50 Lies about loving the EU

I found this link on the "Independent" (yeah, right) and it is called '50 reasons to love the EU' (admittedly it is a bit old, 2007, but I love discrediting the EU). Now I can imagine that it did not strike any reverberant chords with the British public, in fact I know it did not. But I thought I would publish the entire list and discredit every single point. The embarrassing part is that I am able to this, as a non-partisan, private, non-journalist blogger, whilst the Independent (the newspaper) were probably sent the list by the Commission itself. Chop-chop, copy paste and there you go; a pro-EU stance without having a fucking clue what you have written. Now, I read the damn thing just to keep track on things but most of it really is complete Horse shit. Again I will recommend to you NewsNow which covers pretty much all British news published online including some prominent blogs as well.

50 reasons to love the European Union

1 The end of war between European nations

No, NATO was solely responsible for that not the EU.

2 Democracy is now flourishing in 27 countries

Yes, clearly we can see that especially with the Irish having to vote twice on exactly the same treaty. A process which the Danes had to go through as well with the Maastricht Treaty. Democracy EU style.

3 Once-poor countries, such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal, are prospering

Not thanks to the EU.

4 The creation of the world's largest internal trading market

To the detriment of poorer nations notably most in Africa not to say our innability to trade with the Commonwealth properly.

5 Unparalleled rights for European consumers

This existed before the EU...

6 Co-operation on continent-wide immigration policy

How is that a good thing? Countries with lax immigration policies flock to the richer nations where they do not have lax immigration policies, but are bound by EU law to let everyone in from another EU state. Ergo, the whole system becomes defunct as it is broken down thanks to other EU nations being unable to keep track of their borders.

7 Co-operation on crime, through Europol

2001, the Europol Head Quarter in The Hague was raided by a special Dutch police team following the arrest of a French official on the accusation of forgery. But new trouble is underway: confidential documents of the Dutch police show that Europol is a disfunctioning organisation. The more law the less justice.

8 Laws that make it easier for British people to buy property in Europe

And vice versa, in fact those laws would not be needed at all if we were not in the EU. If a person has enough money to buy a property outside of the UK then we can safely assume that this person is well of. If the person is well of the host nation will want him or her because he is an asset, a wealth creator who's net contribution to the economy will be very positive. Nations bend over backwards to attract rich people.

9 Cleaner beaches and rivers throughout Europe

He appears to be confusing Europe with the EU. The latest figures show that 97 per cent of beaches and rivers in England and Wales are safe for bathing according to strict European standards. However this is a fall from the record 99 per cent in 2006 and 98 per cent in 2007.

10 Four weeks statutory paid holiday a year for workers in Europe

And for the companies which cannot afford this I ask what is the option for them?

11 No death penalty (it is incompatible with EU membership)

Well, the death penalty remained on the statute book for certain other offences until 1998. Britain joined the EEC in 1972. Besides the death penalty is perceived as being appropriate for certain crimes depending on who you ask. Just because the EU does not approve of it does not mean that it necessarily is an evil in itself.

12 Competition from privatised companies means cheaper phone calls

And state owned companies are forced to doom because state intervention is prohibited under EU rules. Letting a company fail is a necessary evil in free market economics, however little regard is paid to the thousands of workers who happend to be employed by said company. Moreover the EU itself hands out subsidies to pan European companies, contradicting its own rules, thus it must be safe to assume that cheaper phone calls must come back and bite the company somewhere - most likely at the salaries for the lowest paid employes.

13 Small EU bureaucracy (24,000 employees, fewer than the BBC)

I think that must be the biggest lie since Soviet democracy.

In 2008 the figures are as follows:

• The Commission had 25537 permanent posts and 483 temporary posts
• The European Parliament had 5004 permanent posts and 936 temporary posts
• The Council had 3 461 permanent posts and 36 temporary posts
• The European Court of Justice had 1455 permanent posts and 438 temporary posts
• The European Ombudsman had 15 permanent posts and 42 temporary posts

"Small" how is this "small"? Not to mention the fact that they move Parliament every now and again to Strasbourg.

14 Making the French eat British beef again

While in the four weeks ending June 17th 2007, over 56 per cent of fresh beef sold through Asda was imported which means less than 44 per cent was British. Whilst they think they are eating British beef they are not really since farmers and exporters alike are ignoring an EU directive which forbids the mixing, or co-mingling, of beef from different countries of origin in the same section of their chill cabinets.

15 Minority languages, such as Irish, Welsh and Catalan recognised and protected

Yeah, this has nothing at all to do with the EU. For example the Welsh Language Act 1993 was passed on the back of another act the Welsh Language Act 1967. Going even further the Welsh Courts Act 1942 allowed the use of Welsh in Welsh courts provided no one was at a disadvantage as a cause of the language barrier. Again the EU has nothing at all to with the protection of these languages or any minority languages for that matter.

16 Europe is helping to save the planet with regulatory cuts in CO2

Eventhough there is a clear divide in the scientific community as to what exactly is causing global warming. While the lobbyists of Brussels are making top dollars (euros) selling 'Green' products. That "Save the Planet" gimmick might work for brainded bureacrats but do not try pulling with people who are prepared to hear the other side of the story.

17 One currency from Bantry to Berlin (but not Britain)

Yes that has done them all very well now has it not? How are the exports going exactly? Not to well I imagine seeing as the exchange rate between the Euro and world currencies is attrocious.

18 Europe-wide travel bans on tyrants such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe

Odd, Mugabe was in Britan and Belgium in 2001. As for the 'Tyrant' argument I seem to recall that he was given a knighthood by the Queen. One day a saviour another day a tyrrant, I suppose we the British had nothing to do with it either...

Now I am bored of this, it is not point lecturing people who do not want to learn anyway. I am sure you will not have any trouble discrediting the rest.

19 The EU gives twice as much aid to developing countries as the United States

20 Strict safety standards for cars, buses and aircraft

21 Free medical help for tourists

22 EU peacekeepers operate in trouble spots throughout the world

23 Europe's single market has brought cheap flights to the masses, and new prosperity for forgotten cities

24 Introduction of pet passports

25 It now takes only 2 hrs 35 mins from London to Paris by Eurostar

26 Prospect of EU membership has forced modernisation on Turkey

27 Shopping without frontiers gives consumers more power to shape markets

28 Cheap travel and study programmes means greater mobility for Europe's youth

29 Food labelling is much clearer

30 No tiresome border checks (apart from in the UK)

31 Compensation for passengers suffering air delays

32 Strict ban on animal testing for the cosmetic industry

33 Greater protection for Europe's wildlife

34 Regional development fund has aided the deprived parts of Britain

35 European driving licences recognised across the EU

36 Britons now feel a lot less insular

37 Europe's bananas remain bent, despite sceptics' fears

38 Strong economic growth - greater than the United States last year

39 Single market has brought the best continental footballers to Britain

40 Human rights legislation has protected the rights of the individual

41 European Parliament provides democratic checks on all EU laws

42 EU gives more, not less, sovereignty to nation states

43 Maturing EU is a proper counterweight to the power of US and China

44 European immigration has boosted the British economy

45 Europeans are increasingly multilingual - except Britons, who are less so

46 Europe has set Britain an example how properly to fund a national health service

47 British restaurants now much more cosmopolitan

48 Total mobility for career professionals in Europe

49 Europe has revolutionised British attitudes to food and cooking

50 Lists like this drive the Eurosceptics mad

He got me on this one, I must give it to him. At least some Euorphiles have humour unlike Hans-Gert Pöttering or should I say Muossolini reincarnated with a slight touch of paranoia.

