Archive

Tag Archives: European Parliament

When it comes to the EU, one should trust Mr Cameron as they would adders fang’d…

Does any serious person think that EU reform will see them include ceding powers or the acceptance of a decrease in funding?

In spite of overwhelming historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary, Mr Cameron seems to think so, as do Messrs Miliband and Clegg. Having returned from irresolute discussions in Brussels, Mr Cameron is walking tall after not capitulating to the EU Commission’s unreasonable demands for a substantial increase to their budget. Bravo Mr Cameron – except, that is, for your track record on Europe.

His policy of ‘Practical Euroscepticism’ has time and again proven to be neither practical nor Eurosceptic. His modus operandi observes the following pattern:

  • Express exasperation and concern about EU policy
  • Adopt a ‘no nonsense approach’ to look strong
  • Capitulate and beg for mercy from his EU master

It follows, therefore, that having appeared strong on Europe at these recent talks, that at the next round of negotiations he will not hesitate to genuflect to the Commission, then claim to the British public that a satisfactory deal has been reached on their behalf. But who is he trying to fool?

At no point has Mr Cameron called for cuts to the EU budget, and his ‘real terms freeze’ will still see the UK debited for even more than the £53 million a day it currently pays. Worse still, Mr Cameron and friends are still willing to sign the UK up to a political ideology that has not had its accounts signed off by auditors for some fifteen years. The EU is a one-armed bandit against which the UK will only lose.

The only person aside from Mr Cameron who feels that the Conservatives will win the next election is Conservative Home’s Tim Montgomerie. Both characters have devised elaborate strategies to see the Tories regain power, peppered with newspeak and initiatives to ‘re-connect’ with voters – but they all choose to miss the essential point: that if Mr Cameron were to offer an EU referendum, with a positive vision of how the UK would manage (quite easily) without the EU, he would secure a second term and a majority.

This will not be done, however, because Mr Cameron is no more a Eurosceptic than the recently discredited Labour criminal Denis MacShane. In terms of difference and monetary returns, expect no change.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

More from The Panopticon:

Advertisements

As if proof were needed that the British Government is incapable of looking after its people, the case of  Abu Qatada serves to underline this bitter truth.

Next year a limitation on the number of immigrants allowed from Eastern Europe into the UK will no longer be viable, just in time for immigrants from the new EU nations of Romania and Bulgaria to travel to arrive and claim the benefits and jobs that any rational country would issue to its own populace as a priority. This is on top of the immigrants from across the EU and the world who recognise that the UK is a soft touch, with its skewed cultural values and its prolongation of a damaging permissive society. Among these people will be a serious criminals including the possibility of terrorists who could quite easily exploit the weaknesses of the UK’s borders to their own nefarious ends.

Is anything done about this? Of course not. EU law binds the UK to an open borders policy which means that the most one can hope for is containment of the problem, certainly not resolving it. As was alluded to in the previous post, some 320,000 immigrants are likely to be granted an amnesty to stay in the UK because the Border Agency have (no thanks to political parties of all persuasions) not been provided with the adequate resources to stop this from spiralling out of control. And to emphasise, the Government is not serious about patrolling the UK’s borders because their loyalty is to the EU and its ideology before their own territories.

Not only is the problem coming from without, the problem is also from within. When an alleged Al-Qaeda affiliate like Abu Qatada, the ‘the spiritual leader” of this rat-bag organisation in Europe, who has been connected to several terrorist plots and attacks is kept in the UK on account of his human rights, then it is clear something is fundamentally wrong with the system of justice, which is meant to protect the people of the UK. And, of course, it indicates how seriously defective the government is for having the UK signed up to a charter that allows the ECHR to supersede the decisions made my British courts.

The real threats to the UK do not come from without, they come from the government and their inability and unwillingness to assert the rights of its people and its principles from within. So the government sends troops out to die in the  futile and regressive conflict in Afghanistan under the auspices of keeping the streets of Britain safe, but fails at every turn to address the real threats to jobs, welfare, social cohesion and benefits posed by uncontrolled immigration. Furthermore, it fails to  act decisively against known criminal threats like Abu Qatada because it prizes the sovereignty of the EU as a political project before the rights, liberties, freedoms and democracies of its people every time.

Do not think for a second that the government has yet to decide on its relationship with the EU, that decision has long since been made and so long as it lines the pockets and furthers the careers of the political class, so the people of the UK – soldiers and citizens – will pay for it.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

More from The Panopticon:

This article considers how a policy of ‘exceptionalism’ determines the rules in the UK whilst in the EU all discrimination is eradicated. As if any more evidence were needed to discredit big government…

Daily, one is informed of the plights of the poorest in society or else the benefits of the wealthy in the UK, but it seems these extremes determine the  situations for the great many caught in-between these absolutes. If their taxes are not bailing out those who bankrupted the economy, then they are spent on the welfare budget. Policy is geared towards attacking/furnishing the rich or the poor rather than suiting the needs of the great many who lie between the two.

