Who will you vote for?

Seeing as the Coalition has turned into precisely what we in the blogosphere said it would; New Labour all but in name, who are you going to vote for in 2015 (if not earlier)?

One should not bask in the glory of self righteousness but there is, inevitably, something regal, not to say grand, about being right again, again and again... Fret not, for I jest, but turning on a note of seriousness instead; every serious blogger from Mr North to Guy Fawkes said that this venture would go tits-up and they would just frolic in Blair's shadow, for secretly they adore him. That is highly inconvenient for us who don't, those of us who cannot find a single person who has been more detrimental to life in Britain, on every echelon, as a suitable analogy for comparison.

He truly is a nation-state destroyer.

The Americans have a very special military honour bestowed upon officers of absolute distinction. The honour is known as 'General of the Armies' and it is the equivalent of being a six-star general which is an exorbitantly high rank by modern day comparison. I mention this because Blair and New Labour ought to be bestowed this regal order for their dis-services to the United Kingdom. But what is more, the Coalition should do some deep soul searching before they enter the next election. Either they fight in Blair's shadow with the empty mimicry and zero principle approach to politics that was his zest. Or, they fight on their principles, from the spirit of their hearts; for what they truly believe in and for what is right.

I do not believe that 646 people who are well above average intelligence cannot see the problem with bowing to a foreign court, to disable the defences of the realm, to give money to those who do not deserve it, to those who would rather rip of the arm that feeds them, let alone bite it. It cannot be that 646 people of such statute, who have fought a campaign into that Mother of all Parliaments, should just lay down their arms and accept that status quo. I cannot accept such frugal subservience to power. People must have higher aspirations for their country, and especially MPs, than what currently passes for informed governance of Great Britain.

For make no mistake, if they do not change their ways, we will change their place come the next election. Right now there is no discernible difference between the three main parties, all we know is that the country would be better run without any of them.

In the grand scheme of Democracy

Today was another day when I, in my own mind, did something to improve democracy in this country. In my own mind. Let me have that.

I believe in an idea. I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with a country when it pays a foreign body to make its laws for it. When it has outsourced democracy; when it takes away the 'demos' in democracy and leaves only 'cratos' - power. I believe this is not only bad for the country, the nation, but potentially terminal. But that is just me. A nation cannot survive without its people, for then it is not a nation, it is a mere assembly, an assembly with no common interest or goal. Which seeks not to promote its values but merely lives for the sake of itself. Without dreams or aspirations, just the same old same old. I believe this is wrong.

Am I wrong? Well that is not for me to decide. For all I know outsourcing democracy might be an excellent idea, but that is not important. What is important is that it feels wrong. A small part of you dies every time you see that it has acquired yet more power. Like the Lernaen Hydra it just grows every time you try to cut it down. It prospers from disaster, it feeds on misery; misery for which it is largely to blame. We are becoming disenfranchised.

“Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” this is how we are told to live our lives with regard to it. We are not to bang on about it, not question it, not disagree with it - just accept it. If we question it we are seen as eccentrics, if we point out the obvious contradictions we are told 'but'. It rules by commandments like Moses, no justification but pointing to a higher source of absolution, as adequate explanation for its intrusions. But this is not the Bible. These are not stories written in metaphors and symbolism, this is happening now but we are refused our voice to question it, to rationalise it down to the fallacy it is. People are being denied their right to speak. History tells us that such a state of affairs has always ended in violence, as will this. Yet we are still called eccentrics.

I handed out another hundred leaflets today in my patch of London. It felt good. Although it wont make a shred of difference, I can at least point back to these days in the future when our children will ask 'why didn't you do anything?'. I can proudly look back and say 'we did, but no one else.' This is and never will be an exercise in satisfying one's ego, to excel to some spurious echelon of self-righteousness. It is not meant to invoke hatred of malice, it is meant to plant an idea. An idea we once had but have now lost. Beneath all this rhetoric there is an idea and ideas are bulletproof. I believe in this idea but my great task is to persuade other's to believe it as well. If I can convince just one person, just a single lonely soul, that my idea is better than what he previously believed then it will all be worth it.

This is not a religion, there are no grand books filled with moral codes of how and why one should live their lives. It is but an idea. It is a very simple idea. I have already stated the idea, you already know what it is; it is in between the lines of this post. It is in you right now or at least it should be. You should have reacted to what was said above in two words which are anathema to each other, outsourcing democracy. Now you know what the idea is that we have lost.

I have not even mentioned it by name, yet you all know what I am talking about. That is a testament to how little control we have over our own lives today. You might be able to change the small things in your life but, in the grand scheme of democracy you are nothing. Because you are nothing, we are nothing and that is how democracy died.

Thoughts on the Swedish Election

It has transpired that a xenophobic political party has transcended the allure of the sidelines and squeezed into the main stream of the consciously thinking swede. Xenophobia, or fear of that which is strange or foreign, is never a good quality in a person or entity mainly because we are all part of this world, we share the same genes and we are all fairly similar. A deranged muslim cleric can have his whole world crushed in a matter of minutes in the company of a fairly level-headed and well versed Englishman who will explain that Mohammed's perception of women does not fit into modern day Britain. Equally banning immigrants from Sweden makes little financial sense - this too a fairly level-headed swede can tell another not so open-minded swede of the far-left Swedish Democrat (SD) party (there is little point arguing with English lefties as to the socialist roots of the BNP, it is an absolutely lost cause to do it with swedish lefties).

