The fall of Cameron? I am taking bets

So dear friends and readers; who think this might just lead to the fall of Cameron? (fingers crossed, touch wood, and all that bollocks)

£5 says it does.

Any takers?

British Politicians, the small print and the EU

There is no point in me writing a post on this myself, Mary Riddell has done a fine job of that already.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, rhubarb, rhubarb, order in the House, 'physically ill' and the rest of it. All I can say to the Commons over this votes for prisoners dispute is: just shut up and pull the trigger and get out of the Council of Europe. Or admit you are too timid to pull the trigger, so shut up anyway and submit in the manner that suits men who are cowards.

This noise about how Britain may now stand against to the council's European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is at best naive and in most cases (yes, you, David Cameron) is synthetic. What Cameron has done on this one is pretend this is the crucial line he won't cross. Meanwhile, very much more quietly and apparently without a moment of squeamishness (odd that, how selective the prime minister's stomach is on parliamentary sovereignty), his Government hands over more and more power to the European Union.

What he has done by stirring up this prisoners' votes business is simply give the euro-anxious Tories a different kind of 'European' bone on which to chew. Yet this issue is not the meat. The ECHR and its decisions are not the things most endangering Britain's sovereignty now.

Still, if MPs are really so determined to stop this so-called 'encroachment' by Strasbourg, maybe a technical note first. Britain freely (and foolishly) agreed long ago to give the court at Strasbourg all the powers that the ECHR has since been using. This so-called 'court' at has never invaded Britain -- the supine British opened the gates to all these European 'justices' and their powers to decide Britain's laws.

The angry cries, even among my colleagues, that there has been 'remorseless undermining' of Britain's parliament and courts implies that the ECHR has been tunnelling away under the stone walls of Britain, rather in the manner of medieval seige warfare. It hasn't. The ECHR has done only and exactly what decades of euro-supine British politicians have allowed it to do. The drawbridge has been down all along, with 'We are all Europeans now' written on cloth-of-gold and slung from the battlements.

All parliament has to do if it really does want to stop the powers of this 'court' is just vote to pull out of the Council of Europe, ECHR and all. Then this absurdity of votes for prisoners, and every other ECHR so-called 'human rights' absurdity, goes away; or at least -- and this is what Cameron is hiding in this debate -- until Brussels reminds the United Kingdom that by signing up to Lisbon Treaty and the rest, powers across the Channel can go on imposing these 'human rights' on Britain whether the UK tries to derogate from the ECHR decisions or leaves the Council of Europe altogether.

Cameron, being so very busy having a public relations-designed 'physcal illness' over the issue, won't admit that the problem with exactly this kind of control by foreign powers over Britain's legislation will continue as long as Britain stays in the EU: even if Britain now refuses votes for prisoners -- and it won't; in the end, some man caught with 10,000 child porn images on his laptop will have the liberty to cancel out your vote -- ultimately the EU will have ways of getting the same decision reached in the European Court of Justice (the EU 'court,' this one in Luxembourg with the power to enforce EU law in member states). All that will be necessary is for some other ex-con lowlife to bring another case, this time in Luxembourg not Strasbourg.

The Lisbon Treaty, among many other poisonous things, gave the EU 'legal personality' for the first time. That means it can sign international agreements, not as an agent for a group of 27 sovereign states, but as a state in its own right. And as this new country called Europe, it is going to join the Council of Europe. It will be a member just as the United Kingdom is now.

What that means is that Britain, even if it pulls out of the Council of Europe, will still be bound to the damned thing as a part of the EU: remember, Lisbon made us all 'citizens of the EU' now. If you are a native of England, Scotland Wales or Ireland, your nationality is now 'European' whether you want it or not. The treaty says so, and the treaty, thanks to the refusal by Cameron and William Hague to fight it, is law.

Treaties and other international agreements now signed by the EU will be directly binding on the UK and have primacy over all UK laws and the British constitution. And, no, Britain does not have a veto over most of the things the EU might sign treaties on.

Slightly delicious note: I gather the EU's signing for the membership has been held up because the EU is demanding that decisions of the ECHR cannot over-rule the decisions of the ECJ. In other words, Brussels is demanding that its own court have supremacy over the ECHR, something Britain has surrendered for its own Supreme Court.

So there could be turf conflicts between the euro-courts. As Open Europe notes in its briefing this week on the votes for prisoners dispute, the EU has its own catalogue of justiciable rights -- '' 'the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. The Charter allows citizens to contest rights set down in EU law at the European Court of Justice, and, in future, possibly also the ECHR (when the EU accedes to it).'

