Clegg's bid to create squeaky clean image falters as he is skewered over £90,000 expenses claims
By James Chapman, Tim Shipman and Nicola Boden (Daily Mail 20th April 2010)
Nick Clegg's bid to portray himself as an unsullied man of the people was dealt a blow today when he was challenged over his expenses claims.
The Lib Dem leader took the moral high ground during last week's live TV debate, accusing Labour and the Tories of failing to clean up Westminster.
But today he was brought up short over his own claims under the controversial second home allowance, which saw him claim for everything from a £2,600 kitchen to paper napkins worth £1.50.
The BBC's Andrew Neil ambushed the leader as he again tried to set the day's agenda with a series of banking reforms and a new attack on David Cameron.
Mr Clegg insisted the modest house in Sheffield was a 'complete eyesore' when he bought it and vowed to hand back any profits from selling it to the taxpayer.
The leader has previously been exposed for wrongly claiming for phone calls made to Colombia, Vietnam and Spain - for which he had to repay more than £80.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Monday, 19 April 2010
DANGER – LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AT WORK!
Any increase in support for the Liberal Democrats could be disastrous for our country. A hung parliament, with Lib-Dems holding the balance, would provide the most dangerous of all worlds, plunging Britain into yet worse economic recession than that exacerbated by Labour’s dire incompetence. Clegg has intimated that he is happy to collaborate with Gordon Brown. Perpetuation of Labour’s disastrous handling of the economy would be bad enough, but endless wheeling-and-dealing between confused Clegg and bewildered Brown (the economic wizard who sold our gold reserves at a loss of £7 billion to the taxpayer) would drive the national debt spiralling far beyond its present lamentable state.
Liberals traditionally enjoy being liberal with other people’s money. Fortunately for Mr. Clegg, he like Cameron is a rich man unlikely to feel the pinch. Not long ago his guru Vince Cable urged a tax on all houses worth £1 million or more. Not only does the proposal conceal the arbitrary nature of valuations on which estimates would be based (we all know how local councils fiddle these things at present), but in the rarified world Cable inhabits he appears unaware that a £1 million house is no longer a rich man’s dwelling. Nor does everyone’s work permit them to live in an area of cheap housing. Housing values, after all, are largely determined by factors beyond the householder’s control.
Alarmed at the effect this draconian proposal would have on much of the electorate, Clegg hastily raised the level of his arbitrary tax to £2 million. This proposal, however, is for the benefit of voters on the eve of a general election. There can be little doubt that, were the Liberals to gain any say in the way we are ruled, the homes tax would revert to Cable’s proposal, or a valuation lower still.
Much more alarming for our future is the consistent Lib-Dem policy of fawning subservience to the European Union. Most people, understandably bemused to know what Lib-Dem policies constitute, are unaware of the fact that they have consistently been the party most besotted of all with EU bureaucracy. Clegg himself has done well out of it, having enjoyed a lucrative post with the EU Commission. How this country benefited from his activity remains unknown.
Clegg’s understanding of the status of the EU and its alternatives may be gathered from his anguished rhetorical enquiry:
‘Do we really think that we can pull up the drawbridge, and ranting and raving at Europe from the sidelines is really going to help us be stronger or safer?’
Of course he is too young to remember an independent Britain which traded with the whole world, rather than being confined to a restricted, corrupt, incompetent, undemocratic, and inward-looking enforced union. Less easy to excuse is his ignorance of the position of Norway and Switzerland, which are spared the colossal expense and accruing loss of freedom involved in membership of the EU, while enjoying trade facilities with Brussels comparable to those of this country.
Clegg fondly expresses the belief that Britain is protected from international crime and terrorism by her membership of the EU. Has he ever looked across the Atlantic, where Mexico, the USA, and Canada have belonged since 1994 to a free trade association, without any loss of national freedom? Do those three countries feel obliged to ‘rant and rave at each other from the sidelines’? Are they racked beyond endurance by international crime and terrorism, in consequence of belonging to NAFTA, rather than the bureaucratic superstate beloved by Clegg and Cable?*
Clegg undoubtedly has much to learn, but is it proper that this country be made to suffer in consequence of his diminutive learning curve?
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Liberals traditionally enjoy being liberal with other people’s money. Fortunately for Mr. Clegg, he like Cameron is a rich man unlikely to feel the pinch. Not long ago his guru Vince Cable urged a tax on all houses worth £1 million or more. Not only does the proposal conceal the arbitrary nature of valuations on which estimates would be based (we all know how local councils fiddle these things at present), but in the rarified world Cable inhabits he appears unaware that a £1 million house is no longer a rich man’s dwelling. Nor does everyone’s work permit them to live in an area of cheap housing. Housing values, after all, are largely determined by factors beyond the householder’s control.
Alarmed at the effect this draconian proposal would have on much of the electorate, Clegg hastily raised the level of his arbitrary tax to £2 million. This proposal, however, is for the benefit of voters on the eve of a general election. There can be little doubt that, were the Liberals to gain any say in the way we are ruled, the homes tax would revert to Cable’s proposal, or a valuation lower still.
Much more alarming for our future is the consistent Lib-Dem policy of fawning subservience to the European Union. Most people, understandably bemused to know what Lib-Dem policies constitute, are unaware of the fact that they have consistently been the party most besotted of all with EU bureaucracy. Clegg himself has done well out of it, having enjoyed a lucrative post with the EU Commission. How this country benefited from his activity remains unknown.
Clegg’s understanding of the status of the EU and its alternatives may be gathered from his anguished rhetorical enquiry:
‘Do we really think that we can pull up the drawbridge, and ranting and raving at Europe from the sidelines is really going to help us be stronger or safer?’
Of course he is too young to remember an independent Britain which traded with the whole world, rather than being confined to a restricted, corrupt, incompetent, undemocratic, and inward-looking enforced union. Less easy to excuse is his ignorance of the position of Norway and Switzerland, which are spared the colossal expense and accruing loss of freedom involved in membership of the EU, while enjoying trade facilities with Brussels comparable to those of this country.
Clegg fondly expresses the belief that Britain is protected from international crime and terrorism by her membership of the EU. Has he ever looked across the Atlantic, where Mexico, the USA, and Canada have belonged since 1994 to a free trade association, without any loss of national freedom? Do those three countries feel obliged to ‘rant and rave at each other from the sidelines’? Are they racked beyond endurance by international crime and terrorism, in consequence of belonging to NAFTA, rather than the bureaucratic superstate beloved by Clegg and Cable?*
Clegg undoubtedly has much to learn, but is it proper that this country be made to suffer in consequence of his diminutive learning curve?
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Monday, 12 April 2010
THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE TURBINE RACKET (for which we all have to pay)
From The Sunday Times April 11, 2010 (by Chris Hastings and Jonathan Leake)
Sir John Chilcot in MoD lobbying row
Sir John Chilcot, who is heading the Iraq war inquiry, successfully lobbied the MoD to drop its opposition to a planned wind farm in Scotland that will be run by a company of which he is a director
SIR John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq war inquiry, successfully lobbied the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to drop its opposition to a lucrative £150m wind farm project of which he is a director.
Chilcot was among a group of three of the company’s directors who met MoD officials in a private home in London in January 2009. The MoD was blocking the whole scheme because it said the 410ft high turbines would interfere with military radar.
Chilcot, who is a non-executive director of the company, was appointed chairman of the Iraq inquiry on June 15, 2009. Two weeks later, on July 1, the MoD formally dropped its opposition. A public inquiry is due to reopen on Tuesday in Duns in the Scottish Borders.
The disclosure that Chilcot — who has a 1.1% shareholding in the company — has benefited from a policy U-turn by the MoD leaves him vulnerable to accusations of a potential conflict of interest. He has not declared his business links.
An MoD spokesman said: “The MoD has withdrawn its planning objection on the condition that North British Windpower provides a technical solution to interference affecting local air defence radar.”
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said he would write to the cabinet secretary, asking him if Chilcot should have flagged up his connection with the firm at the start of the inquiry.
