Scottish Independence implies English Independence

This is from the European Communities Act 1972, the bill with which Edward Heath, then PM, took the United Kingdom of Great Britain into the European Economic Community (EEC) as it was then known, and which has now transmogrified into the European Union.

This is from the introductory text from the above mentioned bill

An Act to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar.

You will notice my emphasis in bold. As has most likely struck most other ardent euro-withdrawalists, like myself, today's election outcome in Scotland puts the break-up of the United Kingdom back on the table.

If the United Kingdom ceases to exists as a political and sovereign entity then its commitment to the international acts and agreements signed in its name must be rendered moot, since there is no longer an entity in existence which can honour the accords within those agreements.

If Scotland breaks up the union we have one almighty constitutional crisis on our hands. Creating (or re-establishing) countries is usually seen as the business of Africa, but we are not South Sudan. This is and probably will continue to be a nation which, however much the socialists don't want it, shapes the events of the world to some extent. You will need to be a fantastic cynic or an unchangeable pessimist to deny this. If you still do then let me give you two events; Olympics 2012 and the Libyan crisis.

Moving on, if the United Kingdom is left to the books of history then England's membership of the EU will have to re-evaluated, it will have to be put to a new referendum. For there is no way that any politician could survive, today, signing up England to the EU. It simply is political suicide and they all know that as do we. For all Milliband's faults I think he is clever enough to realise that this would be a vote winner if actively put into their manifesto. And if they do put it into their manifesto so would every other party.

Hence it would appear, that the EU's policy of breaking up the UK (and that is their policy - Tony Blair did not grant Scotland devolution out of his good-natured heart) will lead to the EU losing one of its biggest sponsors namely England. One must not be too surprised at this stupendous policy; this is after all the EU. They employ only the greatest of fools and the most naive of politicians.

The wrong cast-iron guarantee

Will Scottish enthusiasm trumpet English indifference?

Celebrity Support?

In my mind there seems to be a logical fallacy somewhere in announcing that you have celebrity support. The AV campaign has committed actors Helena Bonham Carter, Colin Firth and Stephen Fry. And surely others. Sea Shepard, a whaling conservation society, counts among its advisers Pierce Brosnan and Sean Penn.

What the fuck?

What on earth does Pierce Brosnan know about bloody whales to make him qualified to be an 'advisor' to a wildlife conservationist? Is he a marine biologist, is he a scientist, does he attack Japanese whaling ships in his free time? No, he is James Bond and that is it.

Colin Firth backs the AV 'yes' side presumably because he falls for every populist political ploy that the system wants him to back (see his previous support for the LibDems quickly retracted whence they backed the tuition fee rise). But lets assume not. Lets ask this; is he a constitutional historian, does he have a degree in international relations, has he done a dissertation on the merits of AV alongside FPTP? No, he is George VI and over and above that his support for either side should make little or no difference.

Do you know who I count amongst my advisers when I write my scientific reports on the most abstract of concepts? Babar, Lady and the Tramp, Paddington, Doctor Who (obviously), Luke Skywalker (his knowledge of particle physics dynamics is second to none), Darth Vader (Luke's arch nemesis, yes, but give them a cup of tea and Darth will tell you everything there is to know on sub-molecular fission interactions) and how could I forget; the gummy bears - savvier engineers you will not find, their approach to elasticity and aerodynamic viscosity problems would make any thermodynamics professor blush.

AV

There is a raging debate going on over at ConservativeHome, I stole this comment from a fellow commentator.

It is disingenuous to suggest that a different voting system isn't a leap in the dark. It will change the dynamic of politics in ways that are unpredictable.

Lib Dems hope that a) it will benefit them (and according to the psephological analyses that have been published so far, which mostly ignore the potentially destabilising effects of other parties, that would come mostly at the expense of the Tories and increase the frequency of hung Parliaments and coalition government), and b) it is viewed as a necessary stepping stone towards their goal of elections by STV (which will doubtless be proposed for whatever replaces the Lords - and sold as being "not much different from AV").