There is a worrying, very disturbing indeed, verdict developing amongst the righteous, i.e. those who refuse to accept the wishes of the electorate, appear to refuse to listen to their fellow man. Sweden uses proportional representation and the Swedish Democrats got a full 6% (the horror!) of the total vote. The latest census showed that Sweden has a population of 9,259,000. 6% of this figure represents a full faction of 555,540 or just over half a million people (naturally not all of these voted but one has to extrapolate). This is a sizeable cohort of those eligible to cast their vote. A cohort who will see their decision scorned and judged based on the simple subject of fear. It is safe to say that Facebook has yet again a part to play in this; the righteous who I tonight am ashamed to call friends of mine are not exactly behaving, shall we say, graciously in the face of the result. They appear to think it is people's fault that SD have tonight gained mandates, but where are the real perpetrators, those who refused to be drawn in debate? To deny the right for a select group of people to voice their opinion is that not equally atrocious, if not worse? But for the sake of arguments lets suppose they are right; everyone with conflicting views to their own are wrong. The trouble then is, rather obviously, the age-old question of quis custodiet ipsos custodes—who guards the guards themselves?

Only when it suits the paradigms of the righteous, is democracy a powerful tool to wield in the face adversity. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. We should be bold enough to make a stand and do battle for our views and beliefs. But we must strive to be mature enough not to resort to unnecessary personal attacks upon people with opposing views. I regret to say that few men and women poses the personal self-restraint to accomplish this very simple feat. Here it is though the simple truth: most people have shit for brains and you can quite frankly convince them of anything as long as your argument is powerful enough, never mind if you have evidence or not, that can be fabricated. It is the strength of your conviction which really holds the key to power. The history of dictators is a testament to this simple but penetrating axiom. And if you cannot convince a measly half a million people that immigrants are not evil red-eyed orcs, then how the flaming fuck are you going to convince the rest that your policies are the right ones? If there was one book I were ever to write it would be about just that; how completely fucking incompetent most people are. If you can harness that collective ignorance then the country its yours.

Fear is that which the main political parties refused to tackle head-on, fear which they refused to acknowledge and henceforth let it be dropped from the debate, fear which they let simmer until it grew; the Swedish Democrats have never breached the parliamentary threshold before (one needs to gain at least 4% of the popular vote to get any mandates in parliament). Now they are faced with a prospect which they did not account for: neither of the main coalitions command a majority and will thus have to give into the demands of the ex-fringe. They could have avoided this by simply taking a shot at the title; the question of immigration. But no, they chickened out, like the French, they squirmed and shrank and did everything in their power to avoid that so fundamental question to every modern-day society: do we or do we not import more people? They should have known. They should have taken lessons from the British election which was held well in advance, they could have looked at the Conservative Party and learned from its failings. It too never focused on immigration or the EU. Issues which the electorate wanted to hear more about; more about what the parties were going to do about them. As it turns out, they never intended to do anything.

The incapacity to act, to have the shame and arrogance to run away from your responsibility as commanders and officers of the realm, that is what is happening yet again in another european country. To act as if you rule by divine right, like King John, shows a supreme disregard for your constituents but what is more, a pathetic ignorance and lack of respect for your country. The blame for the entry of xenophobes to the Swedish parliament can be laid solely and squarely at the feet of the established Swedish political elite. It is not, and never will be, the fault of the electorate; they chose what their heart tells them to and if you have a problem with that you have a problem with the foundations of democracy (unfortunately for you then, that will take more than a TV-interview to change). If you wish to change their minds you convince them of your superior conviction to that end. But you do never, ever, question the legitimacy and genesis of their suffrage. That right never has and never will be given to you.

UPDATE: The witch-hunt has begun. A group has already been formed calling for the expulsion of the SD from parliament. Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty. Furthermore, I suppose this post is a chief-demonstrator as to why I do not engage in Facebook but merely observe: If I did engage I would not have any friends left.

UPDATE 2: There are now calls, by a group, for universal suffrage to be revoked and remodelled into 'confined suffrage' so that only those with "compassion and decency" are allowed to vote. Apparently those 6% of the electorate are all bloodthirsty Sturmbannführers with a penchant for baby fingers. One wonders why hypocrites are never crushed under the weight of their own contradictions? One will probably continue to wonder but it is always fun to, in the meantime, expose some flaws in the otherwise bullet-proof moral armour of some famous people like, say, Mohandas Gandhi:

His description of black inmates: "Only a degree removed from the animal." Also, "Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals." - Mar. 7, 1908 (Reference: CWMG, Vol VIII, pp. 135-136)

UPDATE 3: All the major swedish newspapers have now increased the font size to the point where it covers 2/3 of your computer screen. They are highlighting the unholy wrong that has been committed by the swedish people: how dare they vote for a xenophobic party? (they actually use the term "racist party" but I actually happen to know the real definition of the word and SD are not discriminating based on race at all, they plain and simple just don't like foreigners) It is of course funny that they are not mentioning their own part in all of this; they like the established political bedrock rarely mentioned immigration either. The more populist side of the MSM have all started their mini campaigns where they "show solidarity with the different" - too little too late trying to erase their own failure (no doubt they will soon start writing articles about how they highlighted the immigration question all along* and that voters are all bigoted little proles) and being clever with hindsight, schmucks...