As head of the inquiry, Chilcot is responsible for investigating the conduct of senior military and political leaders in the run-up to the war, as well as during the conflict and its aftermath.
Chilcot’s inquiry was intended to settle controversies surrounding the conduct of the Iraq war after previous inquiries were bedevilled by acrimony. The Hutton inquiry, which reported in 2004 on the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, the biological weapons expert, was dismissed as an “Establishment whitewash” after its findings exonerated the government.
In July of that year, the Butler inquiry, whose members included Chilcot, found there were serious flaws in the way the government used intelligence to justify its case for war.
Chilcot’s company, North British Windpower, wants to erect 48 turbines up to 410ft tall on a grouse moor belonging to the Duke of Roxburghe’s estate in the Lammermuir hills, southeast of Edinburgh. It would generate revenues of about £30m per year.
It would be one of the biggest such developments in Britain, but the changing stance of the MoD could be decisive in whether it goes ahead or not.
The scheme was recommended for rejection by a planning inspector in February 2008 because of MoD concerns that many of the turbines would interfere with radar systems at nearby Brizlee Wood air defence radar.
The report was not made public at this stage, but the results were given to the company, which then began lobbying the MoD to change its stance.
In 2009 there were “around half a dozen” meetings between North British Windpower and the MoD, according to Andrew Shaw, the firm’s managing director.
In January 2009, Chilcot, Shaw and Christopher Wilkins, its chairman, met with three officials at Wilkins’s London home.
Shaw confirmed Chilcot was present but said: “Sir John acted largely as an observer at the meeting he attended. He raised one or two points for the sake of clarification, but as far as the company was concerned I was the driving force at the meeting.”
“I had previously found the stance of the MoD bewildering and I wanted someone at the meeting like John who had not been involved in our previous dealings with them and who could provide a fresh perspective.”
The meetings achieved their goal. On July 22, 2009, it emerged that the MoD had formally withdrawn its opposition to the proposal.
The disclosure of Chilcot’s outside business dealings is the second potential embarrassment for the inquiry. In January it emerged that the military historian, Sir Lawrence Freedman, who sits on the Iraq war inquiry with Chilcot, had helped Tony Blair write a speech justifying military interventions.
Freedman wrote to Chilcot to make him aware of the potential conflict of interest on the day Jonathan Powell, Blair’s former chief of staff, was due to give evidence.
A spokesman for the Cabinet Office, which oversees the inquiry, said: “When appointed, panel members were required to disclose any conflict of interest with their appointment to the cabinet secretary. No such conflicts were reported.” He confirmed Chilcot had not declared his links with North British Windpower to his fellow committee members.
Chilcot declined to comment. His wife, Rosalind, said her husband was a sleeping member of the board, who had been in wind farms since they were “a very small egg”.
“John doesn’t use influence. He will not pull strings for anybody, not even me or his mother.” [BUT OF COURSE - NT)
Sir John Chilcot in MoD lobbying row
Sir John Chilcot, who is heading the Iraq war inquiry, successfully lobbied the MoD to drop its opposition to a planned wind farm in Scotland that will be run by a company of which he is a director
SIR John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq war inquiry, successfully lobbied the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to drop its opposition to a lucrative £150m wind farm project of which he is a director.
Chilcot was among a group of three of the company’s directors who met MoD officials in a private home in London in January 2009. The MoD was blocking the whole scheme because it said the 410ft high turbines would interfere with military radar.
Chilcot, who is a non-executive director of the company, was appointed chairman of the Iraq inquiry on June 15, 2009. Two weeks later, on July 1, the MoD formally dropped its opposition. A public inquiry is due to reopen on Tuesday in Duns in the Scottish Borders.
The disclosure that Chilcot — who has a 1.1% shareholding in the company — has benefited from a policy U-turn by the MoD leaves him vulnerable to accusations of a potential conflict of interest. He has not declared his business links.
An MoD spokesman said: “The MoD has withdrawn its planning objection on the condition that North British Windpower provides a technical solution to interference affecting local air defence radar.”
Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said he would write to the cabinet secretary, asking him if Chilcot should have flagged up his connection with the firm at the start of the inquiry.
As head of the inquiry, Chilcot is responsible for investigating the conduct of senior military and political leaders in the run-up to the war, as well as during the conflict and its aftermath.
Chilcot’s inquiry was intended to settle controversies surrounding the conduct of the Iraq war after previous inquiries were bedevilled by acrimony. The Hutton inquiry, which reported in 2004 on the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly, the biological weapons expert, was dismissed as an “Establishment whitewash” after its findings exonerated the government.
In July of that year, the Butler inquiry, whose members included Chilcot, found there were serious flaws in the way the government used intelligence to justify its case for war.
Chilcot’s company, North British Windpower, wants to erect 48 turbines up to 410ft tall on a grouse moor belonging to the Duke of Roxburghe’s estate in the Lammermuir hills, southeast of Edinburgh. It would generate revenues of about £30m per year.
It would be one of the biggest such developments in Britain, but the changing stance of the MoD could be decisive in whether it goes ahead or not.
The scheme was recommended for rejection by a planning inspector in February 2008 because of MoD concerns that many of the turbines would interfere with radar systems at nearby Brizlee Wood air defence radar.
The report was not made public at this stage, but the results were given to the company, which then began lobbying the MoD to change its stance.
In 2009 there were “around half a dozen” meetings between North British Windpower and the MoD, according to Andrew Shaw, the firm’s managing director.
In January 2009, Chilcot, Shaw and Christopher Wilkins, its chairman, met with three officials at Wilkins’s London home.
Shaw confirmed Chilcot was present but said: “Sir John acted largely as an observer at the meeting he attended. He raised one or two points for the sake of clarification, but as far as the company was concerned I was the driving force at the meeting.”
“I had previously found the stance of the MoD bewildering and I wanted someone at the meeting like John who had not been involved in our previous dealings with them and who could provide a fresh perspective.”
The meetings achieved their goal. On July 22, 2009, it emerged that the MoD had formally withdrawn its opposition to the proposal.
The disclosure of Chilcot’s outside business dealings is the second potential embarrassment for the inquiry. In January it emerged that the military historian, Sir Lawrence Freedman, who sits on the Iraq war inquiry with Chilcot, had helped Tony Blair write a speech justifying military interventions.
Freedman wrote to Chilcot to make him aware of the potential conflict of interest on the day Jonathan Powell, Blair’s former chief of staff, was due to give evidence.
A spokesman for the Cabinet Office, which oversees the inquiry, said: “When appointed, panel members were required to disclose any conflict of interest with their appointment to the cabinet secretary. No such conflicts were reported.” He confirmed Chilcot had not declared his links with North British Windpower to his fellow committee members.
Chilcot declined to comment. His wife, Rosalind, said her husband was a sleeping member of the board, who had been in wind farms since they were “a very small egg”.
“John doesn’t use influence. He will not pull strings for anybody, not even me or his mother.” [BUT OF COURSE - NT)
Sunday, 11 April 2010
QUANGO CORRUPTION REIGNS TRIUMPHANT
Charlie Brooks in the "Daily Telegraph" (2 April 2010).
The Government has been accused of promising billions of pounds over the past couple of months to vote-winning projects in marginal constituencies. These pledges, adding up to £7 billion, mostly involved transport, defence and industry. Yet if you want a real illustration of how public spending can have everything to do with the Government buying votes, and nothing to do with improving our lives, than you should take a look at the rural sector.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is a classic example of jobs for the boys and girls. It spends £3,157,000,000 per annum, spreading our largesse over 67 quangos, which employ 28,000 officials (in addition to the department's 8,000 core staff). And there has been no recession at the largest of its quangos, the Environment Agency: its funding has swollen by 37 per cent in the past five years, to more than half a billion pounds.
The degree to which the key appointments to these quangos has been politicised is shameful. For instance, did Pamela Warhurst recently become chairman of the Forestry Commission because she was the most knowledgeable applicant when it came to trees, or because she was a former Labour council leader? In 2009, Lord Rooker was handed the role of chairman of the Food Standards Agency, for a consideration of £54,000 per annum for a two-day week. As luck would have it, Lord Rooker had himself created this quango when he was a minister of state. The FSA has now bloated to include 37 committees, 11 of which are devoted to enforcement, which means sending tinpot tyrants scurrying across the countryside, hassling people who are trying to create jobs.
