The EU Debate

We are told there is great debate over the EU. I doubt that. Most people in my experience don't understand very much about the EU and assume it is just more politicians, pretty much like we have here.

You can see this mindset with Britons on holiday. They not only want fish and chips and Watney's Red Barrel wherever they go, but also come unstuck with laws they didn't know existed. Some people would say this is precisely because we don't involve ourselves in Europe, don't pay attention to other cultures.

To which I answer, fish and chips is from Jewish immigrants, tea, curry and the Chinese takeaway.

No, our problem is that the EU never gets debated and deliberately so. I would guess you think it was invented after WW2 to stop European wars, which is certainly something that is parroted out these days. That it is a group of countries working together for mutual benefit and to be a real player in a globalized world.

Well, it was invented in the 1920's and is basically aimed at forming a single country called Europe with no nation states. It would have a single, unelected government of bureaucrats with control over its armed forces, tax, immigration and well, everything. It was realised from the outset that the people of Europe would never support such an idea, or allow it, so it had to be developed in secret. Hence the absence of debate.

'Ever closer Union', the abiding tenet of the organisation, means the end goal is a single superstate. (Making a farce of Scottish 'independence'; neither 'Scotland' nor independence is planned for them).

Cameron of course says that he will have nothing to do with such an idea, whilst at the same time clinging to a club with that motto. But to take him at his word, he also says we don't want to be part of the Euro, we don't want the City to lose its influence and we are happy to part of an outer group of countries, but within the EU.

So basically we want to remain the United Kingdom, but with trade and treaty agreements with 'Europe'. Sounds a fantastic idea, it just needs us to formally leave the EU.

Of course, this club that is designed for politicians to exercise power and has no actual utility, rather enjoys the money we give it and it keeps us neutered and not able to step in and save them from themselves, as we have done so many times before. In short, an empire without having to have a war and without Britain 'standing alone' to fight tyranny.

And as for globalisation, most regulation comes from the International level, down to the EU. So as a proper sovereign nation we could sit at those tables rather than have the EU represent us and get the best deal for France/Germany. A participant or 1/28th participant?

The UK politicians squealing for us to stay in and issuing scare stories and naked lies to support their 'case' (because they don't have one) are more likely terrified that, were we to leave, they would actually have to work for a living. You know, turn up in parliament, understand issues, make real laws. And be accountable. So you can understand their terror.

Referenda

There has been an enormous buzz about this somewhat forced debate today on whether a referendum on their future should be allowed for the people. Cameron got himself in this mess by clearly saying what suited him, at the time. The principled objection of quite a number of Conservative MP's throws his shallowness into sharp profile.

What amuses me though is the standard of the Left media reporting. As usual they are only interested in bashing the Tories, so for them the whole story is Tory disunity. Actually, the only issue here is whether the imploding EU is something we should be part of. It costs us an enormous amount of money and it offers us no benefit. By 'us' I mean the people of the United Kingdom, excepting senior politicians. They are very much inside the EU tent and have no intention of upsetting the gravy train.

This backward, inward looking cabal of anti-democratic tinpot despots are still desperately calling black, white to keep their sinking ship afloat. The Euro is destroying the EU, but just by denying it, the problem is solved apparently. and it is to be one of these people, that is David Cameron's fervent desire. We are threatened that if we left the EU, the countries remaining would not trade with us. When the lies have to be that blatant, you know they have nothing, no argument.

Let us be clear. Cameron is trying to deny that the British people want a say and that say is that they want to break away from the bunch of crooks calling themselves the EU elite. He shows exactly the same contempt for democracy that his masters in Brussels do. At this moment of political crisis across Europe, the real conversations going on are not those about Greek bailouts, they are the preparations to unite Europe as a single nation. This has always been the goal and they do not want to miss the opportunity that this crisis presents. Strangely, for once, the German people could save Europe, by having no part of this Soviet takeover.

That Cameron is so terrified of the people's vote is important, because neither he, Parliament, the Queen or the people can hand Britain to a foreign power. No one has that ability, but Ted Heath did exactly that. That is the real scandal, that these days politicians have come to act as if they are above the law. They have (and this is not unnecessarily dramatic, just true) committed treason, it is as simple as that. They have handed effective control of this country to a foreign power, Brussels and it was never in their gift to do so. It is a war that Germany and France have been fighting since the Second World War and their empire is crashingly close. But financial crisis is making their duplicity plain. There may be much violence unless these extremists are defied whilst some democracy remains.

The principled objection by some Tories is to their credit, there were scant few Labour MP's with principles (as ever) and of course, the Lib Dems just look for opportunities and popular schemes to get power. Popular in the Westminster bubble that is.

Hippies

I have just finished reading a book about the Sixties. I never knew so much was going on whilst I went about the business of scratching together an education. Well, something like anyway. There is a retained image that it was a time of peace and love and anti-war protests.

But in fact it was a whole lot more. The Hippies, representing the intellectual Left as they did, were a painful group of self-impressed, inward looking trouble makers, who thought that taking drugs improved the correctness of their views and that 'free love' referred to men doing what they liked to women.

The anti-war movement came up with the brilliant idea that they should kill people to make their point. In fact, as an age it seemed that a collective view of the Left was, that violence was the answer to pretty much everything. It certainly managed to avoid that troublesome irritant, debate. If you were right about something, you didn't need some smart-arse pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.

Of course, having failed miserably during the Sixties to derail civilised society (by which I mean people who work for a living, contribute to society and don't blow things up), they had to change their plans. Out went confrontation and in came taking up jobs in the institutions to undermine them. Hence the Left wing allegiance of academia, with the concomitant lack of rigour or desire to educate. In too, came Political Correctness to close down debate, still the hated enemy of the Left (see Global Warming).

The damage that decade did (and not least by infesting the institutions creating lasting harm) is coming out as a pustular poison now. People have allowed the brainwashing that has led us sleepwalking into the nanny state, but slowly and surely those same people are coming to realise something is wrong. State education we were told was the finest and we swallowed it. But now, with legions of 'highly qualified' children who cannot read properly and cannot add up, the penny has dropped that we have been conned.

Everywhere you look, the effects of Left wing propaganda spouted in Universities confounds manners and achievement, stops social mobility, leads to an elitist political class, incompetence across the public sector and high taxes.

People are beginning to ask 'why?' to all kinds of actions of the state and there really is no satisfactory answer. If the Left cannot find another way to again stifle debate, they may well be in real trouble.

The Final Countdown

With the final banal media show called 'the leaders debate' having passed, we are now well and truly in the run up to the election. If Brown gets 4% of the vote, it will show that people in Britain have an intelligence not shown before and vote for those best able to help the country and its people. More than that and we have the same indoctrinated Labour voter with a cross turning out. (I was amazed frankly, at the clapping on QT last night when the repugnant Balls mentioned inheritance tax. Are people so misled by years of Leftist propaganda in schools and the media, that they cannot think for themselves at all?)

Still, the debate. You know, at times Brown could sound like a good politician if you didn't already know that he is fiscally, emotionally and politically inept and an inveterate liar. So, nil points there. Cameron seemed to take an age to remember to be a Conservative (and strange how his rating goes up when he does -I still dream you know, see below). And Clegg? Oh Clegg, what to make of the man. He managed to rise on the tide of popularity that is the norm for the reality TV watching mob. Now an 'important player' he and his party were ignored no more and Clegg really didn't like the scrutiny. He is almost as ill at ease with it as Brown! But what was Mr Popular's strategy going into the last debate? 'I'm not them'. No really, Clegg seemed to think that not having any ideas on anything would be fine as long as he convinced people he wasn't either Brown or Cameron. Hence his constant reference to them 'points scoring'. I think his people remembered hearing in previous elections how people wanted a box on the ballot paper for 'none of the above', to show disgust with all those standing. So Clegg's LibDems become the 'none of the above' party and he bombed. Pillock.

I particularly loved the point when Dimmers asked the 'leaders' what made them different, a soft enough question and went to Clegg first. After doing his best goldfish impression Clegg scooted of in a different direction, maybe answering a question he wished he'd been asked.

We know from seeing his notes before that Brown arrives with what he thinks will be brilliant interventions and soundbites. I don't think endlessly saying 'inheritance tax' and 'tax credits' was ever likely to be a killer punch. Just listen to yourself Gordy. Even if Cameron was giving something of substance to '3000 people', that is such a tiny number as to be irrelevant. And perhaps someone should explain to the great unthinking mob that tax credits means the state takes money off you (for which they employ someone), then reviews your situation (and employs someone to do that) and then hands some money back (a third person). Any idea where waste might exist in Gordon's Soviet state? How about not taking money off people in the first place?

Don't need to say much about Cameron. He believes too much 'modern' stuff and appears to lack the ability to understand and discern (itself a highly modern trait). But when Brown makes him particularly angry, as appeared the case towards the end, then he suddenly becomes more traditional and his stock with people who want things to improve, soars. It's called Conservatism, David.

Leadership Debates

Well, hardly a debate. All arrived with soundbites and put them in. Brown developed a talent for giving his opponents something to beat him with and Nick Clegg relished his role as 'the one with no chance of being PM'. I may be biased, but I still think there was only one of the three who could credibly be Prime Minister and that was Cameron (and I include in that statement the incredible fact that Brown is the PM).

This was pointless TV and yet you had to watch, just in case someone lost it; Cameron could have laid into the bottomless pit that is the ineptitude of New Labour and Brown in particular. Brown could have dropped the facade and become the angry, incoherent imbecile he is away from the cameras you suspect (and hear) and Clegg could have said what he would really do as Lib Dem PM and scared people witless.

What was disappointing (viewed through the lens of QT later) was the depth of the lack of understanding in the general public. Now, the BBC may be reckless with regards impartiality in selecting the audience (and it does seem clear they allow Labour to place activists, who then get to speak), but even normal people seem to have become statists. I think it is almost a refusal to think maybe more than conditioning, which is what I used to suppose, but this bovine attitude and behaviour seems to be everywhere. The common herd has become convinced in the god-like power of experts. Any mention of science and people switch off their brains and wait for instructions. Hence the AGW scam. Doctors, teachers, judges all are 'experts' and must have their way. Judges in particular have adopted the left-liberal stance of considering themselves, because they adjudicate the law that this in some way elevates them above the lawmakers. They ignore their impact on society because they are above society.

So, when Cameron mentions voluntary effort, he is suggesting something that works on many levels. It could in fact be a very strong force in society, to cancel out the selfish, me,me,me that arrived with Tony Blair (and he and his left-liberal cronies have successfully convinced the unthinking was Thatchers child, instead of the increased opportunity she really brought). But the audience at QT seemed unnerved at the prospect of volunteers and John Sargeant very eloquently undermined it with his belief in the innate goodness of 'experts'. Eloquently that is, until someone queried it. Our society has multiple fractures and its ability to hold together is in no way assisted by Browns immigrants and the undermining of British culture they bring and Brown forces upon us. People like Victoria Coren talk about Britain's historic tolerance and use that to justify immigration. But unfettered it destroys that culture, Derr!

To sum up, Brown has to go and Cameron is the only alternative. Here is what is basically the problem with Brown. He had £10 and wanted to buy a £10 cake to eat. The problem was he wanted to keep it as well. The solution he came up with was to borrow £10 and buy two.