UK Supreme Court Part II

As promised I would publish the correspondence between myself and the Ministry of Justice with regards to the issue of the logo of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - the greatest judicial farce in the modern British history.

Yasser Mehmood

Please contact Rob Boyland, Communications Manager, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Tel: 020 7960 1887, robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
------------

Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

I write to you with regards to the new Supreme Court. It has dawned upon me that the emblem that you yourself so proudly display on your homepage and the one which was approved by the HM the Queen is not the actual emblem which is actually displayed in the court itself.

Here is the link to your own http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/supreme-court-official-emblem.htm announcement of the new emblem (may I draw your attention to the St. Edwards crown).

Here is a link to an album provided by the BBC of the new Supreme Court http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8151625.stm - please make your way to the first picture in the album. There seems to be a distinct lack of the St. Edwards crown in the emblem as displayed in the new Supreme Court. Instead there is an emblem which does not have the approval of the HM the Queen, so it must be assumed since there are no references to the monarchy. If one were to continue to trawl through the album as displayed by the BBC then there is more evidence of emblems which do not have the crown.

If my question has not given itself away by now I shall add it for clarity; why is not the emblem displayed which was approved by HM the Queen? Has the government taken it upon itself to ignore Royal Prerogative?

Yours Sincerely
------------------------
Robert Boyland

Thank you for your enquiry.

We have several versions of our emblem which it is agreed that we can use. We are allowed to use different versions artistically as it will be used on a large variety of items and occasions. This is fairly common practice with emblems and logos. Where appropriate the formal logo with the Crown has been used, for instance on the homepage and prominently at the front of the building.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Kind regards,

Rob

--------------------------
Me

Dear Mr. Boyland,

Thank you for your reply. I can see how you would think that this is common practise, yet for the businesses that I have worked for, I cannot recall anyone having used that practise. Agreed, this is a government arm yet were the other emblems approved by the Queen as well (you said that you had agreed to use the other emblems, but who agreed to this)? On a further note, all the other government branches e.g. the Foreign Office only use the Royal Coat of Arms as their main identifier along with their name.

Not yet understanding what kind of relationship you are intending for the Supreme Court with the public, surely using more than one identifier will confuse people not in the least people like myself; who find it astonishing that the government has the audacity to abolish the Law Lords but then insult the monarchy even further by not following common practise i.e. to use the St. Edwards Crown on governmental departments.

Moreover who decides when it is appropriate to use the primary logo with the crown? When would occasion arise when it would not be appropriate to accentuate that Britain is a constitutional monarchy and that the Crown has Royal Prerogative?

As you can see Mr. Boyland I am confused.

Kind Regards
---------------------------
Robert Boyland

I hope the following clarifies things for you. The logo containing the Crown will be used in all formal correspondence and as I have said is a main identifying feature at the entrance to the building. The emblem combines the four heraldic elements of the three legal jurisdictions of the UK - England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At its formal level, the emblem is surmounted by the Crown, as the Monarch is the source of the Court's authority.

Our aim is always to apply the emblem thoughtfully and appropriately to reflect the activities of the Supreme Court. The versions of the logo are designed to be versatile enough to be interpreted in different ways - that reflect the authority of the institution it symbolises, but also the open and accessible nature of the building with its visitor spaces and public art. This is why the semi-formal logo is used in the foyer within which you highlight in your link. This semi-formal version will also be used on visitor leaflets.

The logo with the Crown will be used in all formal applications where the authority of the Supreme Court and its relationship to the Crown is to be emphasised, such as judgments, reports, Justice's stationery, formal invitations, etc and to reiterate is a main identifying feature at the front of the building. The Royal Coat of Arms will also go above the main entrance.

The way the logo is applied is a clear and sensible way of distinguishing between formal and more informal communications and in no way undermines the relationship of the Court to the Crown.

Yours sincerely,

Rob

Rob Boyland
Communications Manager
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square,
London SW1P 3BD
Tel: 020 7960 1887
Email:robert.boyland@supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk
-------------------------

What did we learn from all of this then? Well, besides from the obvious one that the Ministry of Justice has yet to decide which font they are to go with, not much.

Their logic does not work at all instead "Rob" goes onto explain to me what the logo actually looks like assuming that my powers of perception are towered over by his, the communications manager of the MoJ. You understand dear reader we are not to make our own judgements about the Supreme Court, nor are we to criticise it. Our silent and obedient consent is all that they require and need.

When or Why, on earth would the Supreme Court be used in an informal way? Surely the term 'Supreme' comes with at least a modicum of superiority and the required respect for such authority. Whatever it may be it is not a social science project run by some erstwhile council, who can quite rightly pander to its differences. Thus, regardless of my sincere opposition to its establishment, it should not be made into a farce by this ridiculous little man "Rob", who undoubtedly had a part to play in its establishment (how do you think he got his job), and his claque just because they think they will be 'miss-understood' by the school children who come to visit. Am I making mountains out of molehills? No, a symbol is given power by people and the people of the UK are very affectionate towards the monarchy. We turn our patriotism towards the Queen no the political establishment (like America). If we take away the people the symbol losses its meaning but if we take away the part of the symbol which reaffirms our affection it losses its meaning as well. It is so profoundly stupid that I cannot, for my life, see why they decided to go with this non-option.

"Oii ladies fancy a couple of pints down at the Supreme Court, should be a good blast eyyy?!"

It is the highest judicial authority in the UK and yet it needs two logos one formal and one informal. You can see that at this point I gave up my endeavour with "Rob" as it was leading nowhere. Apparently for the Supreme Court to be open and accessible it needs two logos.

I imagine that if it applies to the Supreme Court why not also to Parliament? We would then have four logos; two for the House of Commons and two for the House of Lords. The armed forces are not to be spared either; they are to adopt one logo for visitors day so as to not insult sensibilities of the civilian population; no Union-Jacks - that would make us racist, no swords (in case of the army) - people might get the idea that we actually kill people and definately no Lion (in case of the army) - people might think we support the poaching of this endangered species.

This is New Labour doing what it does best; destruction of character. Just so we do not forget why they did this in the first place lets recall. The reform of the Law Lords was motivated by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial. Yet it has worked perfectly well since 1876 when the Law Lords came into existence under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.