The roll call of these committees reads like a sketch from Yes Minister. The Advisory Body for the Delivery of Official Controls, for example, has – as of the time of writing – been unable to control or deliver minutes of its meetings from either October last year or March this year. And how much, one wonders, does the Food Standards Sampling Co-ordination Working Group cost us? In case you were not aware, "this joint working group was set up to help encourage better co-ordination of food standards sampling across local authorities and the FSA and to promote focused sampling programmes". Now if they went on strike, we'd be in real trouble.
What is especially scandalous is the duplication involved. Independent, non-joined-up reviews of the future of our upland areas have been undertaken by Defra, the Commission for Rural Communities, and Natural England – which didn't even bother to consult the Moorlands Association. If they'd all just gone to the pub together, they could have saved the taxpayer tens of thousands.
And right up to the wire, Labour is making appointments which will keep its placemen in power even if they lose the election. Former Labour council leader Ken Bodfish [can this be a real person? NT], for instance, has been given a comfortable seat by Hilary Benn on the newly created South Downs National Park Authority, even though the area seems to have survived quite well to date without having to be called a National Park.
It would be bad enough if the only downside to this was that we had to pay the wages and pensions of a public sector which this Government has expanded by approximately a million people. But the damage is much worse than that. If you ask any farmer or fisherman what single factor stops them being financially successful and creating more jobs, they will give you the same answer: the clipboard-wielding bureaucrats crawling all over them...
The Government has been accused of promising billions of pounds over the past couple of months to vote-winning projects in marginal constituencies. These pledges, adding up to £7 billion, mostly involved transport, defence and industry. Yet if you want a real illustration of how public spending can have everything to do with the Government buying votes, and nothing to do with improving our lives, than you should take a look at the rural sector.
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is a classic example of jobs for the boys and girls. It spends £3,157,000,000 per annum, spreading our largesse over 67 quangos, which employ 28,000 officials (in addition to the department's 8,000 core staff). And there has been no recession at the largest of its quangos, the Environment Agency: its funding has swollen by 37 per cent in the past five years, to more than half a billion pounds.
The degree to which the key appointments to these quangos has been politicised is shameful. For instance, did Pamela Warhurst recently become chairman of the Forestry Commission because she was the most knowledgeable applicant when it came to trees, or because she was a former Labour council leader? In 2009, Lord Rooker was handed the role of chairman of the Food Standards Agency, for a consideration of £54,000 per annum for a two-day week. As luck would have it, Lord Rooker had himself created this quango when he was a minister of state. The FSA has now bloated to include 37 committees, 11 of which are devoted to enforcement, which means sending tinpot tyrants scurrying across the countryside, hassling people who are trying to create jobs.
The roll call of these committees reads like a sketch from Yes Minister. The Advisory Body for the Delivery of Official Controls, for example, has – as of the time of writing – been unable to control or deliver minutes of its meetings from either October last year or March this year. And how much, one wonders, does the Food Standards Sampling Co-ordination Working Group cost us? In case you were not aware, "this joint working group was set up to help encourage better co-ordination of food standards sampling across local authorities and the FSA and to promote focused sampling programmes". Now if they went on strike, we'd be in real trouble.
What is especially scandalous is the duplication involved. Independent, non-joined-up reviews of the future of our upland areas have been undertaken by Defra, the Commission for Rural Communities, and Natural England – which didn't even bother to consult the Moorlands Association. If they'd all just gone to the pub together, they could have saved the taxpayer tens of thousands.
And right up to the wire, Labour is making appointments which will keep its placemen in power even if they lose the election. Former Labour council leader Ken Bodfish [can this be a real person? NT], for instance, has been given a comfortable seat by Hilary Benn on the newly created South Downs National Park Authority, even though the area seems to have survived quite well to date without having to be called a National Park.
It would be bad enough if the only downside to this was that we had to pay the wages and pensions of a public sector which this Government has expanded by approximately a million people. But the damage is much worse than that. If you ask any farmer or fisherman what single factor stops them being financially successful and creating more jobs, they will give you the same answer: the clipboard-wielding bureaucrats crawling all over them...
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
THE COMING TOTALITARIAN STATE
The Government has just announced plans to update the Postal Service. The proposal, to be implemented shortly, is designed to empower the Revenue and Customs to obtain access to the public mail from the Post Office. The plan is entirely benign, the Government assures us - it is purely designed to prevent tobacco smuggling through the post!
This is I imagine the first most people will have heard of the dire threat tobacco smuggling in letters and parcels poses to the nation’s survival, and I imagine I am not alone in wondering whether it occurs at all to any extensive degree. (Don't worry - the Revenue is fully capable of providing the 'evidence', in the unlikely event of its being required to do so).
While interference with the Royal Mail existed in Tudor and Stuart times, the practice was refined and greatly extended under the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Although it continued to a lesser degree throughout the eighteenth century, justified in part by fear of Jacobite conspiracies, Government spying on private correspondence was widely regarded with contempt and revulsion. (A modern note was struck by Sir Robert Walpole’s suspected misuse of the system for personal commercial advantage. Current MPs will doubtless lick their lips on learning of this precedent).
With the Allied victory over Napoleon in 1815, covert inspection of mail lost much of its legitimacy, but nevertheless continued behind the scenes. The relative moderation with which it was implemented is, however, illustrated by the fact that it was not until 1844 that the public became unexpectedly alerted to the existence of the pernicious practice.
As an historian of the Post Office has written,
‘In 1844 the public learned with general surprise that letters sent through the Post Office were liable to be detained, opened and read by government officials, that the hated Secret or Inner Office ... was still active. The horror and disgust at this well-nigh forgotten spy system aroused much concern and general condemnation’.
Questions were raised in Parliament, and expressions of outrage arose from every side. Macaulay, the famous historian, objected that there was no difference ‘between the government breaking the seal of his letter in the Post Office, and the government employing a spy to poke his ear to the keyhole, and listen to the conversations he carried on’.
Another celebrated historian, Thomas Carlyle, denounced the ‘opening of men’s letters, [as] a practice near of kin to picking men’s pockets’.
So widespread was public antagonism to the infamous practice, that successive governments all but abandoned it until the 1880s, when special measures were required to combat Irish Fenian outrages. At the same time, every inspection was required to be authorized by a warrant from the Home Secretary, and there appears little evidence that the practice was at all extensively abused.
That draconian measures are required in time of violent unrest or war would be accepted by reasonable people (my great-aunt worked as a censor in the Russian sector during the last War).
However, what is frightening about the present Government’s proposal is its patent lack of justification, when weighed in the balance against the vital necessity of preserving civil liberties, together with the depressing equanimity with which it will be quietly accepted by the Lib-Lab-Con Establishment.
Almost daily we read of such grave erosions of our liberty, with only rare and token protest from the old parties. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the real intention is to extend interception of the mails to whatever area of private life the Government finds expedient. Nor is it the least likely that a Conservative Government will rescind the measure, judging by the Party's general lack of concern for liberty.
This Government, and its obedient revenue service, have after all lately been heavily engaged in employing taxpayers’ money to bribe citizens of non-EU states to engage in illegal subversive activities against their own countries.
While the lack of public protest is depressing, it is understandable in view of the extent of increasing Government oppression (much of it reflecting servile obedience to EU rulings). So much so, that the average citizen has understandably come to regard resistance as futile.
While I would not claim that UKIP is immune to human frailty, ours is the only party seriously committed to returning power to the people through local and national institutions, which will be accorded authority to deny our arrogant Establishment means of indulging the current remorseless move towards bureaucratic tyranny.
This is I imagine the first most people will have heard of the dire threat tobacco smuggling in letters and parcels poses to the nation’s survival, and I imagine I am not alone in wondering whether it occurs at all to any extensive degree. (Don't worry - the Revenue is fully capable of providing the 'evidence', in the unlikely event of its being required to do so).
