PM And The EU: Bossiness

David Cameron has said 'ooh aren't those EU types bossy? That will have to stop. I'll renegotiate it', or something like that. It is therefore going to come as a surprise to Mr. Cameron when the EU points out that, since we handed sovereignty to them in 1973, they re in charge. Not so much bossy but rather 'the boss', then.

Here are some suggestions for Mr. Cameron though. If you don't like Britain being bossed around by Brussels why not declare the United Kingdom to be an independent country. It could work. Canada, Australia, America they all have given it a go and so far so good.

I know you want to be a part of 'Europe' David, really I do. (I was going to insert reasons why here, but there just aren't any so I'll call it empathy). And here is how I think we could solve this, for you, intractable problem. You know all those things we have to do, because Brussels says so/ They are because of things called 'treaties' that allow them.

As an independent country we could still have treaties David. No, you can. Goes on all the time. And, as an independent country you won't have all those other EU countries pitching in to influence you. You can do what you want. (Yes, you will still get Obama phoning up with his latest crazy idea and can he get discount at Harrods - just use the opportunity for practice, in case someone with real ideas phones up).

What you could also do is start exporting ideas. As an independent country, we could suggest things that might make things better in the EU. Target making the lives of the ordinary people better, it is easy to do in the EU and will get lots of response. You could suggest a system called 'voting' to elect political leaders (the Greeks will like that one). You could perhaps see what they think of the people owning the law and politicians not being above it (ah yes, that's the reason for liking the EU).

There is a reason from Marlborough, through Wellington to Churchill that Britain has helped Europe get over its little upsets and has herself never had a revolution and it isn't because we are not enough like our Continental neighbours. I mean if we really wanted the Code Napoleon (on which much of EU law is based) what was all that stuff about in 1815? Why did we believe in democracy then and not now? Is it because Tony Blair made Britain a 'modern' country?



Is it possible that Cameron cannot bring himself to promote an independent Britain because that might make the Conservatives the British Independence Party, or the United Kingdom National Party? Surely not, he is a serious politician. (I wrote that without laughing).

Great Britain

When attempting to close down debate on immigration, the Left often appeal to our national sense of fair play, our reasonable nature. And being reasonable and recognising the truth of what they say, we give in. But mass immigration undermines British culture, including the bit about 'fair play'. It is precisely because it does, that the Left encourage it.

It is true though that Britain has always stood apart from the rest of Europe in a very special way. We have, as a nation, remained calm whilst all around are losing their heads. We may well have relied on the US to save us from Germany in the last world war, but we were still resolute ourselves and didn't blame anyone else for our predicament, as did the French. For France, a nation that pretty much didn't bother during WW2, beyond a certain stiff resistance to Britain in support of their new German friends, it was Britain that grievously let them down, by not saving them.

This stoicism of spirit that exists in Britain is based on a history of people power that goes back centuries. Really, some amazing things were done in what we might otherwise think less enlightened times. The separation of powers between sovereign and the executive, the right to trial, the law being the instrument of the people; all of these things made us what we are.

Until recent times, when tyrants returned, we owned the law and governments feared us. Now all is reversed and Europe has taken its revenge on us for not being as stupid as them.

It is an important point that in the Britain we used to have, everything was legal unless we agreed to make it illegal. A policeman was a citizen in uniform and could only operate with the consent of the people. The absence of crime was an indicator of an effective police force. Their power was held in check by having limited access to weapons and by being split into many forces, all without a direct political control.

Many offences were minor and treated as such, with only more serious matters being considered criminal. A British subject of the Crown was free to a very great extent. Our predecessors paid moderate taxes to the State, but only assisted the State when they wanted to. We carried nor identification, nor were required to do so.

Today of course, nearly everything is a 'criminal' offence because the State, in the form of the supreme government of Britain in Brussels, says that everything is illegal unless they permit it. The police exist to protect the State and as such will be well armed. Whilst repeated attempts to con us into accepting identity cards (to protect us from terrorism even!) have failed, the (expensive) enforcement of regularly expiring passports as 'proof of identity' is now commonplace.

The reason Britain was a great country, with admired traditions and national character, was due to these hard won freedoms, that permeated our society. That we have allowed them to be destroyed and taken away by venal, uncomprehending politicians and petty tyrants, is to our great shame.

Being Prime Minister

I wonder if David Cameron ever gives a thought to nature of the role of 'Prime Minister'? It represents the leader of the government, the point from which decisions affecting a nation emanate. Does that make him feel important or humbled?

I'm guessing he would say the latter whilst whole-heartedly subsumed in the former. He gives every sign. Nothing he does ever seems geared to be for the national good, but more part of a political game that reflects well on him, amongst other members of that group.