The potential effects of other parties is interesting. Your own constituency of Batley and Spen, or the battle for Morley and Outwood that nearly saw Ed Balls unseated are interesting cases in point. A large BNP vote emerged that was a key part of the dividing line between the parties. Such a vote would under AV if anything increase, since AV imposes no penalty whatever on making a first preference protest vote - such votes are no longer "wasted", because there is always a second or lower preference vote that will count. Faced with polling that tells you 15% of constituents will give BNP first preference, what do you do? Ignore them, and hope the other candidates will as well? Or find a way to try to appeal to them for a second preference? Or accuse your opponents of being nasty BNP supporters when they do? Is Cameron going to carry on calling UKIP a bunch of fruitcakes and try turning the Tories into an overtly Europhile party? What will Labour and Lib Dems do as more voters express say Green protest votes? AV has a potential to radicalise politics, rather than move it to the centre or leave it at the status quo.

In Australia, AV resulted in essence in a two party system with fringe parties - much as the UK was 50 years ago - which made it indistinguishable from a FPTP system. That dynamic appears to be breaking up there, with over 18% of first preference votes at the recent election going to other parties and independents.

We do not know the outcome that a change to AV will produce, despite the simplistic analyses of psephologists who pretend to know the answers. We might see a return to two party politics, with no significant third party, or a radicalisation of politics with strong influences from minority parties on policies (both outcomes that interestingly might damage the Lib Dems); or we may see a move towards frequent hung Parliaments with Lib Dems holding the balance of power and post-election coalition deals that voters can only guess at in the ballot box.

You pretend that AV will legitimise politicians. The degree of collective mandate in the minds of people isn't really fundamentally changed by the voting system, because the problems with politics at the moment are not really about the voting system at general elections at all - except for such issues as postal voting and electoral register fraud that are not being addressed by this bill.

Carswell and Hannan understand that politics has become debased by the centralised party machines that dictate who the candidates are and what they are permitted to say. Too many MPs are simply lobotomised lobby fodder. MPs in general are held in low esteem by the public, who do not consider them to be worth their salaries that are only two thirds of the earnings of a supervisor of a handful of social workers. We're paying peanuts and duly getting the monkeys.

That we reached such a level of economic crisis under the last Labour government is real testimony to the failure of MPs of all parties to scrutinise policy adequately. Surely even Labour didn't really want the credit crunch? (Well, perhaps Brown did, seeing an opportunity to "blame it on the Tories" as much more important than the health of the nation).

There really are far more pressing areas of political reform that are needed. Proper primary elections as advocated by Hannan and Carswell might help. Attracting people of quality and independence of mind into politics would also be highly beneficial - certainly compared with the Harman equalities agenda, which is simply a mechanism that tries to hide lobby fodder in full view with the effectiveness of an elephant standing in the Serengetti plain. Why are we so dependent on well paid quangocrats, rather than well paid politicians for real policy decisions?

At the moment AV is looking like the wrong answer to the wrong question.

The EU Referendum

Something very funny is a foot, there are now two EU Referendum campaigns staged at the same time. Thus, I wonder when is the main Blitzkrieg Blog and Mr. North, over at EU Referendum going to join the choir? This I wonder since Mr. North and Mrs. Helen S. constitute the arch-duo of proper euroscepticism in the UK. If they do not know something about the EU then it is not worth knowing. Even super-poof nr. 1 Mrs. Dale got there before Mr. North - I tell you what is the world coming to when something like that is allowed to happen?

Hence, Mr. North please rejoin the ranks and lets gets this bloody referendum once and for all, now is as good a time as any; what with all sorts of referendum being en vogue. I am not for a minute naive enough to think that there is actually going to be a referendum but if there is even a hint of media attention then it will have been worthwhile. And if we manage to make just one eurocrat, just the single digit member, somewhat uncomfortable in his seat then it will have been a tremendous success. For then he will realise that he is not safe in his ivory tower, and he will finally come to the understanding, so long evaded by his sort, that he is not a political immortal and that his employer has run-out of goodwill from the people it is supposed to 'represent.'

Alas, here are two perfectly worthwhile causes to sign up two, you know it makes sense:

• Have Your Say
• EU Referendum Campaign

PS. Mr. North I resisted the temptation of putting a picture of you on this post for that would have been ehm ... a bit gay 8-D

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.

Hung Parliament and Proportional Representation Maths

I am going to do some maths now with regards to the voting system know as Proportional Representation. Proportional representation (PR), sometimes referred to as full representation, is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive (e.g., in legislative assemblies).

Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Beware what you set your heart upon. For it shall surely be yours." I am just not sure the Lib Dems are aware of this nor anyone else for that matter.

Consider the election results in the European Election. Turnout across Great Britain was 15,136,932, representing 34% of the electorate. Which means first of all that no one gave a shit since it was such a profoundly pointless election anyway, more like elected dictatorship.

Conservative, votes received: 4,198,394
UKIP, votes received: 2,498,226
Labour, votes received: 2,381,760
Liberal Democrat, votes received: 2,080,613
Green, votes received: 1,223,303
BNP, votes received: 943,598
SNP, votes received: 321,007
Plaid Cymru, votes received: 126,702

Anyhow, 15,136,932 people turned out and that will form our main body from which the proportional system is based. If PR were used in a national election then a higher turnout would be expected somewhere around 30 million perhaps. But I want to demonstrate what would happen if the above number of voters in the EU Parliament election, were used for Westminster elections.

There are 646 seats in the British Parliament in Westminster.

The maths is trivial: Take the number of votes received per party, divide this by the total number of votes cast and take this number times the number of seats available i.e. 646. Then this is what would happen:

Conservative, seats received: 179
UKIP, seats received: 107
Labour, seats received: 102
Liberal Democrat, seats received: 89
Green, seats received: 52
BNP, seats received: 40
SNP, seats received: 14
Plaid Cymru, seats received: 5

Only the most naive and arrogant political pundit or mandarin would suggest that these results could never happen. This is politics, nothing is certain, who thought that arch-mongrel Nick Clegg would actually have a real shot at Nr 10 a few weeks ago? And this is the fundamental message of this exercise, if you adopt PR you will truly adopt elected dictatorship and the UK will most likely follow in the steps of every other major European nation: revolution, death, war and finally a shit coalition government to sort the mess out. The BNP would get 40 MPs for heavens sake! What is more, the LibDems love the EU yet the do not seem to realise that adopting PR might actually results in the UK leaving the EU. You might wonder then why I am so against the PR if it aids the UK leaving the EU, simple: I want to leave on the strength of argument not simple human shortcomings reflected in the PR system. I want to convince people, make them see and believe that the EU is a very very dangerous concept which does control our lives to a very high degree. If you convince by argument, reason and debate you win, if you do it with a hodgepodge coalition government who gave the people a say on the EU because of political advantage - that is not fair play. I do not care what the current political class or what the current 'Political Science' Degree tells its students; always country before party, those are my principles. Always.

The UK was taken into the EU on a lie, lets take her out on the truth.

Just because the establishment is drenched in dirty politics does not mean that we have to be; raising the bar is no particularly hard seeing as it is set so low already. Perhaps I am just a sucker for historical poetic justice but somehow I think it is wrong to change the constitutional settings for short term political gain. It leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

However, we do get the final say on PR. The cattle are yet again queuing up to get whacked. Funny how they always fall for the same lame old story: the farmer just pretends that they’re going on a little trip to pastures new where everything is nice and sunny and lovely and the grass is greener etc. Today we have the politicos herding the bovines into the same old queue with the same old yarn and telling them that the politics is greener on far yonder hill, in the next valley, over the hill, just beyond the rainbow, round the bend.

Changing the system is the easy way to out, taking responsibility for their actions is not, clearly why no one is offering that platform.

By the by, you do not have to be a Ladbrokes Mathematician, with a PhD in statistics to work this out; I did it with Excel at 2AM in the morning.

EUthanasia

If the 'Blue Mob' get in, they are not going 'to get powers back'.

The very nature of the Grand European Project means that it can't give powers back as to do so would threaten the rationale of it's very existence. And before you go down the "it's no longer a treaty it's the law" line, bear in mind that when Wilson offered the 1975 referendum on leaving the EEC, Parliament had "ratified" our membership in April of that same year.

The powers in Brussels make no secret of this fact therefore sooner or later, Ol' Cast Iron is going to have to face the choice of either going along with the current European Integration project or getting out.

No 'ifs' or 'buts'. The UK isn't going to get anything back from the EU as to do so would force a 'reset' of the EC Councils core philosophy as espoused by d'Estaing and continued by his successors.

It is disengenuous on the part of David Cameron to pretend that under his leadership huge swathes of EU law will simply be ignored or somehow disappear into the 'ether' (the matter in which light was supposed to travel in).

