WE DO NOT NEED A EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE!

“The  Liberal Democrats believe that Britain should have a referendum, not on the narrow

question of adopting this new treaty, but on the big question that faces Britain, whether we remain part of the EU or not.

The question of Britain’s place in the European Union has poisoned our national politics for decades. As a nation, we need to lance the boil and decide once and for all if we want to be part of the European Union or not.”

Nick Clegg

THE MOST OVERWHELMING issue for this country in the coming year has to be the European Union and whether we stay in it.

                The eurozone crises has finally brought into focus the inevitability of our joining a European federation of political and monetary union, if, that is, we were to continue as a member.

                Back in the 1980s ‘federalism’ was mocked by the Europhiles every time it passed the lips of a swivel-eyed eurosceptic - it should, they implied, be considered lunacy to even consider such a prospect. That was the view of Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke; both of whom used their dominant and loquacious personalities to pour scorn and disbelief on the very notion of what would be in effect  - a United States of Europe.

                That chippy old devil Ted Heath would never have castigated the idea of political and monetary union. He would have agreed with the sceptics in his own party, and felt no need to make allowances  for or apologise for the sensitivities of the eurosceptic British public, as his Europhile colleagues  were forever doing.

                The Tory Europhiles knew full well what lay at the end of their particular yellow brick road; and it was no emerald city, but a Europe of Gormhangastian proportions. Where national identity, culture and sovereignty would become part of the European collective.

                The euro crises has forced the hand of those Europhiles who hoped to keep up the pretence of retaining national sovereignty. For instead of (as it should have done) deterring such a project; the crises now engulfing Europe, has caused the European elites to wheedle and cajole national governments into fast tracking political and monetary union.

                Softly, softly, catch the monkey, is no longer a worthwhile strategy for British Europhiles to  pursue. Mr Barroso, the President of the European Commission, responded to the failure of the euro by demanding complete integration - immediately.

EVENTS ARE MOVING FAST, and the British people are in danger of being bypassed by their politicians  yet again. But this time it is not some treaty which our masters refuse us a say on; but our national identity and sovereignty. For the next move in Europe will be for harmonization and a betrayal of the many millions who have died defending and believing in their nation.

                David Cameron has earned plaudits for his refusal to kow-tow to other European leaders; but this is far from adopting a cast iron defence of the nation state and all it has come to mean; like making and passing laws that cannot be challenged by any outside agency; like being able to determine our own rules and regulations without the impudence of unelected European commissioners  interfering to tell us what we can and cannot do; like never allowing elected leaders to be deposed by foreign politicians and replacing them with unelected technocrats.

                Next year will indeed be the year when David Cameron, in particular, will have to come to a decision about a referendum on Europe. He has so far abjured from giving the British people their say on the one issue so vital to their futures. His refusal, after pre-election promises to do so, leaves me distrustful of  this man’s integrity.

                Time is running out for a deeply eurosceptic nation lead by Europhiles. If our politicians are seen to overwhelm the sentiments of the people they represent on this issue, then the rule of law will no longer matter as far as the people’s faith in their elected leaders are concerned.

                If the lawmakers can feel themselves all powerful, then the people are free to put a break on such a display of arrogance by taking the law into their own hands and rescuing it from being held hostage by Europe. If the people are to be ignored by the politicians on this most vital issue confronting them, then the elected politicians will lose all legitimacy to govern, and are therefore without legitimacy.

               

IN 2012 EUROPE WILL dominate and David Cameron will have to decide whether he comes out of the Europhile closet and finally succumbs to the de-classification of his country from being a nation, to becoming a mere canton; as those other nations will inevitably become if they remain loyal to the true understanding of a United States of Europe.

                Or perhaps he will surprise us all and disavow such a future and gamble upon his country’s survival as a nation.

                This country can and would survive without being a member of the European Union (EU). Despite all of the threats and horrific scenarios that would accompany any referendum vote  on our future within Europe - we would still survive as a nation, independent and proud.

                If we had to chose a fate where we were prepared to relinquish  our sovereignty, then I would prosper a union with America rather than with Europe. Because we are nearer, culturally speaking, to America than we are to the rest of Europe.

