting the stupid little socialist mouthpiece get away with everything is not good sportsmanship in my book. Hence, here we go:

According to the Guardian the following countries are Nazis going by the colour codes used on their sovereign-state flags:

Egypt (OH MY GOD IT HAS EVEN GOT AN EAGLE ON IT! HITLER IS BACK!!!!!!)


















Iraq


















Papua New Guinea


















Syria


















Trinidad and Tobago


















Yemen

If you read anything today let it be this

Here it is
, that is all I can say. It makes me too sad to even ponder the details.
"Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. Latin for "you may hold the body subject to examination". This undeniable right protects one from the state. Whilst it is in place, no-one can lock you away without having solid lawful reasons to do so. Today, if you believe that you have been incarcerated and no evidence supports that incarceration, you can demand a Writ of Habeas Corpus from the court. The court will then examine evidence that you should be gaoled, remanded, or sectioned. You might also be interested to learn that once habeas corpus is gone you can be incarcerated for up to eight months without charge. This item will be stolen just after midnight on Monday 30th November 2009."
Thanks to Captain Ranty for providing me with this. As of tomorrow we are not allowed to criticise the EU according to this excerpt. That scares the living daylight out of me which is why I intend to treble my efforts to expose the fiendish debauchee which thinks it is safe in its little palace over in Brussels. Nothing could be further from the truth. You will have to chain me to a tree before you can restrain me from my keyboard.

Saturday, 28 November 2009

Quick Two Cents on UKIP

The Tories love saying that voting UKIP is a vote for New Labour and Gordon because of the FPTP system. But that is not our fault dear Conservatives that is your fault for not providing satisfactory policies on issues which matter to the people; Immigration, Defence, EU etcetera. I suppose after years of being taught it, lots of Britons think that self-sacrifice for the sake of an important principle is a trait of the lunatic. Shame upon us all for thinking that the do-nothing approach is always the right way, which is to say the middle way not the high way - the one which is so intricate you are sure to loose your way after just a few miles and you didn't bring a map.

This is of course is not to say that UKIP will get more than a handful of MPs (maybe not any at all) but even so the blame lies with the Tories and not the electorate. Stop demonising and ostracising the people for taking a stand which does not fit in with your GE strategy. Those voters stand in the tradition of the Attlee Government, which refused to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was “the blueprint for a federal state” which “the Durham miners would never wear”. In that tradition, Gaitskell rejected European federalism as “the end of a thousand years of history” and liable to destroy the Commonwealth. Odd where we are now "innit"?

If New Labour are re-elected you only have yourselves to blame (tip: tell cast-iron-Dave). What is even worse, if you seek to discredit and destroy UKIP, and succeed, you will have forced a far more dangerous option upon the British people; the BNP. You will remember what your dear Leader, cast-iron-dave said; "UKIP is sort of a bunch of ... fruit cakes and loonies and closet racists mostly". While I personally wouldn't condone anything Mr. Cast-Iron-Dave said, even with a bargepole a my bequest, surely they are better than the full monty (BNP)? Even though he is categorically wrong since the BNP is a racist party the former is not.

In the end what I think lingers beneath the tranquil exterior of many a voter's conscience (perhaps I give them too much credit) is the slightly unnerving possibility that Cameron is starting to look like Blair and UKIP are starting to look like the Conservatives. What of 13th Spitfire I hear you asking, what will I vote? Certainly the EU issue is much closer to my heart than your average voter, mainly because I am an insatiable libertarian who believes in representative democracy where the representatives are actually elected. But I can see the other side of the argument as well, Labour must be cast out before they truly destroy the country. When you read things like this then you understand why the current government must be removed. I have not made up my mind yet, on the one hand it seems pointless to vote anything but UKIP for ultimately we are controlled by Brussels. But if the Tories are kept out from power the path to sovereign destruction will be all the more accelerated.

Pointless People in British Politics

The Independent
The Liberal Democrats

Why? Because they never ever take a stand they are in the "centre" which is completely useless for everyone.

Friday, 27 November 2009

Challenge not the Speaker - why not?


There is much talk of the new UKIP leader Lord Pearson and what his predecessor intends to do to the current speaker namely, shock and horror, challenge the "convention" and stand in his constituency.

Some Tories feel this is wrong, some Labourites feel this is wrong, some other people who's party simple has no function at all (LibDems) think this is wrong and some other people also think it is wrong. They say that tradition and procedure dictates that the Speaker should not be challenged in his own constituency. Really?




Labour challenged Speaker Bernard Wetherill in 1987.

But what is more it has somehow become an unspeakable dogma to question the incumbent Speaker, who flipped homes as much as anyone else and indulged in all the little privileges bestowed upon MPs at our expense. Sure they need freebies to do their job, but the Expenses scandal was too much and they know it was wrong and so do we.

The current Speaker John Bercow was elected because Labour made it so, yet again they put party before country in order to damage the Tories. I am as usual lost for words when it comes to describing my contempt for the Labour party - I simply cannot find them. Suffice to say that a man who has been elected speaker on the back of a Tory Opposition ploy conducted by Labour, deserves not to hold that esteemed position for he has not earned the trust and respect which is bestowed upon the post by his fellow Rt. Hon. Members.

Speaker Bercow is not the victim, the Tories are not the victims, we are the victims.

One for Calling England



Listen particularly to the bagpipe - awesome.

James Delingpole speaks Conservative sense

Here are some of the things I think any prospective Tory candidate should believe in:

1. A commitment to lower taxes, both corporate and personal.

2. An immediate repeal of the Climate Change Act of 2008

3. Cancellation of all alternative energy projects – most especially of wind farms, because of the damage they will do to the British landscape – and an accelerated nuclear programme.

4. Tougher stance on immigration.

5. Tougher stance on Islamist extremism, particularly on Foreign Office collaboration with extremist groups.

6. A real bonfire of the Quangos – as in, actually destroying them, rather than simply replacing favoured Nu Lav apparatchiks with favoured Nu Tory ones.

7. A radical rethink of the NHS (as opposed to Dave’s current we’ll-spend-the-same-as-if-not-more-than-Labour-but-we’ll-be-a-bit-more-efficient non policy)

8. Withdrawal from the European Union (except as part of a trading bloc)

9. Repeal of all PC or nannying social legislation such as the Human Rights Act and the Independent Safeguarding Authorities “all adults are paedophiles”

10. Repeal of the ban on foxhunting.

Special Relationship? My butt (F-35, plane in vain)

You know we are buying all those sweet F-35s for the new carriers? Well, when we added our dough to the pot it was done on the understanding that we would be able to run the things ourselves without any American intervention. Remarkably it was the Blair and Bush administration that sorted this little caboodle but not anymore as Obama has now reneged on that issue - do we get our money back the? Now I do not want to say too much on this issue and leave it to be properly analysed by real defence blogs such as Defence of the Realm and Think Defence - they actually know what they are talking about. But you can find the full story over at the Spectator here.

I also just have to add that I thought my title 'plane in vain' was very clever. You might not, but I do not care. This is my blog and I like puns.

Nightjack's most useful post

I've put up Nightjacks most useful post, just like lots of other folk.

A Survival Guide for Decent Folk

Paul has posted a number of lengthy replies on the “Modest Proposal" thread. In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

Complain First Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

Make a counter allegation
Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis, allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out.