But I am sure we could not spend £60 million on something better (that is to say that the Supreme Court will cost £58 million more to run, annually, than the Law Lords).

Not looking good for the next Defence minister

Addressing the pre-Defence Systems and Equipment International 2009 conference in London, Dr Fox said:

“When the next government comes to office some time in the next nine months it will inherit a military that is overstretched, undermanned, in possession of worn-out equipment, and the worst peacetime public finances in our history.”

Forgive me if I am wrong but I was under the distinct impression that we were at war?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

A very sensible fellow over at ConservativeHome posted this comment with regards to 2/3 of the pollees in the most resent ConservativeHome poll would vote for UKIP in Buckinghamshire instead of Bercow who would be representing the Tories.

Peter Buss said...

I like ConHome Surrey bill but I would be vey cautious in believing that it is representative of the Tory Party as a whole. It cetainly stands for a particluar agenda and that agenda is held by a significant part of the Party but by no means exclusively so.
If of course what you have said comes to pass then there will be many of us Tory supporters who will never ever forgive these people for destroying our term in Govtand frankly making us unelectable fo about as long as you care to imagine. Its these very same people who made us unelectable for years and only Cameron has saved us from basically being just a southern rural Party.

Opinicus said in reply to Peter Buss... (this is the sensible comment).

The problem with your argument is that it contains the fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".
Electing Dave was the answer to the problems of 2005 (and 2001 - there was no answer to the problems of 1997 after Portillo ignored Redwood's advice in 1995 "no change, no chance")
However, increasingly there is reason to believe that Dave is temperamentally and ideologically unsuited to answering the problems of 2010. The only people he ever gets mad about are on his own side. Since 2005 he has signed up as part of the problem, not as part of the solution. He is frightened of saying anything that could be used against him. The irony is that in the current climate with voters looking for hope and a Plan B this is actually counting against him. It is the reason he is failing to seal the deal.

I understand you don't get it but what the Farage vote shows is that a very substantial majority of the Party are getting so worried about how far we are getting into a United Europe that breaking Party loyalty is looking a less and less unacceptable option. Little opinion polls like this are irrelevant except as straws in the wind. UKIP coming second in the EU election is a stronger pointer.

Cameron is going to get the Garter and his place in the history books. His Cabinet are going to get peerages and lucrative directorships. His party workers are doing this only for love but not love of the EU. Unless Cameron shows that that love is not unrequited, he will have trouble.

Just so you do not have to look it up, 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' in Latin means "after this, therefore because (on account) of this".

When it suits them

I think most of you will recall how most of the MSM used to present the Lisbon Treaty or at least their attempt to invoke to the reader what it meant

The Lisbon Treaty is designed to streamline decision making across the EU block.

Or something along these lines

The treaty - which aims to streamline decision-making in the EU and give the bloc a stronger voice on the world stage

Is it not interesting to learn that they have now changed their tone, that they cannot dupe the public into believing what they want them to believe; that this is just another boring EU treaty which we should no bother our pretty little heads with.

This is from the Times

The treaty — which will create the EU’s first president and end national vetos on several key policy areas.

I wonder when they will change the above to spell out what the treaty really means. I know I have read it and most people who care about the future of this part of the world have as well. But the electorate has not, why would they it is inexplicably boring, but they too it seems have come to realise that the MSM is a spin machine in itself, a government mouthpiece at best and propaganda at worst.

(Really though what has most likely happened is that they wrote the stories about Lisbon back in 2007 and 2008 and went to Wikipedia to find out what is what all about. Subsequently, that is now, they are going "bugger, there was more to it" and have to change their articles a bit to accommodate at least a tiny fraction of the truth. Otherwise we would have a lying media outlet and we couldn't have that now could we?)

Gordon Brown is ill?

If this is true I do sincerely feel very sorry for the man. I or should I say 'we' the collective blogosphere are without a doubt his worst critics for we are not censored and we do speak our minds. However if this turns out to be true I cannot help but to feel ashamed of myself. I say 'however' for this is either a very distasteful smear attempt, even by opposition standards, or it is a desperate cry for help.

Snippet...

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled." Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby "He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference". And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed "He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It's a mess, and nobody knows what to do".

Does anyone know the legislative mechanics involved and required for this sort of situation?

25 Acts of Parliament

60 New Powers

Number crunching

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total: 3,948,868

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote of the Day

"We want the Czechs to hold it up just long enough for a Cameron government to destroy it with a 80% NO in a referendum. Then we will all pee on the White Cliffs to mark our territory. Up yours, Delors!"

-Unattributed

Speaker or Streaker, Balls or Squalls?

I am on no one's side since no one is on my side. Tory or UKIP neither represents what I truly believe in however... were on of them to marry the other now there is a thought.

I suppose it has crossed everyone's path by now that John Bercow is going to be challenged for his seat in Buckinghamshire by UKIP's Nigel Farage. This goes against Pariliamentary convention; that no party should stand in the constituency held by the speaker.

Convention you say...

Well it is also convention not to rip off the tax payer, to adhere to the traditions of parliament that office and its centuries-old traditions are much bigger than the man and it speaks volumes of Bercow's character when he threw them out, to no sign away sovereignty etcetera. 'Convention' is a dead concept in British politics for no one has any honour left to devote to a hollow parliament.

Again and again and again, parliament does not hold the legislative to account anymore. We do. Neither has it passed by that Bercow is a voluptuous party swinger and a dirty on at that. The Tories sure as hell did not vote him into office Labour did for the soul reason of annyoing the Tories. But hey why would they put the needs of parliament before the needs of their party, that would be a fantastical prospect that we could actually see beyond petty party squibbling and restore faith in parliament.

To hell with Britain eyy? As long they have their party they are OK...

Take your pick Buckinghamshire; either this:


Or this:

Note: Of course I am going to pick videos where Bercow looks like a complete arse and Farage like Nelson. I do not like Bercow one bit but I find Farage very entertaining and outspoken.

I too am neither completely ignorant of Farage's dealings with the EU parliament where his expenses amount to 2 million euros (rather that questioning that claim ought we not question why it is that MEPs can claim in excess of 2 million euros). However he claimed it was for a good cause, that of supporting the UKIP's campaign in the UK. The BNP are doing the same thing as are most minor parties, around Europe, with few MEPs in Brussels who do not have the massive donor support as sported by the Main Three; Labour, Tories and LibDems. However whether he did or did not do it to benefit UKIP as a party I will leave for the reader to decide.

Is this true?

I like to pride myself on my historical knowledge or maybe I am just up myself, probably the latter. But upon reading Daniel Hannan's latest comment (I do have a soft spot for people who speak their mind and tell PC-Guardianistas to fuck of - shame on me) I found a very interesting comment in, lo and behold, the comment section and it reads as follows (I have edited it a bit but only the paragraphing not the content, also I assume the guy is American since he cannot spell 'honourable').

I have written this before. But now Daniel is writing about France’s envy of Britain, so I will write about this again.

I was a student in Paris as a teenager in one school year in the late 1960’s; and in a different year spent the summer in Paris. I spent no time in any other part of France, but Paris is where French policy is formed, so it is fair to consider “Paris” as “France.” I have been in France since then, but it is the time period of these first two times which is important.

In one of the stays I lived with a socialist working class family who took in foreign students because they needed the money. In the other stay, I lived with a very grand, titled right-wing family whose friends included several of the generals who were in prison for opposing de Gaulle on the surrender in Algeria. The two families, and their respective circle of friends, came from the two ends of the social and political spectrum. Additionally, the lessons in French school were written and taught by a third group of French adults. Less than 25 years after the end WWII, when the adults in both families, and some who wrote the textbooks and taught and many other adults I encountered had lived through the German occupation, they seemed to have few hard feelings towards the Germans (perhaps because Germany was split up into East and West and thereby suitably humiliated?), but were already anti-American and very dismissive of the British.

To read the history lessons, one would learn that de Gaulle and his legions of Free French were instrumental in defeating the Germans and liberating Paris. Nowhere was it mentioned that the Free French fighters numbered only in the thousands. Certainly nowhere was it mentioned that Vichy French fought with the Germans when the Allies, including the Free French, invaded German-held North Africa. Eisenhower, who probably didn’t eat escargot, kept meddling and getting in de Gaulle’s way. Churchill was a minor historical figure who hardly merited mention, certainly not as important to history as de Gaulle. French culture and style was what was important to the world and French culture had always been the envy of the world. And if we must talk about history, France had a great empire too (Never mind that they had just been kicked out of the biggest piece of it.) and they even had Napoleon. And in current world affairs, France under de Gaulle was the most important country in the world because he was somehow making France the buffer and negotiator for the rest of the world between the Soviets, who were quite sympathique, and the boorish Americans. If that sounds somewhat muddled - it was.

What I found inescapable in those years - aside from the anti-Americanism - was that the France appeared to deeply resent Britain for its place in world history and it stance in WWII, as opposed to the French non-stance. France may have had honorable and understandable motives to form a European Union to keep Germany tethered, but everything I saw and heard in my time in Paris in the 1960’s makes me believe that the motive towards Britain has always been to overcome a historic sense of inferiority, and especially shame about WWII. That means a dominant France and a humiliated and cowed Britain.

Other posters have commented on my “rants” about France. My “rants” are based on how upside down I saw history turned during those two stays in the 1960’s. I think the Brits would do well to understand what was germinating in Paris in that time period.

Anyone who is not old enough to have been in Paris in that time period may have a different view of French motivation, but they cannot dispute what I saw first hand at that time.

I am not sure what to say, can anyone offer any additional views or comments? Was anyone in Paris around 1960 - I for one was not born which rules me out. Admittedly this comment does echo scaremongering but that is only if it is incorrect. On the other who can really claim that the British love the French?

Dream Team

A Tory Party consisting of a front bench:-

PM - Dan Hannan
Chancellor - Redwood
Home Secretary - David Davis
Local Government - Carswell
Foreign - Hague

Peter Davies, Doncaster

+

My Hero.

As President Lincoln reputedly said of General Grant, “Find out what he’s drinking and send a barrel of it to each of my other generals.”

(I do not agree with everything but by and large this is what a politician should be like).

My first political "cartoon "

Well here it is my first political cartoon. It is probably shit but I hope the message is self explanatory. Expect a lot more of these in the future, regardless of their artistic premonition.

The UK Supreme Court, 12th of October the mistake begins

David Blunket has written this over at the Times where he examines the new Supreme Court UK. We have covered this issue extensively and will be at the opening of this grand mistake at its opening on the 12th of October, providing pictures and commentary. Consider this very important paragraph as posted by Mr. Blunket

"The problem is that we do not have, and with the new constitutional affairs legislation still will not have, clarity about how, within that separation, we ensure that the judges do their bit to stay independent of political interference but that parliament has the final say on the laws of the land. The sooner we get this sorted, the better. That means ensuring that judges have the power to intervene and to rule against ministers when they exceed the power granted to them by the elected parliament but, on the other hand, that they do not have the power to decide that parliament is wrong or that somehow it should change its mind."

It seems that "independent" in this context is more or less synonymous with unaccountable. It certainly does not mean that the new Court will not have an activist agenda, at odds with that of the elected Government of the day, and remote from the values and concerns of the majority of the British public.

Judicial activism is not a new phenomenon in the UK. The principle of the supremacy of EC over domestic law, and more recently the Human Rights Act, have allowed foreign (ECJ/ECHR) and UK courts effectively to overrule Acts of Parliament. The creation of the new Supreme Court will only accelerate this trend.

The new Court could not have come into being at a worse time. The power and prestige of Parliament are at a very low ebb. In the wake of the expenses scandal, it is difficult to see the Commons reasserting itself against the executive and the party whips, let alone mounting an effective challenge to a confident and self-aggrandizing new Supreme Court. I despair of Parliamentary democracy in this country.

What is the solution then? Well the Law Lords cost the tax payer £2,000,000 a year which is a highly respectable figure if you were to compare it to the working cost of say the American Supreme Court or the Palais the Justice in France. Basically that is to say that the annual cost of the highest court in the UK is a hell of a lot less than most countries, if any comparable to the size and geopolitical status of the UK. Well, the new Supreme Court UK will have an annual budget of £60,000,000 (sixty million pounds compared to two million for the Law Lords).

This is a supremely stupid way of fixing something that does not need mending. The Law Lords worked perfectly fine and were tremendously respected throughout the world particularly because they functioned in such a good way despite they being part of the legislative process (and I say 'despite' not in a derogatory manner since over the past century them being in the House of Lords seems to have had little effect on the legislation, if anything it provided the best legal advice the House could ever have wished for). As with everything with this government they seek to destroy pretty much everything that once used to define Great Britain, and they are doing a spectacularly good job of it at that. The only advise I can offer to the income government is basically repeal the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. You will have saved in the money building the Supreme Court UK, within two years - the building and everything surrounding it has to date added £66,000,000 to the tax payers bill.

And again before you leave this blog let me draw your sincere attention to the emblem posted at the beginning of this entry. Notice the distinct lack of the St. Edwards Crown instituted in 1954 to be part of all governmental emblems. It seems that this government has taken it upon itself to abolish Royal Prerogative as well. I will post my mails regarding this issue with the Ministry of Justice once everything has been finalised. Stay tuned.

You remove my porn, I remove your head

I shall be leaving for a few days but have been grumbling on the same question for some time now, one which I would like to share. How long can you really, as a government, ignore the wishes of the electorate without force?

Clearly Communism managed to do so for a good century almost, some like North Korea are still continuing the puppet show. But what about us, we who supposedly are democratic?

It comes as no surprise that New Labour have destroyed also the cabinet government whilst in the hands of Blair and Brown. Fair enough, you really have to give it to them; they have beyond doubt paid great attention to every detail. They have managed to destroy pretty much every thing, part, department, essence (I am not sure which word to use to collectively refer to the British way of governing) and soul of British government.

In fact they have done such a fine job than when they are not at the helm of the leviathan, Brown is currently on holiday and Tony is hopefully miles away from the UK, the country is doing just fine without them. 'Fine' is an understatement, we are doing quite well for ourselves. The FTSE's up, the weather's nicer and we've won the Ashes. Not too shabby one must commend.

But the problem is that once David enters Downing street not a thing will work. How do you de-politicise a civil service, a civil service of the same magnitude as the British one - bloated to the brim. Returning to Cabinet government from a sofa government (as coined by Tony Blair) is like returning to Athens from Sparta can it even be done or are we forever more destined to have those awful presidential type campaigns as epitomised by France and the United States. I dread at the mere prospect. The EU is such an obvious obstacle to any form of meaningful government that it is pointless to even mention or discuss its function, meriting it with its existence is to admit to its function - that of stripping away national parliaments; bit by bit.

This is what it really burns down to though: how long can an elected government ignore the electorate without the use of force?

I shall not publish a thesis to the effect or tune of this question. All I can say is thank god for bloggers. There is at least one blog committed to every single malaise in Britain today. If it is not a blog it is a think tank or charity. Safe to say there is no escape for anyone in the public light. What is even better, people are turning more and more to the internet to decide for themselves if what they heard on the BBC or read in the Telegraph was what actually happened. They could stop us of course, they could create some form of the Great Chinese firewall and name it Hadrian's Firewall Mark II. But unlike the Chinese that probably would lead to riots in Britain: You remove my porn, I remove your head.

Remarkably Interesting topics on ConservativeHome

One about the EU.

One about Scottish independence.

Matters little really, I am as hostile to the Tories as I am New Labour.

Love Spitfire

Alcohol and Drinking WTF?

In 1960 France had 200,000 cafes selling wine, beer and spirits alongside coffee, tea and soft drinks, today there are fewer than 41,000.

In Britain 50 pubs are closing a week.

What the fuck are politicians doing, do they want a fucking civil war on their hands. You think that wont happen? Well remember 1773 and the Boston Tea Party, it was a protest against British tax on tea. They dumped all the fucking tea in the Boston Harbour as a result. But what is more it is perceived as being the spark for the American Revolution. See what happens when you tax the shit out things that taste nice?

We currently have 33% tax on beer.
We have a smoking ban.
We have god knows how much red tape (you have to apply for a bleeding license if you intend to have live music in your goddamn pub. How big do politicians think pubs are?!).

Wankers...

BBC and Ramadan

Aah it is that time of the year again when the BBC decides to ass kiss everything Islamic, not making the debate about Islam and its values not even the tiniest bit non-partisan. No, what the BBC does is to ignore all the nasty clauses of what it means to be a Muslims like these bits from the Koran:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially." (Surah 4:126-)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

Now do not make this into a tit-for-tat argument; the Bible vs. the Koran - the Bible has some pretty horrific stuff in it as well the difference is that the BBC sees no wrong in slandering it and its followers even though, supposedly, Christianity is the state religion of the UK. There is an active debate on the Bible and God, the BBC will be quick to point this out to you. However the same debate is non-existent for Islam. The BBC in its 'cultural relativism', gives Islam as equal a value as any other religion in Britain if not greater; and, for the BBC, the Koran is beyond criticism from 'infidels'. On Ramadan, the BBC expresses the views of Muslims only; the negative impact which Muslim observance has on predominantly non-Muslim British society is censored by the BBC that is to say the government. Few will forget the recent bollocks which has emerged from Whitehall, new guidelines telling the police to go easy on borderline criminal cases involving muslims.

Happily though New Labourism is being obliterated, by the day, in the UK and that is always something to celebrate. But just so you do not take out the victory prematurely, it must be reinforced that we are still ruled by a claque of retards who fosters this kind of behaviour in the BBC and in the country.

They happily ask her what Ramadan means to her, she is muslim, so that is only to be expected. But what about me? What about the other 58 billion people in the UK who are not muslims what does Ramadan mean to us? Will we not be asked for our opinion? Do not count on it, that would upset the balance you see.

I support state sponsored television to an extent; it is bloody awesome to have a channel without bloody commercials running every second. Who can deny that Planet Earth was magnificent, it really was breathtaking. However in order for the BBC to be state sponsored in the future they should be ordered to stay of the topics of religion and politics. Provide news but no programs or documentaries - in that way they will insult no one. Seeing as they are incapable of treating these subjects without bias and respect their reporting of them should be discontinued or they loose their funding, simple as.

This is a link to a blogger who wrote a very sad but ironic post. Just thought you might find it as tragic as I did. Death of people, regardless of colour, is always tragic but even more so when the only ones who survived did so because they were doing their honest part whilst the others died while doing the completely opposite. Whether true or not (most likely not) it does mimic London quite accurately.

In a time of Honour

You cannot help sometimes to feel that you belong in another time, a time that seemingly shared your own values and motifs, paradigms and horizons. A time when ostensibly dreams were possible and smaller miracles could triumph as a direct consequence of the century whence it took place.

Time change of course. During the reign of Queen Victoria Britain was speeding towards the height of its Empire. With the grand victories by Lord Nelson in Trafalgar, 1805 followed by the victory at Waterloo in 1815 thanks to Wellington - little seemed to stand in her way, Britain that is. Considering Victoria she was happily married, very happily so for two decades. Proof of her and Albert's good fortune can be found in and close to Hyde Park, London. There we find not only the Royal Albert Hall but also the Albert Memorial - a tribute to her husband. Sadly Albert only lived till the age of 42 and ever sadder for Victoria she had to spend the remaining part of her life, all those 39 years, without the husband whom she loved so dearly.

During the reign of Victoria a sense of honour permeated not only the isles of Britain but also Europe. Honour was something precious, something which you could loose your life over, something which could not be taken away from a man lest at the pain of death. Honourable causes were championed not only in battle but also in Parliament. This was the time of Wilburfore, Sir Robert Peel and many others who saw it as their duty to make Britain a better place. This was a time of honour. What could be more honourable than creating work for the poor, helping the sick and freeing the shackled? By those days standards; little.

How times have changed. Today our Prime minister is clinging on to his job like a sickly infected tumour. A disease, a cancer, that regardless of what fancy new drugs and proceedures we throw at it, just wont go away. Honour is a hollow concept for Mr. Brown a non-issue, a subject so tiresome that were he to put his spin doctors on it he would appear the next day as Richard the Lionheart - in his own mind. The times have passed when people cared for what kind of legacy their death would bring, of how they would be remembered once their soul has left these dark shores and passed into a glorious place in heaven, reserved, seemingly, only for those who lived a good life. A life of meaning, duty and justice.

Parliament is infested, few would disagree on this issue. The majority of MPs have broken the trust we bestowed upon them. There is a small minorty who nonetheless must not be counted in the greater mass who deserve nothing less than life imprisonment in the Tower of London. Murder is a heinous crime but slaying of trust and democracy is worse. Mr. Brown appears to think that he will be remembered as the Prime Minister who made the hard choices in the hard times. Little does he know that his memory will only be a little less disastrous than his predeecesor Tony Blair. Mr. Brown will be remembered as the the Prime Minister who brought down Parliament, shamed its entire function as a legislative body, shackled the Britain to the monstrous leviathan that is the EU who only now is beginning to show its true face. He will be remembered as the unelected debauchee who resisted the nation's wish for change, their cries and their screams, who instigated a war on freedom and justice. A man who thought it appropriate to undo the constitutional Magnus Opus that is the British Parliament along with its traditions, quirks, ceremonies and not the least the last defence against the onslaught of the state.

Tony Blair... books have been written about his legacy, Cherrie Blair seems to think her husband will rank alongside Churchill and Disraeli. Not one book, several, but simply put Tony Blair will be remembered as the Prime minesterial traitor. When in the sadly, very distant future, when we again have the moral power to rule ourselves with a sliver of descency, then the ghosts of Blair and Brown will return to haunt the schools and they will learn how these two men, single handedly brought down Britain.

Pure Genius

Thanks to Calling England

I for one do not give a shit about religious sensibilities.

It ain't Halal or Kosher?

Oh no we must please the religionistas or they will kill us all, flee, flee for your lives!!!

While our government indulges in religious appeasement, seemingly completely nescient to History (see the episode about Neville Chamberlain), I would just like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that currently, in this moment, 5,000,000 die every year of starvation. And they have the audacity to bang on about their religious sensitives?

No, eat what is given to you and shut the fuck up.

It has begun

I am always ever so quick to point out my thesis about the future political life in Britain, I am allowed to do this because I am center-right person who is unaffiliated and unbiased /sarcasm.

For the thesis:

Less than 10 months from now the Tories will seize power but in 4-5 years time when the next general election is to come people will have realized that they were as shit as Labour were. In fact they are New Labour just a different cover. People will then vote neither Tories nor Labour - the New Labour ghost from the past 12 years will haunt the Labour party for at least two decades. What will happen next is anyone's guess.

It has begun though be so sure of it. Rows over the NHS, Cameron has decided to push up the price on drinks, when 50 pubs are closing a week. It is a way to raise money surely, but not the right way. What is more they seem to care little that they have an ongoing campagin called 'Save the Great British Pub' - quite how the above story fits into this picture one can but wonder.

In essence the people of Britain, the normal people, 'get it' whenever politicians seem to be doing something good, the backlash is always felt by the people who it was unintended for. Never mind the Quangos and the EU who cost us billions, never mind the extraordinary waste within military procurement, never mind our subservience to the United States-we are still poodles- and never mind that MPs get a six figure salary. No, savings are to be at the expense of the people.

An interesting analogy to make is that of Saudi Arabia. Whenever the Sheik is to appear to be more conservative than he already is, that is to say to become even more fundamentalist (do not confuse 'terrorist' and 'fundamentalist' they are completely different things) the women are the first to 'get it'. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot even drive a car, whenever reform comes to Saudi Arabia it is at their expense and to their detriment. They are not even allowed to go outside alone.

We are not so very different from Saudi Arabia, we have some form of "democracy" but who could honestly claim that Parliament cares what we think? How many laws have been passed over the past 20 years at our expense to make us more dependent on the state. How many CCTV cameras are there today in the UK? The number '42' suddenly takes on a whole new dimension in the UK. You see we are not so different; whenever they attempt reform the women get it, whenever we attempt reform we get it.

Addendum: I am not sure what socialist purpose this horse shit could serve but it is the Biased Broadcasting Corporation, who knows? (apparently pubs are not closing at all, it is a lie)

Who is funding the Taliban? We are

Everyone should link to this. Preferably read the damn thing as well.

"It works something like this. There's a construction project funded by the British aid budget - say building a school in some godforsaken patch of dirt, mainly so that a minister can point to it when he wants to claim - falsely, most of the time - that girls are being educated. But the government doesn't build the school, a private firm gets the contract to build it. And a very generous contract, too, which I suppose is fair enough given how dangerous it is to get anything done in that part of the world. In order to get the school built, the contractor then has to bribe local "community leaders" - that goes without saying. But it also has to negotiate with the local Taliban leadership - who insist on a cut of the aid money as their price for not blowing the place (or the workers) to smithereens. So British taxpayer's money goes to the Taliban, who spend it, among other things, on the IEDs which blow up British soldiers instead. 20% is the typical figure, although it's estimated that in some cases the Taliban are raking in as much as 40% of the international aid money."

Hannanism

Grr Hannan says, grr!

Hannanism is an actual concept, well, according to Liberal Conspiracy.

Remember what Lord Nelson's message read before raging into the Battle of Trafalgar:

"England Expects Every Man to Do his Duty" - at least one is, the rest of the claque which comports itself as the staunch 'defenders' of the NHS seem to be the arch hypocrites in their dilemma in that they insist on seeing no evil, hearing no evil and definitely not speaking any evil.

When did they loose their balls, I am truly dumbstruck by British "leaders" ?

The complexities of Justice: In reply to EU Nosemonkey and his claque

I have been putting of this reply for a while because it is a fairly complex issue to discuss for myself since my academic expertise lies not in jurisprudence but another field of academia. Challenging someone who ostensibly has a degree in law and has worked as a parliamentary researcher in both Westminster and Brussels will at best be difficult at worst disastrous, hopefully the reader understands my apprehension about writing this post. It is like the Danish Army in 1940, taking a stand against the Wehrmacht. Hopefully I will not suffer the same fate as the Danes (they surrendered after 30 minutes). Let it be understood that we harbour no ills against Mr. Nosemonkey - he is a Eurocrat I am not. We respectfully disagree.

Here we go...

This is the reply (in italics) EU Nosemonkey gave to my post titled 'Remember The Awe', where my response in normal font.

The only fundamental of the British constitutional system is that no parliament can bind another. Magna Carta predates parliament - but that does not make it exempt from the rule.

This claim in must take issue with. Magna Carta was signed (not really, King John was illiterate and could not write hence only his seal was on the Magna Cart no his signature) in 1215.

1215
King John agreed to Magna Carta which stated the right of the barons to consult with and advise the king in his Great Council

1236
Earliest use of the term Parliament, referring to the Great Council

Magna Carta created parliament, it was not referred to by name until 1236 agreed, but that does mean the concept of parliament itself was not created in 1215. Parliament is after all a legislative body and since that previously was accorded to the king, but now was done in conjunction with the barons, the concept was born out of Magna Carta and cannot have predated it since it created it.