While interference with the Royal Mail existed in Tudor and Stuart times, the practice was refined and greatly extended under the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Although it continued to a lesser degree throughout the eighteenth century, justified in part by fear of Jacobite conspiracies, Government spying on private correspondence was widely regarded with contempt and revulsion. (A modern note was struck by Sir Robert Walpole’s suspected misuse of the system for personal commercial advantage. Current MPs will doubtless lick their lips on learning of this precedent).
With the Allied victory over Napoleon in 1815, covert inspection of mail lost much of its legitimacy, but nevertheless continued behind the scenes. The relative moderation with which it was implemented is, however, illustrated by the fact that it was not until 1844 that the public became unexpectedly alerted to the existence of the pernicious practice.
As an historian of the Post Office has written,
‘In 1844 the public learned with general surprise that letters sent through the Post Office were liable to be detained, opened and read by government officials, that the hated Secret or Inner Office ... was still active. The horror and disgust at this well-nigh forgotten spy system aroused much concern and general condemnation’.
Questions were raised in Parliament, and expressions of outrage arose from every side. Macaulay, the famous historian, objected that there was no difference ‘between the government breaking the seal of his letter in the Post Office, and the government employing a spy to poke his ear to the keyhole, and listen to the conversations he carried on’.
Another celebrated historian, Thomas Carlyle, denounced the ‘opening of men’s letters, [as] a practice near of kin to picking men’s pockets’.
So widespread was public antagonism to the infamous practice, that successive governments all but abandoned it until the 1880s, when special measures were required to combat Irish Fenian outrages. At the same time, every inspection was required to be authorized by a warrant from the Home Secretary, and there appears little evidence that the practice was at all extensively abused.
That draconian measures are required in time of violent unrest or war would be accepted by reasonable people (my great-aunt worked as a censor in the Russian sector during the last War).
However, what is frightening about the present Government’s proposal is its patent lack of justification, when weighed in the balance against the vital necessity of preserving civil liberties, together with the depressing equanimity with which it will be quietly accepted by the Lib-Lab-Con Establishment.
Almost daily we read of such grave erosions of our liberty, with only rare and token protest from the old parties. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the real intention is to extend interception of the mails to whatever area of private life the Government finds expedient. Nor is it the least likely that a Conservative Government will rescind the measure, judging by the Party's general lack of concern for liberty.
This Government, and its obedient revenue service, have after all lately been heavily engaged in employing taxpayers’ money to bribe citizens of non-EU states to engage in illegal subversive activities against their own countries.
While the lack of public protest is depressing, it is understandable in view of the extent of increasing Government oppression (much of it reflecting servile obedience to EU rulings). So much so, that the average citizen has understandably come to regard resistance as futile.
While I would not claim that UKIP is immune to human frailty, ours is the only party seriously committed to returning power to the people through local and national institutions, which will be accorded authority to deny our arrogant Establishment means of indulging the current remorseless move towards bureaucratic tyranny.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
THE CAMERON-BROWN ANSWER TO BRITAIN’S EXPLODING POPULATION
Speaking at Keele University in Staffordshire last June, shadow chancellor George Osborne joined the chorus of leading Tory voices urging the admission of Turkey to the European Union. Displaying just a tinkling of ignorance of geography and history, Osborne declared Turkey to be part of Europe. There is opposition to this policy from Germany, France, and Austria – precisely those countries which have experience of large-scale Turkish immigration. However, with the EU’s ongoing aim to expand their bureaucratic empire ever deeper into Asia, it is likely that Turkey’s admission will go ahead if Labour and Conservatives continue their cosy alternating Tweedledum and Tweedledee rule over this country.
One of the effects of the Lisbon Treaty has been to give the go-ahead to this project, although I don’t recall the Government’s drawing attention to this aspect when bulldozing the Treaty through with Cameron's subservient support, in violation of solemn pledges and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.
Objection to the planned expansion has only partially to do with the character of Turkey as a nation, and certainly not with the Turks as a people. A major objection, which at present shews no signs of abating, is the disproportionate influence of the Turkish army, which, in common with those of many Asiatic and African countries has shewn itself not over scrupulous in intervening in the country’s domestic affairs, toppling governments, and acting imperiously to frustrate the popular will.
Only a week ago the Turkish prime minister, Recep Erdogan, threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from the country. Ethnic cleansing has indeed played a prominent role throughout Turkish history. During and immediately after the Great War, the Turks slaughtered an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, one of the greatest genocidal crimes in history, for which, so far from apologizing, they effectively deny ever occurred. What would be our attitude to Germany, were Angela Merkel to deny the slaughter of Jews under the Nazis, and threaten to expel those living there today?
However, the overwhelming danger to Britain, if Cameron-Brown gets his way, is that the EU will expand its population by some 75,000,000 Turks. Sooner or later they will obtain free access to this country, whose bursting schools, hospitals, and gaols, destruction of the countryside, etc., attest to the criminal folly of unrestricted immigration. Of course only a minority of Turks would seek to settle here, but a small proportion of 75,000,000 could prove a very large number indeed.
It must be remembered, too, that it is far beyond the capacity of the Turkish government to prevent their porous frontiers from facilitating the passage into Europe of a vast influx of people from other Asiatic and Islamic countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and so forth. Already the proportion of Muslims in the UK population has risen from 2.7% in 2001 to 4% in 2008. Can we really cope with another huge surge in the number of Muslims in this country without it having a major impact upon our culture, values and laws?
George Osborne announced: "We are passionate advocates of enlargement, we should continue with that agenda. One of the great successes of the EU was to bring countries into an alliance; it was a fantastic achievement”. For the singular puerility of this declaration, I refer readers to Chesterton’s sardonic comment cited in “The Joys of Union” in this blog.
One of the effects of the Lisbon Treaty has been to give the go-ahead to this project, although I don’t recall the Government’s drawing attention to this aspect when bulldozing the Treaty through with Cameron's subservient support, in violation of solemn pledges and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the British people.
Objection to the planned expansion has only partially to do with the character of Turkey as a nation, and certainly not with the Turks as a people. A major objection, which at present shews no signs of abating, is the disproportionate influence of the Turkish army, which, in common with those of many Asiatic and African countries has shewn itself not over scrupulous in intervening in the country’s domestic affairs, toppling governments, and acting imperiously to frustrate the popular will.
Only a week ago the Turkish prime minister, Recep Erdogan, threatened to expel 100,000 Armenians from the country. Ethnic cleansing has indeed played a prominent role throughout Turkish history. During and immediately after the Great War, the Turks slaughtered an estimated 1.5 million Armenians, one of the greatest genocidal crimes in history, for which, so far from apologizing, they effectively deny ever occurred. What would be our attitude to Germany, were Angela Merkel to deny the slaughter of Jews under the Nazis, and threaten to expel those living there today?
However, the overwhelming danger to Britain, if Cameron-Brown gets his way, is that the EU will expand its population by some 75,000,000 Turks. Sooner or later they will obtain free access to this country, whose bursting schools, hospitals, and gaols, destruction of the countryside, etc., attest to the criminal folly of unrestricted immigration. Of course only a minority of Turks would seek to settle here, but a small proportion of 75,000,000 could prove a very large number indeed.
It must be remembered, too, that it is far beyond the capacity of the Turkish government to prevent their porous frontiers from facilitating the passage into Europe of a vast influx of people from other Asiatic and Islamic countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, and so forth. Already the proportion of Muslims in the UK population has risen from 2.7% in 2001 to 4% in 2008. Can we really cope with another huge surge in the number of Muslims in this country without it having a major impact upon our culture, values and laws?
George Osborne announced: "We are passionate advocates of enlargement, we should continue with that agenda. One of the great successes of the EU was to bring countries into an alliance; it was a fantastic achievement”. For the singular puerility of this declaration, I refer readers to Chesterton’s sardonic comment cited in “The Joys of Union” in this blog.
Thursday, 18 March 2010
DISTRESSED APPEAL
On Wednesday, March 17th, the Witney Gazette published a letter from the Liberal, Labour and Green prospective party candidates, urging the electorate to register for voting.