This will make it 'increasingly difficult for the UK to negotiate a carve-out from European human rights legislation.'

As for the detail of this particular case of prisoners' votes, 'Withdrawal from the ECHR would allow the UK to ignore ECHR rulings on prisoners votes when it come to general elections. However, as voting rights in European Parliament and local elections are covered by EU law as well as national law, their application in the UK could in future be challenged at the ECHR or the ECJ.'

Oh, and as for the Cameron fudge about limiting the vote to prisoners serving four years or less, the ECHR has already struck down that notion in a similar case, Scoppola v Italy. It decided that the prisoner's rights were violated because Italian law barred him from voting on the basis of his sentence. So they will knock down Cameron's four years, too, and I'd suspect he knows it.

Which is why the noise in the Commons over this is just noise. Either parliament is sovereign or it's not, and until the MPs vote to take Britain out of the EU, it's not: the 'legal personality' called the 'European Union' is sovereign.

So the MPs might as well go home; or go around to the 'Scrubs for a bit of canvassing.

...And back to me. Peter Oborne has this funny statement on his blog

But it just isn’t going to happen. Even if he launched on this kamikaze mission, he wouldn’t complete it. Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has already advised Downing Street that banning votes for prisoners is illegal. I guess he would resign, along with Ken Clarke. I am told that most of the supreme court judges would follow Clarke out of the door, launching Britain into a full-scale constitutional crisis. Not only that, Nick Clegg, who has been strangely silent on all this, would walk out of the Coalition.

Who cares if Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and the Supreme Court judges walk out? They are doing so on their principles not ours and they are supposed to represent us and our parliament. It is not a constitutional crisis when the people that walk out have no support form the electorate anyway. If they had the support of voters and truly trumpeted the vox populi, the story would be different. Hence I cannot see where this "constitutional crisis" would be coming from, simply because no one would care and a few would cheer.

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.

Fight on your feat or Live on your knees

What a fucking joke the Conservative Party has become. The only solace that one can take from this is that once there is a new leader he wont be anything but a proper conservative - he would not dare be anything else. Of course by the time that happens, there probably wont be a Conservative party.

If it is not blindingly obvious I just happen to be one of those "right-wing grassroots" that everyone is talking about, and how they will revolt, and we have; here I am revolting. I find Mr. Cameron even more pathetic than I did a year ago but at least now I am 'revolting' about it. I suppose it does feel good to have your long standing scepticism confirmed once and for all. To the rest of my fellow grassroots, if any, please step our of Mr. Cameron's ass for just one second, and realise that you have been royally shafted; there is nothing conservative about the current government and that is the way it was intended. I do not base this upon a Daily Mail article, no, but on every single reaction so far being of muted scepticism from Liberal Democrats. Of course you wont be hearing a lot of noise from the "official" grassroots retreat on the internet, they, you understand, 'support' Mr. Cameron even though he has nothing but contempt for them it would seem. Good thing the new intake of MPs are a lot more independent than the last, three line whip or not, if Mr. Cameron does not take care he will be whipped - out of office, and not too soon either.

Alas, in the meantime, until they get rid of that ridiculous poster boy fronting as a conservative (Mr. Cameron) I think I am going to be an independent. Something of a pseudo-mix of UKIP, American Republicanism (monarchist I remain nonetheless) and a large dose of Libertarian. Same principles but different name, now that my normal abode has been invaded.

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.

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.

Conservative Policy - another one bites the dust

Cameron is quickly, very quickly, becoming the true heir to Blair delivering a policy manifesto which is to all intents and purposes complete and utter bollocks, useful to no one and useless to everyone. So far it includes

• climate change
• gay rights
• international development
• defence cuts
• increasing taxes.
• ring fenced the NHS budget

Very little is being mentioned on the EU, Immigration, ECHR or the economy (the economy in the sense or proposing something which might work, cutting the deficit is fine if you actually know how to).

So here is where the above issues stand

Climate change, turned out to be a fraud yet Greer than thou Cameron is making it a centrepiece of Tory policy

Gay rights are fine, but they are now instead discriminating against religious people who do not like gays. You might call them simple, but there are a couple of million of them so that probably is not advisable.

Ring fencing international development aid? Seriously wtf?

Defence cuts amid a bloody war, Monty would explode if he knew.

Increasing taxes - great vote winner.

Ring fence the NHS budget - yes lets ring fence the damn thing instead of actually trying to streamline the second largest employer in the world, cannot be any waste there now can it?

UK closing embassies + EU opening embassies = coincidence? No fucking way

Some "coincidences" are just too enticing to ignore. Weeks after the Lisbon Treaty saw Europe's burgeoning overseas diplomacy service finally gain legal status, it has been announced that cash-strapped Britain will be forced to close many embassies because it can no longer afford them. While that was announced it was quietly glossed over that 50 EU embassies are to open.

The Conservatives claim that the Foreign Office has drawn up a "secret list" of posts to be closed. Much of the financial shortfall is down to the fact that £ Sterling has plunged on the foreign currency exchanges over the past two years. Coincidentally, this is around the the time Foreign Secretary David Miliband abolished the Overseas Price Mechanism, which made up for budget shortfalls due to currency fluctuations.

A Labour peer revealed yesterday that anti-extremist activity in Pakistan was being wound down thanks to the budget shortfall. The government says that it will make up the shortfall thanks to the crucial priority the Afghan-Pakistan border region has for British security; the future of our many embassies is less clear, yet more obvious: The EU's Foreign Affairs will rush in where Britons can no longer afford to tread.

As usual with these events, once we get used to living without embassies in unglamorous nations and political backwaters, the closure of British missions will become more and more widespread, with the ever-eager EU taking up the slack. We might even make a few quid selling off our abandoned premises to Brussels. Before long, our independent diplomatic service will consist of a couple of "cultural centres" in Paris, Washington and Beijing.

The Conservatives of course are having great fun at the misfortunes of their Labour stunt doubles. Yet David Cameron and George Osborne promise an even harsher age of austerity than that Labour threatens.

Can we have a commitment from the Conservatives to keep our embassies open, however the Pound Sterling performs?

No? Didn't think so.

Good man EUROSOC always on the ball.

What will happen eventually is that the UK is going to be broken up and Scotland, NI and Wales will go their separate ways. Upon which England will finally leave the EU and stand alone once again on the world stage. It is a sad future but regrettably the only realistic one we face. Hence we will leave, I do not doubt this, but it will be at the price of the union. To Scottish nationalists I can only say this; it is all very well when you gained independence of your own accord, it gives semblance to a patriotic notion of consciousness. But having it served on a plate from a foreign interlocutor is just not very noble. Though you may gain independence, as will we, you will not have done it on your own and that, I must say, I find less than honourable (no doubt I will receive a lot of criticism from scots who disagree with my harsh future - fine, that is what discussion is all about).

Finally, I find it a bit sad that EU Referendum has not written anything about this yet. Mr. North and Co. are usually very up to date on issues pertaining or relating to the mischievous footnotes of the "democratically negotiated" EU treaties. But, alas, it has yet to materialise.

Note to the reader: I try to keep the cursing to a minimum on this blog for I do not find it a respectable activity to partake in, nor does it convey the message one tries to put forth without a semblance of sensationalism. This time however I have employed the f-word in the title of the post, for I cannot believe what set of low-life and treacherous morals a man bears when he happily sells of his country to the highest bidder. For make no mistake none of the politicians who voted through the Lisbon Treaty in parliament did so on the strength of it actually helping Britain. No, I have read it, so have most people vaguely interest in the EU, and it was clear for all to see what precisely would happen to nation states when passed. This was Judecca-politics of the most disgusting kind. I have not doubt however that they will all get what they deserve in the end.

Update: Victory! EU Referendum has now mentioned it. And defeat on my part for it turns out that they indeed have written about it, lots of times. I should have known... The student remains the student and the master remains the master.

An analysis of the EU policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

"'Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number,

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you -

Ye are many - they are few."

-Percy Bysshe Shelley

Cameron Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy of the The Hunstman.

Cameron U-turn and that picture...

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

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

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

Cameron to axe EU referendum pledge - The Times

David Cameron to tell voters: no vote on Lisbon Treaty - The Telegraph

Cameron risks wrath of Tory Eurosceptics as he signals there won't be vote on Lisbon Treaty - The Mail

UPDATE:

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

Poltics and Spotify

I am not entirely sure if ye older readers are aware of the amazing software this is Spotify, if you are not I sincerely suggest you increase your musical horizons for it is quite useful. Anyhow some of you who do use the service might know that a couple of days ago the tories started to air their adds in between the songs. They state the obvious of course; sensationalist soundbites which they hope will encourage younger people like me to grasp the seriousness of the situation and ergo vote for the 'right' party which naturally is the Tories.