                France and Germany have never taken to us as a nation. They each have their own resentments of us ‘Anglo-Saxons’; they each in their own way regard us as the main obstacle to their ambition for European supremacy through the evolution of the European Union.

                France, in particular, has sought our exclusion from Europe. They, quite rightly, believed that we British would not allow every manifestation of French novelty for the union to travel unhindered into the constitution of these isles.

THE UNITED KINGDOM, comprising over 60 million people, is a generous market for European profit. Just as Europe is also a highly profitable market for the United Kingdom. This arrangement does not need tampering with by politicians, either elected or unelected in Europe.

                 Those who suggest trade with Europe would suffer if we forfeited 1,000 years of history and struggle toward nationhood, are really suggesting that Europe would blockade our trade with the continent - for how else would our trade with Europe suffer? Free trade between nations would continue; we would continue to buy from Europe, and Europe would continue to sell to us. It is a mutual benefit as old a civilisation itself, and can only be restricted by either tariff s or other politically motivated restrictions on free trade.

                Such blackmail would never work, and would make the British public even more distrustful of Europe. On top of which, the world community , as well as international law would come to our defence. Not because of any sympathy for the UK, but because of the threat to free trade itself. Besides, modern technology would make it wholly impractical.

                David Cameron must give his people a referendum on whether we stay in, or come out of the European Union. But first, he must go to the country and end the Coalition. For Nick Clegg will oppose such a referendum. If Cameron is serious about standing up to Europe, he must first of all clear the decks, and ask the country to let him govern alone with the promise of an in or out referendum as his main manifesto pledge.

                Like Nick Clegg, I believe we ‘need to lance the boil’ once and for all. If Cameron is at all serious, his co-partner in government has given him his support,  be it somewhat dated. Nevertheless such forthrightness cannot have been disavowed by the passage of so short a time. Cameron no longer has the excuse of Coalition politics for holding back.

                If he chooses to hold back it is purely and simply because he is a Europhile engaged in flimflamming  a eurosceptic public.

               

               

               

WHAT IS IN NAME?

JOHN TERRY AND LUIS SUÁREZ are being disciplined for racial abuse. Suárez has been given an eight match suspension while the police are to investigate Terry, making his ‘crime’ the more serious of the two.

                Overpaid  and overindulged footballers will find little sympathy for whatever outrageous behaviour they engage in. Whether it is a bar room brawl, an affair, or just a knee trembler in the back ally of some night spot in London or Manchester. In all circumstances they act as if we owe them a living, and their fans treat them as if they are Gods; and if you treat someone as a deity, then you cannot expect that ‘someone’ to behave as a mere mortal.

                I love football – the game that is. But I have little time for those preening, self-regarding and at all times boorish professional footballers.

                The beautiful game is just that; but it is sad that its beauty is undermined by the behaviour of its players. It is not all their fault of course. The fans themselves are partly responsible for their heroes’ gigantic egos, which the heroes believe sets them apart from the common herd.

                But I do not believe in any kind of witch hunt, whether I sympathise or not with the hunted. Both John Terry and Luis Suárez are being made an example of  - but for what? In Terry’s case, the authorities believe he has committed what is known in these troubled times as a  hate crime.

                I do not know what it was that John Terry said to Anton Ferdinand, the QPR defender; but let us assume that Terry used the ‘N’ word, as this word appears to be the most serious word in the lexicon of the hate crime manual - for why else would he now be  facing prosecution?

               

THE TERM RACIST, FOR WHICH  I believe neither of the two players are guilty of being; has become the modern equivalent of  the 17^th century witch-trials. Indeed, such a term is now seen, in these liberal times, as being almost the equal of paedophile; a comparison which both Terry and Suárez would find appalling.  But, in our Multicultural society, such a comparison is deemed suitable by the hate police.

                Name calling is as old as homo-sapiens.  Name calling is meant to cause offence, when, in times of anger and frustration, it is better deployed than the fist. Paki, Nigger, Wog, Paddy, Jock, Limey, Yank, Nip, Crout, Hun, Frog, Taffy…you name it. There is an offensive  term for almost any skin colour or nationality.