Never explain to the Police
If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

Admit Nothing
To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.

Keep your mouth shut
Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

Claim Suicidal Thoughts
A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

Always always always have a solicitor
Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

Actively complain about every officer and everything they do
Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it
You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.

So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

Au Contraire we can do something

Have you ever stopped for a second and started being really un-PC? Well I do not think I was ever properly PC at all, certainly my friends seem to squirm when I even mention the word 'immigration' my family, similar, I explain that I am not a racist that I have read far more reports on immigration pros and cons than they, I spent a few hours reading a particular House of Lords report on the subject making my own red notes, and finally I devise my conclusions that arch echelon of Political Correctness, immigration, is too high and I spent the last 15 minutes explaining why. Yet, even by logical deduction...

-small country
-most densely packed country on planet
-bankrupt
-fuel truly dangerous parties NF or the BNP
-null economic benefit
.
.
.

I am still being regarded by strange eyes which seem to ask through their blurring stupidity why am I diverging from my box of conformity? Do I not know that I must hold the line? That talking about immigration is a kin to blasphemy? I know all of that which is precisely what I do. Luckily enough I know how to back up my arguments and have written extensively on the subject here on this blog and elsewhere so I know what I am talking about. Yet... I am still a racist in their eyes. You have to give it to the powers that be that they have certainly done a fine job when it comes to conformity of the masses.

The funny thing is though, if you as a person have adopted that quintessentially un-PC stance which is to say an anti-government stance on every issue: anti-EU, cap on immigration, anti-surveillance state and so on you will quite often find, so I have at least, that people readily hop on that bandwagon, for they do agree, they are just too afraid of breaking cover and actually unleashing their bottled up feelings of the derelict state of society and the nation at large. I cannot imagine what they think might happen? We do not yet have an equivalent of STASI in the UK, they are sure to come, but not yet, the cameras only actually work if you are wearing your address on your t-shirt when you commit that unsocial act. They only aid the police in 1 of 1000 instances. They are shit, useless and completely unnecessary but exist primarily for you to know that you are being watched. That they cannot actually do anything with it matters little.

Why I ask, can we make a difference, those us who bereave the government of all its honour day-by-day online and expose its darkest secrets, find the patterns they wish to be hidden and generally being a massive thorn in their side, like France. Honestly, I think not, those of us who write are generally more socially aware than the rest of the population who consider X-factor the prime happening of the week and not the state of democracy in the UK. You cannot really blame them however, it is not really their fault, if the state wants you to be dumb you will be dumb. Thankfully it does not extend across the board. But are to we to say once peaceful revolution has been hampered and violent revolution is just around the corner, that 'we told you so?'. I hope it will never come to that and if it does, rather than gloating about our foresight we can act as a candle in the wind when things really turn nasty and be quite sure they will; Peter Mandelson, an unelected Politician seized total control of the Internet in the UK, an unelected man has become "President" of half a billion people in Europe and a scheme to actually steal unimaginable amounts of money from the next three generations of the worlds people has been made public. All of this was just last week. Pessimism is not a populism it is a realism when enemies of the state are running it.

You are never alone when you take a stand - remember that.

Utterly Frightening

This is an extremely good piece written by the PJC Journal and it is reproduced in full here below.

The Euro Federalists are in a hurry. They are seeing the disquiet and anger building in the UK at the lack of democracy, with leader after leader denying them a say on our future with the EU. As the anger mounts amongst the public, the Euro Federalists are moving ever quicker to ensure that the Britain we know and love can never escape the clutches of the new empire.

From those big names in Brussels, Barroso, Van Rompuy and the like you would expect this, but let us look at someone you would not expect this from. Dan Hannan.

Dan has promoted himself along with Douglas Carswell as Libertarians inside the Conservative Party. They put out a book, The Plan, They appear to be at loggerheads with the party leadership, a thorn in Cameron's side, but are they? Or are they working to the same plan as Cameron.

In a series of articles in the Telegraph this week, Hannan's true colours are coming through, and the truth is that Hannan is as much a 'progressive' communitarian as Cameron.

Let me try and put this into perspective. Last month I wrote about the legal base that Cameron will inherit once Lisbon comes into force on 1st Dec 2009. In the comments of that article, I also wrote about the Committee of the Regions.

The Committee of the Regions is made up of appointees, not necessarily anyone who holds an elected position. It is this EU Committee that will ultimately hold regional power, not National governments.

When John Prescott first mooted the idea in the UK of Regional Assemblies, the public rejected it. That was the last time the public was asked to participate.

His then department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) went into overdrive, and diverted billions of taxpayers money into setting up regional government by stealth, recruiting and training personnel to run it all in the background using the subversive and secretive training company Common Purpose, which operates on a Europe wide scale invoking the Chatham House rules to ensure secrecy. Offering Common Purpose graduates the biggest networking opportunity of their lifetime, many have gotten very rich on the back of setting up this secret second government structure. But, it was all done on the basis that the public must never know until Lisbon was in place, and too late to do anything about it.

The end result is 12 Regional Development Agencies, 9 Regional Assemblies in England, The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and the NI Assembly, reorganisation of Regional TV & Radio, 12 Regional Emergency Services, 12 Regional NHS organisations, reorganisation of the Army with 12 primary Regiments, reorganisation of local government to fit into the EU 2 tier model, all of this coordinated by The Committee of the Regions in Brussels.

The Committee of the Regions was initially set up as a consultation body, but it has with each Treaty gained more influence and more power, taken control of more of the shared competencies. In place since 1994, this EU organisation has been making local UK policy, not British politicians (that why they look so dumb sitting on the front bench, nothing original)

Set up by the Maastricht Treaty, its first meeting was in March 1994. Initially five areas of obligatory consultation (economic and social cohesion; trans-European networks in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications; public health; education and youth; culture).

Amsterdam Treaty (1999) added a further five (employment, social policy, environment, vocational training, transport).

The latest treaty Lisbon, gives it total control over all shared competencies. It consists of 344 members and 344 alternate members appointed for 4 years by the Council, having been nominated by member states.

Put bluntly the EU now mirrors the old Soviet Union almost completely.

The Office of the President of the Council of Europe and the Council itself mirrors the USSR president and the Soviet Praesidium. (unelected)
The European Commission mirors the Politburo. (unelected)

The European Parliament mirrors the Soviet Duma or the Hall of the Peoples Representatives. (elected, although in USSR choice of 1 candidate, a rubber stamp parliament in both cases)

The Committee of the Regions mirrors the Great Hall of the Peoples, the Regional Heads. (in EU unelected, in USSR elected, although only choice of 1 candidate)

Laws in the UK are implemented on the basis of directives from the European Commission, which are then presented as Bills/Acts of Parliament/Statutory Instruments for those areas of exclusive EU competence.

Policy on shared competency is created by the Committee of the Regions and implemented by Political parties in National Governments and Local Authorities, and by Regional Development Agencies, Regional Assemblies and Regional Grand Committees (The regional alternative to Westminster).

And has been since 1994. That is why I consider Westminster a theatre, PR men like Cameron and Clegg pretending that power still lies in Westminster. That is why I want it all back until the people decide whether this is what they want and wish to continue this unaccountable relationship with Brussels. The primary aim of the Albion Alliance by making MP's personally responsible to their electorate.