The policy of ‘exceptionalism’, as it might be termed, can be seen in schools, where professional and caring teachers are unable to have any physical contact with pupils to either reprimand or comfort them, for fear that in very exceptional cases those hell bent on abuse are somehow going to prosper. Indeed, in schools, children who do not even speak English are placed into the classroom, which means that the teacher has to develop an entirely new curriculum for such students to the detriment of the others in that class.

In other walks of life, it is seen in appeasing and accommodating minority views into policy so that no one is left ‘offended’; it is seen in the absurd efforts to police the world to protect the UK from terrorism, a threat which politicians are incapable of neutralising yet it is held over the populace in order to substitute the clear and present danger: that the main parties are hopelessly useless and out of their depth.

Discrimination, using its common definition, is readily applied by emotive governments and the ill-educated (not that a distinction between these two groups is being implied). This is the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Yet this meaning lacks the finesse of its alternative definitions, which suggest discrimination is the power of making fine distinctions or  judgement, serving to differentiate. In much the same way as recent governments have smeared those speaking against open door immigration, so too they have toxified the word ‘discriminate’ to ensure that the former more loaded meaning takes precedence over the latter.

The inability to exhibit this latter discrimination, between good or bad behaviour, between vested or national interests, between party politics and serving the public, between ideology and realism is well evidenced by this government and many of those preceding it.

This is not helped by the fact that current members of parliamentary parties, particularly those on the front benches, are semi-illiterate and pitifully inexperienced. But more particularly, it is that the gap between government and the people that is ever widening, to the extent that from a distance, politicians only see the exceptions  in the mass culture they have created. So whether it is the extremist, the criminal, the rich, the poor, or the minority, they are more easy to distinguish among the amorphous, featureless society perpetuated by their poor governance.

Thus, exceptions determine the rules in the UK precisely because government after government is not just is afeared of looking bad for upsetting some people, but because they lack intuition or intelligence of any kind.

The EU, however, is more sinister in its approach. It does not ‘fail’ to show discrimination, it knowingly refuses to countenance the idea altogether. It treats all nation states, their people, industries, cultures, politics and economics as one and the same. They are doing their utmost to eradicate difference. Who is determining this course? The exceptions, naturally! It is an arrangement created, fostered and executed of, for and by politicians and bureaucrats. It puts one in mind of Dwight MacDonald’s theory of ‘mass culture’:

Mass Culture is a dynamic, revolutionary force, breaking down the old barriers of class, tradition, taste, and dissolving all cultural distinctions. It mixes and scrambles everything together, producing what might be called homogenized culture […]. It thus destroys all values, since value judgments imply discrimination. Mass Culture is very, very democratic: it absolutely refuses to discriminate against, or between, anything or anybody. All is grist to its mill, and all comes out finely ground indeed. [1]

That politicians at home cannot exercise discriminate judgement anymore than those in the EU will not exercise such judgement perfectly illustrates the vacuum left by big government. Until the power of government  is ceded to local level in the UK, or else until the EU disintegrates, leaving nations to determine their priorities, the virtues of prosperity and freedom are merely tales of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

Pat Condell once again illustrates the miry corruption of the EU by using the example of Ireland’s vote(s) on the Lisbon Treaty as his locus. A salient reminder of why the EU should be resisted rather than embraced, as the UK political class continue to have us do.

In which we see how Dr Evil can tell politicians a thing or two about how their economic strategies are perceived. 

In a joke repeated throughout the film spy-spoof Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, the villainous Blofeld-like Dr Evil makes efforts to extort from the world’s superpowers the sum of one-million dollars. This figure is laughed at, since Dr Evil is still thinking in terms of the economics of the 1960s. Realising his error, he re-states his threat, this time demanding $100 billion, a sum which causes outrage among the United Nations [1].

Today, this latter sum is no less laughable than the former. Consider the EU, where in 2012, its budget was 129.1bn euros, a 1.9% increase on 2011, with the grubby money-ink-stained fat hands of neo-Maoist President of the EU Commission, Jose Manuel ‘Unelected-doesn’t-need-lessons-in-democracy’ Barosso urging a 6.8% tax rise for the commission’s 2013 budget from nations who are being urged to cut their own national spending [2]. Examine the negligible effect of quantitive easing (QE) in the UK, where at the time of writing, £325 billion has been ‘injected’ into the economy in an effort to kick-start growth. Yet just last week, the UK’s recession deepened with a 0.7% fall in GDP between April and June, after £50 billion worth of QE was paid into the economy in February [3].