Before I go into why this is so monumentally stupid let me just remind you all where they Tories got their name from. The name originally applied in the 17th century to Irish Roman Catholic outlaws and bandits who harassed the English in Ireland. In the reign of Charles II the name came to be applied as an abusive term to supporters of the Crown. The word comes from the Irish word 'toraighe' which means 'pursue'. Which is quite apt seeing as the official name of the party is the Conservatives but I am seriously starting to ask myself what on earth are they conserving? The Great British pub? The superb armed forces? Centuries upon centuries of history which have laid the foundation stones of Britain today? (no they wont repeal the smoking ban and actually make people responsible for their own actions, no they are going to cut major defence projects and troop numbers, they wont repeal all the ridiculous constitutional "reform" acts which have beset the past two decades and have utterly destroyed parliament as we once knew it)

As such you might wonder what this has to do with Spotify? The person explains how Gordon Brown has created a massive debt for the country. We know this, it is hard to miss. Yet it is not as if Cameron's, Howard's or Major's tories have not been complacent in destroying this once very great nation (with or without empire) - look at the Tory voting record in Brussels for example they nearly always voted in favour for giving more power to Brussels at the expense of national parliaments. This was during the EPP time and you might say that that will all change because Cameron has pulled the party out of the integrationist leviathan. Bollocks to that, look at Cameron he is Tony Blair with flaky hair no different at all. He is winging on the referendum, he only pulled the Tories out of the EPP so he would win the party leadership. He does not care about being Blair's lapdog - as little as Blair cared for being Bush's lap dog all those years ago.

Policies? Stick another logo on them and they might as well have come from LibDem HQ or Labour HQ they are that similar. This leads you to believe that while Brown is utterly disastrous as a leader and minister how on earth will Cameron be different? He has not character and appears to be basing all his policies on the whims of the media and not of the people - they may be the most ludicrous of whims but that is what representative democracy is all about: to represent the electorate for that is the power you have been given ON LOAN.

While Mr. Cameron might think that he is being progressive (I do not know how the fuck he ever could have got that into his head but rest assured he has) by introducing all women shortlists he is doing precisely the same wishy-washy lovey-dovey stuff that the Labour government of the past 12 years have done. We see through you and believe you are a utter twat for even considering putting gender before experience and merit. The same goes pretty much for all their policies, immigration for example - yesterday it was confirmed what we all knew that mass-immigration was a political decision not economic (look as the HoL's report on the matter), Tory response: a cap. Well hoo-fucking-ray why not introduce something cheaper which has a proven track record instead? Exit checks, why oh why are they so bad and politically incorrect?! Is it such a crime to know who is actually in the country?

Centre politics is politics without principle and it is always bollocks.

The Grand list of predictions - add your own

In election times such as these the coming months will see a lot of predictions as to who will win the general election '10 and what kind of majority they will get and so on. This is only to be expected however I want to make a more long term prediction of my own, one which I think people will share (I hope) at least moderately. The year 2010 to 2015:

1. The Tories will not win the General Election in 2015 under David Cameron for he will have comprehensively proved that he was nothing other than Tony Mark II and the Tories nothing but BluLabour. This is proved by recent events showing precisely what kind of government we can expect; no Lisbon referendum or why not all-women shortlists or take the privatisation of Royal Mail. They will not be any different and what is more no party in power is ever eurosceptic.
2. Daniel Hannan will most likely leave the party as he will probably realise during the coming 5 years that the Tories under Cameron do not represent his views (the views he has come to demonstrate thus far). What he would join instead I cannot say.
3. Ibid. Douglas Carswell and probably David Davies as well.
4. The BNP will rise with an alarming rate as the main three continue to mute themselves on issues which actually matter to the people; EU, Defence, Immigration, Law and Order, Corrupting welfare, Expensive and Unreliable transport, Violent schools, Unaffordable houses, high taxes and overbearing government. Mr. Cameron will find that it is extremely convenient for him to keep the status quo on most of these issues once he enters Downing Street, of course making it difficult for him since he has promised reform on pretty much every area.

This list will be added to, naturally, five years is a long period and there are a lot of predictions to make but the above four seem plausible, at least to me. I suggest Dave gets another row model other than Mr. Obama, socialism a.k.a. New Labour has had its day in this country.

An admission

Mr. 13th Spitfire has to make an admission which most likely will reveal some of he anonymity which he holds so dear - hopefully not to the extent that people will know who he is.

I am a student.

There you have it the sole reason for my being so utterly absent from this blog and its few but valiant readers who take a moment of their, most likely, very busy day to read the thoughts and comments of one who is not yet even a comparable figure in matters politics and history, to themselves. For this I say thank you and hope that my absence has not opened the flood gates to exit for the previous readers of this blog.