UKIP received no invitation to support this appeal, nor (it is to be presumed) did the Conservative Party.
Clearly the letter is designed to boost the failing fortunes of the minority parties, who were so sadly driven back towards to the starting post at the last Election.
Could we please have more encouragement on these lines?
UKIP received no invitation to support this appeal, nor (it is to be presumed) did the Conservative Party.
Clearly the letter is designed to boost the failing fortunes of the minority parties, who were so sadly driven back towards to the starting post at the last Election.
Could we please have more encouragement on these lines?
A GUARANTEED PICK-ME-UP
From time to time the EU and its servants, the Conservative, Labour, and Liberal parties, will unhappily get you down. The best restorative is to click on this hyperlink. It works for me, and should do for you!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdipXd3pdOs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdipXd3pdOs
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
DANGER! EUROPEAN BUREAURATS AT WORK!
It has recently been announced that the European Union is planning to create a super-prosecutor, with have powers to bring cases against British citizens in Britain without the approval of the Crown Prosecution Service or the Government.
The British Government has made the usual cringing show of resisting this move, which it is well aware our people will regard with resentment and dismay. However, this “resistance” is of course the customary flanneling. The proposal will become effective when it has the backing of nine member states, which the EU oligarchy will doubtless encounter little difficulty in achieving. “Our” Government will then declare ruefully that it has no choice in the matter. Of course it had a choice, when it eagerly signed the Lisbon Treaty which makes the proposal possible. The Conservative and Liberal parties have proved just as anxious for Britain to sign the capitulation Treaty, though we may confidently anticipate that they will make the usual unconvincingly cautious show of objection.
The proposal, once put into effect (as it undoubtedly will be, under a Labour or Conservative Government, with the customary sycophantic support of the Liberals), will go far towards establishing that centralized European police state which lies at the heart of EU ambitions.
The grave and irremediable danger implicit in this despotic policy was pointed out more than two centuries ago by one of Britain’s greatest historians. After long years of studying the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon concluded:
'The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find a resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly... “Wherever you are,” said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, “remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror”’ (Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (London, 1782-88), i, p. 10).
We cannot say we have not been warned. Small wonder that our corrupt rulers are so busily engaged in dumbing down history in schools and universities! In the words of Robert Burns, "such a parcel of rogues in a nation".
The British Government has made the usual cringing show of resisting this move, which it is well aware our people will regard with resentment and dismay. However, this “resistance” is of course the customary flanneling. The proposal will become effective when it has the backing of nine member states, which the EU oligarchy will doubtless encounter little difficulty in achieving. “Our” Government will then declare ruefully that it has no choice in the matter. Of course it had a choice, when it eagerly signed the Lisbon Treaty which makes the proposal possible. The Conservative and Liberal parties have proved just as anxious for Britain to sign the capitulation Treaty, though we may confidently anticipate that they will make the usual unconvincingly cautious show of objection.
The proposal, once put into effect (as it undoubtedly will be, under a Labour or Conservative Government, with the customary sycophantic support of the Liberals), will go far towards establishing that centralized European police state which lies at the heart of EU ambitions.
The grave and irremediable danger implicit in this despotic policy was pointed out more than two centuries ago by one of Britain’s greatest historians. After long years of studying the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon concluded:
'The division of Europe into a number of independent states, connected, however, with each other, by the general resemblance of religion, language, and manners, is productive of the most beneficial consequences to the liberty of mankind. A modern tyrant, who should find a resistance either in his own breast, or in his people, would soon experience a gentle restraint from the example of his equals, the dread of present censure, the advice of his allies, and the apprehension of his enemies. The object of his displeasure, escaping from the narrow limits of his dominions, would easily obtain, in a happier climate, a secure refuge, a new fortune adequate to his merit, the freedom of complaint, and perhaps the means of revenge. But the empire of the Romans filled the world, and when that empire fell into the hands of a single person, the world became a safe and dreary prison for his enemies. The slave of Imperial despotism, whether he was condemned to drag his gilded chain in Rome and the Senate, or to wear out a life of exile on the barren rock of Seriphus, or the frozen banks of the Danube, expected his fate in silent despair. To resist was fatal, and it was impossible to fly... “Wherever you are,” said Cicero to the exiled Marcellus, “remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror”’ (Edward Gibbon, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (London, 1782-88), i, p. 10).
We cannot say we have not been warned. Small wonder that our corrupt rulers are so busily engaged in dumbing down history in schools and universities! In the words of Robert Burns, "such a parcel of rogues in a nation".
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
A CHEERY MOMENT
If the weather's getting you down, here's a glimpse of our daughter Alexandra, shopping in Paris. I don't know what the glamorous Baroness Ashton would think.
Hmm - none too successful. Does anyone know how to copy and paste a Word attachment here?
Hmm - none too successful. Does anyone know how to copy and paste a Word attachment here?
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Two important facts
Dear PPc
1. We are in the midst of a severe recession, making for job losses on an ever increasing scale, with ensuing hardship and negative economic prospects due the UK's massive debt obligations. But at the same time British taxpayers are obliged to pay the EU's staggering costs.
The Taxpayer's Alliance and other groups confirm that the total cost to Britain, once the harmful impacts of its many policies, regulations and "directives" have been taken into account, is in the region of £118 Billion per year. That is, £1.968 for every man, woman, and child in the UK - a life-changing amount of money for millions who are struggling to make ends meet.
Up front we paid the EU £16,398 million of taxpayers’ money directly in 2008: £650 for every person, or £45 million a day.
2. It is well known that about 80% of our laws emanate from the EU Commission, not from our own Parliament. The latter merely rubber-stamp them. The Commission is neither elected, nor even electable, nor accountable to us. This has disenfranchised the electorate in the UK, and is a denial of the most basic democratic principles. Why then should we vote for any political party in the coming election?
So, The cost of the EU, and the democratic deficit are massively important issues.
As the PPC for this constituency what will you do, to reverse this unacceptable situation should you be elected to office - irrespective of your party's official policy on these? At present we virtually have a one-party state on EU issues.
Your answer to these two basic points will be crucial, determining who, or which party, I and many other voters will opt for. What is your position please?
** For your guidance - Mr Dominic Grieve, Conservative MP declared in October 2009: (quote)
"There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than that people should have the ability to choose the people who represent them. We must ensure that this right is not jeopardised". **
Your reply, or non reply will be noted with interest. With thanks.
Graham Wood
Dear Graham,
I take your points, which are welcome. So far as I (and UKIP) are concerned, there can be no compromise. We must not rest until Britain is out of the EU, and recovers her freedom. Our massive interest payable on the national debt, which has arisen owing to Gordon Brown's financial illiteracy (cf his selling of our gold reserves, in a way calculated to bring down the value!), could be met by the money we'd save by no longer paying massive annual tribute to the corrupt EU bureaucracy.
I'm glad you put these figures before us, which tell a sorry tale.
Nikolai Tolstoy
1. We are in the midst of a severe recession, making for job losses on an ever increasing scale, with ensuing hardship and negative economic prospects due the UK's massive debt obligations. But at the same time British taxpayers are obliged to pay the EU's staggering costs.
The Taxpayer's Alliance and other groups confirm that the total cost to Britain, once the harmful impacts of its many policies, regulations and "directives" have been taken into account, is in the region of £118 Billion per year. That is, £1.968 for every man, woman, and child in the UK - a life-changing amount of money for millions who are struggling to make ends meet.
Up front we paid the EU £16,398 million of taxpayers’ money directly in 2008: £650 for every person, or £45 million a day.
2. It is well known that about 80% of our laws emanate from the EU Commission, not from our own Parliament. The latter merely rubber-stamp them. The Commission is neither elected, nor even electable, nor accountable to us. This has disenfranchised the electorate in the UK, and is a denial of the most basic democratic principles. Why then should we vote for any political party in the coming election?
So, The cost of the EU, and the democratic deficit are massively important issues.
As the PPC for this constituency what will you do, to reverse this unacceptable situation should you be elected to office - irrespective of your party's official policy on these? At present we virtually have a one-party state on EU issues.