The Committee of the Regions has a subgroup called the Lisbon Monitoring Platform (LMP). It is comprised entirely of members from the Committee, and some of its goals are as follows:

- Involve local and regional authorities in the Lisbon governance process for a better implementation of policies linked to Lisbon goals.
-Examine the evolving relationship between the Lisbon Strategy and the Cohesion Policy (e.g. earmarking)
- Monitor the involvement of the local and regional level in the governance process
- Identify the obstacles encountered by local and regional authorities in implementing the Lisbon Strategy.

Lisbon Monitoring Platform (LMP) annual Report (oh, they've moved it) on the implementation of the strategy reads as follows:

In 2008, every LMP member is running policy programmes in one or several Lisbon-related policy fields, as was the case in the previous years. In particular:

− more than 90% of them have programmes ongoing in the fields of innovation, the environment, the business environment;
− 85% are active in the field of human capital policy;
− around 75% of them are running programmes for industrial promotion and employment;
− the sole exception is the internal market field, in which the number of active LMP members in 2008 fell to around 25%, less then half than in 2007.

(Seems that they have moved this LMP report document so you cannot see it any longer, the usual practice when exposure of their documents come to light). No matter, I have attached it at the bottom of this post

Ok, So what has all this to do with Dan Hannan?

As I read and re-read Hannan & Carswell’s The Plan I can now see that it is a ‘democratic’ plan not for the UK, but for an EU consisting only of Regions, post National parliaments. A plan for a deeply entrenched Communitarian empire offering a faux democracy only at the local level is something reminiscent of the Soviet form of ‘democracy’.

As it is a plan to reform localism within regions of the EU, (but as Hannan himself has now admitted it cannot happen as the EU is not open to reform from within), what purpose is being served by these ‘progressives’ such as Hannan and Carswell other than to distract and to keep dissenting views within the Tory camp.

Whilst The Plan has many good elements they are only valid if they are introduced for the right reasons, unless it is unequivocally aimed at a UK outside of the EU, Dan’s motives will always remain suspect. So I think Dan must climb down off the fence and declare himself.

In my original article I said:

Remember that the objective overall is the elimination of Nation States. The European Commission has long stated that given the opportunity they will push for QMV on all matters. Barosso is on record as saying that they will work swiftly to remove all legal barriers.

Therefore is is most likely that in that 5 month period The Passerelle clause will be invoked to allow QMV on ALL areas of competency whilst there are still National leaders who are able to be pushed around.

The flexibility clause will also be used to acquire powers to ensure that if national leaders do not play ball, under the framework to attain its objectives, it will simply take them. If they have no intention of using these powers, why put them in the treaty.

Originally I though it would happen over a number of years, as the Council of the Regions gains influence and power transfers in Brussels over the Council of Ministers.

It will be the Council of the Regions who will call for the closing of National Parliaments, citing interference in regional affairs. In our case, that call would probably come from either the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly.

As if to reinforce my view, Dan Hannan put out another article today, calling for the vote on Scottish and Welsh independence.

It has become clear for me that Dan Hannan is not the saviour and spokesman of Liberty that many assume him to be. His writing tells me that he is working for ever closer integration of the EU, not for the best interests of those he represents in Britain, and whilst I admit he is trying to put a nicer face on it, his Federalist credential are becoming clearer by the day.

And before campaigns such as Albion Alliance really take hold and start having an impact, the Federalists are in a hurry to complete the split, the breakup of the UK into 'self governing' regions so that there will no longer be a UK to effect a withdrawal.


I daresay that a lot of what it says above in the piece is not true or just has not been implemented yet, and that is what scares the living daylight out of me. But further it leads me to question, yet again, the Tory way of campaigning. They exhibit an air of malcontent towards their prospective voters and it seems threaten them with 'voting anything other than Tory means five more years of Labour'. When so much of our sovereignty is fixed in Brussels then why does it matter who we vote for? As the article outlines, we do not make the decisions neither does Westminster but Brussels. Remember how Tony let slip that creating Holyrood was part of the "process" quite what that meant back then few could envisage but we all know now. The think tanks bang on about devolution being such a success yet the normal man on the street asks 'why the fuck did they do that'? The elite, dear boy, the elite they know what is best for us. Dave has furthermore explicitly stated (on the Andrew Marr show) that he will not hold an in-out-referendum so I am still left wondering why are we to vote for the tories? A bit of cosmetics here and there to ensure that the masses thing that something substantial has actually happened in our relationship with the EU, but that will be the full extent of it.

Also here is the very chilling item PJC speaks of "Item 13, Achieving the Lisbon Goals though coordinated and integrated territorial policymaking" written by our very own government in Brussels. Jolly good we have them watching over us, god knows what we might do otherwise.



Tuesday, 24 November 2009

I emailed Chris Grayling and this is what he replied

Dear Mr. Grayling,

My correspondence to you is with regards to the logo of the Home Office. You are with all certainty going to take office next year and as such you will be in control of the Home Office. You recall that Jacqui Smith as Home Secretary removed the Royal Crest from the Home Office at a price tag of £30,000. This has not only created all manners of confusion but it was also a direct insult to HM the Queen and our constitutional monarchy. As for the confusion, all posters etcetera at airports and ports still bear the old logo but the letters sent from the Home Office all have the new ghastly one which simply reads "Home Office" with no hint of Royal Prerogative. Go to the Home Office website and there is a mix of new and old logos being used here and there around the website. Reinstating the old logo should be a trivial matter (and cheap) since the majority of Home Office material still use it.

Will you under a Conservative government reinstate the old Home Office logo and end New Labour's attack on the Monarchy?

Yours Sincerely

13th Spitfire

This is what Mr. Grayling, Shadow Home Secretary, replied :

Dear Mr. Spitfire

Thank you for your message. I’m certainly not taking anything for granted at the moment – but if we are successful at the election, this is an issue we will look at. I can certainly think of many better ways in which the original £30,000 could have been spent.

Best wishes

Chris Grayling
-----------------------

(obviously I did not use the name '13th Spitfire')

Monday, 23 November 2009

EU Democracy 'innit'? (EU Democracy = 0.008% of electoral vote)


Thanks to Mrs. Synon for this one. For all the American's fault they at least elected their poodle.

Furthermore over at Open Europe we have it that Mr. Brown has yet again sold Britain down the river (yet another reason for reinstating treason to the statute book with compulsory firing squad). You might wonder why we are not all up in arms about this great betrayal? Seriously, who gives a shit anymore we know the man is comprehensively incapable of running his own life let alone this country and he is without a doubt the worst PM the UK has ever seen and by the looks of things, probably the last PM with any real power as Mr. Cameron will takeover the reigns with barely 10% of legislation not tied up in EU directives. People say that we should not mock him for his e.g. bad eye - why? He has destroyed the lives for millions of people, not just in this country but also in others. He is personally responsible for the death of thousands of British and foreign nationals, yet we are not allowed to mock him because that is somehow impolite, that we would stoop to his level? Never, Dante's inferno has Mr. Brown along with Mr. Blair firmly entrenched, and probably drowning (fingers crossed), in the Cocytus at the 9th circle. Should we be so lucky...