As much as DC tries to hold both wings of the Party together when it comes to Europe, sooner or later the dancing on the head of the pin will have to stop and he will have to accept the fait accompli that is Europe or get out... Why am I telling you this, well because clouds of pragmatism seem to have blow from Iceland, along with the ash, onto my head. I truly, with my whole heart, despise the EU and I certainly make no secret of this whenever the floor is given. But, the Tories are the only thing resembling anything remotely right-wing in this election (Labour, LibDems, Greens, BNP - they are all left wing) so my pernicious vote is standing in the balance. Either it goes to the Tories or it does not. I am more than aware that what currently constitutes the Conservative Party is nothing conservative whatsoever. But it appears that this is all we have in this very troubling monoglot Fabian world. Where do we cast our allegiance when the receptors have no intent of using it? We are in a no-mans land really; every election is a defining moment for a country but not anymore. Not as long as the bulk of sovereign power lays in Brussels with the EU (notice the oxymoron) - is a vote for the Tories a means to an end or an end altogether? Can we trust them to swing that mighty Trident of the British Parliament like it was swung 60 years ago? Or will it simply be left in the English channel to rust and be withered away by the waves of time.

Blue Labour or New Labour... perhaps it doesn't matter when powers are in the hands of the great Eye in Brussels. UKIP are not the last hope of getting the UK out of the EU. UKIP are the last hope of getting the UK out of the EU politically. In the mid 1600's men fought and died for the right to vote for our political leaders - no-one voted for the 27 EU commissioners who are our political masters now. In the early 1900's women also won the right to vote for our political leaders - no-one voted for the 27 EU commissioners who are our political masters now. Whatever this Orwellian construct is, it is not permanent.

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.

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

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.

A return of....

Well upon the shores of Neverland it was thus that I return to you know to deliver yet again the stifling criticism that this government seems hellbound to impose upon itself again and again and again... you get the drift.

Hollies are over and we have many interesting zenits coming up the most important in my opinion the second completely undemocratic and quite frankly insulting vote on exactly the same treaty; Lisbon.

Whilst this impending democratic projection (read "farce") cannot be halted we should take great pride in two facts as to regards to the reverberations in the UK;

1. The Conservative Party conference (the big big one) takes places after the vote. Seeing as the Irish are being drowned in "yes" propaganda seemingly without balance not to say an invicible "no" camp after Ganley's withdrawal - I think we all know what the outcome will be.

2. If Cameron does not give the British people a referendum or decides to take a route which ostencibly is not very very eurosceptic he will loose votes, and he will loose a lot of votes - if word gets out that he is siding with the continentals, out goes the majority. If he does not give a referendum the coming year will mark the entrance of UKIP into mainstream British politics.

As they say across the pond; the ball is in your court Mr. Cameron.

Addendum: The picture is of an actual poster employed by Fini Gael last time around, I think you can sense the desperation within Irish eurocrats.

Everyone should watch this

Anyone and everyone who stands for truth, dignity, liberty, justice and the end to non-accountability should watch this. It is Gordon's greatest day for he finally got to hear what everyone was thinking (what everyone was thinking was probably a lot harsher but we must be cordial, even if it means being cordial to a political asinine).

Ohh no Independent you are not

We often like to style ourselves of commenting of the political classes across Britain and Europe. The really good stuff however, the revelations, come not from here [yet] but from the people over at EU Referendum. With that in lets have a look at piece written by Andrew Grice in the Independent.

Rarely has a comment been so factually inaccurate with regards to public opinion and political response to tough questions raised in parliament, whichever it might be. Mr Grice starts of with this line

"Mr Cameron would demand Britain's withdrawal from the EU social chapter of workers' rights. That would swiftly be rejected by all 26 other member states."

I am not sure if Mr. Grice has fully comprehended the extent to which British voters are truly sick of the EU. When they finally do impose the working hours directive (you cannot work more than 48 hours a week) on these islands they will effectively be guilty of murder, take surgeons who cannot possibly work under those conditions or the police officers etcetera... Not to mention the average worker who just wants to put a bit more money into the household. Mr. Cameron's demands will be quickly rejected by the EU, but how on earth do they think that will reverberate back here in the UK? They EU is not exactly popular over here (84% want a referendum on 'In' or 'Out'). When the EU starts to reject Mr. Cameron's demands they will be building upon the pressure to have that referendum. In concert with this the LibDems will most likely start the pressure train by adding in their manifesto precisely that referendum - the beginning of the end some might say (I do not really think so but it certainly spells a new high for euroscepticism).
Thus they can and will reject all demands, but the popularity of the EU (already abysmaly low) will drop down dead like a man who has had too much to drink.

