Swedish Election Part 2

There is something quite fucking astonishing with the sheer stupidity displayed by the Swedish media establishment and political classes. If you think the UK's MSM is mind numbingly narcissistic and insolent you have seen nothing yet. As I highlighted in my recent post, the electorate does not seem to much like the idea and hand they have been dealt. They do not exactly warm to the predicament they are in; a sizeable amount of their own numbers have voted for a xenophobic party. Said party now has 20 mandates in the Swedish parliament. Fair enough, roll-on democracy ought to be the next logical step. They secured their votes fair and square, you and I might not like their message, but one has to be the bigger man here and accept defeat and accept that their campaign was very well organised. Not to mention that they played the 'martyr' card which is a common trait amongst marginalised parties across Europe, not to say the world; rearrange the board so that it looks like you are being unfairly targeted. Works a charm, always has done.

But the loudest of the few still cannot accept that several hundreds of thousands of people voted for a xenophobic party. It does not compute with their principles and morals.

But what about other peoples' principles? You might think that I am defending xenophobia but I am in fact trying to put the case for democracy at the onslaught of the righteous.

What has the MSM decided to do then, well, one of them has started a "massive, nationwide campaign" (which is tying to be all progressive and arty-farty by naming it something which is completely ungrammatical) to "tackle racism and show solidarity" - I am not even going to begin taking issue with the 'racism' thing, if they want to be unacademic, which is to say wrong, about the whole labelling issue then fine. No, what I really take offence at is all the stupid fucking politicians who are lining up to be part of this campaign. 'We show solidarity with immigrants and they deserve the same rights bla bla bla' - sure bacon Mr. McShit but was it not that kind of rhetoric which let the xenophobic in, in the first place? That well rehearsed patronising bullshit where voters were taken for cattle rather than grown-ups. If such a large proportion of the population has such an issue with immigrants is it not your responsibility as leaders and government to convince them of the contrary? I would have thought that it would be your place, with all the resources of state at hand, to initiate a well funded campaign to show that people have the same worth regardless of their origin. That it is the content of their character that matters and not the location of their genesis. There is not one but TWO state-funded TV channels and nothing was done, nothing which could even begin to quell the unease which people felt towards immigrants. Little if nothing was written in the national papers.

But now, when they stand at the edge of Pandora's Box, they have the cheek and arrogance to ignore the voters' concern again. As if they did not have enough lessons to learn the first time around, they continue, again and again and again, to quell legitimate debate about a delicate subject which deserves well-earned attention for few would touch it with a barge-pole hitherto. A real statesman would have the nerve to pluck up courage and tackle the issues head-on: make politicians travel to every far corner of the land and meet the people, so that they can tell them how they really feel. And pray that they are not ripped to pieces. Sweden is a big country and the feeling of abandonment in the darkest of forests is perpetual. This continued self-impoced ignorance is driving an ever larger wedge between the needs of the people and those who have been assigned to meet those needs. Ostracising your own and parading them as "freaks and brownshirts" will do you no favours, and it is not a question if it will backfire but only when.

This is what I believe in?

I am sure that I am not alone in feeling very betrayed this evening as the party I nominally and instinctively agree with a lot seems to be fading before my very eyes. Sure I could always fall back on UKIP but they have nowhere near the history and excitement of the Conservative Party (yet it would seem) - who really were the only realistic choice in getting us out of the EU. Perhaps 'lost' is the word which most appropriately describes the situation, a situation where suddenly there is nothing even hinting of right-wing in the Conservative party. David Cameron has made it 'modern' (whatever that means) sure, where principles are exchanged for privilege at the blink of an eye, but what should the rest of us do who do not have luxury of controlling the party of Churchill and Thatcher, who actually stick by with what we believe and think, and are not afraid to air our opinions in the face character-assasination and the PC-brigade? I have no power over my principles and cannot just 'replace' them with others like a lot of Tory activists seem to be doing tonight.