But rather we must ask ourselves what on earth is happening in British politics today - has the country gone utterly mad? The BNP, it appears are, as popular as ever, the Tories are transcending into what we always knew they would; BluLabour (they think positive discrimination towards women is a good thing whereas experience and meritocracy are to be shunned) and the LibDems and Labour are as infantile as a muffin - which is always good news.

What will come of this then? We will most likely see only one term of Mr. Cameron for he is displaying all the same qualities as Tony Blair and the latter is not exactly a popular figure in the UK. Probably a second term though for the Tories but under a new leader most likely Boris Johnson, Osbourne or perhaps David Davies. Definitely a leadership challenge.

Something is a float....

I have remarked before on how there is something very sinister going on in the shadows with regards to Tory EU policy. I just read a comment over on Hannan's blog which read

"We’ll find ourselves shoulder-to-shoulder in the “No” campaign when the time comes. But don’t give up on Klaus yet. As the German ambassador to London told his French counterpart in August 1914: “You have your information; we have ours”."

What information do they have which we do not? Why were all Tory MPs called by Tory HQ and told not to comment upon the Lisbon Issue (according to Gerald Warner)?

As much as it pleases me to see that the Tories at least have a Plan B despite Cameron's "one policy at a time" nonsense, I cannot help but feel that this is a just a rehash of New Labour's government. Where seemingly all decisions were taken by a small clique and 'sofa-government' was the norm with no minutes taken whatsoever. Is this the kind of government we can expect from the Tories with or without the Lisbon Treaty? Regardless of the EU this will not go down well with the electorate. We want transparency, we want democracy and we bloody well want our dignity back.

I do hope Dave obliges or he will only be a 'one-hit-wonder' Prime Minister.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum Poll - what do you think?

More Supreme Court letters to HM Opposition

The following is the mail I sent to Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary, with regards to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 which created, amongst other things, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

"Dear Mr. Grieve,

I write to you with regards to the newly created Supreme Court. Will the Conservatives go along with this constitutional vandalism or will you seek to restore the law lords as created by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876? Further, as the party seems to harbour, quite rightly in my opinion, some objects to the ECHR upon who's advice, apparently, part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 was based on - will this accelerate your position on the Human Rights Act which you seek to abolish?

Finally, what are the prospects of scrapping the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 completely?"

This is the reply I got from one Mr. Robert Prager - aide to Mr. Grieve.

"Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your recent email to Dominic Grieve regarding the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Act. Your comments are duly noted and have been passed on to Mr Grieve for his consideration.

Conservatives appreciate your concerns regarding the newly established court. The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has served this country well since the Nineteenth Century, and at negligible cost.

Now that the Supreme Court is in existence, it needs to function properly and within a sensible budget. Current plans, however, show it will cost £14 million per year to run, compared to £3 million for the previous arrangement. Most will consider that this project, conceived on the back of an envelope by Tony Blair and Lord Falconer represents financial profligacy that cannot be afforded in our current economic situation. However, we fear that the cost of undoing it would be even higher.

The Government has done this whilst at the same time refusing to make other changes that would improve the balance of the constitution. Parliament needs to be stronger, MPs more independent and the Government more accountable to the electorate. David Cameron has outlined Conservative proposals in detail, which can be found online at www.conservatives.com

With regards to the Human Rights Act, the Conservative Party has consistently expressed its concerns over the way it has operated in practice. The Act has failed to protect our core liberties, and exacerbated the impact of excessive judicial legislation from both the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and our own domestic courts. If elected, a Conservative government would replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights in order to better protect our freedoms whilst giving Parliament greater democratic control over the process of creating new rights. Conservatives are confident this will preserve our personal freedoms, whilst strengthening democratic accountability and social responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact Mr Grieve."

Alas it was confirmed what most of us already knew; the Conservatives are patriots in word but not in name. They seem to believe that they are being financially pragmatic by not scrapping the Supreme Court. Yet to Mr. Grieve, somehow, you wont save money by using the Law Lords which are 460% cheaper than the current hodgepodge. Apparently saving £11 million each year is not a viable option, in turn meaning that they would pay of the whole building renovation in just 6 years (the Guildhall building had a price tag of £66 million for renovation costs and accessories). This is at a time when Mr. Cameron wants to cut the price of politics. Yeah right, pull the other leg.

Note also another piece of legislation which aims to bring us inline with the rest of Europe (yes I know that that Constituional Reform Act 2005 was conceived because of the ECHR) which will be put forth for further readings next year; the Constitutional Renewal Bill.

Is it worth fighting?

Having now gone over what I perceive to be my daily round of the MSM and independent blogs which purvey they stories as they really happened, I must ask is it worth fighting anymore? Are we winning the battles but loosing the war? Sure, Guido has his moments and sometimes he really gets a rotten egg or two, and forces them out of office. But that person is always replaced. Yes, Hannan is an amazing orator as well as a good author but being vehemently academically eurosceptic does not turn politics around, for the "people who matter" as Barosso so patronizingly did not refer to us British, are not listening.

Last week a poll showed that the support for a 'yes' vote had dropped, good news we all thought, they are finally seeing reason. Yet today it seems as if 2/3 intend to vote 'yes' instead. Ok that may well be the situation, but we solider on and we will overthrow this leviathan one day, after all Cameron has precious little options left for him should the Irish vote 'yes' this time around. However with Cameron you cannot be certain of anything and certainly not anything as principally requiring as the EU. The Economist have him as a "eurosceptic" whilst the most us, I would hazard a guess, know that he is nothing of the sort. Dave along with the Tories wont do anything to jeopardise the 'project' we know that. As if to confirm this; in 2007, the latest complete year for which accounts are available, Britain received 4.2 billion euros (£3.7 billion) compared with 6.9 billion euros given to Germany, £6.9 billion euros going to Spain and 5.9 billion euros to Italy. The biggest winner was France, which received 10.3 billion euros. What does big bright and dandy Tory spokesman on Europe, Mark Francois, say about this then

"There are serious problems with the EU budget and it badly needs reform.There was a great opportunity to achieve it when the last budget was agreed in 2005, but thanks to the government's cack-handed negotiations nothing was done."

My dear friend you have been trying to reform it since 1972, when are you going to realise that no such thing is possible. It is not a coincidence that the system works like it does, this is the final design, the master blue print, a perfect being needs no change - stop deluding yourself. It is all very well feeding the voters all that horse-poo of how you are going to reform the EU but surely you could at least try to sound sincere could you not?

That front is being lost as well. As was expected I suppose, what with the Union (the British one) about to be cracked open as well, it is very timely indeed. A second front then, the one in Afghanistan which our proud MoD is fighting so hard to cling onto. One would expect that with such a commitment the British Armed Forces must be getting the very best treatment in the world as proof of their invaluable service to the United Kingdom - well you would think that would you not, it stands up to reason so why not to the MoD?

British troops, including many injured on front line duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, are to be eased out of the army in an efficiency drive being overseen by Kevan Jones, the veterans’ minister. Smashing indeed. At the same time John Barrowman reckons that contestants in talent shows should get treatment after having appeared in such a show. Yes, poor contestants lets spend tax-payer money on unfulfilled egos who had to face up to, voluntarily, the harsh British public - I hope they get all the treatment they need, at least, suffice to say, the troops are not.

This may not be such a jolly 'my take on events' section as displayed by other blogs, notably Iain Dale and Subrosa. I ask what is the point? We can all trot around the blogosphere in our little groups and talk about the problems that beset our once great nation - in truth little are we doing, like marching and protesting, against the foes themselves. What is the point?

'Apocalyptic' and 'Fatalist' people will scream and shout at the above content, I conquer who would not? But that is the harsh reality, being pragmatic is not a crime. Being a soul-quenching optimist at a point when the country most needs its stern, realistic managers that is one.

Addendum: For the small claque of you who find pleasure in reading my blog I thank you for your wisdom and comments. I can assure you for all my cynicism I will never stop fighting. As Margaret Mead said

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”

PS. Watch out for the coming 'series' on Constitutional Vandalism. Why was the Lord Chancellor's department really abolished in favour of a Ministry of Justice? Why did Jack Straw remove the dress code for the judiciary? Stay tuned!

Immigration

I was very affected by the article written by Max Hastings in the Mail. This is of course the purpose of the Mail to stir up irrational emotions in the reader disregarding fact but regarding fervour. However having established this about the Mail I am not sure about this piece, it is very well written I must concede (if you have not read it yet). Which is why I now have taken it upon myself to talk about some of the issues it raises. This being an article about immigration you must now assume that I am racist if you are still hooked in the smoldering Britain created by New Labour, where political correctness is law. Thankfully I believe people are starting to catch onto to the lie and normal conversation is slowly starting to reappear. We can only assume that when the Tories reach government they will abolish at least some of the PC.

