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.

Messy Politics

Three aspects cause national upsets; the will of the people, alliances and hubris. Currently, the will of the people in the UK is quite distressing as the cult of self instigated under Tony Blair continues to bite, under the further influence of Marxist propaganda (particularly through the education system).

I say the will of the people is distressing because it lacks any ability to act rationally, with youngsters voting for very dangerous Totalitarians. Because there was a completely disingenuous offer to delete their student debt floated around. That they were stupid enough to believe such rubbish and so quickly, shows just how many of our youngsters today are taking a very long time to reach actual maturity.

Poorly educated (deliberately) and way too dependent, they besmirch those who fought to give them the right to vote. (They also, spit in the face of their grandparents and great grandparents who fought Totalitarianism to give them freedom - freedom they now wish to surrender).

Elsewhere, the ancient ideology that Nation States cause wars and must be deleted (for large empires, strangely, led by those who caused most of the wars, to gain an empire), finds itself in a  conundrum. All around the world, people show their desire to retain local identity, things they feel real allegiance to and that give them comfort in the familiar.

So we have the Catalans trying to ask the question, would they like to be an independent state? Nothing more than that, a poll to discover the strength of feeling of the people in the local area. The National government of Spain has said that to cede is illegal and so the referendum would be pointless.

OK, so that is the current legal view, but if the Catalans are not happy with it, then perhaps dialogue should commence? No, those in power do not want to see it 'undermined' and send in their paramilitaries to forcefully interfere with a harmless information gathering exercise (which is what the referendum surely is).

These officers of the state attacked the Catalan people deliberately and for no good reason. Illegally too, I'm sure, because the lovely Constitution of Spain may well insist Spain must always be what it is now, a single unit (albeit, interestingly, under the control of a foreign power as they ceded the whole country to Brussels), but I don't think local areas having a poll, regardless of the subject, is a crime?

Jeremy Corbyn, leading of course his own blackshirts, objects to this violence and demands Teresa May speak to the Spanish authorities. Naturally, the Venezuelan paramilitaries attacking their own people is fine by Jezza, because the government there is Communists. Violence by Communist regimes is expected, indeed part of the ideology, so what could Jeremy possibly object to?

And then there is the EU. They are completely silent about the violence perpetrated by a member state, supposedly under their control. But then they have to be, otherwise their whole project is in jeopardy, just like it needs to cause as much problem as possible to the UK, pour encourager les autres.

I'm sure the bureaucrats of the EU don't want people's heads cracked, but what to do? Firstly, hubris demands they do not give in, secondly, they are allied in spirit with the Spanish authorities and cannot therefore criticise what any human being would normally criticise. It leads to more violence of course, but the politicians are locked into positions; their ideology.

If only the will of the people could be suppressed, given no outlet to share ideas. Certainly, the leaders of the secretive EU have long thought democracy an inconvenient idea, so damaging to their project. For proof look no further than the 'stupid' decision to let the British people have their say. The delightful aspect of the UK referendum was plainly that, as yet the British people are not all snowflakes, unable to think for themselves, but can consider the evidence and come to the reasonable conclusion.

In one way I suppose the EU have stopped wars. Because in 1815 Britain and other countries objected to France attempting to create a European empire for itself and again with the Germans in 1914 and 1939, there were terrible wars. Now those very nations have managed to create their empire without war, just by the use of deceit and straightforward lying.

It isn't working and is falling apart (it is run by stupid ideologies, so it would, ideologies of French and German hegemony). Politicians should relearn their role and understand that the will of the people, always wins in the end.

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.

Our Tickle 50

Little punning there, sorry, serious subject. Well, to people that understand it!

The people of this country, under a law of 2015 voted to request and require their democratically elected government to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. It is amazing, after years of propaganda, threats of doom from all and sundry, apathy and the general fear that maybe we should cling to nurse for fear of something worse, that we voted to leave.

But we did. And Jeremy Corbyn thinks that is the reason his party should not think it knows better, rather carry out the will of the people. Article 50 of course is an article of an EU treaty. It is the formal way to inform them we are leaving. Some of his MP's think their view more important than the public's though.

But wanting to leave is only something that stupid people and fascists voted for, according to the liberals. Now these are interesting people, because they call themselves liberals, which suggests freedom and tolerance (as it is intended to).

The manifestation though is that they are deeply and often violently intolerant of people having different ideas from them. So, a narrow, dictatorial society is what they are after, as long as the power rests with them.

This is OK though, because they are cleverer than you (clearly, you voted to leave the EU) and are lovely people who would never do you any harm (unless you disagreed with them).

I was trying to think if any country has ever been run on these principles and how it went. Nearest I can come up with is Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, oh and the very similarly structured EU.

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.

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.

EU: In Or Out?

Notable person, Jeremy Clarkson has written in his Sunday Times column that he thinks we should stay in the EU. Clarkson is someone who generally challenges orthodoxies and infuriates those who think they are the only people allowed opinions.

He always struck me as someone it would be great to discuss the world, the universe and everything with, over a meal. Most convivial I would have thought. I know he is a bit of a simpleton where the EU is concerned, as previously he said we should join the Euro because he hates changing money to travel. Solid.

But even so, his juvenile reasoning on Sunday as to why Britain should stay in the EU was a surprise. He likes Europe he says, and when there, feels European. Feels he fits in more than in America, where they at least speak a version of English. And has strong links with the UK both in legal infrastructure terms and historically.

Yes, Europe is the cradle of civilisation and has an immense amount to commend it in art and architecture. Then of course, the wealthy Clarkson enjoys the food and wine it produces and the quality of restaurants.

And then there is modern European politics. The French revolution, Napoleon, the 1848 revolutions, the Franco-Prussian war, the bombast of Bismarck, De Gaulle and his plan to take over Britain when he and his countrymen surrendered their own country as soon as possible, French Communists, Mussolini, Italian Communists, Hitler. The First World War, the Second World War and Jean Monnet.

Truly 'the Europeans', of which we clearly are not and have never been a part, do not see themselves as European and are very keen on fighting each other. Particularly the French and Germans. But Clarkson thinks these two, specifically, run a super club that we should be part of. Sure he recognises that it isn't democratic, is corrupt and incompetent at every level, but that he says is why we should stay in.

So we can cure these ills from within. Just like Cameron did when he asked for some minor changes and was told no. (Although he seems to be suggesting that no means yes). There is a reason, Clarkson, that when Blenheim and Wellington and numerous others, helped sort out the latest bout of bickering in Europe, they went back home and left them to it.

We didn't take over territory in Europe (well, beyond Gibraltar I suppose) precisely because we are not like them and don't want to be. It is said that in Italy the bureaucracy is appalling and to get anything done it can only be speeded up by bribing the corrupt officials. And in Britain the bureaucracy is appalling and you can't get anything done, because the officials aren't corrupt!

The rule of law here generally works for and is designed to work for, the people. Europe consists of states where the law keeps the people in check.

Regarding the EU itself, it is a Marxist construct that has no democratic core and is designed to be the fun house of an elite, paid for by the masses, a power trip for the careless class. Clarkson thinks we could make it a United States, but it is designed to be a Soviet Union. The naivety in believing it could be changed from within is immense and no more realistic than thinking you could change it standing on the moon.

The United States of America absorbed all kinds of people, of many nations, but in building their life in this new country they became Americans first, with a shared belief in country. Some time later they adopted a single currency. The EU has no demos and forced an inappropriate single currency on its members, the result of which we are seeing now.

There is a continent called Europe but no country called Europe. The nation states have noble histories with much to be proud of (though for France and Germany, much to be ashamed of). They don't need an all-powerful elite to end their histories.

The Pound, Sterling

Briefly cornered, the self-centred Tony Blair succumbed to pressure for the UK not to join the Eurozone, much though he wanted to. So we prepared to endure all the privations of being alone and cast adrift as everyone who was allowed a say predicted.

I remember one of the key reasons the idiots quoted as to why we had to join in with the Euro was that we would not be able to survive, so close to an enormous trading bloc without having the same currency. In fact, that was one of a very, very small number of reasons, none of which had any substantiation, well, apart from fatuous assertions that millions of jobs would be lost.

Apparently, if your company deals with an EU country, all your jobs would go if the UK wasn't in the Eurozone, hence the size of the numbers 'at risk'. Jeremy Clarkson himself pointed out that we should join because then, people like him who travel extensively wouldn't have to keep getting foreign currency. So, of all the problems and paperwork facing a company trading overseas, currency exchange was of overriding concern.

Except, Clarkson still has to acquire local currency should he visit a backward country like Australia, or China, or India where, stupidly they have their own currency. And as to the problem of the big neighbour with a different currency, how on earth does Canada survive? It is not only next door to one of the largest economies in the world, but also a reasonably competent one, not something that you could accuse Brussels of.

And yet it still hasn't occurred to them that they cannot survive by the EU law of economics, without having adopted the US dollar.

Still, let us try to find some positives, after all this knocking, about the EU. It offers employment to a lot of people who don't seem otherwise employable. By taking a long time to establish a Europe wide dictatorship, they have given people the chance to realise what is being proposed for them and put a stop to it. And I suppose, it has contributed to society by keeping France and Germany distracted so they didn't start yet another war.

It is entertaining to consider that the weak and pusillanimous Cameron is almost ideally placed, by position and timing, to play the role of a Marlborough, Wellington or Churchill. He could, if he was another type of creature indeed, save Europe from the power mad grab of would be emperors in France and Germany.

Britain has used her power and prestige to stand above ridiculous continental politics and to intervene for the good when they tear each other apart. Today, we could, through resolute action of word and deed, completely destroy the Marxist Project spreading through Europe and hand back nations to their peoples.

Never forget, when Napoleon defeated Spain it became part of his empire, when Hitler invaded Poland, he didn't intend to ever give it back; it was now part of his Third Reich of a thousand years. But when a coalition led by the Duke of Wellington defeated Napoleon, he dumped the little corporal on the naughty step of St. Helena and went home. France stayed French.

If we vote (sensibly) to leave the EU, the same will happen as when we didn't join the Euro; nothing at all. But it opens up our ability to become a world player again, as a sovereign country once more, to trade where we like and get involved in international agreements. We could trade globally how we wished and look after our own people, without doing harm to others.

To ram it home, we could trade with all the countries of the world, particularly the growing economies and not be shackled to a corpse as at present. A united Europe was a great idea in the inter-war years (when it was thought of first) for all except Britain, but why would anyone stick with a 1920's idea in the global economy of today?

Not So Stupid Then

Scotland has voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. This means that they are not stupid, of course. But one and a half million people did vote for Alex Salmond and that is amazing. Beyond amazing actually. Doubtless some people did vote for an independent Scotland, not understanding what was really being offered.

Essentially, at the outset the offering was between status quo and giving power to Alex Salmond. Scotland would be separated from the English parliament certainly, but the idea was that Salmond seized power.

I don't know how many Scots realised that all the Yes campaign talk of the greater social feeling innate to the Scottish could only be delivered through him. Independent Scotland would be immensely wealthy (somehow), with almost free energy, free higher education, prescriptions, buses anything in fact. Hell, everything!

But Salmond isn't a socialist or anything like it. He is a hard nosed Communist and he knows that he mustn't tell you that or even more, most Scots wouldn't give him a second thought. Did not all his talk of a Utopia born of Scotland sound suspiciously like all communist regimes and their promises? Always promises.

But countries like North Korea and Venezuela under Chavez appeal to Salmond not because they are superb places for people to live free, unfettered lives, without the oppression of capitalism, but because of the power that resides with an elite.

Well, for now he is thwarted, but is violence his next option? It usually is for such people.

A Coming Referendum

The day of the referendum concerning the opinion of some Scottish people towards splitting from the United Kingdom and rejoining the European Union as an independent state, gets ever closer.

The things that seem clear; Alex Salmond is mad in the same category as Tony Blair. He is power crazed, lacking any interest in any other aspect of his supposed role. A Yes vote is a Yes to Alex Salmond seizing power in Scotland, nothing much else changes, organisationally. It is not a Yes vote for Scottish independence.

Scotland will be reincorporated into an EU of regions, possibly as the Scottish region, allowing some continuity of identity, but just as likely North Britain. The only reason Scotland got its own Parliament after all, was to prepare for the split up of Britain into EU designated districts or regions.

Other areas of clarity are; capital will take flight from Scotland, major companies will, by necessity relocate away, the debt ratio of the new 'nation' will be massive, as will its public spending overspend. Additionally, much harm will be done to the economies of all other areas of the UK.

Less clear is what currency the Last King of Scotland intends for his people. Will it be a Scottish pound, on parity with the British pound? Without the links that Salmond will have so carefully severed, this will lead to a Eurozone style disaster. Or will it be the Euro, as is required for new member states?

This of course will place Scotland in pretty much the same state as the pound parity; a currency completely independent from the needs of the country, region, sorry. But then there is the small problem of meeting the entry requirements on debt...... oh dear. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

So, how can the madman convince his intended subjects to vote for Christmas? Well, by copying other Marxists by rigging the vote! Can you vote on the future of your nation if you, even temporarily, are not living there? No. Can you vote on the future of Scotland if you are a foreigner living there? Yes.

If you are unemployed and particularly if you would like to stay that way, Salmond is offering pots of free money, but you have to vote for him. And lastly, he has scooped idealistic and easily gulled, let alone influenced children have a vote. Yes, minors are on the in it too.

The deepest irony here is that we need to maintain one union, of peoples who have a shared history and overlapping culture, but ditch another alien system, the EU.

Oh Go On David, Tell The Truth

David Cameron has found himself painted into a corner. First he didn't want any discussion of the EU whatsoever. It is a non-democratic institution along Marxist lines, who is going to vote for that (while we are allowed)?

Then he had to give a 'cast iron' guarantee that he would give us a referendum, which turned out to be anything but cast iron and failed to materialise. Then, with the eurozone going breasts uppermost, he had to actually promise one, far in the future and only if we elect him again and then finally to have a law requiring it. He could do without this you know.

David Cameron loves the EU. He couldn't explain why to you, as it only causes harm to little people, like you. He wants to be a good EU apparatchik and ignore the people, but we still have some semblance of democracy, so he has to appear to care what you think. Consequently, he tells you he is going to renegotiate our terms of membership with that nasty EU Commission.

And if they won't play ball, we will have an in/out referendum. But they will give in, he assures us. Funny that. There is only one mechanism by which he can possibly negotiate with his EU masters and that is by invoking Article 50. But he hasn't mentioned that, ever.

He hasn't told you about it, he hasn't explained what it is, or threatened 'Europe' with it. He just hasn't brought it up at all. Yet it is the negotiating tool. Why hasn't he mentioned it? Do you think he might be lying again? That he has no intention of negotiating anything, nor leaving the EU under any circumstances? Shirley Knot.

How To Get Out Of The EU

Richard North on his EU Referendum blog says that we need to be careful and stop talking about leaving the EU now and illegal treaties, as this will damage the image with swing voters. This in turn leaves them vulnerable to being influenced by the likes of Peter Mandelson.

Much of this is true of course; if you don't think so, ask yourself how people came to vote for Tony Blair? There is a very well funded (that would be our money) machine that will continue to spout lies and propaganda about the anti-EU people and so influence people to vote for the Marxist gravy train for politicians.

However, it doesn't change the fact that all of the leave now and illegal treaty stuff is true and relevant. If we did leave the EU now, which North says would leave us in a mess, we would still have all the EU laws on our books. We could take our time to sort through what we want and what we don't want and act accordingly.

We could do this without interference from a foreign power, without fines and without paying EU-geld.   The only thing is we need to be clear with the people what is going on and for that we need an honest media (ie not the BBC) and some well thought through policies. Here North is absolutely spot on. Leaving the EU is like giving up drugs, not easy but much better for your health. It cannot be done overnight and Left liberal 'advisor's' will tell you not to.

EU Debate; Let's Actually Have One

Politicians lied to get Britain into the EU, lied about it to win the '75 referendum to stay in ('it's about trade') and have avoided talking about it ever since. Now Cameron has had to open a can of worms, he will have hated to, but he had to talk about 'Europe'.

Consequently it was going to be interesting to watch at least some of Question Time, as obviously the BBC would be mobilising to fight against any suggestion that the EU was a bad thing.You notice some interesting tactics on the programme; a young lad was allowed to make some cogent points for a referendum and Dimmo just said 'OK that's interesting' or some such and moved onto someone else for a point. When someone said that we can't have a simple in/out referendum on an issue as complex as the EU, Dimmo asks the panel to comment.

The ruse of making a 'complex EU' an established fact and then allowing those disagreeing to try to find a way to argue against it is a common one of the Left. It was rather undermined when Hislop just said it wasn't that complex and people should be allowed to have a say. It is this of course, that all of the politicians are terrified of including Cameron, the public having a say.

As Tony Blair proved, when attempting to corrupt the electoral process to make Labour the only party able to win 'elections', the people will annoying vote against you. This is also a constant lament of EU politicians who have often criticised the need to allow the people a vote (on anything) and that it gets in the way of the progress of 'The Project'.

Stalin starved the Ukrainians for disagreeing with him, so I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky, or maybe they are just not strong enough yet!

Still, the 'complex' ploy hadn't worked in QT so bizarrely a woman in the audience asked the same question again and kept on chipping in to make sure it was addressed 'properly'. Of course, the EU is a complex beast as is a motor car, but when you go to the shops you do not decide you need to understand all the mechanical interactions necessary for the car to work.

And the same is true of the EU. There would be some paperwork, but when you want to leave, you leave. The complex issue is as true as the trade meme; the EU is only and has ever only been about creating a single political entity that they when pushed, will call the United States of Europe. But being modelled on totalitarian lines it is more a Soviet Union of Europe.

So the in/out vote is entirely acceptable to discern the will of the people. Cameron cannot 'renegotiate' and he knows it, so it is only a tactic itself. He would very much like to win the next election and he has broken the taboo of bringing up 'Europe' as he knows lots of people hate it. By promising a referendum after we have done him the favour of voting Conservative, he will probably decide it isn't necessary.

Or, by some narrow margin convince the gullible that he has got a fantastic new arrangement for us 'in Europe' and the vote will go his way. Then we find out he and his EU chums never had any intention of  implementing the 'agreements', just like last time. Dan Hannan has some nice points in his Telegraph blog today.

So bear in mind whenever you hear 'debate' about the EU that it is only intended to be a political union and if we stay in we will get sucked into it, with its single currency and all, it is inevitable as it was intended to be. Consider this, if Cameron seems to convince you to stay in; Germany pays the most in to EU coffers and seems to have always had a mighty big say. The UK is the second largest contributor and what influence would you say we have had? None?

In fact, as we have seen recently, the other EU politicians openly sneer and laugh at us (or at our politicians for allowing us a say) and continue to draw up plans to reduce us to a real vassal state. The Common Agricultural Policy? A French scheme to harvest the money of other Europeans to pay their inefficient farmers.

We should say two things to technocrats of the EU; 'No' and 'a pox on all your houses'.

Bale Out!

So the EU, having offered enormous sums of money they don't have or know where they can get it from, to rescue the banks who loaned money to Greece, now see the Greeks asking their people what they think. It is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas but maybe it is the right thing to do. Naturally, it has thrown the EU elites into raptures of panic and upset the markets too.

The Greeks have lied about their economic position previously, to join the EU and the Euro. They have been somewhat remiss in collecting taxes and generally making the country work. People retire early on big pensions. Only an institution as fundamentally corrupt and stupid as the EU could have allowed it to go on for so long. The others in a mess, always believed the EU was looking after their finances; if they needed extra funds they would come from 'papa EU'.