Gay marriage. Cameron, completely unbidden has decided to spend vast amounts of political time on the subject, something which in the grand scheme of things probably needs legislation slightly less than the size of chocolate bars. Homosexuality exists. That's it. That is the sole concern of government. We have decided after hundreds of years of thinking differently, that we will accept it as something no longer beyond the pale.

There are a number of real societal problems that this necessarily requires us to ignore, toilets, changing rooms, approaches etc., but it is an evolutionary dead-end and marriage should be left to those for whom the institution is designed; those carrying on the tradition of the human species. Maybe whilst we are on the subject of seizing language for political purposes, perhaps we should make clear the difference between parents and homosexuals who have acquired children. Perhaps they should be called child-minders.

Cameron keeps popping over to France/Greater France to sign pieces of paper that the French Empire (usually referred to as the EU) require him to. He shows how important he is by doing so. Not only do we not know what he is doing, he also hasn't considered the effects on Britain as a nation. He hasn't done that duty, because he doesn't care. He cares about himself and his standing amongst other politicians.

Is PMQ's ever about anything important? Has any light ever been emitted from one? No, it is just the jousting bit of the political games they play as a group. Points scoring, that's all. Look how confused they are when the supposedly ordered world that doesn't require their attention, suddenly flares up. Rioters on the streets? What on earth is that about and what should we do about it? Please don't let it have political ramifications.

More properly, David Cameron should be referred to as the Prime Minister of the Coalition Cabinet. He certainly isn't operating outside that bubble and he definitely isn't the Prime Minister of Britain.

Colonialism

There seems to be some misunderstanding about colonialism floating around the world these days. I blame the Lefties who have been talking tripe (do they ever do anything else?) about it for decades. Colonialism is when one country takes over another, often by force and without regard to the wishes of the people currently living in the country. Which brings me on to this letter, a reply from the UN to the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner.

Dear President Kirchner,
Thank you for your recent letter regarding a number of issues currently pertaining to the South Atlantic region. Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on selecting the UN as the body best able to assist you in your international dispute with the United Kingdom.

Looking back at our records I see this has cropped up before, in 1982, when the UN helpfully, I think, passed Resolution 502, which also addresses your current claim that the region has been militarised, as the Resolution called for the invading Argentine forces to withdraw from the Islands and for both sides to refrain from using force. Naturally, the UN is very much on your side because of our childish and poorly thought out policies on 'colonialism'.

Argentina was created in 1816 by throwing off the yoke of the Spainish colonial power, becoming an independent country and claiming the Falklands Islands as a colony. Which is obviously fine as any land 400+ miles away is bound to belong to that country. After having a spat with the Americans the Spanish/Argentines were thrown off the Islands and the British snuck up, in 1833 and claimed the Islands (again) for Britain and it has stayed that way ever since.

Naturally, the UN supports the idea of self determination and as the Islands have almost never had any Argentines living there, the population is and wishes to remain British. It is hard therefore, to substantiate your claim that it is provocative of the Islands to have amongst them a member of their own Royal Family. I have, for instance never received a complaint from Ireland when a British Prince visits Wales.

I fear I may have to further disappoint you, by finding that the sending of a warship to the region is not in effect 'militarisation' but, sadly what often happens when a local power starts making threats. Overall then, it seems plain to us at the UN that Argentina is threatening military action, which we cannot condone, in order to obtain a colony in the name of repudiating colonialism. Maybe if your thinking was a tad clearer, you would not be in the mess in Argentina that requires the distraction of a foreign military adventure. Which I'm sure also has no connection with the recent drilling in the area of the Islands.

My military aide also suggests that I urge caution on your part as he says, you should remember that your Air Force, whilst having had a noble tradition is mainly held together with string and sealing wax these days, that your Navy returned to port and stayed there the first time a ship was attacked and your Army saw its officers run away whenever possible and treated the ordinary soldiers with contempt. Soldiers who were massively surprised on arrival not to find themselves in the role of liberators, having been taught at school that the people are forced to remain 'British', but instead as invaders and as such, were detested.

I gather that this didn't upset them too much as no-one wanted to stay on the wind blown place and that it reminded them of the part of Argentina no-one lives in.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to deal with others like you in Syria and elsewhere.

Britain In 2011

As the year comes to a close Britain finds itself in an interesting situation. In an attempt to prove we can rise above the chaos all around comment is made of Britain's historic virtues, its national character and the 'been here before, survived' creed. Whilst this is all historically true, it is not so now. The British character has been eroded and dissolved, from within and without. What has happened? We must go back a little way.

Tony Blair is a strange man. He is not a megalomaniac though some of the signs were there. He stopped short of seizing power for absolute control, merely grabbing what he needed to ensure his tenure was as untrammelled as possible; he did not want power where responsibility would also come into play, he was in love with the wealth of power. Tony Blair did not have traffic lights changed as his escorted entourage traversed London, to speed his way. He was only interested in the effect it generated; that it proclaimed him a great man.