Your answer to these two basic points will be crucial, determining who, or which party, I and many other voters will opt for. What is your position please?
** For your guidance - Mr Dominic Grieve, Conservative MP declared in October 2009: (quote)
"There is no more fundamental right in a democracy than that people should have the ability to choose the people who represent them. We must ensure that this right is not jeopardised". **
Your reply, or non reply will be noted with interest. With thanks.
Graham Wood
Dear Graham,
I take your points, which are welcome. So far as I (and UKIP) are concerned, there can be no compromise. We must not rest until Britain is out of the EU, and recovers her freedom. Our massive interest payable on the national debt, which has arisen owing to Gordon Brown's financial illiteracy (cf his selling of our gold reserves, in a way calculated to bring down the value!), could be met by the money we'd save by no longer paying massive annual tribute to the corrupt EU bureaucracy.
I'm glad you put these figures before us, which tell a sorry tale.
Nikolai Tolstoy
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Friday, 26 February 2010
THE VALUE OF ANY PLEDGE MADE BY CAMERON
The infamous 'Sun Pledge' by David Cameron is, by now, well known and does not require repetition. What appears less well-known is a speech he gave just before the European elections held last year. On 26th May, in a speech entitled 'Fixing Broken Politics', David Cameron said:
“A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”
That was a statement with no 'wriggle-room', to the extent that Mark Mardell, then BBC European Editor, remarked on his blog that “... Whether he meant it or not, it is now on the record: in government the Conservatives will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no 'ifs', no 'buts'.”
David Cameron has made what can only be described as a classic mistake for any negotiator, in that he has laid his cards on the table prior to any negotiations taking place. It hardly strengthens one's hand to inform those with whom you seek to negotiate that you will “not rush into some massive Euro bust-up", nor "frustrate or sabotage the operations of the European Union". It is a well-known fact also, that the agreement of the other 26 member states would be required for Cameron to succeed with his renegotiation. After thirty odd years, fighting to arrive at the present stage, is it likely that the other members would effectively agree to renegotiating all the treaties that have gone before? It is also obvious that, in the unlikely event that, were Cameron to succeed, other states would be queuing up to do likewise. That would result in the EU's reverting to an earlier stage of its evolution, which, it need scarcely be said, the federalists in the EU will never allow to happen.
The illogicality of David Cameron's policy and statement beggars belief. Take his Sovereignty Bill, which he asserts would: “make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament” - yet the Lisbon Treaty includes a Declaration confirming the primacy of EU law over national law! In any dispute arising between the EU and member states, it is the European Court of Justice, whose obligations include the promotion of European political integration, whose rulings prevail. This makes Cameron's Sovereignty Bill if possible more meaningless. David Cameron stands further condemned by his claim that 'ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament'. In that case, how can he claim that membership of the European Union benefits our country?
Another contradictory aspect of David Cameron's statement is his evasive insistence that there are more pressing matters requiring his attention, in particular the economic state of Britain. It seems to have escaped his attention that, since so much of our economic policy is compelled to comply with EU regulations, regardless of whether they are beneficial to Britain's interests,he is severely constrained in what he can and cannot do. If he wishes to exceed those constricted parameters, he has no choice but to ask the EU's 'permission'. A humilating position in which to place our country – a Prime Minister happy to be denied free governance of his own sovereign nation.
The fact is, Cameron always lacked the courage to remain firm on this question. Like William Hague, he may make witty comments at the expense of the corruption and incompetence of the EU leadership in after-dinner speeches, but when push comes to shove the weakness of the man becomes all too apparent.
Further pretexts are sought in the reluctant capitulation of the Czech President, and the Irish vote in favour of the Treaty. It is hard not to believe that Cameron was throughout keeping his fingers crossed that these events would happen, providing him with the pretext for not honouring a pledge so glibly given, and so blithely discarded.
Had Cameron been a man of his word, and firmly reasserted his intention of sticking to it, the likelihood is that President Klaus would have felt in a strong enough position to continue intransigent. As in 1938, the Czechs were abandoned by a Tory leader. Similarly, knowledge that the likely next Prime Minister of Britain would call a referendum almost certain to result in a resounding ‘No’ vote would have given our bullied Irish neighbours room for manoeuvre.
The fact is that the Conservative leadership is profoundly uneasy about the whole concept of democracy. The people of this country have not been allowed a voice over signing away our independence and freedom since 1975, and then only in respect of the apparently innocuous issue of remaining in the Common Market. No mention was made of the plan to construct an unelected superstate, whose aim is extinction of the sovereignty of this country. Why is Cameron so hostile to the British people having a say in this most essential matter of their governance? His contempt for the electorate is patent.
In the eyes of Cameron, Clarke, Hague, Heseltine, and the rest of the Tory leadership, the people of this country are not to be trusted to decide their own destiny, nor even permitted formally to express a view on the matter. “We know better, proles, so shut up and accept what we tell you!”
Cameron seeks to cloud his betrayal by asserting, with a weak man’s parade of boldness, that he will henceforward stand firm over issues where the EU acts contrary to British interests, and seek the return of powers surrendered by our Socialist Government. He is well aware that both they and their Conservative predecessors have eagerly signed away the power to do anything of the sort. Besides, why should we believe him, now that we know just what his word is worth?
It was Cameron who brought the ludicrously overrated Kenneth Clarke into his shadow cabinet, in full knowledge that he would work flat out for a total surrender of British interests. Indeed, Clarke is at present engaged in secret negotiations with the EU, whose express purpose (we are not allowed to learn more) is to reassure the Brussels oligarchy that a Conservative Government will collaborate to the full.
A great deal of nonsense is talked in pro-Tory circles about the impossibility of disavowing the Treaty, which has now become absorbed into the superstate’s constitution. The fact is that ours is a sovereign state, whose governments may enter into whatever treaties they choose. At the same time, no government may bind its successor. In 1896 a great Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, pointed out to chancelleries in Europe that no British government could make an agreement with a foreign power so binding that it might not be disowned at any time by a sovereign parliament. Clearly, times have changed for the Tories. Cameron has renounced, without discussion or explanation, Britain’s age-old right to abrogate a treaty.
Finally, every voter must consider the wisdom of voting for a candidate prepared to issue a solemn pledge, which in the event he discards with the ease of a Zsa Zsa Gabor moving on to a new husband. To mask his easy abandonment of one pledge, he issues a flurry of new ones. When the independence of his country means so little to him, what value can be placed on his assurances regarding mere local matters? Fortunately, the electorate of Witney is not foolish, and will see the danger of voting for a man whose word is demonstrably worthless. The world of PR is a world away from that of statesmanship.
STOP PRESS!
On 12 April Cameron provided this response to a voter's enquiry:
'I know that people feel rather cheated that they did not have a referendum [on the Lisbon Treaty], and I am determined that we never let that happen again'. (Daily Telegraph, 13 April)
You can always trust truthful Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/05/cameron_tougher_on_lisbon.html
“A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”
That was a statement with no 'wriggle-room', to the extent that Mark Mardell, then BBC European Editor, remarked on his blog that “... Whether he meant it or not, it is now on the record: in government the Conservatives will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no 'ifs', no 'buts'.”
David Cameron has made what can only be described as a classic mistake for any negotiator, in that he has laid his cards on the table prior to any negotiations taking place. It hardly strengthens one's hand to inform those with whom you seek to negotiate that you will “not rush into some massive Euro bust-up", nor "frustrate or sabotage the operations of the European Union". It is a well-known fact also, that the agreement of the other 26 member states would be required for Cameron to succeed with his renegotiation. After thirty odd years, fighting to arrive at the present stage, is it likely that the other members would effectively agree to renegotiating all the treaties that have gone before? It is also obvious that, in the unlikely event that, were Cameron to succeed, other states would be queuing up to do likewise. That would result in the EU's reverting to an earlier stage of its evolution, which, it need scarcely be said, the federalists in the EU will never allow to happen.