The reasons for such economic malfunction are multiple and subject to a variety of individual causes, but one thing is for sure, the money is being spent and invested by those whose mismanagement was responsible for the economic crisis in the first instance. Big Government knows only how to spend the taxpayer’s money, not truly invest it. How many more billions will such governments try to impress the general public with, forgetting that this is the taxpayer’s money who would sooner see money well spent rather than just spent?

Whatever the currency, the theory that spending billions stimulates growth is a ruinous fallacy. The argument is lost both economically and politically. When politicians talk of billions of pounds of investment being undertaken, or billions of Euros being spent on an initiative, or billions of dollars being injected into the economy, the electorate are rightly cynical and unimpressed with this rhetoric.  The word ‘billion’ has lost its significance and its ability to impress, precisely because such sums have proven themselves worthless in salvaging the economy and show little return for the taxpayer.

In today’s world there is no need for Dr Evil and his trivial demands for billions. Discredited policy, politicians and economies are villains more reckless and immediate in destroying what remains of the way we live now.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

Ed Miliband’s speech to the Durham Miner’s Gala was the usual mix of obsequiousness and hypocrisy that has characterised Mr Miliband’s leadership and his party at large.

‘Community. Looking out for each other. Never walking by on the other side. These are the value of the people of Durham. These are the values of the people of the North East. These are also the values of the British people.’

With these words, Mr Miliband addressed the Durham Miner’s Gala with sentimentalism and insincerity that only tribal Labour voters would be unwilling to spot. His message about community was delivered sans irony – irony because the party he leads, whilst in office, was almost entirely responsible for the breakdown of social cohesion, autonomy, personal responsibility and community spirit with its fattening mixture of surveillance, state benefits and its augmentation of permissive society and dependency culture.

His attack on the current government included an allusion to the ‘lost a generation of young people’ who face long-term unemployment. This was picked up by a plucky young fellow who reminded Mr Miliband that under Labour’s watch, youth unemployment increased by 40%. This lad also tried to pin Mr Miliband down on his union affiliations, quizzing the Labour leader: ‘Do you think your pandering to your union paymasters will be your downfall in the Labour party?’ [1] It was a question that caused the gurning smile of Mr Miliband to crush itself into steely displeasure.

Labour’s feeble leader listed in his speech some of those who had spoken before him at past galas, including Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle, remarking ‘I am proud to follow in their footsteps.’ Indeed, following is something Mr Miliband does well; like an ambulance chasing lawyer, he follows band wagons, in pursuance of his demagogic agenda.

His policies, such as they are, remain no less credible than his infantile leadership. Like a latter day Robin Hood his desire to ‘tax the bankers’ bonuses and get young people working again’ is exactly the sort of simplistic and unworkable idea that shows Mr Miliband is incapable of thoughts rational or intellectual. Indeed, like the stories recounting the legend of Robin Hood, his speech had nothing new to add, instead repeating embarrassingly uninspired lines such as ‘A few years ago the Tories tried to say “we’re all in it together”. But now we know they never meant it. Because we have seen what they do when they get back in power’, or otherwise ‘One rule for those at the top and another rule for everybody else. [The Tories] cut taxes for millionaires and they raise taxes on pensioners. It’s business as usual in the banks, and small businesses go under.’ Thus he sidestepped the fact that Labour were responsible for the ‘hands off’ approach towards the banks and the fact that they actively solicited the banks to win favour if not financial capital.

He accused the Conservatives of ‘Not building for the future but ripping up the foundations. Not healing our country, but harming it. Not uniting our country, but dividing it.’ This from the Labour party is quite an accusation.

In all Mr Miliband’s flat and unprofitable speech continues to evidence the assertion that he is capable of only a disingenuous rhetorical register, that he is a nakedly demagogic politician espousing dangerous ideological whimsy. Particularly toe-curling are his unctuous efforts to win those voters he is loathed to court, proving beyond doubt what a charlatan and a fraud both he and his party are.

Whilst the electorate continues to rightfully show disenchantment with the coalition, it is regrettable that such short term memory may well give Labour the chance they need to further dismember the UK. Mr Miliband may think he serves as a leader, but so far as the thinking public are concerned, he only serves to remind one that British politics is now at the very bottom of the trough. If the public are reminded of this enough times, however, the fatuous Mr Miliband may yet serve a worthwhile cause: hemorrhaging votes to UKIP.

© thepanopticonblog, 2012

Notes

1. ’14 Year Old Boy Confronts Ed Miliband.’ YouTube. 15 July 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYjrRAbsfJ4>

You may also like to read: