First, I want to establish a ground rule (ironic, as you will see). Politics has come to be characterised as falling into two and a bit camps; Left, Right and Centre. This has been disrupted and corrupted, as it is supposed to represent polar opposites in ideas. But if we go to extremes, Stalin, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Left. Hitler, a murderous authoritarian is seen as Right. So that's not working.
Clearly, we can agree that people who want to tell you what to do (and possibly engage in a bit of murdering) are Left. The opposite then, would be people who want you to be free and don't go around killing other people.
State control, nationalised industry, high taxes, lots of rules and regulations, conformity. This is the Left. Small government, low tax, light regulation, liberty and personal freedom, that would be the other end.
Clearly, we have a solid candidate for the Left today in Corbyn and his cronies (no suggestion of murdering, but very keen on people who do), but we don't have anyone brave enough to stand up for the Right. Oh, we get a bit of it, but then they run scared and apologise for saying something sensible. Terrified of what the Left might say.
The Left have created a 'narrative', which is their version of the truth. They opted for a narrative as it doesn't actually have to be the truth. They explained this away by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, just your truth and my truth. To which someone said, 'kick a rock and you'll see what's true'.
Consequently, a child born a boy, doesn't have to be a boy, if he chooses not to be (although the activists of the Left will help him choose). Rape victims must be believed, regardless of evidence and a hate crime is a crime if the victim says it is.
George Orwell's book 1984 was lampooning Left ideology, pointing out its dangerous stupidities. It wasn't supposed to be considered a manual of how things should be.
'Woke' is supposed to define people in the know, but in fact describes the opposite; sheep, repeating the most obvious falsehoods. Very Orwellian.
'Safe spaces' are no such things, they are hideaways for people who are so lacking in understanding and social skills, that they cannot contemplate a contrary opinion. Common in universities, you have to wonder just how people, supposedly there to learn and debate, have such narrow views and are unable to accept other views exist. Perhaps it's something to do with the input of their Left ideologue lecturers.
And of course, the greatest demonstration of the dangers presented by Left ideology currently, is Brexit. For some, maybe we can call them traditionalists, it is the result of a democratic vote that has decided we should leave the international organisation that, for some reason we asked to run our country. Pretty much the ultimate outsourcing.
But for others, the losers, it is not that simple. So a litany of reasons as to why the democratic result has to be ignored have been unleased, including, that it isn't democratic. The whole reason that parliament is in a mess is because the losers won't shut up and act like adults, but are a majority in parliament. Plus the little twerp Speaker breaking the oath of his office.
410 constituencies voted Leave, 240 Remain. 148 Labour constituencies voted Leave, 84 Remain. 247 Conservative for Leave, 80 Remain. But in parliament, only 160 MP's are for Leave, out of 650. An outrage of course, but why should they care? Are they not better than us? Certainly seems to be their opinion.
Then there is Political Correctness. Invented to stop anything being debated, as Left ideology doesn't stand up well to scrutiny.
Or Climate Change. There is absolutely no science at all to support the assertion that we, through emissions are affecting the climate. The theory is sound, but we understand so little of the way climate works, that it is impossible to predict. But our emissions, seemingly huge, are inconsequential compared to the size of the 'system'. All the alarmists have is their crooked computer models, which have already been proven to be hopelessly wrong.
But 'the science is settled' and must not be debated, or further investigated. Why would that be!? Why, for the first time in history, should we not apply the scientific method to a problem of science?
Because Left ideology doesn't stand scrutiny.
The next time someone tells you something, think about it. Is it true? Because, if it has some benefit to the Left, it's probably a lie.
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brexit. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 September 2019
Tuesday, 3 September 2019
News
We know that the BBC is not a useful or reliable source of information on world events and hasn't been for a long time now. We have always known that Channel 4 is beyond a joke on every level, which leaves Sky. I find myself wondering, during the ridiculous and fraught times we are currently living through, whether someone at Sky News would actually die if they even attempted to address a political subject in an unbiased and objective way. Personally, I see no value in the personal view of lard bucket Boulton, who has never hidden his deep love of Left ideologies.
Similarly, the Political Editor seems completely unable to deliver a coherent sentence, when all she is reporting on is a wholly positive piece of information about the Tory government, or its leadership.
So, let us look at what is happening; the government of the day voted to have a simple in/out referendum on our continued membership of the EU. The MP's voted to honour the result. MP's voted to trigger Article 50 and MP's voted that if we could not get a decent deal from the EU, we leave on the terms laid out under international WTO rules. Already having all the EU regulations in place in this country of course, there is absolutely nothing to fear in this route (unless the EU act viciously, which would be confirmation of just how right we are to be leaving).
MP's were elected (85% of them), on manifesto's that promised to deliver 'Brexit'. However, a childish group of MP's, doing their best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation, are attempting to overthrow the will of the people. They say any other move is un-democratic. Let's examine that. Parliament is a structure devised to contain a group of representatives of the people to enact laws that represent the desires and will of the people. Parliament handles the 'big stuff', projects and relationships at the national level.
If they annoy the people, they are removed at a General Election. The MP's however, think that the only democracy in this country is what they vote for in the Commons, the people are irrelevant. If they didn't think that, their current shenanigans wouldn't be possible. They would just do what the sensible British people want and act reasonably. Fat chance; our current MP's, or many of them, think that they are back in the old days of rich landowner MP's being the only people with a say.
Even then, many of those old MP's weren't as stunningly thick and grabbing as the current crop.
Parliament never had the legal authority to join the European Union, which is why Heath lied about it so comprehensively. But having handed control of this country to a foreign power, our MP's somehow refer to their local council as a sovereign parliament! The common sense of the British people, once they realised what the EU is about and how our politicians have been misleading us, ordered the government to get us out.
Why would anyone want to stay part of a declining economic area, that is corrupt to the core, a political answer to a question that passed into history decades ago and that has been holding back the otherwise dynamic British nation with its cramping regulations and protectionist tariffs? Well, vested interest is the answer. Money and advantage for many and naturally, as a bureaucrats paradise, all of the Civil Service is delighted by its inertia and corruption.
The actions of the Remainer MP's are disgusting, anti-democratic and damaging to the country. Countries around the world must be shocked that such stupidity exists in the country they always thought a paragon of sense and fair play. Plus, the despots around the world must be in hysterics seeing us become ever more like them.
Notice that Remainers have never made a case for staying in the EU, nor do they offer a solution to the impasse in the form of an acceptable deal (they constantly say they are against all kinds of things, but are not trying to stop Brexit. I wonder if anyone in the country believes them?)
Iceland pulled out of joining the EU (they, like everyone else thought that joining whilst their country was broke, would save them - it's why we joined) and went on to rapidly turn their economy around, by acting in self interest. Greece suffered a catastrophic decline in their economy and it has stayed that way, because it cannot act in self interest, because it is part of the EU. Staying in shows their politicians firmly believe that Greeks are incapable of running their own country.
Britain needs to ignore people like Grieve and Hammond who believe Britain is a hopeless, useless country unable to stand on its own two feet. Britain is not only a very capable country, but once free of the shackles of the EU corpse, would become ever more so.
Similarly, the Political Editor seems completely unable to deliver a coherent sentence, when all she is reporting on is a wholly positive piece of information about the Tory government, or its leadership.
So, let us look at what is happening; the government of the day voted to have a simple in/out referendum on our continued membership of the EU. The MP's voted to honour the result. MP's voted to trigger Article 50 and MP's voted that if we could not get a decent deal from the EU, we leave on the terms laid out under international WTO rules. Already having all the EU regulations in place in this country of course, there is absolutely nothing to fear in this route (unless the EU act viciously, which would be confirmation of just how right we are to be leaving).
MP's were elected (85% of them), on manifesto's that promised to deliver 'Brexit'. However, a childish group of MP's, doing their best Violet Elizabeth Bott impersonation, are attempting to overthrow the will of the people. They say any other move is un-democratic. Let's examine that. Parliament is a structure devised to contain a group of representatives of the people to enact laws that represent the desires and will of the people. Parliament handles the 'big stuff', projects and relationships at the national level.