Have they actually read the LD manifesto? Researched Clegg? Cable? Ashdown? They are anathema to everything the conservatives, with a small 'c', stand for. Sure some argue that now we can take the LDs down with us when all the cuts that need to be made are made, and then the media has to blame them as well not just the Tory Toffs. But that is opportunism, a strong leader should take responsibility for his actions however harsh they might seem. I am not sure what actually has passed tonight but it feels very very wrong. I could wish for the coalition to fall apart but the same people who made it happen in the first place will still be there, the same people who notionally appear conservative but are in fact something completely different. But maybe that is alright, as a Court of Law has shown; political parties do not need to honour their manifestos. Why should they then be made to honour their principles? I suppose I ought to wish them all the best, and I do, but I was sort of only half-believing what I was seeing until now. That perhaps there was a plan B for the party, a cunning operation whereby we not only sorted out the welfare state but also told the EU to sod off and reinvigorated Britain with a sense of purpose and direction, a place where one could be proud to live and not a place where 75% of the people want emigrate from.

Tory activist tonight keep saying to people like myself who comment on 'certain' pages that 'the country has moved on' and 'your wing of the party is out of favour with the public'. But if that were really true then why did they vote for the Conservatives in the first place then, why did UKIP double their share of the vote? Why is there a consensus in the media that socialismUK has not worked at all and that toryism should be given a shot? Clearly I have got it all mixed up and I feel that I was born 100 years too late, and perhaps I was, I do not know. I made a promise to myself that if Labour won the election I too would emigrate but here again I am stuck in a limbo since that pledge was on the condition that the tories won, not that they won by teaming up with a gang even worse than Labour. You might think that I am bitter, I really am not, trust me on that, just exceedingly confused.

I am not sure what to do now and neither does Melanchtron it seems, but he has at the very least put it a lot better than myself.

Changing the voting system. Fixed term Parliaments. A vigorous opponent of religious freedom as Education secretary.

Maybe I've been looking at this all wrong. I'd been assuming that I was a Conservative, and that the Conservative Party, though its platform had many elements I approved of, had chosen certain non-Conservative paths (I hoped temporarily) which I considered ill-advised both in Electoral terms but also in terms of integrity - because they were non-Conservative they were not True to Who We Are.

But maybe that's back to front. Maybe the truth is that I am not a Conservative, and that although the Conservative Party (sadly, to a true modern Conservative) continues notionally to support some delusional ideas that a non-Conservative such as myself finds attractive, it has moved considerably in the direction of true modern Conservatism and will shortly purge itself of its last residual delusional aspects.

I am a believer in the classical British constitution, moulded and worked over hundreds of years, a mixed creature in which Platonic guardian and representative democrat ideas were intermingled. I believe that Britain is, or at least should be, (to appropriate Henry VIII's phrase) an empire unto herself, making all of her own laws and applying those laws only within her borders. I believe in constitutional monarchy, in an unelected second chamber, in an elected house of representatives (not delegates) who are spokesmen for their areas. I believe that in voting we elect our rulers - we do not aspire to "rule ourselves". I believe that the prime goal of the constitution is the promotion and preservation of ordered liberty.

I favour a constitution that is organic, husbanded by an establishment class of self-sustaining oligarchs who understand their duty to interpret the constitution anew in each age, and apply it for the promotion of ordered liberty whilst always respecting justice and true religion.

I favour law that conceives of itself as in the first instance about natural or divinely-ordained justice and only secondarily about the arbitrary choices of Man.

I want a tolerant society, not a society that is politically correct and intolerant of deviance from secularist, atheist, amoral, libertine norms.

I believe that there is no true peace without justice and that war can be righteous in a righteous cause.

I believe that our rulers should be encouraged to deport themselves with dignity and honour, not vanity and mawkishness.

I have faith that what is right and true will eventually defeat that which is wrong and false, and that if it does not that matters only a little, for all crookedness will be made straight in a Judgement at the End. In particular, I believe that democratic politics is a battle of ideas, not a struggle of classes or interest groups, and that if we argue for what we believe to be right - of course being pragmatic in respect of what can be achieved in any one age and of course respecting the need to cooperate with others in teams to achieve anything at all - that if we argue for what we believe to be right, then if we are correct in our belief we will eventually be vindicated by events and be recognised as such by a fair and reasonable press and voting public.

I had assumed that such beliefs made me a Conservative. But perhaps not. Perhaps the Conservative Party is actually a liberal and Democrat party, in fact, and would be happier if, as Michael Portillo hopes, it has the opportunity of "ditching the Tory party Right wing" (I presume he means the likes of me) which the removal of first-past-the-post would give it. The Party has obviously considered the likes of me an embarrassment since the mid-1990s, what with our wanting the Party to argue for what it believed in rather than what it considered popular (reversing our repeated error of 2001, 2005 and 2010), that the public would see through a lack of integtrity and not trust us, that we should offer policies we considered in the country's best interests and in particular in the interests of the marginalised and the oppressed, both at home and abroad, even if our methods for so doing were not the Statist solutions favoured by the Left. I'd kind of assumed that what was embarrassing about me was that I was a Conservative. But perhaps, all along, I've misunderstood. Perhaps what was most embarrassing about me was that I wasn't a Conservative but the voters might assume that I was. I thought Cameron hadn't changed the Party enough, that it was still ruled by that vanity and fear of the voters that had plagued it since the mid-1990s. But perhaps it's me that's got this wrong all along. Vanity was not an error - it was a brand. Conservatism is not about organic evolution - it is about revolutionary change. Tolerance, self-discipline, honour, dignity - these are not virtuous, but repressive. Truth is not our ally - it is our enemy.

I understand it better now. Pardon my mistake. I withdraw. Might not post in a while whilst I collect my thoughts.

Three Proposed Referendums

As we are heading for Dante's inferno it seems to me that there is only one solution to put an end to all our woes and misfortunes. Let it be know that I only agree with one of my proposals but I am not the one who indulges in self-censorship, we have the MSM for that.

1. Referendum on the continuation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2. Referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union
3. Referendum on the electoral system of the UK

I only agree with Nr. 2 where Nr. 3 would be disastrous, FPTP works perfectly well it has just been fucked up by New Labour as has everything else. I would hate for the UK to be broken up for it is a force for good, certainly, but it seems that we are very much at odds with each other; England being very Tory and Scotland simply props up the left all the time. That and a multitude of other problems such a spending formulas and their proportion of the electorate etcetera.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the above three suggested referendums are not mutually exclusive. You cannot have one without the other since they are fundamentally interlinked and interlocked - the former affects the other as much as the latter.

UPDATE: It would appear that I was correct in predicting Nr. 2 and Nr. 3. I suppose you would not have to be clairvoyant to have predicted Nr. 3.

Elections and the Commonwealth

Is it not very strange that Commonwealth citizens can vote in the UK? In General Elections European Union citizens cannot vote - but Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens can still do so, and so can citizens of Cyprus and Malta, which are EU countries, but also Commonwealth countries.

In this regard, MigrationWatch released a briefing paper on the 21st February 2008 on the right of non-citizens to vote, with particular regard to the puzzling permission allowed "Commonwealth citizens". (See MigrationWatch, "The Right of Non Citizens to Vote in Britain", Briefing paper 8.22)

It had these important points to make (my emphases):

British electoral law provides for the citizens of nearly fifty Commonwealth countries, British Dependent Territories, and the Republic of Ireland to vote in both local and general elections in the UK. The Representation of the People Act, 1918, provided that only British subjects could register as electors. However, the term "British subject" included any person who, at that time, owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the crown territory in which they were born. This included Commonwealth citizens and has never been revised.

Entitlement to vote in general elections is reciprocated for UK citizens only in the Republic of Ireland and a small number of (mainly West Indian) countries: Antigua & Barbuda; Dominica; Grenada; Guyana; Jamaica; Mauritius; St. Lucia and St. Vincent & The Grenadines.

It points out that the scale of this extension of the franchise is considerable:

Data on International Migration and the UK provided to the OECD indicates that there were 3,353,000 foreign citizens living in the UK in 2006. Of these 1,057,000 are from named Commonwealth countries and we estimate that a further 105,000 are from other Commonwealth countries making a total of 1,162,000 Commonwealth citizens in the UK.