Blair claimed to have felt the hand of history on his shoulder, though it was actually his imagining that the thing he craved was happening. Blair wanted a legacy, something for which he would be remembered for all time, such as a great man should. He also went about his acquisition of wealth with an ambition and drive that only a venal man with a greedy wife behind can. Blair saw in the writings of his namesake, George Orwell, a manifesto for his own greatness. That he should find a Squealer who so exactly fitted the role, in every way, was magnificent.

Whilst this utter weakling and his chosen, even weaker placemen, formed a government, the march of the Left continued. All academe, much of the Judiciary and almost all the media was beholden to the ideology of the Left. No amount of evidence could convince them of anything contrary to their thoughts. This Left ideology despised Britain and its culture; it had to be destroyed. Key to this was the undermining of religious belief and the established norms of family life. (Look at the truly Orwellian statement of the Left liberal Nick Clegg recently, that no-one would want to go back to the Fifties. A time of honesty, hope, low criminality and social cohesion underpinned by the traditional family unit).

So we found ourselves as the close of the Twentieth Century approached, in the hands of a man who sought personal enrichment as his overweening principle and goal, at a time when the institutions were in need of strong leadership and control. Now was not the time to drift. But a sudden acceleration of agendas set by activist homosexuals and the continuing entrenchment of racism by the race industry, was promoted by elements of the Blair government such as Mandelson. The aim being not to offer succour to these people as much as to undermine those who would naturally question actions taken in support of such moves.

We were to forget the real past and imagine that 1997 was Year 1. Immigration was allowed to pass unchecked to destroy British jobs at the lower level, to break the cohesion of British society and to change the culture. It was loudly shouted that these newcomers must be allowed to keep their own 'culture' and ways here. To ask them to speak English was absurd we were told. If they want Sharia law what of it? If they live in enclaves and die under gangmasters and councils and shops print in their languages, then who should speak against it?

Greed became good, because otherwise there would be something wrong with Tony Blair. Each person should consider themselves above all others, should consider their own welfare first. This has manifested itself in many ways, from the 'don't criticise me' binge drinking to the riots of the summer, when the trainer seeking youth decided they could take what they wanted with impunity and rain wasn't forecast (always a riot killer, so intent on their cause are they).

Corporations, with banks in the lead started to do very strange things, not least allowing executives to be hired on packages that included bonuses whether they succeed or fail. Only a very corrupted society could let that pass. Senior officers in every course of government life became useless and detached, adhering to political correctness and Left ideology against sense and role. Hence senior fire officers consider a rescue successful if they get a person out of their predicament, even if dead through their inaction.

And so it is. Britain is a denuded, despised country, with self loathing causing much of the misery, assailed by external enemies smelling weakness and challenged by new economic realities that we will not rise to challenge, because we must shackle ourselves to a corrupt regime of totalitarian ideas, across the narrow sea. Britain can do it, can win against this sea of insanity, but as Britons, with allies of many nations, who all subscribe to a similar view of decency and courage, of selflessness and of community. People together, against those weighed down by heavy chains of guilt and ideology, some bad governments others malicious activists for harm. If Cameron were a Conservative, 2012 could be the year, as things stand perhaps it won't be.

Though politicians of every stripe should be aware that people will not stand idly by forever.

Do You Think

Well, actually that could be the whole post; do you think. What I was proposing though was that you consider this thought. We live in times when the childish social experiments of the 1960's, that we should not accept responsibility for ourselves and our actions, that we as individuals are hugely important and what we want should be satisfied. Hence free love, abortion as of right, drug taking and a careless attitude. The left, in acceding to these wants used them as cover to introduce things like Political Correctness which is really just a way of stifling debate -itself essential for people doing things which even they know don't stand up to rational scrutiny.

Bit by bit we have evolved into a society of morons. A country where people feel that they can call 999 as the buses aren't running in their area and ask for an ambulance. This happens because of a deep rooted, unconscious belief that the state should cure this small problem in this persons life. A notion put there by the left liberal state itself. We are nannied to obey the state and to expect the state to do all things. This lack of responsibility means we can go out and get drunk and fight in the streets, that we can attack and rob whoever we please. Whilst the state is indifferent to your safety it has to ensure this activity doesn't affect the elite and so a paramilitary police is evolved, that uses excessive force routinely, specifically to show where the behaviour becomes unacceptable. And that point is just short of anarchy, just short of threatening discomfort to the elite. To me that is what is happening in Britain, a country that once contained a gentle, intelligent, rational and reasonable people. (Naturally, by welcoming the poorest people from other countries, with an especial delight in people from countries with no or backward cultures, the Britain mentioned previously is further undermined).