If they annoy the people, they are removed at a General Election. The MP's however, think that the only democracy in this country is what they vote for in the Commons, the people are irrelevant. If they didn't think that, their current shenanigans wouldn't be possible. They would just do what the sensible British people want and act reasonably. Fat chance; our current MP's, or many of them, think that they are back in the old days of rich landowner MP's being the only people with a say.
Even then, many of those old MP's weren't as stunningly thick and grabbing as the current crop.
Parliament never had the legal authority to join the European Union, which is why Heath lied about it so comprehensively. But having handed control of this country to a foreign power, our MP's somehow refer to their local council as a sovereign parliament! The common sense of the British people, once they realised what the EU is about and how our politicians have been misleading us, ordered the government to get us out.
Why would anyone want to stay part of a declining economic area, that is corrupt to the core, a political answer to a question that passed into history decades ago and that has been holding back the otherwise dynamic British nation with its cramping regulations and protectionist tariffs? Well, vested interest is the answer. Money and advantage for many and naturally, as a bureaucrats paradise, all of the Civil Service is delighted by its inertia and corruption.
The actions of the Remainer MP's are disgusting, anti-democratic and damaging to the country. Countries around the world must be shocked that such stupidity exists in the country they always thought a paragon of sense and fair play. Plus, the despots around the world must be in hysterics seeing us become ever more like them.
Notice that Remainers have never made a case for staying in the EU, nor do they offer a solution to the impasse in the form of an acceptable deal (they constantly say they are against all kinds of things, but are not trying to stop Brexit. I wonder if anyone in the country believes them?)
Iceland pulled out of joining the EU (they, like everyone else thought that joining whilst their country was broke, would save them - it's why we joined) and went on to rapidly turn their economy around, by acting in self interest. Greece suffered a catastrophic decline in their economy and it has stayed that way, because it cannot act in self interest, because it is part of the EU. Staying in shows their politicians firmly believe that Greeks are incapable of running their own country.
Britain needs to ignore people like Grieve and Hammond who believe Britain is a hopeless, useless country unable to stand on its own two feet. Britain is not only a very capable country, but once free of the shackles of the EU corpse, would become ever more so.
Thursday, 14 March 2019
Disgraceful; A Laughing Stock
Well, many parliaments around the world are based on the British model, but it showed just how bad it can be when stocked almost exclusively by self-impressed morons. Last night was a disgrace and will have made Britain and British politics the laughing stock of the world. Trump hasn't even come close to the haughty, hubristic tantrums on display here.
Here is the background. In the early Seventies, a Conservative(!) Prime Minister, Edward Heath, lied to the electorate about joining something called the Common Market. He told us it was a trading bloc and would make Britain a stronger country (we were, as all EU members are when joining, broke).
He knew though, as recently released government documents show, that the (then) EEC was a political project to unite all the individual countries of Europe into a single superstate, with a central government, and all the attendant structures such as tax, policing, military, laws, currency etc.
The EU has had as its abiding principle since its inception between the World Wars, that it should operate in secret and not reveal its objectives. Have you ever heard a debate about 'Europe'? Has its way of working ever been explained to you, at school, university, on TV? No. And that is very important to its success.
The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats, often referred to as technocrats, and has a pretend parliament to confuse the people of the various countries as to its operation. The MEPs can and do vote on laws proposed by the bureaucrats and can put forward amendments, but they will get the same law come back endlessly until they approve it. You can only imagine that when the single government is finally achieved this little farce will be deleted.
There is no common culture across Europe, no common language. We have different traditions and laws. Only the French and German traditions of attempting to subjugate Europe are permitted going forward though, with for instance, the (German) currency crushing the economies of the Southern European countries. There is no demos, but some politicians want an empire, so Europe will be balkanised.
Can you think of any example of a country, taking over several other countries and running them from a central government, which controls everything through laws and regulations? Yes, the USSR. How did that go?
Something even as fundamental as the law divides us. In Britain, a traditionally strong, inventive and industrious nation, we evolved laws that constrained absolute monarchs and placed the law in the hands of the people. We vote for people to represent us in parliament and if they don't do what we want, they are chucked out at the next election.
In the EU, where the law is dominated by the French, the State owns the law and the people do what they are told. A short summary of this would be, in Britain everything is legal unless we decide to make it illegal, in the EU everything is illegal unless the State allows it.
This comes from the militaristic, empire building tradition of not just France, but Germany also. The French see themselves as the finest administrators in the world and so should run the EU, but need German money so tolerate them as a 'partner'. Germany think they should run it, because they pay for it and tolerate French input because there would be another war if they didn't.
So, with some inkling that the EU was too different, too bureaucratic and not functioning very well and with a suspicion as to what they were up, what came next, the British voted to leave the EU. The largest turnout ever saw 17.4 million people issue this instruction.
Parliament had pledged almost unanimously to action the result. Both Labour and Conservative candidates ran on a manifesto to honour that pledge. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, the mechanism by which a member informs the EU that they are leaving.
However, ignoring 17.4 million people, their own election manifesto pledges and in many cases actually defying the majority of their constituents, MP's decided that no one tells them what to do. Most MP's are 'Remainers' and want to stay in the bureaucrats paradise, the EUSSR. So they started wrecking the process.
The analogy that the Remain MP's are acting like children having a tantrum at not getting their way, is in fact so accurate it is beyond parody. Using a typical Marxist trick (all of them, even the 'Conservatives') the Remainers try to create a false narrative. They say that the Leavers have lied incessantly, blocked progress and want a 'hard Brexit'. That the referendum only voted Leave because of the campaign of lies by vote Leave.
Let's examine that. Leave MP's have consistently insisted and voted to support the will of the people, being the proper role of parliament, and have only blocked attempts to thwart that, which cannot be characterised as 'blocking progress'. The Leave campaign was not massively funded, but may have made some technical mistakes in using the funds, on occasion, that didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Remain however, had enormous resources; the UK government pumped money into it, as did foreign individuals of high net wealth and of course, the EU. Massive collusion and misuse of funds took place, which the Electoral Commission have no problem with, because they choose only to investigate Leave.
As to lies, currently Britain should be in a recession, at least 600,000 people should have lost their jobs in 2016 and the pound should be on the floor. This is what Remain promised would happen if we dared to vote to leave. In fact, there are at least 700,000 more in work, the economy is growing (faster than the EU) and the world is knocking on our door looking for trade deals.
The media is almost all on the side of Remain, so there is no proper analysis (phew, says the EU) and the BBC fanatically so.
Consequently the world is treated to the spectacle of a bunch of immature, entitled bigots acting as if they alone possess the knowledge and wherewithal to understand the blindingly simple concept of leave means leave. (Ask if they would like some money, they know the answer to that!).
Here is another question for you; Remain also tell us that we trade so much with the EU that we will be destroyed if we leave (they never go any further by way of explanation, you will notice). This presupposes that the EU will not buy anything from us after we leave. But how about this; the EU is possibly the most over-regulated, risk-averse structures in the world. How much stronger and bigger would the UK economy be now, if we had never joined, never been held back by the EU?
And to the final point. Remainers, like all children assert ridiculous things to confirm their position. May lost a vote yesterday (by 4 votes) and so now she is 'morally' obliged to take No Deal off the table. No mention of how the moral authority of 17.4 million people stacks up with those 4 MP's (or even the maybe 500 Loser, sorry Remainer MPs).
But here is the thing. There are common laws and there are Constitutional laws. When Tony Blair decided in his supreme arrogance to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor he was informed that it was a Constitutional position and not within his gift to have any say on. (And there was Tony thinking he was either an absolute ruler of perhaps a god).
This throws up a slight flaw in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joining the European Union (and they do call it joining, even though they mean the UK to be subsumed) By handing the power to make laws in the UK and indeed to change the very nature of our law-making, the government was handing authority to a foreign power - a Constitutional act and something that is not within their power.
Edward Heath wasn't just lying to make you think wrongly of the EU, he had to hide that we were signing away sovereignty, because to admit that would be to admit its illegality.
Technically, we have never been in the EU because it was impossible to 'join' such an organisation. (And the EU is an organisation just like the UN, or NATO or any other international body -except they don't get to run our country!)
Here is the background. In the early Seventies, a Conservative(!) Prime Minister, Edward Heath, lied to the electorate about joining something called the Common Market. He told us it was a trading bloc and would make Britain a stronger country (we were, as all EU members are when joining, broke).
He knew though, as recently released government documents show, that the (then) EEC was a political project to unite all the individual countries of Europe into a single superstate, with a central government, and all the attendant structures such as tax, policing, military, laws, currency etc.
The EU has had as its abiding principle since its inception between the World Wars, that it should operate in secret and not reveal its objectives. Have you ever heard a debate about 'Europe'? Has its way of working ever been explained to you, at school, university, on TV? No. And that is very important to its success.
The EU is run by unelected bureaucrats, often referred to as technocrats, and has a pretend parliament to confuse the people of the various countries as to its operation. The MEPs can and do vote on laws proposed by the bureaucrats and can put forward amendments, but they will get the same law come back endlessly until they approve it. You can only imagine that when the single government is finally achieved this little farce will be deleted.
There is no common culture across Europe, no common language. We have different traditions and laws. Only the French and German traditions of attempting to subjugate Europe are permitted going forward though, with for instance, the (German) currency crushing the economies of the Southern European countries. There is no demos, but some politicians want an empire, so Europe will be balkanised.
Can you think of any example of a country, taking over several other countries and running them from a central government, which controls everything through laws and regulations? Yes, the USSR. How did that go?
Something even as fundamental as the law divides us. In Britain, a traditionally strong, inventive and industrious nation, we evolved laws that constrained absolute monarchs and placed the law in the hands of the people. We vote for people to represent us in parliament and if they don't do what we want, they are chucked out at the next election.
In the EU, where the law is dominated by the French, the State owns the law and the people do what they are told. A short summary of this would be, in Britain everything is legal unless we decide to make it illegal, in the EU everything is illegal unless the State allows it.
This comes from the militaristic, empire building tradition of not just France, but Germany also. The French see themselves as the finest administrators in the world and so should run the EU, but need German money so tolerate them as a 'partner'. Germany think they should run it, because they pay for it and tolerate French input because there would be another war if they didn't.
So, with some inkling that the EU was too different, too bureaucratic and not functioning very well and with a suspicion as to what they were up, what came next, the British voted to leave the EU. The largest turnout ever saw 17.4 million people issue this instruction.
Parliament had pledged almost unanimously to action the result. Both Labour and Conservative candidates ran on a manifesto to honour that pledge. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, the mechanism by which a member informs the EU that they are leaving.
However, ignoring 17.4 million people, their own election manifesto pledges and in many cases actually defying the majority of their constituents, MP's decided that no one tells them what to do. Most MP's are 'Remainers' and want to stay in the bureaucrats paradise, the EUSSR. So they started wrecking the process.
The analogy that the Remain MP's are acting like children having a tantrum at not getting their way, is in fact so accurate it is beyond parody. Using a typical Marxist trick (all of them, even the 'Conservatives') the Remainers try to create a false narrative. They say that the Leavers have lied incessantly, blocked progress and want a 'hard Brexit'. That the referendum only voted Leave because of the campaign of lies by vote Leave.
Let's examine that. Leave MP's have consistently insisted and voted to support the will of the people, being the proper role of parliament, and have only blocked attempts to thwart that, which cannot be characterised as 'blocking progress'. The Leave campaign was not massively funded, but may have made some technical mistakes in using the funds, on occasion, that didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Remain however, had enormous resources; the UK government pumped money into it, as did foreign individuals of high net wealth and of course, the EU. Massive collusion and misuse of funds took place, which the Electoral Commission have no problem with, because they choose only to investigate Leave.
As to lies, currently Britain should be in a recession, at least 600,000 people should have lost their jobs in 2016 and the pound should be on the floor. This is what Remain promised would happen if we dared to vote to leave. In fact, there are at least 700,000 more in work, the economy is growing (faster than the EU) and the world is knocking on our door looking for trade deals.
The media is almost all on the side of Remain, so there is no proper analysis (phew, says the EU) and the BBC fanatically so.
Consequently the world is treated to the spectacle of a bunch of immature, entitled bigots acting as if they alone possess the knowledge and wherewithal to understand the blindingly simple concept of leave means leave. (Ask if they would like some money, they know the answer to that!).
Here is another question for you; Remain also tell us that we trade so much with the EU that we will be destroyed if we leave (they never go any further by way of explanation, you will notice). This presupposes that the EU will not buy anything from us after we leave. But how about this; the EU is possibly the most over-regulated, risk-averse structures in the world. How much stronger and bigger would the UK economy be now, if we had never joined, never been held back by the EU?
And to the final point. Remainers, like all children assert ridiculous things to confirm their position. May lost a vote yesterday (by 4 votes) and so now she is 'morally' obliged to take No Deal off the table. No mention of how the moral authority of 17.4 million people stacks up with those 4 MP's (or even the maybe 500 Loser, sorry Remainer MPs).
But here is the thing. There are common laws and there are Constitutional laws. When Tony Blair decided in his supreme arrogance to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor he was informed that it was a Constitutional position and not within his gift to have any say on. (And there was Tony thinking he was either an absolute ruler of perhaps a god).
This throws up a slight flaw in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland joining the European Union (and they do call it joining, even though they mean the UK to be subsumed) By handing the power to make laws in the UK and indeed to change the very nature of our law-making, the government was handing authority to a foreign power - a Constitutional act and something that is not within their power.
Edward Heath wasn't just lying to make you think wrongly of the EU, he had to hide that we were signing away sovereignty, because to admit that would be to admit its illegality.
Technically, we have never been in the EU because it was impossible to 'join' such an organisation. (And the EU is an organisation just like the UN, or NATO or any other international body -except they don't get to run our country!)
Friday, 25 January 2019
Question Time
Fiona Bruce seems to be settling in to her role and acting as a proper referee, rather than Dimbleby and his attempts to show he was the cleverest person in the room. Bruce certainly appears to have quickly learned that the Left bias she showed in her first programme doesn't protect her from that Wings' hate mob.
Last night was interesting though. Nick Ferrari was OK and made useful and verifiable points as did Suella Braverman and the audience generally responded well to their points. But then there was Labour's Healy. Oh good grief. Proof that neither Cambridge nor a BA (politics though) signifies intelligence any more. Party line doctrinaire crap.
Then the mad looking and sounding marketing guy, who in typical Leftie fashion shouted over people he disagreed with as soon as they started talking. He was pretty sure Dyson is a hypocrite (and had to be shut up by Fiona before he uttered clearly made up, libellous stuff), going on to say that his company was set up in Ireland specifically to be in the EU. Or maybe it was more because of the tax incentives they offer companies?
But best of all, was ranty Sonia Sodha, who writes for The Observer. Repeating the tired, cliched tripe we and she have heard before as if it represented useful input. After Suella had given a fairly comprehensive overview as to why there won't be any problems with traffic through Dover, all sourced, Sonia had one of her fits.
Of course the boss of Calais would say there won't be any delays, she averred. Don't know what particular bias she was attributing to him. Maybe she thought that he thought that any suggestion of delays at Calais would lead to traffic going to another port. Where they wouldn't face EU mandated delays?
Being French and as part of an organisation that has received EU funding, I would have considered him unlikely to be keen to stick his head above the parapet.
Sonia also had a couple of stabs at convincing us that Dyson building an HQ in Singapore and moving 2 of his 4000 UK workforce there, made him a hypocrite for backing Brexit. Luckily there was a child in the audience who absolutely skewered her (it is usual to feel that a child knows more about life and the real world than a Marxist, but nice to see it in action!).
He queried whether what she was saying was that Dyson should make business decisions based on sentimentality, rather that moving into and developing new and expanding markets for his products in the Far East. Queue Sonia doing an impression of a fish. She also got agitated by people with different views from hers, being allowed to talk.
The audience, apart from the well-fed woman at the front who was clearly a plant, could not understand why politicians are engineering so many problems.
To end with Dyson though. How can it be hypocritical to believe the UK should break free of the shackles of the backward, stifling political project of the EU and start trading with the whole world and so build infrastructure elsewhere that Europe?
Last night was interesting though. Nick Ferrari was OK and made useful and verifiable points as did Suella Braverman and the audience generally responded well to their points. But then there was Labour's Healy. Oh good grief. Proof that neither Cambridge nor a BA (politics though) signifies intelligence any more. Party line doctrinaire crap.
Then the mad looking and sounding marketing guy, who in typical Leftie fashion shouted over people he disagreed with as soon as they started talking. He was pretty sure Dyson is a hypocrite (and had to be shut up by Fiona before he uttered clearly made up, libellous stuff), going on to say that his company was set up in Ireland specifically to be in the EU. Or maybe it was more because of the tax incentives they offer companies?
But best of all, was ranty Sonia Sodha, who writes for The Observer. Repeating the tired, cliched tripe we and she have heard before as if it represented useful input. After Suella had given a fairly comprehensive overview as to why there won't be any problems with traffic through Dover, all sourced, Sonia had one of her fits.
Of course the boss of Calais would say there won't be any delays, she averred. Don't know what particular bias she was attributing to him. Maybe she thought that he thought that any suggestion of delays at Calais would lead to traffic going to another port. Where they wouldn't face EU mandated delays?
Being French and as part of an organisation that has received EU funding, I would have considered him unlikely to be keen to stick his head above the parapet.
Sonia also had a couple of stabs at convincing us that Dyson building an HQ in Singapore and moving 2 of his 4000 UK workforce there, made him a hypocrite for backing Brexit. Luckily there was a child in the audience who absolutely skewered her (it is usual to feel that a child knows more about life and the real world than a Marxist, but nice to see it in action!).
He queried whether what she was saying was that Dyson should make business decisions based on sentimentality, rather that moving into and developing new and expanding markets for his products in the Far East. Queue Sonia doing an impression of a fish. She also got agitated by people with different views from hers, being allowed to talk.
The audience, apart from the well-fed woman at the front who was clearly a plant, could not understand why politicians are engineering so many problems.
To end with Dyson though. How can it be hypocritical to believe the UK should break free of the shackles of the backward, stifling political project of the EU and start trading with the whole world and so build infrastructure elsewhere that Europe?
Tuesday, 20 November 2018
Brexit Blues
Well the Conservative party continue to display how unbelievably hapless they are in ever more inventive ways. We now know that they no longer think they should base their policies on sound economic principles, that law and order are not hugely important, small government is a ridiculous idea for a politician to believe in and democracy should be ignored when inconvenient.
Along with all the members of other parties, they also hold dear that they should be able to act and operate in any way they see fit, basically feeling they are above the law. That lying is not of any consequence either, particularly when it fits their own, personal, narrow agenda. It's about me, stupid.
And then at the head of the pus filled hill is Theresa May. What a piece of work she is; tough, bombastic, resolute, not afraid to offend, able to lie incessantly for tactical reasons and generally not for turning. When talking to the people who elected her and when denying a binding instruction from the country.
In front of the EU bureaucrats (her kind of people) she is a doormat. The only question about her Draft Agreement is, did the EU give it to the Tories before or after the referendum? It is written in a way that gives precedence to the EU throughout, deferring to the EU as the senior partner always.
Now, unless someone like Rees-Mogg led the Conservative party (and with a good majority would be an immense benefit for the country), I would now find myself in a position I have never even had to contemplate before, voting for the socialists. But in a perfect storm kind of way, we have simultaneously lost any last vestige of socialism in this country, replaced by the (currently) led extreme Marxists of Jeremy Corbyn.
So, Theresa May and a grossly under-performing, shackled UK buried in a Franco-German version of the USSR, or Venezuela style communism? Which do you want, because nothing else is on offer?
Along with all the members of other parties, they also hold dear that they should be able to act and operate in any way they see fit, basically feeling they are above the law. That lying is not of any consequence either, particularly when it fits their own, personal, narrow agenda. It's about me, stupid.
And then at the head of the pus filled hill is Theresa May. What a piece of work she is; tough, bombastic, resolute, not afraid to offend, able to lie incessantly for tactical reasons and generally not for turning. When talking to the people who elected her and when denying a binding instruction from the country.
In front of the EU bureaucrats (her kind of people) she is a doormat. The only question about her Draft Agreement is, did the EU give it to the Tories before or after the referendum? It is written in a way that gives precedence to the EU throughout, deferring to the EU as the senior partner always.
Now, unless someone like Rees-Mogg led the Conservative party (and with a good majority would be an immense benefit for the country), I would now find myself in a position I have never even had to contemplate before, voting for the socialists. But in a perfect storm kind of way, we have simultaneously lost any last vestige of socialism in this country, replaced by the (currently) led extreme Marxists of Jeremy Corbyn.
So, Theresa May and a grossly under-performing, shackled UK buried in a Franco-German version of the USSR, or Venezuela style communism? Which do you want, because nothing else is on offer?
Friday, 6 July 2018
Pretty Girls In Fast Cars
I enjoy seeing a successful woman in an expensive car, be it Bentley or Porsche, I think it is highly appealing. My feelings are the exact opposite if the female is actually the wife of a rich man and does nothing with her day but fret about herself, book treatments and meet up with others in her air-head circle to talk about reality TV.
Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.
Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.
I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?
So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.
If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.
Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.
Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.
Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.
She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.
Basically, I have always been attracted to clever women. I am not threatened or intimidated by them, which is it seems, amazingly common with the male of the species. I like to think I am a fair judge, but can be ridiculously naïve at times. It has never occurred to me that men and women are anything other than different versions of the same thing. I never considered that they might be inherently inferior.
Likewise, meeting people who originate from places other than these shores who may have a different colour skin, I also just take them on the merit they present. Hell, when I was at school we saw that African people were darker skinned and that was as far as my thinking went; people lived in Africa too, but they had a darker skin.
I didn't make the 'intellectual' leap to conclude that this made me superior. Even when the distinct lack of any parallel with the societal developments in Europe was considered, when pushed all I would do is wonder why. Perhaps it was the heat?
So, if I met an 'African' I wasn't surprised by the colour of his skin. This means I am not Left wing. They shriek about it in perpetual surprise. Culture however, is something I am less forgiving about. God may have decided the colour of your skin, but you choose your culture.
If your culture is to treat women as inferior to men (because the men in question are fundamentally weak and resort to the tactics of the bully to gain and maintain ascendency), then I detest you. Or maybe your culture is to lie and cheat in order to gain advantage and power. This means you exhibit the fundamentals of Marxism. You see others as existing only for what you can get out of them.
Obama was elected because he was black and that is very wrong, both because his colour should be irrelevant, but also because black people should never have been deprived of opportunity, which would probably have meant a black President ages ago. But Obama was also a terrible President, not because he was black, but because he is a snake. Like our own Tony Blair, he was just out for himself.
Theresa May is terrible not because she is a woman or that she is white, but because she lacks principles. (And it seems, a spine). She has been told by the nation to take the UK out of the EU; she is a politician so she is bound, by Parliament's promise to obey that specific demand, but also because MP's are there to serve the public will. Additionally, she presented a party manifesto to get elected to power that emphatically restated that commitment.
Now, the wholly unsurprising attitude of the bureaucrats around her (that we should not leave the greatest agglomeration of bureaucrats the world has ever seen) is convincing her to do their bidding instead. Which is weak and unprincipled.
She keeps saying the opposite of what she does, but maybe I am wrong and will be surprised. Maybe she will say to the EU that she has tried to play nice but enough is enough, now stop being childish and sort things out properly. Maybe.
Tuesday, 1 May 2018
The Lords And Brexit
The irony of an unelected bunch of idlers and ne'er do wells (with some possessed of common sense - not Lefties) saying that the elected House should have the final say on Brexit, is surely not lost on them.
But what exactly are they asking for? Ostensibly, they think parliament as a whole should control the negotiations and what is acceptable. Well, that wouldn't be an issue if the ground rules were adhered to; parliament has accepted to be mandated by the public via a referendum result. So the only debate is the manner of our leaving.
Now usually, this is the proper preserve of government, but it is fairly important so input from a broad range can be listened to. To achieve the desired result. However, from those with a sense of entitlement in the Houses of parliament, to the mischief makers in Labour the hard Left party, who just want to cause turmoil to a Conservative government and the country can go hang, the desired result of the people is not what they want delivered.
Their goal is to cancel the will of the people (why not? The EU leaders have long bemoaned the ability of the citizenry to vote and are they not in love with the EU?). Some are keen on bureaucracies, some are in receipt of pensions or other funding from the EU and are obliged to support them, or lose the financial arrangement, some are just plain stupid. Some are hopeful of employment by the crazies in Brussels; the terms and the money and perks are fantastic, what's not to like?
So, whilst I would love to hear other views being aired, why would you want to listen to Corbyn and his cronies witter on about how they hate Britain, the West, Jews and capitalism? How does that help proper negotiations or consider the good of the country? It doesn't.
Corbyn doesn't like the EU though because it is the wrong kind of totalitarianism; the Left is very much like the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front and the Front for the People of Judea. In fact, basically they have so many problems with so many people, they are just really the Party of Hate.
Brexit is a grand opportunity to reset the country, to cast aside the moronic shackle of the EU corpse and stand on our own two feet. In this country the people own the law and the government fear the people. We will not stay part of an organisation where the State tells us everything is illegal unless they allow it and we exist to serve the State. Where the people must fear their rulers.
Look at the arrogance of Barnier et al, so incensed that we should think we are allowed to decide for ourselves! No, our real problem is that even when we leave, we will still be haunted as will much of the world, by the sheer stupidity of the EU. Will the Franco-German empire building continue and cause more conflict, as it did in the Ukraine?
Will Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and possibly others see a successful UK outside the EU and suddenly realise why their economies are tanking and Germany and France(!) are doing just fine? And what they can do to rescue themselves. (I'm talking here about the populations, because as with the UK, the politicians love of bureaucracy and hence the EU means they won't ever do the right thing for their countries).
A proper Conservative would probably make short work of the negotiations and get a workable deal, suitable for all sides. And take a stern view of the partisan Civil Service, imprisoning the worst malfeasants and sacking a shed-load of others, replacing them not with people with the right Left wing views, but instead a solid dose of common sense. We don't need 'yes men', but we also don't need what we currently have; preening, self-important prats with no work ethic.
But what exactly are they asking for? Ostensibly, they think parliament as a whole should control the negotiations and what is acceptable. Well, that wouldn't be an issue if the ground rules were adhered to; parliament has accepted to be mandated by the public via a referendum result. So the only debate is the manner of our leaving.
Now usually, this is the proper preserve of government, but it is fairly important so input from a broad range can be listened to. To achieve the desired result. However, from those with a sense of entitlement in the Houses of parliament, to the mischief makers in Labour the hard Left party, who just want to cause turmoil to a Conservative government and the country can go hang, the desired result of the people is not what they want delivered.
Their goal is to cancel the will of the people (why not? The EU leaders have long bemoaned the ability of the citizenry to vote and are they not in love with the EU?). Some are keen on bureaucracies, some are in receipt of pensions or other funding from the EU and are obliged to support them, or lose the financial arrangement, some are just plain stupid. Some are hopeful of employment by the crazies in Brussels; the terms and the money and perks are fantastic, what's not to like?
So, whilst I would love to hear other views being aired, why would you want to listen to Corbyn and his cronies witter on about how they hate Britain, the West, Jews and capitalism? How does that help proper negotiations or consider the good of the country? It doesn't.
Corbyn doesn't like the EU though because it is the wrong kind of totalitarianism; the Left is very much like the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front and the Front for the People of Judea. In fact, basically they have so many problems with so many people, they are just really the Party of Hate.
Brexit is a grand opportunity to reset the country, to cast aside the moronic shackle of the EU corpse and stand on our own two feet. In this country the people own the law and the government fear the people. We will not stay part of an organisation where the State tells us everything is illegal unless they allow it and we exist to serve the State. Where the people must fear their rulers.
Look at the arrogance of Barnier et al, so incensed that we should think we are allowed to decide for ourselves! No, our real problem is that even when we leave, we will still be haunted as will much of the world, by the sheer stupidity of the EU. Will the Franco-German empire building continue and cause more conflict, as it did in the Ukraine?
Will Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and possibly others see a successful UK outside the EU and suddenly realise why their economies are tanking and Germany and France(!) are doing just fine? And what they can do to rescue themselves. (I'm talking here about the populations, because as with the UK, the politicians love of bureaucracy and hence the EU means they won't ever do the right thing for their countries).
A proper Conservative would probably make short work of the negotiations and get a workable deal, suitable for all sides. And take a stern view of the partisan Civil Service, imprisoning the worst malfeasants and sacking a shed-load of others, replacing them not with people with the right Left wing views, but instead a solid dose of common sense. We don't need 'yes men', but we also don't need what we currently have; preening, self-important prats with no work ethic.
Tuesday, 27 February 2018
Jeremy Corbyn -Opportunist
Jeremy Corbyn may have annoyed even Labour voters by his unprincipled U turn on a Customs Union with the EU, but some of them still see him as mainly principled. Can we be clear about this oaf - he is not principled. He is obsessed with schoolboy politics, but no principles.
He wasn't ever a spy, you can be sure of that. I'm pretty sure agents of totalitarian regimes can spot an idiot pretty easily, so yes they could use him, but they would know he couldn't be relied on to know, or be able to find out anything really useful.
Just as it is clear his little gang of thugs (well, not his gang as he doesn't lead them) are taking this stance in the Brexit debate because it suits their aspirations and is an attempt to destabilise the Conservatives. They has given zero consideration regarding the good of the country or its people, which is common to all they do.
They are hardened Marxists, who support other totalitarian regimes and any terrorists that oppose the West. Given the chance, Corbyn and his fellow travellers would turn Britain into a single party state, with no democracy, a secret police to protect them and an economy that would see Venezuela as remarkably competent.
Would be nice if Theresa May realised this, became a Tory and worked for the benefit of the people.
He wasn't ever a spy, you can be sure of that. I'm pretty sure agents of totalitarian regimes can spot an idiot pretty easily, so yes they could use him, but they would know he couldn't be relied on to know, or be able to find out anything really useful.
Just as it is clear his little gang of thugs (well, not his gang as he doesn't lead them) are taking this stance in the Brexit debate because it suits their aspirations and is an attempt to destabilise the Conservatives. They has given zero consideration regarding the good of the country or its people, which is common to all they do.
They are hardened Marxists, who support other totalitarian regimes and any terrorists that oppose the West. Given the chance, Corbyn and his fellow travellers would turn Britain into a single party state, with no democracy, a secret police to protect them and an economy that would see Venezuela as remarkably competent.
Would be nice if Theresa May realised this, became a Tory and worked for the benefit of the people.
Thursday, 14 December 2017
Good God, Really? Brexit!
I'm pretty sure that everyone outside the Westminster bubble are mightily fed up with all the Brexit shenanigans. Seriously guys, as our American friends would say, get with the programme!
Basically, if you go right to the root of it, the problem is the modern misconception that has grown amongst the lightweights now in office as MP's and civil servants. That misconception is that they run the country, which of course they don't. There is some room to suggest that the dictatorship that is the European Union may have misled them, but whatever, it isn't quite true yet.
No, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is managed on behalf of the people by our MP's, who seek assistance in the implementation of accepted policies by an employed bureaucracy - the civil servants. MP's do not entertain themselves with their own personal opinions at our expense and civil servants have no role whatsoever in 'decision making'.
You can see immediately that in Britain today the belief amongst these people of little imagination, is that they are very much in charge. The swing away from Theresa May at the last General Election occurred as she lunged to the Left and put back on the shelf all the sensible, Conservative ideas she espoused at the outset. The people were indicating they wanted a strong nation in a strong recovery, not some sixth-form politics inspired Marxist Utopia.
The idea that the people own the law is very strange to the governments of the Continent and of course, abhorrent to those trying to establish an anti-democratic Empire.
So, to make it abundantly clear; the people of the UK voted to request and require of their government that the nation should leave the EU (be rescued, in fact). A meaningful vote had been held in parliament that whatever the people decided would be held to by all parties.
Which begs the question, why are we being daily assaulted by news of the latest petulant outburst from MP's who feel their personal opinion has any bearing? Why does the Marxist Party (Corbyn's so called Labour) keep putting obstacles in the way? They agreed to follow the will of the people by referendum (I get that, being simple-minded they can't remember the last piece of nonsense they uttered), so why all the opposition?
It really is stunningly simple, by whatever mechanism exists (Article 50, written by a Brit!) we are to leave the EU. It is then beholden on the EU to suggest what would be the relationship afterwards. Not least because they need us more than we need them, although a big point of annoyance to the outfit is the loss of our subscriptions. Hence the singular fixation in the EU with obtaining cash from us.
As far as I can see, those currently interfering with the smooth progress of an agreed and mandated action required of parliament places them in contempt. No MP impeding the will of the people has the right to draw funds from the taxpayers and so must be dismissed with. Call it an incentive or just encouragement.
But otherwise, just get on with it, we have been chained to a corpse for too long.
Basically, if you go right to the root of it, the problem is the modern misconception that has grown amongst the lightweights now in office as MP's and civil servants. That misconception is that they run the country, which of course they don't. There is some room to suggest that the dictatorship that is the European Union may have misled them, but whatever, it isn't quite true yet.
No, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is managed on behalf of the people by our MP's, who seek assistance in the implementation of accepted policies by an employed bureaucracy - the civil servants. MP's do not entertain themselves with their own personal opinions at our expense and civil servants have no role whatsoever in 'decision making'.
You can see immediately that in Britain today the belief amongst these people of little imagination, is that they are very much in charge. The swing away from Theresa May at the last General Election occurred as she lunged to the Left and put back on the shelf all the sensible, Conservative ideas she espoused at the outset. The people were indicating they wanted a strong nation in a strong recovery, not some sixth-form politics inspired Marxist Utopia.
The idea that the people own the law is very strange to the governments of the Continent and of course, abhorrent to those trying to establish an anti-democratic Empire.
So, to make it abundantly clear; the people of the UK voted to request and require of their government that the nation should leave the EU (be rescued, in fact). A meaningful vote had been held in parliament that whatever the people decided would be held to by all parties.
Which begs the question, why are we being daily assaulted by news of the latest petulant outburst from MP's who feel their personal opinion has any bearing? Why does the Marxist Party (Corbyn's so called Labour) keep putting obstacles in the way? They agreed to follow the will of the people by referendum (I get that, being simple-minded they can't remember the last piece of nonsense they uttered), so why all the opposition?
It really is stunningly simple, by whatever mechanism exists (Article 50, written by a Brit!) we are to leave the EU. It is then beholden on the EU to suggest what would be the relationship afterwards. Not least because they need us more than we need them, although a big point of annoyance to the outfit is the loss of our subscriptions. Hence the singular fixation in the EU with obtaining cash from us.
As far as I can see, those currently interfering with the smooth progress of an agreed and mandated action required of parliament places them in contempt. No MP impeding the will of the people has the right to draw funds from the taxpayers and so must be dismissed with. Call it an incentive or just encouragement.
But otherwise, just get on with it, we have been chained to a corpse for too long.
Tuesday, 29 August 2017
Brexit Confusion
Whilst keeping you in the dark and feeding you manure has long been a necessary for those who support the Sovietisation of Europe, it is interesting how much actual confusion there is over a fairly simple concept.
Under the much-ridiculed-as-out-of-date notion of democracy, a very clear majority of the population voted to leave EU dictatorship whilst there was still time. But it seems there may be a majority of MP's who want to stay part of the political gravy train that is the substance of EU politics, probably for highly moral reasons.
And this is what they understand to be democracy; what they want is most important. The people who elected them should have no say. So they are confused.
Then there is the constant wittering about Britain not having a plan for Brexit, when clearly we do. you invoke Article 50 as the official way of letting the autocrats in Brussels know that the UK is leaving their clutches. There is not much we can do beyond that. The EU have to then let us know how we proceed in dealing with them from here. The EU, not us.
For instance; as we have seen over decades the EU is basically a collection of politicians who emulate six year olds, so they say we have to pay tariffs to sell goods to them. We try to talk them out of it and if they won't then a) we sell to other markets and b)impose tariffs on them.
They come out worse in such a scenario but the essence is, it is led by them. It is their game we are leaving.
Then we are told that we are complete idiots, because there is no way we can conclude the 'negotiations' in two years. There are two problems with this statement; 1) it is entirely possible, but it would require the EU to participate and act like grown-ups and 2) the two years mentioned is an EU statement, part of their Article 50. So, they clearly thought two years enough.
It is obvious that the arrogant and probably insane people who run the EU have never planned for anyone getting away from them. Clearly it is the EU that has no plan. That is the problem. Oh and we should know them by their actions. What is the one thing they have been fixated on since our referendum? Money. How much can they screw out of us.
Under the much-ridiculed-as-out-of-date notion of democracy, a very clear majority of the population voted to leave EU dictatorship whilst there was still time. But it seems there may be a majority of MP's who want to stay part of the political gravy train that is the substance of EU politics, probably for highly moral reasons.
And this is what they understand to be democracy; what they want is most important. The people who elected them should have no say. So they are confused.
Then there is the constant wittering about Britain not having a plan for Brexit, when clearly we do. you invoke Article 50 as the official way of letting the autocrats in Brussels know that the UK is leaving their clutches. There is not much we can do beyond that. The EU have to then let us know how we proceed in dealing with them from here. The EU, not us.
For instance; as we have seen over decades the EU is basically a collection of politicians who emulate six year olds, so they say we have to pay tariffs to sell goods to them. We try to talk them out of it and if they won't then a) we sell to other markets and b)impose tariffs on them.
They come out worse in such a scenario but the essence is, it is led by them. It is their game we are leaving.
Then we are told that we are complete idiots, because there is no way we can conclude the 'negotiations' in two years. There are two problems with this statement; 1) it is entirely possible, but it would require the EU to participate and act like grown-ups and 2) the two years mentioned is an EU statement, part of their Article 50. So, they clearly thought two years enough.
It is obvious that the arrogant and probably insane people who run the EU have never planned for anyone getting away from them. Clearly it is the EU that has no plan. That is the problem. Oh and we should know them by their actions. What is the one thing they have been fixated on since our referendum? Money. How much can they screw out of us.
Monday, 27 March 2017
Brexit, Brexit, Brexit
Question Time is on, that programme designed to answer nothing, but get some soundbites for the BBC's left-wing audience to shout about. Quite late in joining the first thing I see is the rambling comic Salmond, the ex-leader of the SNP who was replaced by someone who isn't so obviously mad. But is. Then there is Keir Starmer, fresh from running the CPS as a political branch of 'justice'. To be fair, he isn't the worst in the debate by a way.
Ooh! Nick Clegg is talking now. Apparently, he wants to stay in an organisation that pays his wife. and him probably, there is of course a massive propaganda fund in the EU.
But anyway, the stunt driven 'Remain' camp keep asking questions they know there is no answer to and then say, 'they haven't got an answer'. What is the EU proposing when we inform them we are leaving? We don't know, they haven't said (for good reason). So why, how could Theresa May have a fully formed plan?
Thankfully no-one asked the clearly deranged Heseltine his view. He is after all, a key player in keeping us in the German empire of the EU, which he turned on its head in his recent muttering. Just be satisfied you knifed your party leader in the back and go away.
But there it is, the Remain camp funded and shouted for by those who benefit from it or are directly paid by it. Why should we (and why do so many scaredy cats) listen to what a bunch of corrupt, anti-democratic, unelected technocrats say? How long should we go on supporting a bankrupt France and allow Germany to impoverish so much of the European continent, to maintain their own economy?
By leaving the EU is Britain really, once again saving Europe from French and German empire builders?
Clegg delivers the Remain bottom line; referendums until we vote to remain. Very EU of him.
Ooh! Nick Clegg is talking now. Apparently, he wants to stay in an organisation that pays his wife. and him probably, there is of course a massive propaganda fund in the EU.
But anyway, the stunt driven 'Remain' camp keep asking questions they know there is no answer to and then say, 'they haven't got an answer'. What is the EU proposing when we inform them we are leaving? We don't know, they haven't said (for good reason). So why, how could Theresa May have a fully formed plan?
Thankfully no-one asked the clearly deranged Heseltine his view. He is after all, a key player in keeping us in the German empire of the EU, which he turned on its head in his recent muttering. Just be satisfied you knifed your party leader in the back and go away.
But there it is, the Remain camp funded and shouted for by those who benefit from it or are directly paid by it. Why should we (and why do so many scaredy cats) listen to what a bunch of corrupt, anti-democratic, unelected technocrats say? How long should we go on supporting a bankrupt France and allow Germany to impoverish so much of the European continent, to maintain their own economy?
By leaving the EU is Britain really, once again saving Europe from French and German empire builders?
Clegg delivers the Remain bottom line; referendums until we vote to remain. Very EU of him.
Tuesday, 24 January 2017
Judges Cogitation Over
It was a nice delay wasn't it? The judges 'deciding' on the powers of government. I mean, you know they really thought about it. In a democracy, should the people be allowed a say? Once given a mandate, should a government be allowed to carry it out if they haven't checked with 8 judges first?
Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?
Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.
They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.
Well, no apparently. The delay though was a con. How long do you suppose a group of judges, who are mainly either in the pay of or associated with organisations reliant on the EU, would take to decide that they should interfere in the political process of leaving the EU?
Add to that the fact that judges have for quite a while now felt that they are the pinnacle of decision making in the UK, not parliament. So they could have said 'no' within seconds, but you know, propriety and image requires a delay. Let the idiots think you are serious people.
They should be completely ignored and the government continue with their legal obligation, under an Act of Parliament to withdraw the UK from the EU. Parliament can have all kinds of input in the workings of the process, but informing the EU formally of our intention, Article 50, needs to be triggered immediately. It is only fair on the 27 other member states.
Monday, 9 January 2017
I Don't Do Groupspeak, So I Need Help
Having never quite grasped why Marxism is the only way to save humanity, which I only base on experience - Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Cambodia, China, I need some modern stuff explained to me. For instance, Brexit.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Now to me, it seems straightforward. Having succumbed to lies and propaganda way back in the Seventies, we saddled ourselves with a Marxist bureaucracy. Luckily we dodged its worst bits and now have (mostly) awoken to it and elected to leave.
In order to do this, we need to give this club, this institution due notice and that is with something called 'Article 50'. This EU rule says that a member state wishing to leave must invoke Article 50, which gives the EU 2 years to try to talk them out of it. Basically, an opportunity to renegotiate the rules. Or not.
But we have a lot of very disingenuous people asking where is Theresa May's Brexit strategy? What will be her negotiating tactic? Surely (point out where I'm wrong please) her tactic will be to invoke Article 50 "we're offski". And then when the EU negotiates with such things as 'what if we offer to change the shade of blue on the flag?' or 'what about a special handshake?' , you know the usual substantive stuff they come up with, Theresa can say 'No'.
Sounds like a complete strategy to me. I mean, Britain has told its politicians to leave the EU, not just say we are going to and then stay in because they said we could have a cake named after us. What piece of paper could Mrs May come back from Germany waving that would say we should accept a Marxist future?
Not to labour the point, but in Mrs Mays shoes I would just pop over to Brussels, tell them Britain is quitting and leave saying 'let me know when the paperwork is done.'
Obviously, another thing is Global Warming, or Climate Change. Interesting isn't it, how liars change the name of things when people start to realise what they are saying is a crock. Nobody has said there has been no global warming, because there has, recently and repeatedly in the past.
The reason Global Warming morphed into Climate Change was to cover the embarrassment that the temperature hasn't risen since 1997. So, maybe the climate just changes, but it is still our fault, because of all the carbon. Except, they don't mean carbon. Carbon sounds dirty and carbon dioxide doesn't, so they manipulate the language.
But that isn't all it amounts to is it? These Marxists know that you are an imbecile, so it doesn't matter if there is no scientific rigour in what they say, you wouldn't understand anyway. But in fact there can be no scientific rigour in what they say, because then you would know it wasn't true.
Man's emissions are not lovely and we should be producing technology to reduce them, but carbon dioxide emitted by human activity is way too insignificant, on a global scale to affect the climate. They know this but, to use their own phrase 'look where the money is'. Try getting a grant to study why climate change isn't caused by Man, or get a book published by a big publishing house that shows the lie.
No all the money is in government hands and it only goes to the leeches who promulgate the lie. Know why you can't get your bins emptied or roads repaired? Because the councils spend way too much on green crap and other Leftie nonsense no sane person wants. Know why old people die of cold, unable to heat their homes? Because green greed has pushed up prices of energy for no purpose. Wind farms, solar panels? Near to useless and completely barmy if you looked at cost versus return.
Why do you think every 'Green' company squeals like a stuck pig if subsidies are reduced and then go bust. Wind farms only farm taxpayers cash.
National treasure, David Attenborough says that we should not apply the scientific method to Climate Change, it should be illegal to oppose it and no one should be allowed to debate it. Now why would that be? Why should you not even be allowed to talk about it let alone study it? Why should evidence based science be outlawed?
Well, because some have done it, we know for a fact that the ideology of Global Warming is just that, an ideology. It has no basis in fact. It is Attenborough's religion, nothing less. He believes in it as an article of faith.
WWF and all the other Marxist zealots driving the scam are using it to undermine and ultimately to destroy capitalism and with it Western civilisation. Apres la deluge they intend a World government, run by really clever, lovely people (them) and no hint of democracy or return on ambition and hard work.
At least that's what I think. You could point out where I'm wrong, but I guess that would be like providing evidence and I realise we are past all that stuff. So, can I have the change from the £50 I just gave you? What do you mean it was only a tenner? And don't ask for proof. See, I do get it.
Monday, 12 December 2016
A Little Lost On Remain
People have differing opinions, some like Handel, some like Mozart. Are you a Beatles kind of person or more Rolling Stones?
But some things seem a little more likely to bring general agreement, like, murder. I would guess that most people would see murder as pretty much a bad thing in any society and you can understand why.
So what I don't get is why the EU and the ideology of supporting the EU is so strong. I say 'the ideology of supporting the EU' simply because there is no other case for it than blind belief, hence my confusion by their stance.
The EU is a sclerotic bureaucracy and could never have been anything else. The Euro was almost designed to fail. Quite removed from keeping the continent from conflict, the belligerence of the nations keen on war, France and Germany, is still never far away. They have threatened each other over hegemony within the supranational structure they are building.
It has been necessary to lie consistently about the objectives of 'the project', because it was recognised from the outset that, by only serving the elites it would never be popular. This of course is why they are not keen on democracy and have suggested in the past not asking their populations opinions. On anything, including who should run their lives.
Constructed on classic Marxist lines, the EU wishes to introduce a perpetual, unaccountable bureaucracy that has absolute power and rules over a command economy. Going back to the aggressive tendencies mentioned earlier, they presaged the instability in the Ukraine of course. Thankfully, they have no military to enact their expansionist schemes. Yet.