Mr. Grice goes on...

"There is bemusement here in Brussels about Mr Cameron's decision to take his party's MEPs out of the mainstream centre-right group in the European Parliament, the European People's Party (EPP), after elections to it in June. It is too federalist for his tastes, and he believes it is dishonest to say "one thing in London and another in Brussels".So the supposedly modernised Tories will walk away from the parties of Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel to form a new gang with a motley collection of Eurosceptics. The only two members signed up so far include an anti-gay rights Polish party, one of whose MPs warned that a Barack Obama victory would mean "the end of the civilisation of the white man", and a Czech party whose founder describes climate change as a 'global myth'."

Lets have a look then who is in the EPP shall we? (that said we are not condoning the statements made by the Polish party as for the climate change myth see further down). Again Mr. Hannan must be thanked for his excellent research into the EPP, he is an MEP so understandably his research would belittle any produced by ourselves.

- There is a party in the EPP which ran for general election in Italy with the poster "Daddy and Papa? This isn't the family we want!"

- There is a party in the EPP whose first minister called for deportations "We have too many criminal young foreigners... Germany has had a Christian and Western culture for centuries, and foreigners who don't stick to our rules don't belong here".

- There is an austrian party who called for the banning of burqas "If we allow consultations to be held in Turkish, we will one day become Turkish ourselves".

Mr. Grice also said this, which he must have though was awfully clever of him "It's a bit odd for Mr Cameron to expend so much energy on erasing the Tories' "nasty party" image at home, only to join the nasties in Europe." I am sure that is rather obvious now who did their homework and who did not which begs the question why do these people get to write commentaries?

As for the climate change "global myth" echoed by, I believe it was Czech president Vaclav Klaus (feel free to correct me on this) well we are not going to jump on the bandwagon because everyone else believes it is fashionable to do so. When there are so many prominent scientific authorities out there who clearly reject the claims made by the globa warming lobby, not to mention the rescent snow falls..., we're not going to look the fools just because we were not clever enough to have an opinion of our own (and by this virtue accumulating the arguments of both camps) - unlike Mr. Grice.

"The British public may not love Europe but they don't want to pull out of the EU. The financial crisis has illustrated the need for governments to act together. Mr Cameron accepts the need for EU co-operation on climate change. Recessions, too, do not respect borders."

The poll mentioned above have it that 55% do indeed want to pull out and this figure (this figure fluctuates between 35% and 65% neither a vindicating figure for Mr. Grice). As for acting together, well I am sure Iceland has a thing or two to say about that in response to Mr. Brown and eventhough their economy is not in the best of sorts at the moment they still do not want to join the EU much to the dismay we must believe to the EU apparatchiks seeing as they wont get those massive fishing zones currently controlled by Iceland. Or why not mention who pretty much every goverment in the EU despises Brown's economic stimulus plan - indeed great cooperation.

"Close allies predict Mr Cameron will concentrate on the economic problems he will inherit and let sleeping European dogs lie. But Europe could still rise up and bite him."

At this point I must agree with Mr. Grice but he is again forgetting that the in or out referendum is building momentum as we speak and any negative news coming from the EU will only alter the pace of that momentum for the better. Mr. Cameron may not bite hard but you can as hell that the Labourites and LibDems will make short work of him if he does not deliver upon his manifesto, they know that EU wont go away and they know that it will tear the tories to pieces if they do not get their act together on this explosive question.

Scorn of the day

"If the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next general election, and a Conservative Government is elected, we would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote. If the British people rejected the Treaty, we would withdraw Britain's ratification of it."

This came from here.

There is something in the world of logic knows as iff, that's right and i followed by TWO f's.

Wikipedia defines iff as this "the truth of either one of the connected statements requires the truth of the other, i.e., either both statements are true, or both are false. The connective is thus an "if" that works both ways."

With this in mind we can rewrite the conservative policy like this instead, as to save words and seem 'down' and 'hipp' with the hoi polloi (ambiguity is a favourite past time for all party apparatchiks why they can never produce a policy which is written in plain English).

We would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a 'no' vote iff we are elected and the treaty has not been ratified.

Now with the logic explained above, in mind, this means that they would not put the treaty to a vote if they did not come to power (this is reasonable) and they would not put the treaty to a vote if they had come to power but it had already been ratified (this is not reasonable). They would do nothing should both statements turn out to be false.

There you have it. Make more sense? Not really.