Some of this total will be children. Children under 18 make up 22% of the UK population but it is likely that they will make up a smaller proportion of the population of foreign citizens. The international migration statistics indicate that under 5% of net migration is of children under 15. Migrants cannot acquire citizenship until 5 years after their arrival in the UK so foreign citizenship will be weighted heavily towards recent arrivals. It is likely therefore that children who are foreign citizens will comprise less than 15% of the total population of foreign citizens leaving a population of nearly a million (988,000) adult Commonwealth citizens in the UK. They will have the right to vote in British elections simply by virtue of their Commonwealth origins.

The fact that these people can vote in Britain, but we cannot vote in their countries, and the fact that in a close election their votes will be critical is:

Not only inequitable, but also illogical. It extends the franchise to a large number of individuals whose allegiance lies in states other than the United Kingdom. It is quite clearly an anachronism which, given the recent sustained increase in immigration, is now potentially significant. It should be removed.

MigrationWatch recommends that in future:

the right to vote in British general elections should be confined to citizens of the UK and those countries that offer reciprocal voting rights, namely the Republic of Ireland and certain West Indian countries. Proof of citizenship should be required on first registration on the Electoral Roll. The right to vote in local elections should be confined to citizens of the same countries plus those of the EU where there are reciprocal voting rights in local elections.

National citizenship - as opposed to universalist concepts of "global citizenship" - is undermined if we throw away its key privileges to people who are not entitled to enjoy them. If national citizenship is to be at all special - if it is to mean anything - then it must confer advantages upon national citizens, which are not enjoyed by non-citizens.

Voting rights is one of those key privileges. Meanwhile in Brussels "no taxation without representation" is proving to be a remarkably hollow statement. Jonathan Mayhew would have been shocked if he had been alive today. Boston politician James Otis had a different rendering which is much closer to the truth "taxation without representation is tyranny".

Round-up

Today in Britain we have; a Prime Minister who has never been elected as leader of his Party or Country, and who came second in a general election with both votes and seats. Tomorrow we fight wars to teach the world democracy.

What a mess.

Vote

I have voted, have you? After I voted I went and bought food and a chinese takeaway, realising that there is not chance in hell of me getting any work done tonight. What is far more likelier is that my long neck will lend itself to the joys of alcohol and fair amounts of it, that and tea, lots of tea will be consumed tonight. Then in the morning I shall study.

Update 2209:

2200 Exit Poll: Hung parliament with Tories as largest party with 307 seats. Lab 255. LD 59. This is utter shite if you ask me. The LDs on 59 when Clegg has had his fat head up everyone's arse the entire bloody campaign? Do not think so.

Update 0758:

Well chaps I just woke up and are reading the results right now and all I can say is, what the fuck is going on? Second general election here we come.

Noted on Wednesday

Party Election Manifestos are apparently outselling the likes of J. K. Rowling's 'Harry Potter', as such prospective readers should henceforth take note that both are fiction.

Constitutional Cononundrums Come May

What of a Hung Parliament?

There appears to be something overlooked here, namely the question of who is the Sovereign and who is the servant. As Sovereign the Queen may do as She pleases [that includes any appointment] for as long as she acts within the perimeters of Her Coronation Covenant.

Parliaments may only consent to Bills pursuant to a Royal Decree under the Petition of Rights, 1628. It cannot enact law. It is interesting to note that governments, courts, and Parliament uphold their right under the Petition of Rights, but deny the inviolable birthrights of the People under same.

Constitutional practices and conventions count for naught as they do not make for law, and often violate the same.

Only a King or Queen enjoys Divine Right to reign and govern (Constitutional Monarchy and the Established Church of England), not any Parliament or any Minister of State. The latter are only elected by the People as Members of Parliament and become Minister of State by appointment and choice of the Sovereign. As such they only at best enjoy delegated authority, which can be lawfully repealed by the Sovereign at any time. That is to say if one applies the Law of the Land ('legem terrae' or the European version 'lex terrae').

In 1297, this term was used in the Magna Carta. The most famous clause of Magna Carta states: "No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land." You see, we already had a 'Human Rights Act' 700 years before the present nonsense came into existence.

An interesting insight

This following piece of connected words and dots is not of my making but it is nonetheless very interesting.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. Fact: people want change. Fact: the next election will provide it. If one thing is clear, Labour are dropping towards their hard core vote and are effectively dead. We are just watching the body twitch. We just need the stake and the mallet. If the Lib Dems have one and we the other, then so be it.

The reason is that New Labour no longer exist. Gordon has marched back to the old Left, back to where the union money is – leaving all the New Labour voters looking around for something they can identify with. For some, it will be us. For others, it will be the Lib Dems – who are the natural left of centre political party for a modern Britain, much more so than Labour. I believe history will show that New Labour were the last gasp of a mass labour movement whose original goals have been effectively fulfilled.

So, what do we do? Make sure nobody pushes us off the middle-to-centre-right ground, which is an honourable position to hold in a democracy and which will win us elections. New Labour worked because times were good and people could vote with their hearts. Now times are hard, people will vote with their heads: we just present a simpler case based on 4 core messages – less waste, less government, less unnecessary immigration and (as soon as possible) less tax. Do not mistake this for using a dog whistle: these are not the old messages, they are the new reality which will be implemented in a pragmatic way. People know we have to do it, they are just waiting for it to be clearly promised, with the invitation to throw us out after a term if we have failed. This is just a short step from where we are now: harden the tone and cut down on the mood music. The Big Society may work, but people need to hear the Big Points very clearly first.

For those in UKIP who want to fight battles over Europe first and foremost, I would say that those battles must come: but unless Labour are dead, none of us can ever fight to regain powers that were never Labour’s to give away. Hold your noses and vote for us or what you want will never, ever happen. Judge by actions in power, and hold us to account after a term.

People want to punish Labour. Let’s make that happen.

Mr. Spitfire again; this is a very motivational post and it does strike some very important chords. Like Mr. North over at EU Referendum, I too think that the only way for Britain to leave the EU is for the Tories to take such action - not a minority party like UKIP. That said, I do not know this, it is just a hunch. Naturally they cannot leave with the current Tory administration and a couple of UKIP MPs would be very useful in compounding the message.

But how to vote on 6th of May? To me at least it seems as if all the best Prime Ministers were bald. None of the current people standing are bald; they all have hair and are hence not fit to rule the country since they are not bald. Bald is good, implies wisdom and implies having lost sleep over something important, which implies that the person cares about something which means that the prospective candidate has principles which guides his morals.

None of the candidates are bald, this is bad. Prospective candidates shave head, implies will get vote from Spitfire. Simples. Sod personality; bald is where it is at.

The best idea since Chocolate

Why can we not vote for HM the Queen?

Observe:

'This is the electoral voting form for the General Election 2010. Put an 'X' next to the party or person you prefer:

1. Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II
2. Liberal Democrats
3. Labour Party
4. Conservative Party
5. UKIP
6. BNP
7. The Green Party
8. UKLP
9. Scottish National Party
10. English Democrats
11. Plaid Cymru - Party of Wales'

I for one am an unapologetic royalist and am sure HM the Queen could do no worse than the hodgepodge fucktards who currently pose as leaders of this country.

Note the word of the day 'minarchism' (the spell checker is underlining the word with a red line, well I did not really expect it to know such a difficult word...)

Defeat implies reading

It appears that any hopes I had of doing any revision (currently) have been completely dashed, in honour of this complete and humiliating defeat I decided to read Churchill's autobiography instead. Just to let you unwilling readers out there know that, whilst there is an election campaign going on out there I will try to ignore it as much as possible, it is nothing but theatre and our laws will still be made in a different land without an almighty Queen, who has the power to strike down a parliament which takes popular support for granted.

The General Election, the outcomes

The general election has three possible outcomes:

1. The Conservative Party will win with a workable majority.
2. The Labour Party will win with a workable majority.
3. There is a hung parliament.