                Name calling is just that and should be reciprocated instead of involving the law. But the law has been given the power by politically correct politicians to prosecute all name calling deemed racist within the compass of  Multiculturalism.

                John Terry reacted in a way that upset the liberal establishment, and is now being hauled before the courts to answer a charge of racism. Has anyone bothered to ask those black Chelsea players who play with him week after week whether they deem him a racist?

                Of course not, all it requires today is for a black player to report comments to the authorities to incur for the accused - a prosecution.

                What this will mean  in future is that, any black player can play the race card in order to gain an advantage for his team. 

                Multiculturalism has been responsible for the passage into law of the ‘hate crime’ and John Terry is its latest victim.  He now faces an appearance before a court to explain himself, and I hope Anton Ferdinand is happy. For if Anton cannot bare being called a N****, which I am only assuming was the worst case Terry scenario, then he should seek out and live in a country where he will never hear the term being used.

               

I MYSELF SUFFER with Ankylosing Spondylitis; it is a painful hereditary disease that effects all joints in the body. But, in particular, it attacks the spine. It is a form of rheumatism that causes a fusion of the spine leading to a curvature; which in its advanced stages causes a hunch-back like posture.

                When I was younger the name calling happened; ‘hunch back’, and Quasimodo were hurled across the street at me. I was embarrassed more than hurt, but to consider such name calling as a hate crime was preposterous. To waste public money in bringing a prosecution against my tormentors  would have done more harm than good as far as free speech was concerned.

                All that will happen if we continue along the path taken by the authorities in their pursuit of  John Terry, and others who share his fate in the future; is resentment leading eventually to a backlash of a similar type described by Enoch Powell.

                Instead of criminalising terms deemed offensive, the authorities should stand back and allow social evolution to eliminate them. By using the law to try and prevent (in John Terry’s case)human  emotions from erupting into unpleasant forms of abuse, will only pour petrol on the flames.

                Our  politicians have, as good multiculturalists, been the architects of the ‘hate crime’ legislation, and, like everything else they have attempted ‘for the common good’; unintended consequences will be sure to follow.

                Hate crimes and political correctness have been the practical accompaniments to the ideology of Multiculturalism…a foolish enterprise to begin with.

THE WHITE BRITISH ARE not racists; but if they were, the law could not stop it. Only time and a social out-casting of those who indulge in such behaviour can bring about its demise; and such an outcome can only be delayed by any resort to the law.

                To a politician, the law is like a magic wand that can deliver whatever they deem fit to convey to the population. As lawmakers, the politicians have an exaggerated view of what they can achieve…if this is not so – then why the stupid and impractical ‘hate crime’?

                John Terry faces the new witch-finders with little sympathy coming from supporters of clubs other than Chelsea. Last night he was booed at White Hart Lane; but would have been so anyway regardless of the Anton Ferdinand incident. For he has a track record regarding adultery… as well as being the bane of all Chelsea’s opponents.

                John Terry and Luis Suárez are the ‘pioneers’ (for want of a better word) of a new form of persecution. Neither of them are heroes; they lashed out at an opponent through feeling hard done by. It is a common phenomenon of not only the football theatre, but of life generally. But the law does not make allowances for a ‘hate crime’.

                Soon, I fear, Nigger, Rag-head and Paki will become synonymous with a term of imprisonment surpassing that of GBH. For this is what we have come to. Even the word ‘coloured’, to describe a person with black skin, has been added to the lexicon of hate, despite its use as word replacing black by its users for fear of offending…blacks!

                I have heard a black person describe another as nigger (which, in America at least, is  somewhat common when name- calling between blacks): but it is only when a white person uses such an expression that it causes an offence and a prosecution resulting, in extremis, in imprisonment. What kind of system of ‘justice’ are we living under?

                Freedom of expression is vital if we are to remain a democratic nation. Causing offence is part of such a freedom. The law has enough to worry about with more important criminal activities other than name-calling; and I wish that every police authority in the country would make it plain to their political masters that there is far more important work to be done on behalf of the British people.