The press, the party apparatchiks and rent-a-celebrity are turning on each other and on top of all of this neither can understand why the foreign media are taking the piss out of them 'you stupid deluded swedes... Welcome to reality. Thought you were different? Think again.' The British post-election coverage was pathetic enough but this really is turning into full scale blue-on-blue civil war.

*About 10 minutes after this third update was posted one of the major newspapers posted an article on the policies of the SD, the first of its kind. Before the election thus was the level of political discourse: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, was swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion was suppressed and liberties surrendered. So well done you, MSM, you certainly got what you deserved.

The Magnificent 118

No chaps this is not a post about the 1922 Committee, I simply pay my homage and gratitude to them for daring to stand-up to the party machine. On the outside 'secret vote' does what it says on the tin, but in Parliament (I am reluctant to put a capital 'P' in Parliament for it would signify my respect for that institution, sadly that respect is dwindling faster than I thought possible) there is very little which is secret and most people know what is not.

I regret to say that I have been posting very sparsely due to extenuating circumstances; exam week is among us (or me should I say) and spend I most of my days hobbled up in the university library, studying and taking occasional brakes where a lot of anti-PC jokes are thrown about between myself and my peers. Lovely days these would have been indeed, had it not been for the blessed revision; where one needs to somehow fit a year's worth of study into the space of a month and actually know what one is talking about. A daunting task needless to say, but I remain reluctantly confident in not blowing my chances completely.

Until later, rejoice for there will soon be a '2010 Committee' and we can all have a laugh about 'progressive' politics; where apparently we have a new government but it is seemingly turning out to be no different from the past.

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.

"The Democratic Process" ha ha ha ha ha

I just had to show you this if you had not spotted it yet. According to the Guardian

"The British National party is close to finalising a pan-European alliance with other far-right political parties that would allow them to tap Brussels for hundreds of thousands more euros and greatly increase their power in the European parliament.

Anti-fascist groups have expressed grave concerns about the formation of the Alliance of European National Movements, warning that it threatens to undermine the democratic process." (my emphasis)

No you did not get it wrong it actually says "the democratic process" I shit you not.

Dirty Irish Eurocrats

Well we always knew that when the EU does not get its way it brings out the big guns of autocracy. I cannot be bothered to write something myself about this (too depressed) but will instead just lift the piece from The Tap Blog and commend him for not breaking down in tears over the death of sovereignty. If the EU takes as along to die as the Roman Empire we are fighting a loosing battle I am afraid.

"This is getting very dirty.

Many people in Ireland are right to suspect their Taoiseach of planning foul play in order to win this referendum. He has broken every rule in the book during the campaign, and the law has afforded little protection to the NO side with most of their posters getting dragged down, for example.

Now the COIR Campaign asked its activists to get a total of votes cast at each polling station at the end of the day, to see if the final totals checked out with the day's votes. But the Irish government who are responsible for 'storing' the ballot boxes overnight, are threatening anyone who enquires as to the number of votes cast from the presidinging officers, with immediate arrest.

It seems almost certain now that the Poll is going to rigged by ballot box tampering while the boxes are 'stored' overnight. This is a shocking development,but not a surprising one given the total disregard for legality displayed by the Irish government throughout the campaign.

Cóir has said that the State has undermined the confidence the electorate can have in the referendum process by threatening citizens with arrest if they proceeded with plans to monitor the vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

“Today we were told by Dublin City Sheriff, Brendan Walsh, that he had asked the Gardaí to take action against any of our volunteers who sought information as to the number of votes cast in a polling station at the end of the day,” said Manus Mac Meanmain of Cóir.

“To say we are shocked is an understatement,” he continued. “In conversation with Cóir, Mr Walsh confirmed that the information being requested by Cóir was compiled by the Presiding officer at each polling centre at the end of the day’s voting in any case.”

“But now he has threatened any citizen who politely requests that information from the Presiding Officer with arrest. This is simply outrageous, and will shatter the faith citizens should be able to have in this referendum process.”

It looks like there will need to be a third referendum now, as the results of this one will be suspect.

UPDATE - More shenanigans - A Fine Gael exit poll was reported by the Irish Times as giving a narrow victory to the YES side, 52% to 48%. But the same poll was reported on Irish TV, RTE channel, as 60% to 40%.

Earlier fears of illegal referendum behaviour expressed HERE"

It seems like the bloodymindedness of the Irish (most of them at least, nothing but praise for the brave who stood their ground) has gone. Seems a bit pointless now with their civil war and all as does the English civil war. Indeed any European civil war seems utterly pointless when our masters go and sign away our right-to-choose without a fight. If there had been a fight there had at least been a raison d'être left lingering after the war was fought and lost. Now? There is just and empty void.

What is there left to say then you might ask? Might the above just be a protection from the Irish government. To stop both eurocrats and eurosceptics from meddling with the vote. That is as about as likely as a halal pork sandwich. No expenses, legal and illegal, will be sparred in passing this treaty.

Here are my final pearls of wisdom before I wake up tomorrow and find the "yes, yes, yes!!!" screaming from the TV and a very smug Barrosso standing in the background 'thanking' the Irish for their continued support of the EU. All I have to say is, fuck (I could have said 'scheisse' or 'merde' thereby adding a dimension of tragicomedy to this whole drama but I stuck with the good old British 'fuck' because, well, I thought it appropriate that we display its grand standing as the magnus-opus of foulness one last time, before it falls under the aegis of political correctness) .

We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.