Nr 3 is of importance here because it is by far the most interesting one. This country does not do hung parliament as does the continent. They just break down completely. Some might argue that we had a coalition government during WWII, and we did but the keywords you are missing are in those two 'W's. There was a World War going on, not cooperating means loosing, it is as simple as that. Hence that is a completely moot argument because that was an extraordinary situation handled by an extraordinary government.

Further, Nr 3 is interesting because it presents some very curious consequences. If there is a hung parliament there will almost certainly be a leadership election in either party. Simply because either has failed in gaining a workable majority in the Commons. What is also certain is that there will be another general election within months to sort out the mess that currently inhibits the great halls of Westminster.

This is interesting particularly for real conservatives (with a small 'c') like myself. There is the real possibility that a real conservative takes the helm of the Conservative Party and delivers a manifesto that us conservatives can relate to. I think it is no a secret that most of us are leaving in droves to parties like UKIP and UKLP (scaremongering rarely works such as "a vote for any party but the Conservative Party is a vote for Labour" - bollocks to that). Whilst I see no light in the end of the tunnel with Mr. Cameron there is certainly enough brains and talent in the Conservative party, to produce a leader worthy of the helmsmanship. I am not going to insult the reader's intelligence by listing those people for he or she is most likely more knowledgeable than myself.

We have not had a lot of hung parliaments (for reasons explained above). The most recent elected hung parliament in the UK was that which followed the February 1974 general election, which lasted until the October election that year. Prior to that the last had been following the election of 1929. Hung parliaments can also arise when slim government majorities are eroded by by-election defeats and defection of Members of Parliament to opposition parties. This happened in 1996 to the Conservative government of John Major (1990-97) and in 1978 to the Labour government of James Callaghan (later Lord Callaghan of Cardiff) (1976-79). You can clearly see thus, that the track record is not good for that type of governing in the UK.

And finally, as always, a real conservative would have Britain tell the EU to Foxtrot Oscar.

Are Polls really useful? Here is what my maths showed me...

We all know that parties and the MSM go up in arms if a poll diverges from the common orthodoxy in voting intention, depending on the hysteria of media platform in question. The right now the settled view is that the Conservatives should be at least 10% ahead in the polls and when something else is up on offer the world will go under, or so at least goes the media logic. Last week there was talk of a hung parliament because the difference in voting intention between Labour and Tory was a mere 6% which is not that large. But what does it actually mean then? Well, to find out lets consider the numbers for the European Elections. Now, before I do this I would just like to acknowledge that I too am aware that voting intention shifts during EU and UK elections but this is not about party affiliation it is about voting intention.

The European Parliamentary Election, which by the by means fuck all for democracy, took place in the UK on the 4th of June this year, 2009. The last poll which was taken before the election had the

Tories on 26% (24%, 37%)

Labour on 16% (16%, 29%)

UKIP on 18% (6%, 19%)

LibDem on 15% (12%, 22%)

Greens on 10% (1%, 15%)

BNP on 5% (1%, 7%)

However you will also note that I have added the extreme values taken from UK Polling Report in brackets after each party above, this is for possible correlation purposes or just goes to show that polls say absolutely nothing about election performance. Simply because the electorate are reactionary human beings and do not vote strategically, like people on the internet, but with their heart.

Once the election was over the actual tally stood as follows

Tories on 27.7%

Labour on 15.7%

UKIP on 16.5%

LibDem on 13.7%

Greens on 8.6%

BNP on 6.2%

This means that the Tories did very badly because they scored in their lower echelon. Labour did bloody awful since they got their lowest possible predicted outcome. UKIP did fairly well scoring in its upper predicted echelon. Libdem pretty crap as well scoring in their lower predicted sector. Greens did average being in the middle of the prediction range and the BNP did very well scoring in the upper part of its predicted sector. Now you will notice that I have but the parties which did 'well' in bold and I follow with the question, could a similar thing happen in the general election; that the main parties do relatively badly and the smaller parties do pretty well - relatively speaking?

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.