On the habeas corpus side of things - you have heard of feudalism, right? Which carried on for several centuries after Magna Carta was signed, and which was basically indentured slavery. Habeas corpus has also been suspended by parliament several times during periods of war (that whole "no one parliament can bind another" thing again) - and is also one of the "fundametal rights" of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would - if the Lisbon Treaty is passed - for the first time *force* the British state to hold habeas corpus (among other things) sacrosanct.

Well that makes absolutely no sense at with regards to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Even so before coming to terms with that claim, The Conservatives are proposing to scrap the Human Rights Act 2000 and replace it with a British Bill of Rights which surely then must contradict the need for a European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Never mind the rights actually, the Lisbon Treaty creates so many undemocratic features anyway, but that is for another time. But just by the by here are some parts of the Corpus Juris (I am sure you have heard of it), you will notice that having a European Charter of Fundamental Rights helps little when the creator of it is the one we need protection from.

CORPUS JURIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS

1) "Powers of investigation of the European Public Prosecutor (EPP) "will include g) To make requests for a person's remand in custody. . .for a period of up to 6 months, renewable for 3 months, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused has committed one of the offences defined above, or good reasons for believing it necessary to stop him committing such an offence. . ." (Page 90, Article 20). Habeas Corpus sacrosanct, are you really sure about that?

This means that the EPP can incarcerate someone for months without charge merely because he thinks they might have committed an offence or might commit an offence. It appears that there is no limit to the number of 3-month extensions. This practise was outlawed in Britain more than 300 years ago as part of the Habeus Corpus Act (1689) which is now incorporated into Britain's Bail Acts.

2) "In the case of partial or total acquittal appeal is also open to the EPP as a prosecuting party" (Page 120 article 27.2 )

The meaning of this is plain - the accused can be tried twice for the same offence thus creating the state of "double jeopardy" which has been banned in Britain for centuries.

3) "Section 6 of the EC Human Rights constitutes an excellent model for the rights which should be granted to the accused;. . .however case law has not yet decided whether being held in custody makes a person an 'accused ' person. . ." (Page 126).

In this Kafkaesque mode of thinking, anybody can be locked up without becoming an accused person and, since the person has not been accused, he or she will have none of the protections afforded by the human rights legislation or the protections already provided by our Common Law.

Thanks to David Rowlands for the above.

By the by, your "know this" section in your sidebar is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of British *and* European law. (Something I assume you've picked up from the Devil's Kitchen? DK and I have argued about this in pubs on occasion - he's still wrong.)

No not at all it is entirely, 100%, of my own accord. I am not a frequent visitor of the Devil's Kitchen having only learned about the site a couple of weeks ago (prior to the post in question being written).

First of all, the "Napoleonic" system that you claim to be so incompatible with the "British" is the same as that used in, erm... Scotland. We've had two different legal systems operating side-by-side for centuries with no problems.

Henceforth why we call it "English Common Law." Having desperately search my blog page several times I cannot find anywhere, precisely, that I claim that they are incompatible. I take offence at the way the Napoleonic system operates and oppose it being introduced in England, what they do in Scotland and France is of little concern to me as long as they do not bring it here. Again I will reemphasize; I never claimed that they were incompatible (at least not anywhere I can find, please point it out to me) I take issue with the way the system presents itself and operates.

Secondly, the "guilty until proven innocent" claim for the European system is a misunderstanding of an anachronism. Because *every single EU member state* is a signatory of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The latter currently has opt-outs - the first two don't. Common to all three is a commitment to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The sword is an anachronism in modern warfare - that does not mean that it is non-lethal. What you claim is in direct contradiction to the way law is practised in France regardless of which treaties they have signed, remember most nation states only pay lip service to treaties they have signed. I am sure you would agree the rescent wars in Iraq and the current on in Afghanistan proves that if anything. Where British and Americans have been caught redhanded violating every single human rights treaties they signed since 1945. Ergo, just because they have signed something does not mean that they actually practise what they preach.

In the French system, the presumption of guilt licenses the judge to suppose that, regardless of whether the defendant is indeed in the wrong, something strange has been afoot worthy of further examination. What follows, then, is an exhaustive inquiry into the facts of the case, which continues until the judge feels that he has achieved an accurate understanding of what took place and can therefore subsume the case under the appropriate law. Indeed, the investigative powers of the judge are so extensive that he may freely suspend the rights of citizens (e.g., by wiretapping or opening their mail) in pursuit of crucial bits of evidence.

You say you don't have "enough judicial or constitutional knowledge to know by what authority our parliament has signed away our liberties" - well I do, and can tell you in detail, if you really want (short version: despite common assumptions, in Britain the people are not, nor ever have been sovereign - and parliament has no compulsion under the British constitution to act in the best interest of the people; it is this single fact about the way the British constitution works that confirmed me to be in favour of some form of European Union as a way of protecting us from the abuses of an over-strong government, much as we've experienced in the last 12 years).

The way you describe Britain it sounds as if we have been living under autocracy since the day of Walpole. Parliament may have no compulsion to act in the best interest of the people (sadly I am not going to take your word for and will double check this for it sounds dubious - at least the way in which you present it) that does not mean it has not done so until as recently as a couple of decades ago.

The irony of what you claim is well described by the oft held view in Brussels; that there was little that did as much for European integration than the attacks on WTC in 2001. That is to say terrorism is a means to their end, a tool which they use for scaremongering to force through drastic measures. I agree the British state under New Labour has done little to protect "An Englishman's home is his castle" but it is nowhere near as bad as the situation we will have if the EU gets full control of our lives.

In the meantime I suggest you pick up a copy of Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution" - over a century out of date but still a good starting point. You should be able to pick it up second-hand on Amazon for about £3. It'll be an invaluable investment, considering the focus of your blog - though you should probably think about getting Anthony King's more recent "The British Constitution" (OUP, 2007) to get yourself more up to date.

Thank you for those suggestions, I shall indeed get both.

Now Mr. Nosemonkey to your "friend", Tim:

Can I ask the right honourable gentleman Spitifre whether he has no way of voting for the EU nor for Regional Government?

If you do, how come you are signing away freedom to those institutions? Also, being from a land estranged of these isles, I am pretty certain that there are no countries in the EU where you are guilty until proven innocent, no matter how loud you say it here, it is not true.

Did not Mr. Nosemonkey who, I daresay, knows more about this issue than either of us demonstrate that Scotland goes by the Napoleonic system and you will find with a quick google search that so does France.

Tim I am going to assume you a fellow of lesser mental capabilities. Anyone who knows anything at all about the EU knows that the real power lies with the unelected Commission and the Council of Ministers. It was set up that way because, after the massive popularity of Nazism and Fascism, the post-war European elites decided that it was necessary to build institutions that restrain the will of the people rather than express it. In the long run, that's merely a more leisurely and scenic route back to where they came in. There is no "democratic deficit" since this is how it was designed.