But how very dare the Greeks ask their people to give their view? Have the elites not made it clear repeatedly, that democracy has no place in the modern EU? David Cameron manages to toe the line, so how very embarrassing that some backward, broken down, bankrupt country be so ungrateful as to hold a referendum.

And we are told by vested interests that the EU is essential to our economic survival, yet it is the very organisation that, by continuing to support the Euro beyond all bounds of reason merely because it underpins their political objectives, is dragging down not just the British economy but that of the whole world. France and its partner in crime, Germany have, as usual, a lot to answer for.

The Madness Goes On

I wonder if, during the Great Depression politics was subsumed by a sideshow? Did the statesmen of the time try to resolve the financial crisis (doubtless all seeking advantage) or did they, as now try to support some ridiculous political idea on the side, that is designed only for an elite (as empires generally are)?

 Cameron is supposedly fine about his MP's voting against his edict (why issue one then?) and says he understands. I'm sure he understands a number of things in politics, but good government isn't one of them. He truly is just creating another branch of the Labour Party. This country needs to avoid the EU like the plague, as it is, literally, a plague on all our houses. Cameron claims not to see this. He feels the EU is a great institution, though needs some reform.

He says he is going to demand that reform. Firstly, he is a small part of the EU and can demand until he is blue in the face, but they will do precisely what they want to do. Secondly, he isn't even being sincere. Why did he agree to the last Treaty obligations if he wanted to exert some muscle? Why not make your case from the moment you took office? Because he is as much a lap dog of Brussels as was the definition of self serving cowardice, Tony Blair, before him.

Consider what Cameron says and then does. He said he was in favour of a referendum on the EU now he is fervently against it. He said he wants smaller government and a bigger society, but by continuing to agree to (illegally!) transferring sovereignty to Brussels he is playing his part in making the biggest of big governments. His only consistency is in supporting the undemocratic EU, as this accords with denying the people of this country a democratic vote on its future.

Why is a political empire across Europe a good thing? Particularly one that allows no democracy (your MEP's do not make the law in the EU, they just sign it off on instruction). The Euro clearly doesn't work but they are doing anything but using common sense to resolve the crisis. Why would a system of law that negates Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Common Law, replacing it all with the Code Napoleon that makes the state the entity and the people its vassals, be a good idea? Why, to consider a small, but important detail, do their police have immunity from prosecution?

The EU is the most corrupt form of banditry the World has ever seen, so perhaps we should not be surprised that senior politicians in a (just about) democratic country, prevail on their colleagues to put self before the Country and its people. The wealth of Blair awaits those who play by the rules.

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.

Democracy Is A Nuisance

Strangely, as British Prime Ministers of late show a deep penchant for sending British troops to risk their lives, to bolster democracy (apparently) in foreign lands, they show little care for it at home. Mr. Cameron doesn't think he should honour an election pledge (that is, something used to get democratically elected) to have a referendum on the EU. The reason is clear for all to see; the British people, as usual way ahead of politicians, know we need to get out.

The vote will be overwhelmingly in favour of leaving the EU altogether. This is the sort of decision rational, sane people make. To stay in is a vested interest position, one that suits politicians and keeps gravy trains rolling. According to these demented souls, we are stupid enough to believe any rubbish they spout to support their beloved project. Hence, the suggestion that lots of jobs rely on the EU. Yes, politicians jobs. What country will not trade with Britain, because we leave the EU?

Heavens, even Mexico has special trading status with the EU. Did Canada have to become part of the US? Surely such a powerful trading bloc so close means economic and political union is essential for survival? No it isn't, plainly.

Cameron is finding the threat of democracy at home most tiresome; why can he not just do as he pleases? Do people not realise that it is the networks forged through entities such as the EU (and some more hidden ones), that provide the level of income stream such as Tony Blair is now enjoying, after they have been rumbled as complete failures as politicians? The EU doesn't rely on democracy, why should Britain?

The unfortunate campaign just launched to put the 'Great' back in Britain has a major obstacle in the form of David Cameron who, through his continued subservience to the EU means to further eradicate Britain as an entity, not enhance it!