More importantly though why is not the blogosphere a bit more upset that EU will now destroy the city of London and give its function to Paris. Well, first I think we all knew it would happen. Secondly, we have stopped being surprised anymore at the ubiquitous and eye-watering destruction of this country. But thirdly and this is why I am not particularly fussed, as the city starts to wither away, the EU will have pissed of yet another group of people adding to the very long list already who are converted eurosceptics; doctors, farmers, fishers, employers etcetera. I will just sit back over the coming years, with a cup of tea in my hand and watch the 'EU Referendum' camp grow stronger and larger by the day. What is more though, pissing of the people who generate 10% of this country's wealth is well, hmm, not a clever idea mostly because these people are a lot more powerful than you average farmer who, quite rightly, is fuming with anger and the CAP, has preciously few resources to go with that venom. A banker on the other hand... If he finds that an entity will harm his ability to generate a profit he will do something about it. He has the 'dough' as it were.

In the end though I am no Douglas Carswell nor a Redwood or a Hannan. I know not the most intricate details of statesmanship nor the simplest of SW1 slang. I say few things which are actually worth listening to but speak more of what my common sense tells me; power should be grasped and held firmly by the people, like a mother holds her child. It should be defended at all costs from people who think they are acting as from a higher cause with that ignominious "hand of history" around and touching every political shoulder. A cause is not even worth the cognitive energy required to produce it, if it is simply an exercise in reversed enfranchisement.

Kings and Queens

This is a quite good, very dumbed down, description of the Kings and Queens of England and Great Britain to date.

Thursday, 19 November 2009

This EU President Business and his sidekick

Well, pushed by Blair, promoted by Brown, a career politician who never worked a 'real' job, helped sell our souls to the Lisbon treaty and married to a pollster. Would you like to meet her? Cathy Ashton (apparently she is a baroness but I only use that epithet when the person in question deserves it). Not fit to represent me, us or Great Britain. Yet somehow she is now our 'Foreign Minister' but of course the EU calls her High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

I would have been better if Tony Blair became EU president if we are to have one, at least he has some 'chutzpah'. Also for the fact that he would have greatly aided the eurosceptic campaign but I am sure Mr. EU-Wide-Tax wont disappoint either. Coincidentally, what rhymes with 'Herman', the new EU President, well of course 'German'. Fret not for I jest, of course the Germans had nothing to do with this did they? Xenophobia my arse, this is not xenophobia, it is just the plain, bare, deplorable dishonesty which is standing right in front of us, spitting down our throats while holding a shotgun to our balls. They could have been from bloody Mauritania for all I care, the very sincere disgust would have equivalent.

However these two will have to do, since they will aid the UK's final 10 years left in the EU - the countdown has begun. If the elite thinks otherwise there is little we can do for they command far greater resources than we do. But, we will sure as hell give them a run for their money, at the very least.

How and Why?

Why do we exist and does what we do make any significant or material difference to the world we are fortunate (well...) to be part of? Is the pen (keyboard) really mightier than the sword when the enemy (New Labour and the government) command nothing less than a small legion of forces with which it can swiftly and quickly deny or block a story altogether. Are those forces in turn completely demented or are they just that corrupted that they do anything for money? How is it that 27 people are to decide the potentially mightiest politician in the EU and they say nothing? How can it be conceivable that a newspaper calls its reader idiots after they refuse the global warming shenanigans? Surely that is the newspaper's fault for not doing enough brainwashing to get its message across?

These questions have all terribly simple answers to normal people who still have a sense of duty and moral conviction that something is terribly wrong with this country. When grave stones are being consecrated by the authorities for they have become a health and safety hazard. I am trying to put myself into that person's clothes, how do you think when you have been tasked with such a mission to kick over graves... 'I am about to tip over these century old graves because my council says so - Jolly Good Then!' It is that last part of the person's hypothetical mind waves that have become and issue in this country; the blind acceptance and conformity where before there was a moral objection to something so monumentally stupid as tipping over a grave stone. This of course is something of an extreme example and I expect it wont be long before we hear heads rolling on this one, I know that I would be all the rage if someone (if that 'someone' turned out to be employed by my council there would be hell to pay, sure this is the internet and empty threats are ubiquitous but this is not one of them) kicked over my grandfather's grave stone. You would see nothing short of ballistic blitzkrieg on my behalf and I am a fairly sensible person - imagine someone who is a bit off the hook. Murder she wrote.

What we write now, this and many posts before it and what people like Mr. North, Guido and Iain Dale or Leg Iron, write - does it make a difference and does it matter? Perhaps, the fundamental difference between the MSM and bloggers is that we retain our common sense where the rest have fundamentally lost it. The Guardian yesterday ran a completely non-story about the M0D helping out Top Gear, where their twist was that they had spent taxpayer money and soldiering hours (which simply was not true and it was a downright lie). We know that this is complete BS, not because it is the Guardian, they sometimes have very incisive cover on the most fascinating of issues even though they are Labourites, and so it appears do most comments. Which is why we must consider what makes the media abandon its common sense when it is writing the simplest of issues and why don't they huff-and-puff more when something really paradoxically cockeyed has taken place. They instead insist that because they are a media outlet they must remain impartial. But we all know this is complete crap as well, it is ridiculously easy to put a political label of media outlets today, whereas they are pretending that 'bias' is like French to them - c'est quoi monsieur?

Why the charade? Be honest for once in your miserable lives.

Some music for ye oldies

Now do not fall of your chairs ladies and gentlemen, it is just a bit of good old classic rock'n'roll courtesy of the Bronx. It is has a good line "we re-wrote the standards" which reminds me of someone I know... oh yes! It is the good old government -again. Here we go:



We got a new design
Excess redefined so you can dream it
We rewrote the standards
Covered up the old scars so you would believe it

Polar music price anyone?

Monday, 16 November 2009

National Symbols on the EU Agenda to be off the Agenda

We hear that the new front-runner to be the first EU President is committed to a European national anthem and the replacement of a range of nationalistic symbols. Which is why I must ask you naive little Tory voters, what did you really think would happen? This is the beginning and it does not matter who we vote into Westminster now, hung parliament or not, NO-ONE will do anything about the leviathan that sits proudly in his new tower in Brussels. Yet you still apologise for the Tories?

The Huntsman, ever so clever, has summed it up well again:

The assault on the remaining power held by member 'states' is already well under way.

"'Lisbon Treaty should mean single EU seat on IMF board'
Britain should give up its place on the International Monetary Fund to make way for a single European Union seat on the fund’s board, a leading economist has said."

http://tinyurl.com/ylgpmt2

"Italy bidding for EU seat on UN Security Council
Italy has launched a new bid for the European Union to have its own seat on the United Nations Security Council after the passing of the Lisbon Treaty."

http://tinyurl.com/yecszhz

"Italy's Foreign Minister says post-Lisbon EU needs a European Army"

http://tinyurl.com/ykzcdft

This points up the dereliction of duty implicit in Hague's vague promise to address the issue of the UK's relationship with the EU over the course of the next Parliament.

The future of Tory Euroscepticism is going to be traduced by a failure to meet head-on and forthwith the power-grabs that the EU will seek in the next twelve months. Their task is going to be all the simpler by virtue of Hague having effectively said that he is going to dither, procrastinate and wriggle like a worm out of doing anything about the EU and the consequences of Lisbon.

In such manner does the leadership of the Tory party wave off like an irritating fly the genuine and deeply felt Eurosceptic views of its backbenchers, PPCs, activists and members.

Well, the EU Comrades, with whom Cameron and Hague will soon be sitting down to so many lavish dinners, will have noted this planned procrastination with care and will be hard at
it from the 1st December.

It is right for the TPA to focus on "the economic cost and waste of the European project", but that may well be pointless if the source of the politcal power and legal authority to create that cost and waste goes wholly unaddressed until such time as Hague gathers up his skirts and finds the courage to deal with the EU.

Euroscepticism is being betrayed by the deliberate and carefully planned inaction of the Tory Leadership. The Party that stands behind them must make up its mind whether it is prepared to let them fiddle whilst Brittania burns.

So really, REALLY, if it is just a friendly trading area why the fuck do they need an army?

Sunday, 15 November 2009

Not exactly a rush for the Tories

I have for the past 30 minutes been floating around the blogosphere in search for something interesting to read for my morning tea. I realise that at the time of this writing is 2.30PM and any tea drinking should have been done ages ago. Well, I say this; I am student, yesterday was Saturday, you do the maths. Alas, moving on one is desperately struggling to find something very interesting to read mostly because my fellow bloggers probably have not arisen yet from their rosy slumbers dreaming of a better future. I am sure that once they do wake the full wrath of their malcontent will spring forth like Labour in 1997.

Now, whilst there might not be any grand posts to read right now there surely will be by tonight. But on this note I wish to go quite on a different subject altogether. Most of you will have noticed how Labour won the Glasgow North by-election by 58% when only 30% bothered to vote, put in other terms that means that only 17% of people actually wanted Labour to be in power for another shitty term. Fair enough, it is their vote and their opinion and one cannot but criticise their judgement but not their conviction.

But why did the Tories not win? Why were they almost beaten to fourth place by a gang of non-politicians who barely have a penny to their name (BNP) and where the Tories have millions upon millions of pounds pouring in from gullible donors wishing to get their hands on the next piece of British social architecture waiting to be privatised during their incoming reign. What will it be this time you ask? The BBC, Royal Mint, Royal Mail, Met Office and maybe even the MoD?

Just because something is mismanaged due to another government's misgivings does not give you the right to sell of our ancient institutions. We know you want to and you know we do not want to, we have told you time and time again; we like our national institutions, they provide pride where our government consistently fails - well 'pride' may perhaps not be the best word but I for one would have lunch with the head of the Queen Elizabeth Conference centre any day, before any one of the ministers from this government or the incoming.

So why is that when Labour are universally despised and will most likely become the third party at next election, HM Opposition are not cashing in on it? Sure they are consistently ahead 10% points in the polls but that is nothing compared to Blair before the election in 1997. The BNP are cashing in like never before and even the Greens and UKIP are hopping on that bandwagon. The latest poll on this issue has the minor parties on 18% where they previously only attained around 9%. Why are they not cashing in then? Everything Labour touches turns to rust and eventually dust - they are wholly incapable and fully incompetent when it comes to running this country and even the French could probably do a better job. We have sold of our electricity grid to them (EDF) so might we not follow suite with our government as well?

On a more serious note though, the Tories are not being honest about what they are going to do and certainly, probably, do not know what they are going to do. But most importantly they are wholly oblivious to what we want them to do.

Recall this poll, posted a few days ago. According to it Defence and Armed Forces, Immigration, Relationship with Europe (I presume they intended for this to be the EU since we seem to have little problem with the 47 nation entity that entails 'Europe' but are in a world of trouble when it comes to the 27 nation conglomerate known collectively as the EU) and Unemployment.

If we look at two of these areas one-by-one I think we will get a very clear picture of how the Tories, by this time in 2013, will be as despised as Labour are now. Any Tory supporters feel free to oblige me on the erroneous points I am, perhaps, about to make.

Unemployment: They will roll out a massive programme of apprenticeships. That sounds good but quite where are all these apprenticeships going to come from? The manufacturing sector only accounts for 12% or Britain's Economy and if you think that lads of 15-18years are going to be content with working in a boutique as part of their educations you are sadly mistaken. Boys are boys, presumably they will be given a choice as where to get their apprenticeship then? What about girls then? Well, if we are to believe the government's demonising statistics the problem makers are the white middle class boys ergo there wont be any problem with the girls. That seems to be the current orthodoxy at least. Lord Mandelson said something, for a change, clever, he figured we ought to start building 'stuff' again. Quite right Mr. Mandelson. What is more there is enough coal supply left to supply the nation for another 600 years. Dig the damn thing up, process it, invest in clean technology and burn it. Mr. Cameron would never do such a thing of course because it would piss of the Greenies and interfere with the housing schemes being built where the old coal mines once stood (there are a 1 million empty homes in London alone, what is that figure nationwide, why must we destroy the Green Belt when there simply is no need?)

Of course there is the elephant in the room which no one ever discusses. I was speaking to a Polish friend the other day and he was saying that he could not believe how tolerant we are in this country upon which I went into a tirade of why this was, connecting it with relevant pieces of history showing why extremist parties have had such a hard time (until now) in the UK. He went 'aha' and only concluded that if 2 million Brits had flowed into his country the equivalent of the BNP there would have got a majority and formed a government. What this little analogy is to purport is that immigrants do take jobs and if the government has a back-up plan to find jobs for the domestic youth then that is fine, problem is of course that there are not nearly enough jobs to go around since there is no back-up plan. We get the regular government pundits telling us that immigrants are not stealing jobs and how they add lots to the economy. This is another one of those common sense areas where it simply is not worth the time and energy listening to what the government has to say on the issue. You must have balanced immigration or quacks like the BNP start to rise up and demand to be counted. This ties nicely in with the unemployment issue in that people will be unemployed if there are not enough jobs to go around and haranguing the leader of the BNP on the BBC is not going to help particularly if the entire show is patronising the person whom more and more people are, wrongly in my opinion, starting to associate with.

Immigration: As the above paragraph hopefully showed there is a problem with immigration in this country in that it is far far too high. The tories propose to put a cap on these numbers yet they refuse to tell us what that cap might be set at. 10,000 or 100,000 we just do not know why they are completely untrustworthy on this issue. What is more they have not said if they are going to end the practise whereby immigrants are allowed to bring their spouses and children into the country after having settled down - a practise banned in every single european country but which the Labour government lifted in the UK in 1997, presumably as part of their plan to create a "truly multicultural Britain". What of the illegal immigrants then? There are as many as 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 illegals who bring absolutely nothing to this country at all. Going by what Boris said they will all get an amnesty if he were in command. Then we have the asylum seekers who Baroness Warsi so haphazardly told us was a legal term. Quite. However whilst she might be content that it is a legal term having reminded a man with a Law degree (Nick Griffin, and I know we should not take him seriously but we will damn well have to start to unless we want BNP MPs in the HoC - get of your lazy arse PC buts and write something constructive to aid the debate against the BNP instead of ostracising me for having reminded you that while Nick Griffin may have some pretty dodgy views he is not a stupid man) that was so, she seems to have forgotten what the 1951 Geneva Convention has to say on the issue. It says that an asylum seeker must seek refuge in the first country he/she passes through on his/her escape. Well Britain is at the end of the world as far as they are concerned and there is a whole swathe of countries between us and wherever they are coming from. They are by that token illegal asylum seekers who are preventing the truly desperate ones from reaching the UK and getting help. Why are they coming here? Simple, we have a very cushy benefits system where asylum seekers get £40 a week for their abode - an astronomical sum in some countries. If you want a really good analysis on the judicial aspect of them system please go here.

If you think I am telling you all this because I am cold-hearted capitalist scum you are wrong. I am telling you this because we cannot help people anymore who really need British help. What will the Tories do about all this? Nothing, everything they have proposed so far smacks well below average for they might lose voters in their quest to make the UK a better place, why they refuse to make the tough choices. Which is why I will reiterate my diktat time and time again; the Tories will not win in 2013 but neither will Labour - the oligopoly on British politics has ended.

Saturday, 14 November 2009

The world according to Americans




The Albion Alliance

I you kept your ears and eyes screwed on for the past few days you will have heard about the Albion Alliance which seemingly is only an internet phenomenon as of yet but perhaps they will spring forth and become one in the myriad of 'pseudo-think tank/cross party alliance -thing-ish' which act to purport a united front on an issue. Good for them I say and good riddance.

However, (there is always a 'however' if you are British and a 'but' if you from the American school of ambivalence) the Alliance was formed to bring together people from all parties who want a referendum on the EU. Though this is good news surely they could have made a better job on their webpage which looks like a drunken monkey made it. My blog looks better - and that is not being conceited that is just the honest truth (and this is basic template with a few tweaks). Appearance matters particularly if you have the Guardianistas and BBC-mongs breathing down your neck. They will pull you apart piece by piece and convey to the deluded public that you were the ones who were in the wrong for wanting a referendum on something as trivial as the EU - stupid people! Ignorance is strength did you not know? And that is that Fraser Nelson over at the Spectator has some interesting thoughts on this whole EU caboodle - well worth the read, I am more inclined to agree with the comments to the piece though; no real change in the UK's relationship with the EU will come as long as Cameron is PM.

Get your act together before the Guardian does its "take" on the Albion Alliance which they are destined to say is 'doomed'. If you read my previous post however you will see that the reality is another and the EU is becoming an election issue. Splendid I say to that. As Ceasar would have said on this issue, "alea iacta est".

UPDATE: Having received a very courteous response form Mr. Higham of the Albion Alliance I should let it be know that I wholeheartedly support the endeavour and will offer my services as far as they go. This post was merely intended to give warning of the immense power of the MSM. To put Mr. Higham at ease possibly it should be reminded that 'a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has'. The only problem of course being that we are not a small group anymore.

The EU does matter, apparently

If you want some proper analysis of the EU then there really is no other place than EU Referendum - if there is something Dr. North does not know about the EU then it is not worth knowing.

We see on another note that the EU issue is quickly becoming a voter concern, contrasting nicely with the pundits on ConservativeHome who claim only a rogue 1% of the nation (that would be you and me who actually read the papers and reports coming out from Brussels) actually give two hoots about the EU. Well, I can comfort you that according to PoliticsHome that 1% is woefully out of date, where 31% strikes a better chord with the pulse of the electorate. That said though only political nerds (like you and me) actually read what it says on PoliticsHome. According to the website they weigh it by a country wide party ID so that it accurately reflects the country wide opinion. I cannot but wonder if that is true...

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Einstein was clever but...

“As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable”

A sovereign nation possesses great power because of itself and asks not beyond itself safe for the safety of its own people - at least that is the optimists simplistic view of the world. The pacifist will share it as well. The rest will realise that reality is not as rose tinted. Power must stay with the people for they alone are the final check on the executive's power when its ends start to justify it means, as is the current situation.

Which leads us to dreary prospects of wars - the necessary evil if you will. I have been noticing a lot of blogs lately positing widgets and posts suggesting exit strategies from Afghanistan. Yes, soldiers are dying there in obscene numbers thanks to our insane government. We cannot get away from that until we get a new government. However, say we give these bloggers the benefit of the doubt and we do withdraw from Afghanistan? What then? What was the point of the ultimate sacrifice for the soldiers? But even more so what will happen once the America, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands leave (countries which are actually doing something constructive unlike Germany and France which have their troops posted up north were there is precious little fight, at least not on the same scale as down south)?

Imagine a far away land completely left to its own devices, close to a lot of questionable and rough nations who would happily flog the people a couple of tons of weapons for a quick buck with no regard for the consequences. A far away land which has been seemingly at war for the past century is to be left to its own devices again. If we leave the country will destroy itself from within and will take others with it and there will a Tesco of Fundamentalists ruling the country again but this time very much stronger, spurred on by Islamic fanatics from around the world. If we leave we truly have lost the plot and this has been said about many a wars previously but this one we simply cannot afford to loose. If we lost the Falklands that would not really matters but loosing Afghanistan... The prospects are horrific.

Monday, 9 November 2009

Sports and Sovereign Decline

Have you ever thought about this very curious relationship? Britain is really going to the dogs, we top most bad lists in the world for being the worst, be it knife crime or teen pregnancy. Yet during Labour's disastrous and treacherous handling of this country for the past 12 years there seems to be one thing which has improved: British sport. We are doing extremely well in most things, yesterday heavy weight champion of the world, British. Or take the Olympics we were the fourth best nation in the whole damn thing. I am not terribly into sports I must admit but I thought this a very curious coincident which could not be passed over.

Sunday, 8 November 2009

An analysis of the EU policy

One cannot propose that I have uttered the most intelligent of words on the recently announced EU policy for the Tory party. Certainly I exhumed my great dissatisfaction at the blatant non-functionality of the entire ordeal which currently functions as 'policy' for the party, and in the process was castigated at the Crème de la crème of Tory grassroots movement; Conservative Home. I have explained why I see no fault on their behalf for destroying my person, after all they are trying to win an election so who could blame them, alas we shall not dwell deeper into that little chestnut. Yet in my book, whitewashing lies and contradictions of geopolitical proportions is, well, just not very clever. The lie might have travelled half way around the world even before the truth has got its boots on, but eventually the truth-with boots-will catch up much like tortoise eventually caught up with the stroppy and arrogant hare.

As such Mr. Cameron has kicked the EU issue into the long grass as it currently stands and the eurosceptic majority of the party have accepted this, for now. They have accepted, erroneously in my opinion, that a major clash with the EU will do nothing for their chances and assuming that the leadership really is eurosceptic (which I highly doubt) then they must have made very careful calculations as to what their future policy on the EU might be. Sure it is a great soundbite to say that 'never again shall power be passed to the EU without a referendum' - it sounds great, it really does, but it is a soundbite with a clever calculation. It assumes quite rightly that most people have no idea how much power Brussels already has and that there is simply not any real power left for Brussels to get once Lisbon comes into force on the 1st of December. Most people are not well versed in EU law - how could they be? They are not familiar with the principles of 'engrenage' (gearing of power) nor the principle of 'Acquis communautaire' (the power which has been required by the EU stays with the EU). And one cannot blame them either for these are remarkably boring and difficult concepts which only a few master; eurocrats, bureaucrats and eurosceptics not politicians (if that were so then phrases like "British jobs for British workers" could have been avoided).