                Sadly, however, the police authorities were ‘Borged’ by the last Labour government. They now see all forms of insensitivity to minorities  as their main focus. Whether they are racially inclined, or perhaps sexually so. Whatever the race, gender, cross gender, or sexual preference. The police have now made way for diversity training within their county bodies and only treat such abuses as worthy of their immediate attention…or so it seems to the rest of us.

WHATEVER THE OUTCOME OF Terry’s fate, the authorities had better take cognisance of what they are creating, if they seek to pursue every indiscrete use of the English language used by the common heard such as myself and  John Terry.

                Offensive language is exactly that – offensive. If we cannot tolerate this then it is better that a person hits out, than for the law to become involved - and when I use the expression ‘hit out’, I mean just that; a physical thumping… or, as a lesser punishment, reciprocal verbal abuse.

                Anything is preferable to the involvement of the scales of justice. Such an involvement  would only infuriate the people and make them even more distrusting of their politicians.

               

FOR HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THE BRITISH PUBLIC BARE THE CROSS THAT IS THE BBC?

‘Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences . . . We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.’
BBC guidelines

FOR HOW MUCH LONGER are we expected to tolerate having to pay a tax for the singular privilege of watching our television sets. I know of no other country in world that forces such a financial burden on its people. It is an antiquated and uniquely British construct that reflects the paternalism of the British establishment circa 1927.

            It was the kind of paternalism, one would have thought, that the corporation’s modern Leftist ethos would have abjured from ever copying. But no, the paternalism is still there, but operating under a different establishment…an establishment that its current Director General, Mark Thompson, has described as having a ‘massive Left-wing bias’.

            Bias of any kind is something of course the BBC charter prohibits. It does so because in a country of such diverse opinions, where every citizen is taxed by the BBC on threat of imprisonment, bias of any kind cannot be tolerated. But in the modern BBC, impartiality has long since departed the airways and been replaced by ‘progressive’ types who are of a Left persuasion, and who seem to care very little that millions of licence fee payers do not share their bias.

            It is no longer a speculative assertion that the BBC is bias toward the Left; when the Director General so readily admits it. But Mark Thompson receives support from many of his major performers in News and current affairs, including Michael Buerk and Peter Sissons.

            Andrew Marr said, ‘ The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias’.    Then, as if further confirmation were needed, it comes from the great man himself, ‘The idea of a tax on the ownership of television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil’. [1]This quote is taken from Jeremy Paxman’s  2007 James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture.

            In America Fox News has a Right-wing bias. But Rupert Murdock does not seek financial support from the American taxpayer. There is nothing wrong with a television company having a political bias, just as there is nothing wrong in a newspaper holding such a prejudice. But a television corporation being wholly funded from taxation is treading on dangerous (Orwellian) ground.

            I think it was Peter Sissons who drew our attention to this cultural bias when he commented upon the many copies of the Guardian he found lying around on the desks within the BBC’s offices. Every part of the BBC establishment, from top to bottom, wears its liberal identity proudly.

            It harvests the majority of its employees through advertising in the Guardian. Page after page of this papers’ job vacancies are for public sector jobs, including of course the BBC.

            The Guardian is the corporation’s house magazine and, no doubt, accounts for much of its circulation and advertising revenue.  The BBC behaves as if the licence fee is an entitlement, just as in the past, monarch’s believed all levied taxes were justifiable because of the institution of monarchy. The Divine Right of the BBC, it appears, has replaced that of kings.

           

THE VERY LATEST example of the BBC’s bias has been on display in their reporting of all things European and the European Union.

            David Cameron, rightly, in my Right-wing view, vetoed the Merkozy in Britain’s national interests on Friday. But the BBC, it seems, could not stomach such an approach. So they piled their studios with Europhiles and used their journalists to pour scorn over Cameron’s vetoing of  the Merkozy.

            Cristina Odone is not a rampant eurosceptic, but even she could see the BBC bias at work. Writing in the Daily Telegraph (which, no doubt, incurs the wrath of the Guardianistas), she said, ‘Yet, even from where I stand, I can see the BBC bias in its coverage of  the EU. From the outset, as the newscasters announced David Cameron's veto of the eurozone rescue plan, the Beeb took a hostile view of proceedings. The picture they painted, on telly and radio, was of a Britain humiliated, alone, marginalised’.