Well we are here now again the tranquility before the storm, the Irish referendum. I know what I was doing this time last year, reading Dracula by Bram Stoker. Quite a fabulous book I must say, and what is more very appropriate for the time being. I hope you saw what I did there; drew a parallel between vampires trying to establish a new base in England but currently only having a place in Transylvania. Enough of these childish thoughts though, the EU is here and the best we can really do is to make fun out of them and marvel at the many contradictions that mire the entire project. And we shall.

We must ask what precisely do our masters in Brussels think will happen once the Irish vote 'yes' today and when they have beaten every other remaining nation in the EU into submission. They have the passerelle clause of course (A Passerelle Clause also known as an Escalator Clause is a clause within treaties of the European Union that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas) which the House of Lords once called the "gangplank clause" there is still some bloodymindedness left in old Westminster I will give her that. They will never have to ask of our opinion again but that does not imply that we are incapable of forming one, that we need a nanny parliament to "represent" our wishes in Brussels. No, if anything this will produce the first true majority of EU rebels.

History always produces its blocks and they come and go like anything else; nothing lasts for ever there are no perpetual states of being. There cannot be any perpetual political states for it violates the second law of thermodynamics which forbids it completely. Perpetuum mobile is naught it cannot happen. We had three different reiches and a Weimar republic in the middle. British, German, French Empire and even a Japanese one. These symbols of power never last because they violate not only laws of nature but laws of man. When the powers themselves eventually realise this they try all sorts of things to extend their state of being, like curtailing human rights, imposing curfews, violently distorting facts even more so than now - and so on. But you cannot stop vox populi.

What are the British thoughts on the EU then you might ask? Well it looks like a very moribund project at grassroots level, but naturally that is not where the power lies until at the very end. All the data from the following polls except the last one can be found here at Democracy Movement (my emphasis).

• Nov 06 - Power 100 Poll, Times:

81% of UK businesses believed that Britain should not reconsider membership of the Euro.

• Harris Poll for the Financial Times, Jun 07:

A referendum on the new treaty is wanted by 69% of Britons, 75% of Spaniards, 71% of Germans, 68% of Italians, and 64% of French

• Populous for Global Vision 8-10 June 07:

83% wanted a referendum before the constitutional treaty becomes law;

14% were against.

• Ipsos Mori poll, 11/8/07:

81% of British people want a referendum on the new EU treaty. Only 17% agreed with Gordon Brown that Parliament should decide.

• ICM Poll for Global Vision, Nov 9-11, 07

73% wanted a Referendum on the EU Treaty,

18% did not.

23% wanted to leave the EU;

47% wanted a looser arrangement with the EU, based on free trade;

24% wanted us to remain a full member

• You-Gov Poll for Open Europe, June 08

Only 29% of Britons support full EU membership

In a YouGov poll commissioned by Open Europe, 24% said "the UK should leave the EU altogether" while a further 38% said that "The UK should stay in the single market but pull out of the other political elements of the EU", making a total of 62% opposed to membership of the EU as it stands.

• Survey for Radio 4's The World at One. Jan 09:

71% against adopting the Euro, 15% in favour

• ICM Poll for the Taxpayers Alliance, 22 May 09

69% want the Government to start ignoring EU rules

60% say that fines for disobedience to our Brussels masters should be ignored

75% want a referendum before any more powers are given to the EU

57% want to take back powers already given to the EU

• Com Res Poll for BBC Daily Politics, 19 Mar 09

55% wanted to leave the EU but maintain close trading links

84% said that voters should decide whether any further powers should be transferred to the EU

51% did not think there was any benefit in trade or jobs from EU membership

• Conservative Home poll of Conservative Parliamentary candidates, Aug 09

84% want Cameron to hold a referendum on Lisbon, even if it has already been ratified

60% want a complete renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU

Only 6% want to be "at the heart of Europe"

• YouGov poll for the Telegraph, 14 September 2009

43% said the EU should leave the UK altogether

57% of those questioned believe that a future Conservative government should offer a referendum on the ratified treaty, with only 15 percent saying there should be no such vote.

These polls show a growing sector of the electorate who are exceedingly unhappy with the EU and want to withdraw altogether. At the same time, of course, voting turnout in European Elections have been falling steadily over the years.

Only 34.7% of eligible voters even bothered to turnout this year compared to 38.5% in 2004. Why is this then, well it simply does not matter who we elect for parliament they cannot propose laws anyway, they have no real power and cannot possibly express the wishes of the electorate without it. They can express the wishes of the British electorate even less because most of us do not want the UK in the EU at all. UKIP could get all the British MEPs but they still would not hold the power to withdraw the UK from the EU. That powers lies ultimately with Westminster, well at least until the Irish vote 'yes' then the EU has to be consulted if a nation wants to withdraw, a process which will take at least two years during which time of course the EU will do all in its power to reverse that decision, like they have done in Ireland and did in Denmark with the Maastricht Treaty. In the words of the timeless Václav Klaus who called whole system to be abolished. "It's pointless to have European elections," he said. "That's like holding semi-elections." Quite.

I was always told to end my 'essays' with a quote, something which would really ram in the message which I was trying to convey. And I will do this not because I was told to but because there are so many quotes that survive on this issue and it is beyond me why we always ignore ancient immortal wisdom, this has happened before and it will happen again yet we always turn a blind eye. 'Hate' is not mankind's foulest trait, 'ignorance' has that blessing.

"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." - Barry Goldwater

Aaahhh EU law you have to love the democratic process

1. The unelected Commission proposes all EU law in secret
2. Their proposals are negotiated by bureaucrats from nation states in secret
3. The proposed laws then go to the Council of Ministers, still in secret
4. The EU Parliament itself cannot propose legislation
5. Our Parliament is powerless to change any of those laws
6. There is no appeal against them in the Luxembourg Court

Hat-tip: Lord Pearson of Rannoch

There is an awful lot of 'red' there which ought not be in the democratic process... I hope the dear reader understands my affection and love for sarcasm. If you cannot beat them, make fun of them.

As for the Lisbon Treaty, again, Mr. North at EU Referendum has a good take on it and Mr. Cameron.

Update: Turns out I was wrong parts of the above post. But I unlike politicians and dishonest people do not delete my previous posts and then claim never to have written them, I admit my own mistake and hope that people will think better of my character for this.

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

I stole this from Old Holborn

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of BMA science and ethics, said: "The BMA is not
anti-alcohol. As doctors our focus is to ensure that individuals drink sensibly so they do not put their health and lives in danger."

For which there is no more succinct reply that to quote from the Daily Mash:

Emma Bishop, a marketing executive from Twickenham, added: "How's about this? As an adult, I think a reasonable daily limit is me drinking as much as I fucking want.

"If it affects my work I'll get sacked. If it affects my relationships I'll be all lonely and sad.

"And as for my health, following a quick glance at my tax bill I've decided that the NHS will treat me and the government can keep its fucking opinions to itself."

With regards to this story over at Old Holdborn, highly recommended reading.

FFS can the media learn the difference between Right and Left

A lot of newspapers are running stories on the newly formed English Defence League (EDL) who are protesting against Islam. Once you were allowed to protest against Islam but not anymore. However this is not about Islam, there are few religions that I find as vile as Islam, but this is out of the question.

The EDL have been labeled, and I take this newspaper as an example of the misconception, "right-wing" by the Times.

I think a short recap of history is needed before we tare into this highly objectionable newspaper. How did the terms 'right' and 'left' - wing politics come about?

The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French Legislative Assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left.

Now the way the Times use the term 'right-wing' along with the article suggests that they are in fact fascists - the EDL that is. However looking at the proper fascists of history we see that not only one but two had policies which were suspectedly left-wing (along with the tiny fact that they both killed millions).

What is left-wing?

Centralised command control, trade tariffs, state owned businesses, increase in pensions (well not a necessary one but definitely there), expansion of the NHS and so on. A top down approach all the way through government basically.

Now the media have come to use the term 'right-wing' synonymously with 'baddie' however looking at the comments on the Times article few seem to agree with this stance which the MSM have, for some reason, adopted as their ipso facto approach to right-wing politics. I think we can safely say that the people can see through their little deception quite easily since the only people who do support them are the extremely violet UAF and New Labour apparatchiks.

Iain Dale and John Redwood adopt the similar approach as myself. However people tend to use as argument against this stance that Churchill said in 1939 that

I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war, I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among nations.

This is just a pure and blatant misinterpretation of history.

Churchill said this before he became PM, before the nazis started exterminating everyone whom they disliked, before war had been declared on Germany by Britain, before the WWII started through and through. What is more the quote is not even referring to Hitlers policies but his character as a strong man. This is not a defence of Hitler most certainly not nor is it an apology for the Nazis. But do not misinterpret history for political gains. That is what happens in '1984' and it is a very dangerous theme to play around with.

Demonstrating against a concept which you find objectionable, in this case Islam, is not "right-wing" it is Democracy and it is not a spectator sport.

Remember The Awe

Recall the familiar, if not yet proverbial, tune of Rule Britannia by James Thompson with music by Thomas Arne.

The lyrics of the chorus to the sung version ('Rule, Britannia' is a poem originally), please let me draw your attention to the part in italic...

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Rule Britannia!

Britannia rule the waves.

Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Never, never, never shall Britons be slaves, quite patriotic it is and the tunes of which have reverberated long into this century. It has touched hearts and minds, it has even permeated the darkest depths of political thought for who could well forget Margaret Thatcher's famous "No! No! No!" - speech?

As you might have guessed there is darker tone, a more deleterious background and an altogether lost sense of what the song was written for of what it was supposed to represent.

If we roll back the clock to the time of the Magna Carta Libertatum, signed by King John of England in the year 1215 (actually there is no evidence that King John could write but it did bear his seal). I will again give the readers of this account the benefit of the doubt and assume them scholarly knowledgeable of the Great Charter. Non-believers of this charter seem to think that even though it has been amended through the ages (quite a few times actually) and that it initially only applied to aristocracy and large landowners, makes it defunct today for all swathes of society even aristocracy and large landowners (I hope you can spot the stupidity of this argument even though Lord Mandelson likes to sport himself part of the 21st century aristocracy...) This is the view held by the EU apologist Nosemonkey.

Lets address this shall we?

The most famous of its sixty-three clauses said that no free man could be imprisoned, outlawed or exiled except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land, and that justice could not be sold, delayed or denied. It also contained clauses relating to the treatment of heirs and widows and to the payment of debts. It provided for uniform measures of wine, ale, corn and cloth throughout the realm. It confirmed the liberties of the Church and of all cities and towns and it sought to regulate the conduct of all local officials such as sheriffs, bailiffs and constables and ensure that they knew and observed the law.

The most significant part of this transfigured into what we today know as habeas corpus - directly from clauses 36, 38, 39, and 40 of the 1215 Magna Carta.

Did you know that habeas corpus only applied to aristocracy and large landowners? /sarcasm.

We have now come some way in constructing what to many is the best legal system ever to have seen the light of the sun, but we are not quite there yet.

The 1689 Bill of Rights is what is most important and significant for the whole purpose of this post. The official name of the act is

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the
Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.

Fancy you might think and I would quite agree. What it did in a massive slap-in-the-face-of-history summary was to establish that Parliament was the ruling power of England and subsequently Great Britain which was formed in 1707. We will not go into detail of the document the entirety which can be found here. There is however one very important clause which must be discussed, repeated and proclaimed over and over again...

“No foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm”

Before going into what this in turn has to do with Thomas and Arne let me again rub my heal into the balls of the EU apologetics who claim the Bill of Rights is obsolete because King William III, a Dutchman, passed it into law. Upon which they also add that a quarter of a century later the crown passed to a German King George I, who spoke no English (why they add this bit I do not know).

• Charles I of England (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) had Scotish and Danish parents - what does that make him? To the apologetics he certainly is not English. He was even born in Fife well before the UK came into being.
• Edward III of England (13 November 1312 – 21 June 1377) had a French mother and a English father - what on earth does that make him, he is of course not English with the apologetics.
  
• Stephen of England (c. 1096 – 25 October 1154) this poor fellow was born in France, had a french mother AND a french father he was really really really not English even though he was king - according to the apologetics.
  

As you can see their little argument that because a king happens to not be of a nationality, that was not even properly defined back then (they did not have fancy biometric passports like we do today), he can thus not sign a treaty and hence the treaty itself is not valid. Logic?

But here is what it really burns down to because of what was said in the Bill of Rights the EU is by virtue illegal. I do not have enough judicial or constitutional knowledge to know by what authority our parliament has signed away our liberties through the following treaties and accessions, all I know is that they have:

1. European Convention of Human Rights (Human rights should always be upheld as the highest virtue of a nation but it should be arbitrated by the state itself).
   
2. European Communities Act (1972)
3. Treaty of Maastricht (1992)
   
4. Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)
5. Treaty of Nice (2002)
6. Treaty of Lisbon (20??)
   

Alas I recall the famous lines of Rule Britannia; 'Britons never, never, never shall be slaves' this was true for centuries upon centuries and Britain, though not infalliable not at all, had created the finest form of democracy the world has ever known and probably will ever know again. At the end of the line, as we turn of the lights and enter the world of Hypnos, remember the awe and remember the days when we were free for it will be a long long time until we are again.

With this I take my leave for a couple of weeks during which blogging will be quite sparse.

Animus - pure and petrid ire

I had to trawl through the voluminous pages of a thesaurus to find words which adequately mimicked my feelings towards the government and the "establishment" with regards to this story highlighted by the ever so pertinacious Christopher Booker. The noun anger just did not tick the emotional box this time.

God forbid, this might sound strange, if a sufficient number of British bloggers became ministers in the future. They would literally, toe by toe and tooth by tooth, rip the foes of society to pieces. I say god forbid for there would be violence such is the anger contained in society today.

Again New Labour is to blame for the ills which now seemingly rain down upon us, day by day, as if they were inconsequential - a daily ritual of the British way of life where families are destroyed, crime is soaring, social services work for their own good, the government and the opposition, parliament, the establishment as created by Labour has been so indiscriminately uprooted so that society itself has become narcissistic and selfish to the core. The police, they are not the friendly Bobbies of old. They are now Left-trained thugs who see ordinary people as the enemy. A 'philanthropist' what is a philanthropist? Does anyone even know anymore?

You might have thought that I was going to analyse the story for myself to see if I could get anything sensible out of it - truth be told I am exhausted, not physically, but mentally. Every day there are more and more records, not evidence, that go to show how wrong the government of the past 12 years has been wrong in everything! There are no bright sparks to alleviate the pain either - and if one, somehow, managed to pass through the social constructs that now permit even the slightest sheds of progress or happiness to brighten up your day, you can be quite sure that if you were to dig a little deeper that bright spark was just another placebo.

The bitterness contained in this mind is to some degree long overdue, composure should be upheld at least for the good of the language ostensibly the only thing the government has not tinkered with. Scared one becomes when looking at blogs, reading comments on news sections, but most of all when talking to normal people. The next government will not be any better be quite sure of that for they are just that as well, a placebo, 'a substance having no pharmacological effect but given merely to satisfy a patient who supposes it to be a medicine'.

Britain is the patient, we are the patients, but the Conservatives are not the medicine nor are Labour. Sadly when this general election has passed and Labour are terminated and when the next general election has passed and the Conservatives dispensed, then we will see a medicine but there wont be anymore elections, for that is the essence of what shall come and it will be far more sinister than the Labour imposed hell-hole they insist on calling 'Britain'.

The Government will be afraid of its People

I did not intend to write a blog entry today, I am in the middle revision for my exams (Yes, sadly I am student at the height of my career as a professional student and by that virtue exams exams and some more exams). I should say something about the digusting behaviour that has been displayed over the past day at the mother of all parliaments, I should and I could, but I would rather not for it has been reiteraded better elsewhere notably by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan.