And if you thought that the Germanic taste for efficiency would rein in the penchant of the French for grandiose schemes of immense stupidity, you didn't factor in that the German responsible would be wedded to her roots on Eastern Germany. A Soviet Union of Europe? Bring it on!
So, which part of this makes the safe-space luvvies wail and cry bitter tears into their kale and quinoa at the prospect of leaving this club? Because, despite decades of serious intent by the Left on destroying education in this country, the pro-EU mob can't all be air-heads, surely.
But some things seem a little more likely to bring general agreement, like, murder. I would guess that most people would see murder as pretty much a bad thing in any society and you can understand why.
So what I don't get is why the EU and the ideology of supporting the EU is so strong. I say 'the ideology of supporting the EU' simply because there is no other case for it than blind belief, hence my confusion by their stance.
The EU is a sclerotic bureaucracy and could never have been anything else. The Euro was almost designed to fail. Quite removed from keeping the continent from conflict, the belligerence of the nations keen on war, France and Germany, is still never far away. They have threatened each other over hegemony within the supranational structure they are building.
It has been necessary to lie consistently about the objectives of 'the project', because it was recognised from the outset that, by only serving the elites it would never be popular. This of course is why they are not keen on democracy and have suggested in the past not asking their populations opinions. On anything, including who should run their lives.
Constructed on classic Marxist lines, the EU wishes to introduce a perpetual, unaccountable bureaucracy that has absolute power and rules over a command economy. Going back to the aggressive tendencies mentioned earlier, they presaged the instability in the Ukraine of course. Thankfully, they have no military to enact their expansionist schemes. Yet.
And if you thought that the Germanic taste for efficiency would rein in the penchant of the French for grandiose schemes of immense stupidity, you didn't factor in that the German responsible would be wedded to her roots on Eastern Germany. A Soviet Union of Europe? Bring it on!
So, which part of this makes the safe-space luvvies wail and cry bitter tears into their kale and quinoa at the prospect of leaving this club? Because, despite decades of serious intent by the Left on destroying education in this country, the pro-EU mob can't all be air-heads, surely.
Monday, 5 December 2016
"You Can't Do That"
In the strange world we allowed to evolve around us (now seeing the first signs of correction), there are so many things you 'cannot' say or do. These are exclusively things that would offend a Leftie. And woe betide anyone who says anything that a Leftie disagrees with! That is straightforward abuse, bullying. Possibly even criminal.
Safe spaces in universities so poor, barely educated little darlings can stay protected from the real world and certainly from non-Leftie views (surely the whole point of universities these days, the promulgation of Leftie-ness?)
And particularly the inability to think for oneself. This leads to massive problems, like the absence of credibility within the Man Made Global Warming scare not being blatantly obvious, the constant wail for government to 'do something' about everything that causes the least concern and nobody having a realistic view of the harm multiculturalism does to everyone.
But then, the Lefties have worked long and hard to disrupt and destroy our society and the ties that bind. Out of disorder of course, the cleverer than us Leftie elite can step in and save us. In a sort of Castro/Stalin kind of way. You know, I'm alright Jack.
So, today, can the Judges of the (ludicrous) Supreme Court stop themselves from ignoring real legal issues and instead try to involve themselves in politics, as their colleagues did recently? Can they understand the concept of democracy or will they stick to edicts from a benign elite (them)?
When Dons need counselling for stress and anxiety caused by Brexit, you feel you shouldn't get your hopes up that Common Sense is anywhere near.
Safe spaces in universities so poor, barely educated little darlings can stay protected from the real world and certainly from non-Leftie views (surely the whole point of universities these days, the promulgation of Leftie-ness?)
And particularly the inability to think for oneself. This leads to massive problems, like the absence of credibility within the Man Made Global Warming scare not being blatantly obvious, the constant wail for government to 'do something' about everything that causes the least concern and nobody having a realistic view of the harm multiculturalism does to everyone.
But then, the Lefties have worked long and hard to disrupt and destroy our society and the ties that bind. Out of disorder of course, the cleverer than us Leftie elite can step in and save us. In a sort of Castro/Stalin kind of way. You know, I'm alright Jack.
So, today, can the Judges of the (ludicrous) Supreme Court stop themselves from ignoring real legal issues and instead try to involve themselves in politics, as their colleagues did recently? Can they understand the concept of democracy or will they stick to edicts from a benign elite (them)?
When Dons need counselling for stress and anxiety caused by Brexit, you feel you shouldn't get your hopes up that Common Sense is anywhere near.
Thursday, 3 November 2016
The Law And Judges: Not The Same Thing
News just in that 3 judges have decided that a government cannot govern, in their opinion. Actually, yet another well-funded person (why is it those intent on evil always seem to have money?) has asked some judges to rule as to whether the government should act on a democratic mandate, or not.
Of course what she was really saying was, she personally disagreed with leaving the EU and wanted someone to help stop it.
Judges interpret law, that is interpret what politicians (the legislature) have enacted. They don't have the right or duty to meddle and say black is white, to prove judges are more important and more powerful than any government. This has been simmering for some time.
What happened was, as part of its election promises, the Conservative party offered a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or not. The Conservatives won a majority in the House of Commons and formed a government. Acting on their promise, the referendum was held.
It would be bad form to ignore the result, but it wasn't binding. But a government that wanted to start out working for the people and not just being liars, would respect the result.
So, a clear majority want out, for the robustly good reason that the EU is a crock. We haven't (and won't?) join key elements of it and it isn't working at any level anyway. It isn't a country, it is a collection of politicians. That is what the EU actually is.
To leave, the rules say we have to invoke Article 50 of the treaty, so that is what is suggested. Now, judges say that a government should ignore democracy and must ask the permission of other parties to take the action required by the people. OK, so if the judges insist we have to debate 'Article 50', let's skip it.
Let's just tell the EU, 'we're out of here'. Not one wants that, but the judges, by interfering in areas over which they certainly have no mandate, let alone legal right, may force upon us in an effort to exert the authority of parliament.
Where, incidentally were the judges to remind us in the 1970's that no government has the power, that is the constitutional right, to hand this country over to a foreign power? And yet, Edward Heath did just that. Is it cynical to suggest that the Left leaning wet legs that judges have become, useless appendages to society, were happy to ignore the illegality of the UK signing itself over to an authoritarian Marxist construct, recreating the Soviet Union in Western Europe?
Yes they were. The question is, who is worse - Sir Phillip Green or these state sucking judges?
Of course what she was really saying was, she personally disagreed with leaving the EU and wanted someone to help stop it.
Judges interpret law, that is interpret what politicians (the legislature) have enacted. They don't have the right or duty to meddle and say black is white, to prove judges are more important and more powerful than any government. This has been simmering for some time.
What happened was, as part of its election promises, the Conservative party offered a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or not. The Conservatives won a majority in the House of Commons and formed a government. Acting on their promise, the referendum was held.
It would be bad form to ignore the result, but it wasn't binding. But a government that wanted to start out working for the people and not just being liars, would respect the result.
So, a clear majority want out, for the robustly good reason that the EU is a crock. We haven't (and won't?) join key elements of it and it isn't working at any level anyway. It isn't a country, it is a collection of politicians. That is what the EU actually is.
To leave, the rules say we have to invoke Article 50 of the treaty, so that is what is suggested. Now, judges say that a government should ignore democracy and must ask the permission of other parties to take the action required by the people. OK, so if the judges insist we have to debate 'Article 50', let's skip it.
Let's just tell the EU, 'we're out of here'. Not one wants that, but the judges, by interfering in areas over which they certainly have no mandate, let alone legal right, may force upon us in an effort to exert the authority of parliament.
Where, incidentally were the judges to remind us in the 1970's that no government has the power, that is the constitutional right, to hand this country over to a foreign power? And yet, Edward Heath did just that. Is it cynical to suggest that the Left leaning wet legs that judges have become, useless appendages to society, were happy to ignore the illegality of the UK signing itself over to an authoritarian Marxist construct, recreating the Soviet Union in Western Europe?
Yes they were. The question is, who is worse - Sir Phillip Green or these state sucking judges?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)