The illogicality of David Cameron's policy and statement beggars belief. Take his Sovereignty Bill, which he asserts would: “make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament” - yet the Lisbon Treaty includes a Declaration confirming the primacy of EU law over national law! In any dispute arising between the EU and member states, it is the European Court of Justice, whose obligations include the promotion of European political integration, whose rulings prevail. This makes Cameron's Sovereignty Bill if possible more meaningless. David Cameron stands further condemned by his claim that 'ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament'. In that case, how can he claim that membership of the European Union benefits our country?
Another contradictory aspect of David Cameron's statement is his evasive insistence that there are more pressing matters requiring his attention, in particular the economic state of Britain. It seems to have escaped his attention that, since so much of our economic policy is compelled to comply with EU regulations, regardless of whether they are beneficial to Britain's interests,he is severely constrained in what he can and cannot do. If he wishes to exceed those constricted parameters, he has no choice but to ask the EU's 'permission'. A humilating position in which to place our country – a Prime Minister happy to be denied free governance of his own sovereign nation.
The fact is, Cameron always lacked the courage to remain firm on this question. Like William Hague, he may make witty comments at the expense of the corruption and incompetence of the EU leadership in after-dinner speeches, but when push comes to shove the weakness of the man becomes all too apparent.
Further pretexts are sought in the reluctant capitulation of the Czech President, and the Irish vote in favour of the Treaty. It is hard not to believe that Cameron was throughout keeping his fingers crossed that these events would happen, providing him with the pretext for not honouring a pledge so glibly given, and so blithely discarded.
Had Cameron been a man of his word, and firmly reasserted his intention of sticking to it, the likelihood is that President Klaus would have felt in a strong enough position to continue intransigent. As in 1938, the Czechs were abandoned by a Tory leader. Similarly, knowledge that the likely next Prime Minister of Britain would call a referendum almost certain to result in a resounding ‘No’ vote would have given our bullied Irish neighbours room for manoeuvre.
The fact is that the Conservative leadership is profoundly uneasy about the whole concept of democracy. The people of this country have not been allowed a voice over signing away our independence and freedom since 1975, and then only in respect of the apparently innocuous issue of remaining in the Common Market. No mention was made of the plan to construct an unelected superstate, whose aim is extinction of the sovereignty of this country. Why is Cameron so hostile to the British people having a say in this most essential matter of their governance? His contempt for the electorate is patent.
In the eyes of Cameron, Clarke, Hague, Heseltine, and the rest of the Tory leadership, the people of this country are not to be trusted to decide their own destiny, nor even permitted formally to express a view on the matter. “We know better, proles, so shut up and accept what we tell you!”
Cameron seeks to cloud his betrayal by asserting, with a weak man’s parade of boldness, that he will henceforward stand firm over issues where the EU acts contrary to British interests, and seek the return of powers surrendered by our Socialist Government. He is well aware that both they and their Conservative predecessors have eagerly signed away the power to do anything of the sort. Besides, why should we believe him, now that we know just what his word is worth?
It was Cameron who brought the ludicrously overrated Kenneth Clarke into his shadow cabinet, in full knowledge that he would work flat out for a total surrender of British interests. Indeed, Clarke is at present engaged in secret negotiations with the EU, whose express purpose (we are not allowed to learn more) is to reassure the Brussels oligarchy that a Conservative Government will collaborate to the full.
A great deal of nonsense is talked in pro-Tory circles about the impossibility of disavowing the Treaty, which has now become absorbed into the superstate’s constitution. The fact is that ours is a sovereign state, whose governments may enter into whatever treaties they choose. At the same time, no government may bind its successor. In 1896 a great Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, pointed out to chancelleries in Europe that no British government could make an agreement with a foreign power so binding that it might not be disowned at any time by a sovereign parliament. Clearly, times have changed for the Tories. Cameron has renounced, without discussion or explanation, Britain’s age-old right to abrogate a treaty.
Finally, every voter must consider the wisdom of voting for a candidate prepared to issue a solemn pledge, which in the event he discards with the ease of a Zsa Zsa Gabor moving on to a new husband. To mask his easy abandonment of one pledge, he issues a flurry of new ones. When the independence of his country means so little to him, what value can be placed on his assurances regarding mere local matters? Fortunately, the electorate of Witney is not foolish, and will see the danger of voting for a man whose word is demonstrably worthless. The world of PR is a world away from that of statesmanship.
STOP PRESS!
On 12 April Cameron provided this response to a voter's enquiry:
'I know that people feel rather cheated that they did not have a referendum [on the Lisbon Treaty], and I am determined that we never let that happen again'. (Daily Telegraph, 13 April)
You can always trust truthful Dave.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2009/05/cameron_tougher_on_lisbon.html
Thursday, 25 February 2010
THE JOYS OF UNION
‘Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny’. (draft EU Constitution)
Given the difficulty of finding any logical argument supportive of the irreclaimably corrupt and authoritarian European Union, it is unsurprising how often one encounters variants of this bland assertion that unity is intrinsically beneficial. Although the "argument" is scarcely worthy of consideration, it may be worth drawing its proponents' attention to Chesterton's observation on the subject.
‘We might take, for example, the case of the strange class of notions which underlie the word “union”, and all the eulogies heaped upon it. Of course, union is no more a good thing in itself than separation is a good thing in itself. To have a party in favour of union and a party in favour of separation, is as absurd as to have a party in favour of going upstairs and a party in favour of going downstairs. The question is not whether we go up or downstairs, but where we are going to, and what we are going for? Union is strength; union is also weakness. It is a good thing to harness two horses to a cart; but it is not a good thing to try and turn two hansom cabs into one four-wheeler. Turning ten nations into one empire may happen to be as feasible as turning ten shillings into one half-sovereign. Also it may happen to be as preposterous as turning ten terriers into one mastiff. The question in all cases is not a question of union or absence of union, but of identity or absence of identity’. (Gilbert K. Chesterton, Heretics (London, 1905), p. 255)
Given the difficulty of finding any logical argument supportive of the irreclaimably corrupt and authoritarian European Union, it is unsurprising how often one encounters variants of this bland assertion that unity is intrinsically beneficial. Although the "argument" is scarcely worthy of consideration, it may be worth drawing its proponents' attention to Chesterton's observation on the subject.
‘We might take, for example, the case of the strange class of notions which underlie the word “union”, and all the eulogies heaped upon it. Of course, union is no more a good thing in itself than separation is a good thing in itself. To have a party in favour of union and a party in favour of separation, is as absurd as to have a party in favour of going upstairs and a party in favour of going downstairs. The question is not whether we go up or downstairs, but where we are going to, and what we are going for? Union is strength; union is also weakness. It is a good thing to harness two horses to a cart; but it is not a good thing to try and turn two hansom cabs into one four-wheeler. Turning ten nations into one empire may happen to be as feasible as turning ten shillings into one half-sovereign. Also it may happen to be as preposterous as turning ten terriers into one mastiff. The question in all cases is not a question of union or absence of union, but of identity or absence of identity’. (Gilbert K. Chesterton, Heretics (London, 1905), p. 255)
Tuesday, 23 February 2010
FLASHMAN'S VIEWPOINT
In 1945, George MacDonald Fraser, author of the immortal "Flashman" series, was fighting as a young subaltern with the valiant Border Regiment against the Japanese in Burma. He concluded his moving war memoir with these words:
‘... they were Labour to to a man, but not necessarily socialist as the term is understood now. Their socialism was of a simple kind: they had known the ’thirties, and they didn’t want it again: the dole queue, the street corner, the true poverty of that time. They wanted jobs, and security, and a better future for their childen than they had had – and they got that, and were thankful for it. It was what they had fought for, over and beyond the pressing need of ensuring that Britain did not become a Nazi slave state.
‘Still, the Britain they see in their old age is hardly “the land fit for heroes” that they envisaged – if that land existed in their imaginations, it was probably a place where the pre-war values co-existed with decent wages and housing. It was a reasonable, perfectly possible dream, and for a time it existed, more or less. And then it changed, in the name of progress and improvement and enlightenment, which meant the destruction of much they had fought for and held dear, and the betrayal of familiar things that they had loved. Some of them, to superficial minds, will seem terribly trivial, even ludicrously so – things like county names, and shillings and pence, and the King James Version, and yards and feet and inches – yet they matter to a nation.