Prospects

I really should not be saying this but I will: the Irish 'yes' is actually a lot more interesting because it has turned the entire British political establishment (fuck Ken Clark, who listens to him anyway) into a EU talking club. This is extremely good news because it means that no party can hide and Labour's and the LibDem's ultra pro-EU credentials will be reproduced again and again, loosing them even more votes at the GE (of course not letting it slip that they promised a referendum on the treaty as well but backtracked this promise). It also means that the Tories cannot hide away from the issue despite Cameron's very poor attempt at appeasement in the form of his "news letter". Even more it will give UKIP more air time which is always good since they can hopefully push the Tories to adopt a proper policy before the GE machine is switched on.

And to top it all off, the Irish are not going to like this - did you know they were a satellite state of Britain all along?

When people look back upon this episode of history what will they think I wonder? Well, I believe that this period can be pretty well summed up in these simple words

‘For you, zee referendums are over. Simples’

Ohh wipe that stern look of your face, it is just poking a bit of fun at zee Germans.

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.

Number crunching

The recent European elections were a complete farce few cannot deny that. 15,072,325 votes were cast or 34% of the electorate which continues the downward trend from the previous year where 37.6% were eligible to vote. That is a 3.6% drop in the voters. I know I had to beg most of my acquaintances to join me at the polling station. Some people hold the view that if we do not join in at all that is a much better protest against than EU than playing along in their little show.

I respectfully disagree. I am going to defend this view by posting the quote which has now become a bit cliché but nonetheless is still dangerously important. What is more it seems that destiny is playing a sadistic twist of fate on us mere mortals: Edmund Burke whom this quote is attributed to was Irish...

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

I voice my protest against the EU by telling them to sod of in the form of UKIP. They might not be the best paragons of British sovereignty but they are currently the only option we have and that must do for now.

But I thought we should consider some of the numbers from the past election and more specifically hone in on the parties who have as their explicit policy for the UK to withdraw from the EU. Here are the main ones (please feel free to correct me if I have left someone out)

UKIP - 2,498,226
NO2EU - 153,236
UK First - 74,007
BNP - 943,598
English Democrats - 279,801

Total: 3,948,868

What does this mean then, presuming that the voting population who did in fact do so, is somewhat intelligent (I do not buy into the fact that nearly 1,000,000 are racists - people voted BNP because they are and were sick of Labour failure in every single policy area) that is to say actually read the policies of their proposed receiving party, knew that they favoured complete withdrawal.

However a twist on this then is to say that people actually believe that the Tories also are eurosceptic, again I am going to disagree with this claim for I have yet to see any unreproachable evidence to its demise. The we have so far it "we wont let matters rest there" and that is, ladies and gentelemen, the magnus opus of Conservative EU-policy eventhough they are fully aware that the electorate loathe it and they have to self censor their cleverest minds so that they wont blurt out anything too eurosceptic. For what would our masters in Brussels think if we did not play ball? I imagine they want the status-quo to continue along the lines it is currently doing in the NATO with a remarkably intelligent line from a remarkably stupid man, Eric Joyce

For many, Britain fights, Germany pays, France calculates, Italy avoids.

Now if we are to extrapolate this little golden gem literacy into EU matters, then it would read something along the lines of Britain pays, Germany makes, France takes and Italy breaks.

Going back to the numbers then; of the 15,072,325 who voted 3,948,868 wanted complete withdrawal or 26% of the 34% who actually bothered to vote. A further 4,198,394 Conservative voters were coned into thinking that their party was actually eurosceptic. If we are to make an assumption, based solely on my interaction with Tories, then it can be assumed that of the 34% that bothered to vote 53% were highly highly eurosceptic. Both the europhile parties in the UK, the Libdems and Labour, lost 1.2% and 6.9% of their vote respectively.

I am an undying optimist and I do whole heartedly believe and hope that the UK will eventually withdraw from the EU. It strikes me as an impossibility, a non sequitur clause, that it would not.

And to sum up, I will, Mr Cameron, "Bang on" about the EU for as long as it takes for the message to pass through your thick skull that we do not want anymore part in their little project. We have had enough. Please feel free to try and find one poll that is positive about the EU.

Your Majesty

Your Majesty I call upon you now, as does the nation, to dissolve parliament and hold a general election. The country is imploding, it is being led by a scrounging debauchee to the brink of destruction. You must call an election.