Slightly populist to mention these two politicians but there are few other that I care to honour with a mention in this blog. Simply because most of them make me so disappointed and sad (very emotional this stuff) makes me wonder why Cromwell even bothered to say

“we study the glory of god, and the honour and liberty of parliament, for which we unaminously fight, without seeking our own interests....i profess i could never satisfy myself on the justness of this war, but from the authority of the parliament to maintain itself in its rights; and in this cause i hope to prove myself an honest man and single-hearted.”

When today most of his work is being overturned, reversed, backtracked and simply deleted by that loathesome class of people that dare to put "MP" behind their name but challenge other professions, such as engineers, to have their title alleviated to a higher foundation - at least they have earned their title, what have politicians, with notable exceptions, done to earn their "MP"?

Consider for example military officers. They go through very hard training to become what they are; forceful leaders who can, in the heat of battle, stay cool and deliver orders to fufil a victory for their country and men. As a soldier you must recognise this in the form of a salute. It is not some old form of dusty gesture, invented by the likes of Napoleon or Caesar, it is an honour that shows them that you, as an officer, deserve to have that special distinction because of who you are not what you are. You are an officer but with that creed comes great integrity not to say honesty. But the most important thing is that you should never ever expect a salute you have to earn it from your men. Yes, they must by military code salute you when walked past but they do not have to mean it. Soliders are told to call Officers and Warrant Officers "sir" but only a handful of them truly attach any form of significance to their utterances.

Which leads us to the politicians. There are some truly vile people out their who brandish "MP" behind their name, whom I wish nothing short of death for, but being a democrat, I could never stoop that deep as to truly wish my enemy the sword. But it is not my intentions that matter it is my opinion of said man or woman that matters.

We still abode in one of the finest countries on the planet, we still have a parliament which is open and wanting for some real practitioners. Lady Westminster is currently like a burned out old truck, lying ditched by the road side, inhabited by rats and vermin, frogs and leeches - all the unfortunate creatures who did not have the fortune of mother Nature to be blessed with the beauty of the Eagle or the dashing of Pelican. Trucks can be fixed, there are some mighty skilled Mechanics out there despite the shameful shape of our manufacturing industry, who would be more than happy to take this truck, tow it to the garage and with time doing her up again and making her just as new as when she first rolled out of the factory all those years ago. In fact, I hear, some restored vehicles are even better than when they were first introduced to the world. There is not reason why we cannot perform this kind of mechanical miracle upon Lady Westminster ourselves.

But before anything, before we buy the new paint the new wheels and of course the hub caps - we have to flambé the truck, everything that is in it, so that nothing is left but the bare metallic skeleton and from this we shall make the new truck, with the old drawings of course, and she will be grand truly grand. Believe me.

But here is an even better petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign.

Submitted by Kalvis Jansons of http://kalvis.com – Deadline to sign up by: 22 October 2009 – Signatures: 4,611 (as of 25th of April 1:17 AM)

Sign here

Much obliged, and while we are posting links to this and that I might as well post the link to this article which is a remarkably unbiased article on the BNP. If the more astute of my readers have drawn the same conclusion as myself, that the BNP cannot be ignored any longer, then do read the article. It is not your average Guardian article - suffice to say.

Passarelle clauses, Prerogative writs and history - the erosion thereof

Nelson Mandela, that ever glowing beacon of light of human altruism (it is hush-hush to mention that Nelson Mandela was the leader for the ANC's armed faction the MK or the Spear of the Nation), said in his opening speech of his trial in April 1964 that he was a great admirer of the parliamentary system of western governments. He went on to expose his even greater admiration for some of the British milestone documents upon which most western democracies' freedoms are derived from: "The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions and for the country's system of justice."

Poor old Mandela, I fancy that he does not know that the majority of "British political institutions" ceased to deliver anything even remotely democratic a long time ago. But lets not dwell on the present we must go back to the beginning for a tad of freedom (this is paradox in itself but I am sure you spotted that one).

The first pivotal document that came into being was introduced in 1215 and it is, as you all know, the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms). In 1215, king John, faced with the possibility of revolt and civil war, agreed to the demands of his Barons and granted the Magna Carta. It was re-issued in 1216, 1217, and again in 1225 with certain revisions. The Magna Carta was the first document of its kind in that it bound not only the king's subjects, but the king and all of his heirs as well, to the laws of the land. Thus, making no man above the law. Most notably though was that the Magna Carta enshrined the writ of habeas corpus - allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. You can be quite sure than Brown and his cretins have made it their goal the unlearn any Latin word they ever stumbled upon (which technically involves large chunks of the English language so they should really not have such a hard time to coming to grips with this writ.)

"Aha" you may think, "now all our human rights have been fulfilled" - far from it. It would take another 434 years before another landmark document was broadcasted by the folks on this tiny spec of land.

The Death Warrant of Charles I was published in 1649. We will have to quick forward a bit to get to the juicy parts (well, 'part' is more correct): the beheading.Civil war broke out in 1642. At first, Charles's Royalist forces had the upper hand, with further promise of support from the Irish Catholic Confederation, which was fighting Parliamentarian forces in Ireland. But then the shit hit then fan and at the battles of Naseby and Langport in June and July 1645, the first showing of the Parliamentarian New Model Army under Thomas Fairfax and Oliver Cromwell, the Royalists suffered major losses. Charles I's surrender in May 1646 concluded the first phase of the civil war, though he rejected all proposals intended to bring a peace. However, he did reach a secret agreement with the Scots regarding Presbyterianism in England, which incensed the English Parliament.

The sequel is a bit of a bitch though for poor old Charles you see the Civil War reached the end of its next phase with Charles's trial. The charges against him were noted in a special Act of Parliament, namely that he "had a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation", and that he had "levied and maintained a civil war in the land." The latter was the equivalent of treason and of it went chop-chop-chop. No head no more. What is interesting though is that New Labour has been waging a civil war as well, not with weapons, but with acts of parliaments and laws - designed to protect us but are now used against us under aegis of "national security". Brown and Blair should start doing their history for if there is one thing about history it is that it infallibly, invariably and consistently repeats itself.

How about it then, did Chuckle Cromwell the Dashing give us all we need to dive headlong into the 21st century as the Computer age dawned before our eyes? No. The wankers had us wait another 40 years before they came up with something that us, the plebeian, could use for our daily undertaking.

The Bill of Rights. The Act described the abuses of power of King James II that led to his departure, and defined the agreement between Parliament and William of Orange if he was to be king. When William and his wife Mary were crowned in 1689, they took an oath to rule according to the "statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same." Previous coronation oaths had merely said that the new king would adhere to the laws and customs of earlier kings. This is very important, wording.

The EU for example loves wording, they love it so much that they have invented new words to hide the underlying message of their documents. For example they have a clause know as a Passerelle Clause or a Escalator Clause that allows the European Council to decide unanimously to replace unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers with qualified majority voting (QMV) in specified areas. Well that democratic, innit? But back to the past.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights laid out certain basic tenets for, at the time, all Englishmen. These rights continue to apply today, not only in England, but in each of the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth realms as well. The people, embodied in the parliament, are granted immutable civil and political rights through the act, including:

* Freedom from royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
* Freedom from taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes.
* Freedom to petition the monarch.
* Freedom from the standing army during a time of peace. The agreement of parliament became necessary before the army could be moved against the populace when not at war.
* Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.
* Freedom to elect members of parliament without interference from the sovereign.
* Freedom of speech and debates; or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. This means that freedom of speech for all, and the proceedings of parliament can not be questioned in a court of law or any other body outside of parliament itself; this forms the basis of modern parliamentary privilege [1688 Commonwealth Bill of Rights ].
* Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive bail.
* Freedom from fine and forfeiture without a trial.

Certain acts of James II were also specifically named and declared illegal by the Bill of Rights, while James' flight from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution was also declared to be an abdication of the throne.

/Wikipedia

But surely now we must be able to go to court and not get screwed over by the judges in their fancy wigs? Well, maybe, possibly, perhaps but no. There is a fairly boring act called the Articles of Union, 1707, it basically said that 1+1 = 1. Where the two '1's are England and Scotland. It is a landmark document in itself but it is really quite boring so if you are really interested google it. I shall focus on the last act which is much more interesting.

The Reform Act of 1832

“We must get the suffrage, we must get votes, that we may send the men to Parliament who will do our work for us; …and we must have the country divided so that the little kings of the counties can't do as they like, but must be shaken up in one bag with us.”
said a working class reformist in George Eliot’s novel Felix Holt: the Radical. That is pretty damn well what happened. The quote stated above is an almost criminal simplification of what happened (but that should suit New Labour taste quite well) as a result of the Great Reform Act, it is quite much more detailed.

The critical point is, this is where the final piece of the democracy puzzle is laid, almost anyway. It is not a nice puzzle, it is full of scratches and minor gaps, but if you stand back, not too far away but not too close either, you can see the whole picture quite vividly - it is beautiful picture quite spectacular indeed.

600 years until suffrage was granted (another 100 years or so before universal suffrage was granted), 600 years for liberty, democracy and human rights to get a proper foot hold - you would have thought that our great leaders of Britain today would have some respect for this astonishing history and engulf the time span.

One would have thought...

Blair and Brown have repaid in kind to English, Scottish, Welsh and British history by introducing 60 new powers contained in more than 25 Acts of Parliament. That have whittled away freedoms and broken pledges set out in the Human Rights Act and Magna Carta, according to a an audit of laws introduced since New Labour came to power in 1997.

Three cheers for the anti-British-grooms, they live; hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray, hipp-hipp hurray! May their acts and legacy never be forgotten.

Reiteration is good fun

POLL FOR THE BBC'S DAILY POLITICS SHOW

• "Should Britain leave the EU but maintain close trading links?"

Yes – 55% No – 41%

• "Does the current economic crisis make you more keen for Britain to join the euro?"

Yes – 31% No – 64%

• "Should there be a referendum before any further transfers of power to the EU?"

Yes – 84% No – 13%

Hat-tip Brusselswatch for compiling figures (well, rather me copying and pasting but hey at least I gave the source).

L'Idiot de Portugal at it again.

"I would like to urge all political leaders not to use this political crisis in a way to make the Lisbon Treaty hostage to domestic problems. That would not be fair to the other countries of Europe," Mr Barroso said at a press conference in Strasbourg.

It must thus be assumed that it is "fair" to ignore the people of Ireland, The Netherlands and France.

It must also be assumed that it is fair to ignore the rule of democracy.

When will it be fair then I wonder to start ignoring the EU and setting our own agenda much as was done pre 1972?

I just had to add this

Now I know this is very late out, most people have already talked and blogged about it but I still find it so very funny.

My response to Mrs. Blears is this: Try and stop us.