‘They did not fight for a Britain which would be dishonestly railroaded into Europe against the people’s will; they did not fight for a Britain where successive governments, by their weakness and folly, would encourage crime and violence on an unprecedented scale; they did not fight for a Britain where thugs and psychopaths could murder and maim and torture and never have a finger laid on them for it; they did not fight for a Britain whose leaders would be too cowardly to declare war on terrorism; they did not fight for a Britain whose Parliament would, time and again, betray the trust by legislating against the wishes of the country; they did not fight for a Britain where children could be snatched from their homes and parents by night on nothing more than the good old Inquisition principle of secret information; they did not fight for a Britain whose Churches and schools would be undermined by fashionable reformers; they did not fight for a Britain where free choice could be anathematised as “discrimination”; they did not fight for a Britain where to hold by truths and values which have been thought good and worthy for a thousand years would be to run the risk of being called “fascist” – that, really, is the greatest and most pitiful irony of all.
‘No, it is not what they fought for – but being realists they accept what they cannot alter, and reserve their protests for the noise pollution of modern music in their pubs’.
(George MacDonald Fraser, "Quartered Safe out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma" (London, 1993), pp. 177-78).
‘... they were Labour to to a man, but not necessarily socialist as the term is understood now. Their socialism was of a simple kind: they had known the ’thirties, and they didn’t want it again: the dole queue, the street corner, the true poverty of that time. They wanted jobs, and security, and a better future for their childen than they had had – and they got that, and were thankful for it. It was what they had fought for, over and beyond the pressing need of ensuring that Britain did not become a Nazi slave state.
‘Still, the Britain they see in their old age is hardly “the land fit for heroes” that they envisaged – if that land existed in their imaginations, it was probably a place where the pre-war values co-existed with decent wages and housing. It was a reasonable, perfectly possible dream, and for a time it existed, more or less. And then it changed, in the name of progress and improvement and enlightenment, which meant the destruction of much they had fought for and held dear, and the betrayal of familiar things that they had loved. Some of them, to superficial minds, will seem terribly trivial, even ludicrously so – things like county names, and shillings and pence, and the King James Version, and yards and feet and inches – yet they matter to a nation.
‘They did not fight for a Britain which would be dishonestly railroaded into Europe against the people’s will; they did not fight for a Britain where successive governments, by their weakness and folly, would encourage crime and violence on an unprecedented scale; they did not fight for a Britain where thugs and psychopaths could murder and maim and torture and never have a finger laid on them for it; they did not fight for a Britain whose leaders would be too cowardly to declare war on terrorism; they did not fight for a Britain whose Parliament would, time and again, betray the trust by legislating against the wishes of the country; they did not fight for a Britain where children could be snatched from their homes and parents by night on nothing more than the good old Inquisition principle of secret information; they did not fight for a Britain whose Churches and schools would be undermined by fashionable reformers; they did not fight for a Britain where free choice could be anathematised as “discrimination”; they did not fight for a Britain where to hold by truths and values which have been thought good and worthy for a thousand years would be to run the risk of being called “fascist” – that, really, is the greatest and most pitiful irony of all.
‘No, it is not what they fought for – but being realists they accept what they cannot alter, and reserve their protests for the noise pollution of modern music in their pubs’.
(George MacDonald Fraser, "Quartered Safe out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma" (London, 1993), pp. 177-78).
UKIP
The United Kingdom Independence Party is the only major party working for the restoration of British independence, unlike Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals. All three of those parties promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, which in everything but name provides a new constitution for Britain, which will absorb our country into the planned European superstate. Unsurprisingly, all three broke their solemn promises.
In last year's elections for the European Parliament, UKIP came second, both nationally and locally in Witney. It is now no longer possible to dismiss UKIP as a minority party. With an overwhelming majority of the British people consistently declaring itself opposed to membership of the corrupt EU, all that is needed to restore our national freedom is to translate that wish into votes for UKIP at the General Election.
In last year's elections for the European Parliament, UKIP came second, both nationally and locally in Witney. It is now no longer possible to dismiss UKIP as a minority party. With an overwhelming majority of the British people consistently declaring itself opposed to membership of the corrupt EU, all that is needed to restore our national freedom is to translate that wish into votes for UKIP at the General Election.
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
In November I attended a conference in Slovenia, convened to examine new mass graves of helpless victims of Tito's British-assisted terror in 1945. Here is the interview I gave on Slovenian television (in English):
http://tvslo.si/predvajaj/vecerni-gost/ava2.51084587/
http://tvslo.si/predvajaj/vecerni-gost/ava2.51084587/
WAR CRIMES
I have devoted much work to investigating and exposing war crimes. In 1989 Lord Aldington sued me for libel, after I accused him of being a war criminal. It was this case, at which it was subsequently discovered that Aldington had perjured himself throughout, which first opened my eyes to the extent to which corruption has taken over much of English public life. Judge Michael Davies, whose open bias throughout the trial was subjected to considerable adverse press coverage, lived within ten miles of Aldington's home! Not only this, but they were fellow-members of the small and exclusive Rye Golf Club. Needless to say, this was kept secret during the trial.
Still more sinister was the activity of leading members of the Conservative Government, who secretly arranged the removal of files essential to the defence case from the Public Record Office. This scandalous conspiracy was exposed by the Sunday Times in a major feature article by Tim Rayment: "The Massacre and the Ministers" (7 April 1996).
I was enabled to survive through the support of public opinion in this country and abroad, but I have often reflected on the fate of less high-profile figures who cross the Establishment.
Still more sinister was the activity of leading members of the Conservative Government, who secretly arranged the removal of files essential to the defence case from the Public Record Office. This scandalous conspiracy was exposed by the Sunday Times in a major feature article by Tim Rayment: "The Massacre and the Ministers" (7 April 1996).
I was enabled to survive through the support of public opinion in this country and abroad, but I have often reflected on the fate of less high-profile figures who cross the Establishment.
YOUR UKIP CANDIDATE
An author and historian, I am proud to be UKIP parliamentary candidate for Witney. Having joined the Party at the time of its foundation, I have contested one by-election (Barnsley East), and two General Elections (Wantage). I have lived at Southmoor, on the border of Witney constituency, for thirty years.
I am an author, and have written a number of books. History has been my lifelong love, and I have written on Russian and Soviet history, the Arthurian legend, and Celtic studies. I have also written two novels, the first for children of all ages ("The Founding of Evil Hold School") and an historical novel about Merlin ("The Coming of the King").
My stepfather was the well-known novelist Patrick O'Brian, whose "Master and Commander" was made into a brilliant film starring Russell Crowe. I have published the first of a two-volume biography of Patrick.
My wife Georgina has been a wonderful support to me, chiefly of course in bringing up our family, and also by wholeheartedly supporting my writing and political activities. We have four grown-up children, Alexandra, Anastasia, Dmitri and Xenia.
I hold British and Russian citizenship, and with our family spend time each year at my mother's and stepfather's house in France, which has been our home since 1955. So I fancy I am as European as David Cameron, or even Kenneth Clarke.
I am an author, and have written a number of books. History has been my lifelong love, and I have written on Russian and Soviet history, the Arthurian legend, and Celtic studies. I have also written two novels, the first for children of all ages ("The Founding of Evil Hold School") and an historical novel about Merlin ("The Coming of the King").
My stepfather was the well-known novelist Patrick O'Brian, whose "Master and Commander" was made into a brilliant film starring Russell Crowe. I have published the first of a two-volume biography of Patrick.
My wife Georgina has been a wonderful support to me, chiefly of course in bringing up our family, and also by wholeheartedly supporting my writing and political activities. We have four grown-up children, Alexandra, Anastasia, Dmitri and Xenia.
I hold British and Russian citizenship, and with our family spend time each year at my mother's and stepfather's house in France, which has been our home since 1955. So I fancy I am as European as David Cameron, or even Kenneth Clarke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