The article describes how, in fact, we have been mislead by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) and that 'Mohammed' (in all its forms) is really the third most popular name in the UK, disloging 'Thomas' from that spot. There are two theories about this revelation (which was revealed back in 2007 as well...) either Muslims breed a lot more than normal people in conjunction with extremely high levels of immigration or all Muslim families name their male children 'Mohammed' as a homage to the Prophet. The former is not a theory as much as a fact. The latter however we must discuss.

Muslims do like their Prophet-a lot-so it is appropriate for them to name their sons 'Mohammed' to pay their respects sort to speak. While the statistics show that 'Mohammed' is the third most popular name it is partially because, well, every single Muslim boy is called 'Mohammed' but has a couple of other names so to not confuse the rest of us. Observe:

'Hi there could I pay with my card please?' says customer.

'Sure thing just sign here' says waiter.

'M-o-h-a-m-m-e-d S-h-a-k-i-l C-o-s-b-y'

Waiter walks away with the machine, gets stabbed and subsequently a new waiter has to give the card back to our Mohammed. The new waiter having no clue as to who the customer is exclaims, loudly, in the middle of the dining room, 'I am looking for a Mohammed Shakil Cosby - is he here?'

'Here!' ejaculate fifteen different people. Had she said only 'Shakil Cosby' the issue would have been quickly resolved but she fell into a particular Muslims trap whereby most Muslim boys are called 'Mohammed' in some form or another in their name.

However this is only half the truth. The name 'Mohammed' has not but one spelling but 14. Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one. While they like to call their boys 'Mohammed' they do have a very much higher birth rate than to non-Muslims and as such we are indeed seeing an explosion in babies born to Muslims parents - who themselves can expect to be raised as Muslims. Is this a new phenomenon? Well yes quite frankly it is. The name Mohammed only made it into The 30 Names in the UK, in 2000. Which you will agree is very recently. Moreover in 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.

Simply put we wont be seeing Shari law in the UK anytime soon (well there are already 60 Shari courts with "laws" that are legally enforceable) but it is very inaccurate to claim that the Muslim population is growing alarmingly fast. Why "alarmingly"? Because they are the least likely to integrate into the British society. And if you somehow manage to link that to racism please please please, I beg you, say so in the comment section and then back it up.

A poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting that the London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent (the last one 'violent' is interesting since the police records of the last decade show "domestic violence" (man beating a woman) as 45-65% higher in Muslim homes than in any other communities, including the notoriously violent-towards-women African ones). While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims. Safe to say we are doing something very very wrong over here and I think it is quite simple; we are pandering to their differences and make it seem as if being British is a bad thing. While simply not saying 'no' when they overstep the mark and insult our culture (yes we actually do have one despite what the government says).

Moving on in 2007, 28 per cent of children born in England and Wales, rising to 54 per cent in London, had at least one foreign-born parent. In 2008, 14.4 per cent of primary school children claimed some other tongue than English as their first language.

But this is where we need to stop and think. How does this compare to other nations?

These are figures taken from here. They show the total number of immigrants in the country respectively.

# 1 United States: 38,355,000
# 2 Russia: 12,080,000
# 3 Germany: 10,144,000
# 4 Ukraine: 6,833,000
# 5 France: 6,471,000
# 6 Saudi Arabia: 6,361,000
# 7 Canada: 6,106,000
# 8 India: 5,700,000
# 9 United Kingdom: 5,408,000
# 10 Spain: 4,790,000

Those are raw numbers but if we look instead as percentage of the total population we might get something useful to play around with.

# 1 Holy See (Vatican City): 100
# 2 Andorra: 77.25
# 3 Qatar: 75.9
# 4 United Arab Emirates: 71.4
# 5 Monaco: 70.11
.
.
.
# 40 United States: 12.81
# 41 Germany: 12.31
# 42 Sweden: 12.3
# 43 Belarus: 12.21
# 44 Spain: 10.79
# 45 Grenada: 10.68
# 46 Libya: 10.56
# 47 Costa Rica: 10.19
# 48 France: 10.18
# 49 Netherlands: 10.05
# 50 Bahamas, The: 9.907
# 51 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 9.369
# 52 Barbados: 9.311
# 53 United Kingdom: 8.982

Presumably then all the other big western European countries must be in the same boat, n'est pas? Well perhaps and perhaps not, consider the net migration instead and then suddenly something interesting is revealed.