Cameron's policy is thus naive and quite foolhardy for he knows that his policy, as it stands, will not work - he cannot claw back powers for that would require the explicit consent of the other 26 nations (QMV system). This is on the same scale as the Lisbon Treaty not being the Constitution; everyone knew it was yet the government kept denying it. Well, Cameron and co. will be the government in a few months time and they will be challenged in one years time at the very least, as to what has been going on with their EU policy. We will see that all the bullet points in the policy; the referendum pledge on future powers, the ratchet clause approval of parliament before usage, social and employment law recall and the reversal of 'acquis communautaire' were all in vain. He has also said that if his demands are not met he might hold a referendum on something - this something is the very core of this post for that 'something' could turnout to be far worse for the Tories than what they now think they have cleverly dodged.

If Cameron had given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he would have a strong position to go to the EU with. With his grand standing respect for EU Law ("It is law, we cannot stop this treaty as little as we can stop the sun from shining") he could have used the same principle for himself, if not all 27 nations have ratified the treaty it cannot become law. Labour ratified the treaty but the British parliament runs on the long standing and very much respected tradition that no parliament is bound by another; what Tony and Gordon did is not law for David. What is more nations nearly always only pay lip-service to the treaties they sign in the name of their people. The USA withdrew from the anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 - certainly a lot more important for global peace than the Lisbon treaty. Repudiating a treaty is a real act and not inanimate as the leadership appears to think. Yet Mr. Cameron does not have enough 'chutzpah' to pull of such a move for he might in all his haste upset someone and that he could not bring himself to do, now that he has relaunched the Tory party as 'Compassionate Conservatism'.

This is as sure as day follows night; Dave cannot accomplish any of the subclauses of his EU policy. It is not possible and the other member states will not stand for it. Hence he will, if we are to take him for his word (the irony...), have to hold a referendum. But, and this is critical, what would that referendum be on? The Lisbon treaty? In or Out? Multiple Option referendum (In/Out, Rejoin EFTA, status quo, full EU membership, Schengen and the Euro and other possible options)? This person's humble opinion is that anything but a wholesale referendum on the EU is futile. We need to know where we stand if we are to be assimilated into another nation, if we consent then fine I will lay down my sword and go with the flow but if we reject this proposal then 'out' must mean out.

For now Mr. Cameron has dodged the issue, it is for another day, but while he is quietly gathering his powers to win the election, the eurosceptic faction is growing very much stronger as well and is only helped by the Tory apathetic position on the EU. As Mr. Cameron is ignoring the issue right now one day when he does find himself without options he will have painted himself into a corner. He does not want the UK to adopt the Euro (see their manifesto if you bother to take it for its word) yet QMV of Brussels tells him that we have to. Or we do not want to be part of Schengen yet QMV of Brussels tells him that we have to. If he has such respect for EU law than he will either go with what Brussel says and face annihilation back home or he will need to call a referendum on the UK's very untenable position in the EU. Unfortunately for Mr. Cameron he has now exercised all options but one, the one who's ultimate fate lies with Westminster and not Brussels, the one which is feared more than the plague and even Tony Blair, the one true question which will require the PM to have balls of Titanium to pose; Do we stay in the EU or do we rule own destiny and future? That is the question.
"'Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few."

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Saturday, 7 November 2009

These people deserve death by firing squad

Fucking little cunts, this really infuriates me, I know I am normally fairly polite on this blog but this really takes the absolute piss. For fucks sake!



"Germany and France – two countries with sound historical reasons for distrusting the instincts of their own people – were the founders of this enterprise"

No you stupid woman it was founded by a British civil servant and a dodgy french bloke called Mr. Monnet. How on earth is the EU to be taken on if our "commentators" cannot even get its history right?

More, a request to readers; does anyone have a poll or something of the like taken after Cameron's U-turn on Lisbon on voting intention for the GE? The Conhome has one which states that the party has not been hurt by the u-turn, but it being on Conhome makes it about as useful as a square circle.

Holy Schmoly


Sorry chaps for taking a pause from the very important issue of our country's future. But, hopping on the superficial bandwagon this is just too cool. Miss England is a soldier - for all this government's fuck-ups including HM Opposition, they could not rob us of our peculiarity. I am now a proud Englishman/British again. Whereas most nations produce some sloppy 'Head and Shoulders barely-legal-teenager with boob implants' who hasn't done an honest days work in her life, the English come up with a foxy solider (yes I know some of the other contestants were equally impressive but that is not the point). That, my friends, is very honourable.

Thank god we are still sexist, the world without beauty competitions is one I do not want to inhabit.

Friday, 6 November 2009

Annoying facts for dying New Labour and reviving Blue Labour


New Labour have shut down 122 Magistrate Courts and 22 County Court Houses since 1997. Just thought you might wanna know. If you are a Tory supporter I thought you might want to know as well; know that your party wont do anything about it.

Guy Fawkes Night

“Build a bonfire, build a bonfire,
Health and Safety in the middle,
And burn the bloody lot.”


Not exactly poetry but well worth reproduction.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Excellent

I can announce that I appear to be universally disliked over at Conservative Home. Excellent. Must be utterly annoying when a stupid little student keeps opposing the party line.

I am sure that the antagonists wont honour this blog with an appearance yet I would be delighted if they did. Tea and biscuits for everyone.

Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them and are always seemingly helped by the people who think the tyrant works for them. By pure deus ex machina, it would seem, history repeats itself.

Cameron Speech

1."We will amend the 1972 European Treaty to give the British people a 'referendum lock' so that no further powers can be given away without their consent. This will be similar to what the Irish have."

Pointless. The EU does not need the consent of the UK Parliament or The People of the UK (to whom Sovereignty, which the ruling political class has so cravenly ceded to unelected unaccountable foreigners, belongs) to assume whatever powers it chooses to seize. Lisbon gives them that power. A UK Sovereignty Act will be over-ruled in a trice by the ECJ and will be a toothless, cynical, meaningless gimmick.

2. "Our manifesto will give us the mandate we need." This avoids any risk of the unpleasantness of The People gainsaying the Ruling Political Class. And in this way WE (because WE know better) will decide for The People what they really want in a way which makes it really really easy to weasel out of our promises.

3. "Parliament will have to approve any use of the Lisbon Treaty's ratchet clauses that can take more powers by stealth."

Its too late. Lisbon gives EU full primacy over UK law. If the EU decides to utilise this power, nothing Parliament does can trump EU law. Its over and time people understood this.

4."We aim to renegotiate control of social and employment laws, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and criminal justice policy." And if they refuse, what, pray, is Plan 'B'? Send a gunboat?

5."European integration must not be a one way street. We aim to establish the principle that powers can be returned to nation states as well as given up." And if they refuse, what, pray, is Plan 'B'? Send a gunboat?

6. "I know that some people want us to go further but Britain is facing the most serious crisis in the public finances. Addressing that will be a Conservative government's top priority." Now thast you have told them this, they will use the distraction thus provided to utilise to the full their new powers. By the time you get round to the EU they will have grabbed a whole lot more power.

7. "During questions Cameron says he will use accession negotiations and budget reviews to press his negotiating demands"

If Cameron does not play ball, the Euro Nabobs will simply alter whatever rules they need to dispense with his consent. The power of Provincial Governors to hold anything up is essentially nugatory.

The Euro Nabobs will take one look at this and fall about laughing. Never has such a large white flag been run up before battle is joined. They now know Cameron does not have the guts or moral fibre to take them on and will now do as they please when faced with such a Paper Tiger.