So you see our little "democratic" exercise that comes around every 5 years is little but show for the EU parliament has little power. The commission is the only body which has the power to propose laws and if parliament disagrees and throws it out they can still bypass parliament should they so like, of course did would cause some uproar but it is not as if the EU cares about the democracy their treatment of Ireland and Denmark shows that if anything.

British Politics...

Do not be shocked, she represents British Politics today.

I am on the brink of posting an exceedingly long post about English Common Law and EU law and their interrelation and the fact that they are swingers, both of them - but the EU is the nasty one, the one that brings AIDS.

Anyhow not wishing to say too much about this whole ridiculous business surrounding the NHS, clearly displaying what level our MSM is at. The one thing I hope this will be is deliver a blow for the Tories as well. I know I often claim and prove that Labour are the arch enemy of Britain but to be fair the Tories have been as complacent in their duty as HM Opposition, I have been unfair in my biased criticism and I seek to resurrect this mistake.

If this whole business does have my desired effect then hopefully by the time our meaningless General Election takes place, people will be so wondrously disillusioned with the main three that they will look elsewhere. Hopefully we will see a breath of fresh air in Parliament, the once proud institution who epitomized Britannia with her Trident standing tall, with a firm hard look upon the world, not afraid to make the tough choices. Depressingly we now have a drunk adolescent prositute posturing as our Parliament.

Mr Hannan for UKIP?

Judging by the mood of the blogosphere and indeed the journalists most people are thinking (and saying so) "fuck off Dave at least Hannan has an idea different from New Labours's, what do you have?" Quite.

What does Dave have? Well he wants to preserve the status quo of the NHS, chuck 106 billion pounds out the window (not really though but a lot of it is pure waste) and you get the NHS. What is rather more intriguing is that a lot of people be they UKIP trolls or not, seem quite intent on voting UKIP in the upcoming general election.


Well here "is" UKIP that is to say here it what used to be the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom, RIP.

• UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
• We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
• We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans.
• We will radically reform the working of the NHS with an Insurance Fund, whilst upholding the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals. (<---- Look!, Look! Dave it is policy that is what it looks like I shit you not!)
  
• We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say.
• We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes.
• We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling.
• We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance.
• We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
• We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.
• We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists.
• Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters.

Wonder if Dave knows...

(Here is what will happen in the end tough; if four or five years time when the next GE is held, people will have had time to conclude that the Tories were as shit as New Labour. A lot of fringe parties will get seats, a lot, they will form a coalition government and from whence the UK will be governed - that is to say the remaing 3-4% which is left to govern). Fun Times ahead.

Constitutional Vandalism Part 2

Remember the The Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the one dubbed "Constitutional Vandalism", by well everyone, except New Labour of course.

This is what it did (Wikipedia of course).

• Abolition of the office of "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", generally known as the Lord Chancellor.
• Setting up of a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" and moving the Law Lords out of the House of Lords to this new court.
• Other measures relating to the judiciary, including changes to the position of the Lord Chief Justice and changes to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee.

Why was this done?

"The reform was motivated by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power might not be in conformance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, because a judicial officer, having legislative or executive power, is likely not to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial."

I will let the humble reader be the judge (notice the pun, aren't I funny?) as to why this system was to be changed when it delivered justice adequately for a good 800 years.

More and more pictures are starting to arrive from the MSM showing images of the courtrooms of the new Supreme court. Interestingly though they seem to have told the Queen to go and stuff herself with the creation of this new abomination at the price of 56 million pounds. Seems odd to scrap a system that is the envy of the rest of the world in favour of integration and conformity. The odd thing is that I think New Labour thinks (odd sentence) that when they are thrown out of office next year there wont be any consequences of their destruction of the UK.

Anyhow here is the emblem approved by the queen for the new Supreme Court (notice the St. Edwards Crown).This is what is actually found in the building...

Notice the distinct absence of anything even reminiscent of the monarchy (for the less attentive readers, what is missing from the emblem is the St. Edwards crown - the symbol of Crown Immunity, Liberty and Authority). For more pictures go here.

So much for Crown Prerogative.

What I find truly fascinating about this whole business is not the constant disestablishment of Britain under New Labours conductance but the naivety of its ministers. In years to come when we start to unravel the New Labour bombshell years they will have to face the nation in a court of law - be it the Supreme Court or the House of Lords. It has barely been a month since Jacqui Smith resigned from Gordon's cabinet and she is already being prosecuted. How long before Gordon is charged?

Blair, Brown, Mandelson, Miliband et al. you will not get away with what you have done. You cannot stop justice being done, let alone a nation which is quite frankly pissed off at the lot of you for behaving so maliciously towards your own people who you are supposed to serve and protect.

As the current Home Secretary Alan Johnson said "I am not loosing sleep over rising immigration numbers." Trust me dear Mr. Johnson when you are truly out and gone of office, and the nation starts to recover from your disastrous time at its helm, you will loose sleep.

Addendum: Turns out this whole issue was rather more serious than I initially thought. I have mailed the relevant ministers of the government and in the shadow cabinet to see what they will do about it, or what is more likely to tell them that they actually have a Supreme Court now - I wonder if they even knew. Will post relevant replies from ministers when received.

The farce continues

Update: I can pleasantly tell you that I mailed the Ministry of Justice, The Conservative representatives and the New Labour representatives about my above concerns - three weeks ago. No one has replied to date, my guess is no one will.

Until the end

Having a very fatalistic spell today; reading too many books about bad things, too many articles about bad things and generally there seems to be no hope. I know that in the end we will sort ourselves out for it is the only option. But one cannot help but feeling let down with a glance at the state of the nation. We commonly like to eclipse the demagogues-turned-around at Whitehall, Brussels and ultimately "Imperial" America for crushing the UK with their ever so stampeding heels of power. But really though, who gave them that power? We did and even if the current government and the incoming government think it a 'whim' of the people for daring crave a repatriation of those powers, they will listen.

If democracy is eventually untangled in the future and we are indeed to be ruled by autocracy and bureaucracy, will the people stand for it? Recall the American Revolt against King George III, he did the wrong thing, the same thing which is being duplicated by Whitehall and Brussels today - prey they continue for the end is nigh for their kind; the kind which mocks democracy, shuns the people and above all have a ill conceived notion about their moral authority.

Central government is a fine idea if it has the backing of the people. But if it does not than search elsewhere for ways to mend the vices of the country and alleviate the virtues, do not relabel your ideas and think you wont be found out.

No, I am of Britain and I will stand alone if necessary, with my people, no matter how you attack me. I know what probably bothers you most is that I am really a nobody, an inconsequential flawed individual like so many others, but I will not be denied my voice as a citizen or see others denied theirs.

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.