# 1 United States 26.8%
# 2 Afghanistan 9.9%
# 3 Spain 9.4%
# 4 Germany 5.1%
# 5 Canada 4.9%
# 6 United Arab Emirates 4.4%
# 7 United Kingdom 3.2%
Italy 2.8%
Australia 2.3%
Sierra Leone 2%
Russia 1.8%
France 1.4%
Hong Kong 1.4%
Eritrea 1.3%
Chad 1.3%
Japan 1.2%
Saudi Arabia 1.2%
Portugal 1.2%
Iraq 1.1%
Kuwait 1.1%

We have a very high net migration which in raw data becomes 686,400. And herein lies the real problem, for this is a problem, in 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England. Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.We are alas the most densely populated country in Europe and we have very high net migration. Germany has a much larger percentage of net migration but Germany is also a much larger country. If you bunch people together who have no inclination at all to be this 'friendly' it is a receipe for disaster. This is also, most likely, why the government sought to make the subject of immigration a 'non-mentionable' and label people who disobey them, racists. Furthermore why we cannot have a meaningful debate, yet, on the subject for it is assumed that anyone who does is just that; a racist.

Now Max Hastings said this very sensible line "No government massage of the numbers can blunt the fact that a host of migrants is here, most of whom espouse an entirely different cultural tradition from our own". You will all remember the series Star Trek and what is more the Borgs. They sought to 'assimilate' their enemies into the collective a sort of high-tech New Labourism/Socialism. Being the antagonists of the series the Borgs got a lot of crap but they got that one thing right, assimilation for it made them stronger. Now we do not have any fancy laser guns and we are no big fans of socialism either since it has ruined Britain, but 'integration' however is not too shabby at all. In fact it is quite beautiful when it works. But now we are really hitting the head of the issue.

The amount of people coming to Britain is overwhelming, there is no buffer capacity left to deal with the unheard of flow of immigrants. There are no social services, no schools, no hospitals no nothing which can properly take care of all these people. If there is no care then they turn to their own devices and turn away from Britain and lead their own little lives in, but not part of, these isles. When they come in small trickles they are easy to deal with, to share our values (yes we do have values even though the government will tell you otherwise) with and to show them 'This is Britain - enjoy!' But if you overwhelm a nation you create fear, fear of the new, because they have not been integrated, they are just foreigners and nothing else in the eyes of the public. That public, as the European elections showed us, seems to have had enough (1,000,000 out of 15,000,000 voted for the BNP...)

The British are not racist, not at all, probably the least racist nation in Europe and possibly the world. But, and this is a very big but, if you create the kind of conditions that New Labour has there is nothing but despair left to feed the masses. Whether or not "the immigrants are stealing the jobs" is true or not (more than seven in 10 jobs created under the Labour government have been taken by foreign workers, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), it becomes true for they along with the government are the scapegoats. "Because we know this, because we have lost confidence in our own cultural identity, we flail and blather about how to respond to the unprecedented ethnic and demographic turmoil which our politicians have unleashed upon us".

Do not expect any miracles from New Labour before they are assassinated. According to Migration Watch UK net immigration has quadrupled since 1997 to 237,000 a year and to keep the population of the UK below 70 million, immigration must be reduced by 75%. Government measures so far may reduce it by 5%.

Enter Cameron and friends who will do two things:

1. Put a cap on the number of immigrants entering the UK from outside the EU.
2. Not face up to the EU - that is to say they will not represent the wishes of the electorate.

In fact if the man plays his cards as he has done thus far you can be quite sure that #1 is nothing but plain rhetoric. Yes, there is global recession going on and yes Britain is by far the most screwed. But with increasing unemployment he cannot allow this level of immigration. If people start drawing parallels between unemployment and immigrants he will have riots and that is not scaremongering that is the simple truth.

A Spectator article

I think people should read this article from the Spectator - it sums up very eloquently what everyone knows it the truth bar Labour of course. Snippet...

"This profound sense of despair will take Mr Cameron into government almost by default. But the mood is itself a problem. No senior civil servant has yet said that the government’s job is to ‘oversee the orderly management of decline’, as Sir William Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, famously did in 1973. But this time, no one needs to. The politics of decline is stamped in everything this exhausted government does. Decisions on our defence are being taken on the basis that Britain no longer can claim to play a major role in the world, that we are a little country, which should stop pretending to be a big one.

This sense of defeatism may be pervasive, but it need not be terminal. It can be turned around — as Britain demonstrated, to the world’s amazement, 30 years ago. All that is requires is the right kind of courage and leadership. Thatcher had it. Heath did not. But does David Cameron? It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Britain’s future now depends on the answer."