Remember: the Sovereignty of the UK belongs not to the Leader of the Tory Party or to the Conservatives. It belongs to us: so give us our country back!

Courtesy of the The Hunstman.

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

"The electorate does not care about the EU"

Really? They do not do they? Strange then that the Lisbon defeat is the fourth most viewed item today on the Telegraph homepage.

Tuesday, 3 November 2009

UK in EU; a voice in the world

Here is a counter analogy to the monstrously distorted logic in the title of this post, provided by one of the innocuous users of Conservative Home.
Does Katherine Jenkins believe joining a choir gives her a stronger voice? Or does it just dilute her voice and take away her star quality?
As such, today the real battle begins. The electoral commission seems to think that it has struck gold with its effective destruction of UKIP. Their logic goes something along the lines of "if the real eurosceptics have no eurosceptic party to represent them they will note vote eurosceptically" massive cock-up there in the logic I am afraid. Who is worse news for the electoral commission than UKIP? (Hint: it is a three letter acronym)

Monday, 2 November 2009

Cameron U-turn and that picture...

Dizzy makes an extremely good point about this election campaign advertisement as issued by the Tory party. How long before other parties start using but with Cameron's face instead?

On a more happy note though, it is great to see that Britain outside the EU is actively and seriously being discussed now on blogs and the MSM. Hopefully that will turn into a proper national discussion.

Update; I seriously hope Cameron gets his act together, read some of the comments on newspapers who covered the story so far - every other comment is one saying something along the lines of 'that's it I am voting UKIP/BNP'. The EU is a very big issue for most people even though the MSM constantly asserts that it is not - they would wouldn't they? It is the same with immigration, they kept claiming that the British were all chilled out about that noodle, well that came back and bit them in the ass did it not? 12 years of New Labour have set in motion a trail of thought, I reckon, that presents itself in such a way that the electorate will not be taken along for a ride, not again. After 12 years of New Labour they will be dead certain that they get what is says on the package.


UPDATE:

It took less than 24 hours for the picture discussed above to appear here.

The Grand Prediction - it is catching on

I take it that most of you who follows my musings and rants have read my grand list of predictions for coming political history of the UK Well they are catching on. Here is a comment from Benedict Brogan's blog:

I hope you are right about Cameron, but I can’t make myself believe it. Cameron thinks he will be able to dodge the EU question forever because he believes at heart that big, centralising government (ie the EU) is such a good thing that no one could possibly disagree. The best hope for conservative values is that UKIP draw enough votes to deny Cameron the keys to number 10. We suffer five more years of Brown, but we will have the same policies whoever wins so that is no loss. As a result of his defeat Cameron will lose the leadership of his party and probably defect to his natural home in the Labour party, taking the Cameroons with him. Traditional Conservatives and UKIP will join forces, perhaps calling themselves Conservatives, perhaps not. The EU sceptic/small government party that emerges will go into 2015 (because Brown or his replacement will hang on until the last possible moment) ready to fight and win a victory that will actually change something. Given the mess they will inherit they will be vilified for a generation, as Thatcher is, and for the same reason – the left prefer to blame the doctor for administering strong medicine rather than the disease of socialism itself.

I actually wrote to Hague suggesting the plan you outline in your final paragrtaph, but never received a reply.

As William Rees-Mogg has it
Historically, Britain has repeatedly wrecked European empires; they defeated Spain in the 16th century, royalist France in the 17th and 18th, and Napoleon in the early 19th. Britain outside Europe might again become a factor of division inside Europe.

Not to mention the Germans in WW1 and the Germans in WW2. I think we are heading that way again. It might be pertinent to add an 'if Cameron does X' - Cameron will not be the person who takes Britain out of the EU. 'Simples'

Sunday, 1 November 2009

UKIP Protest

UKIP is seen as a protest party, a party to vote for if you want to protest against the main parties' policy on the EU. I officially announced my intention to vote for UKIP months ago and ConservativesHome's assertion today only reinforces that decision, the one that clearly states that DC wont give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. There was never really a chance to be quite honest that the noble knight in the form of Mr. Klaus could hold out against the might of the EU, with little or no help from the Tories, who apparently were on his side.

DC's policy appears instead to be a manifesto pledge to renegotiate key powers... You wonder why we vote for UKIP? If the Tory party cannot even comprehend the EU raison d'etre then surely there is no point in voting for them?

The EU's raison d'être is to get power, not just a bit of power; as much as it can possibly get its hands on. That is why it exists they want nothing less than a United State of Europe. Why people refuse to read about Monnet is beyond me but suffice to say it is a pointless exercise to have a discussion today about the EU with the lefties or centries - they still think it is a benign trading block with no strings attached. My mother blatantly refused to believe me when I noted apropos the Royal Mail strike, that there is a EU directive which states that national post services are to be privatised by 2010. My mother is a highly educated woman with loads of degrees from this and that university yet for all of that she has no comprehension of the real power of the EU. This is a uniform trend, until people start to understand what the EU does to nation states there will be no wholesale renegotiation of our position within the EU.

As for UKIP they are mostly yet a single issue party and will have to become serious soon if they want to be a fourth force in British politics. They are protest party still and my vote they have for I shall protest (I know this contradicts one of my earlier posts about voting). Also I am fully aware that they will most likely not get a single MP but that is not what a protest is about. A protest is about principles and mine have been severely undermined by this dishonest government and HM Opposition. Who have the audacity to take voters, like myself, for granted who think our support is unconditional - rest assured it is not.

The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.

We want friendship and free trade with our European neighbours – not political union.

Jobs

Our membership of the European Union is already costing jobs in the UK. Major construction projects now hire many of their staff overseas, with British workers not even having the opportunity to apply. This not the ‘British jobs for British workers’ the Government promised.

Immigration

The only people who should decide who can come to live, work and settle in Britain should be the British people themselves. We can only do this outside of the EU political union. The open-door immigration policy has been voted against by only one party – UKIP.


Trade

The UK has one of the largest economies in the world. We are an international trading nation, not just a European one.

The European Union is designed to meet the challenges of the 1950s, not those of the 21st Century. In the global economy in which we now live, we should not be focussing on the insular regional trading blocs, but opening our arms to trade with the rest of the world, starting with the Commonwealth.

Agriculture & Fisheries

When Britain joined the then Common Market, the price of membership was handing over control of our agricultural and fisheries policies and the surrender of our fishing grounds.
This has proved to be an ecological disaster, with common European policies driving farmers to financial ruin and devastating the marine environment around our isles.
Leaving the EU will allow us to regain control and put British interests ahead of European interests.

The EU Constitution

The British people were promised a referendum on the EU Constitution, now the Government has reneged on this promise.

The original constitution was rejected by voters in France and Holland. The Lisbon Treaty, which is the European Constitution in disguise, has been rejected by the Irish in a referendum.

The Government is determined not to allow your voice to be heard.

A vote for UKIP is a vote to say ‘No’ loudly and clearly. It may be the last chance you get.
UKIP is committed to a free, democratic, independent Britain which is governed not by the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels but by our own people through our elected Parliament at Westminster.

We believe that British taxpayers’ money should be spent on British taxpayers, on their schools, hospitals and pensions.

Just imagine what we could achieve if the £15bn cost of our membership of the EU was spent here, rather than being lost on fraud and corruption in Brussels