            Over the past weekend two polls showed an overwhelming support for David Cameron’s position. Yet the tax ‘gifted’ BBC chose to adhere to its prejudices and paint a minority picture of the events unfolding in Brussels. They, as a Europhile institution paid for by a mainly Eurosceptic population, brandished its contempt for the vast majority of their paymasters.

IF THE BBC wishes to continue as a bias institution, then they must seek their revenues from private sources and not from the taxpayer. I cannot understand how the BBC has survived for so long with its present set-up.

            I can only surmise that the corporation is still living off a sentimental attachment to the institution based upon the childhood experiences of many of its viewers.

            The time, however, has come when we must be given a choice as to what we pay for, as happens throughout the rest of the economy. The BBC boasts its supremacy throughout the world. Well good for them. They will find no difficulty in accumulating, like Sky, enough subscribers to make the BBC a commercial success.

            Under such circumstances they can be as biased as they like. But I resent having to subscribe to such an organisation. The money I would save from its privatisation would allow me to subscribe to a channel that suited my own individual tastes and requirements.

            Sky television has surpassed the BBC in such theatres as news, drama, sport and current affairs. Sky has produced the quality programming the BBC once bragged of. When Rupert Murdock embarked upon his involvement with television, the BBC and their liberal acolytes cried out, dumbing down!

            What they did not understand was that Murdock is first of all a business man out turn a profit. Which means that Sky Arts alone surpasses any of the BBC’s output. Sky’s many other channels reach out to all sections of the population, whatever their point of view or particular taste. For Murdock is not an Australian ignoramus, despite his ownership of the Sun; but a businessman who provides a profitable service. A service based upon profit can stretch far and wide as he has proved by his many channels.

           

THE BBC has a guaranteed income and does not need to compete. Unlike  independent television, where advertising is fought over and jobs are continuously put on the line.

            Mark Thompson is given the princely sum of £3 billion plus per annum to provide us with our entertainment. This is an extraordinary amount for a single broadcasting outlet, yet it is never enough.

            The BBC now faces a government freeze on increases to its expenditure. This has lead to a few redundancies, ever more repeats, and talk of getting rid of a channel or two – none of which would be missed by myself at least.

            I am not sure whether bonuses have been axed or reduced, but the amount of six figure salaries  are set to continue. Such large salaries would never be an issue in the private sector, but where tax payers money is concerned, it becomes an issue.

THE BBC was Orwell’s’ archetypal ‘Big Brother’. For, until the arrival of independent radio and television, the corporation had the ear of the nation all to its self. Now, through its preening self-regard, it sees itself as as necessary to our culture as blood is to the human anatomy.

            Yet even today it still meets George Orwell’s criteria. Its Left-wing bias has qualified it for inclusion. But what surely puts the icing on the cake is its adoption of the ideology of Multiculturalism and political correctness. Both these concepts are embraced and used throughout the BBC’s culture. From recruitment to programming, the Orwellian parallel holds true.

            Minorities of all colours and gender specific; as well as sexual preference, have all been adopted into the BBC  ‘Borg’. It is not only the Left bias of news and current affairs coverage that discourages people like myself from wanting to pay their licence fee; but also the ‘issue’ led soap operas like EastEnders; as well as the subliminal messages being sent out to every department within BBC’s news programming, that demand  the presence of a black face whenever an outside broadcast is screened – whether it be a news event or any other that takes place.

            This is crude and patronising. Does a West Indian, Asian or East European really care whether they are represented in a shot taken in a supermarket or on  a naval vessel? It seems that the politically correct BBC demands that such a presence should be part of every situation covered, apart from rape and murder.

            The institution that is the BBC has become the creature of a liberal-left establishment, which harvests its income from millions of people who have little regard for Left-wing dogma. Those of us who would describe ourselves as being of a centre Right persuasion, have no choice but to prop up such an institution on penalty of imprisonment.

            It is about time we were given a choice, similar to any other commodity in the market place – and not be faced with the totalitarian option…I kid you not. For what else would you call a situation where the state demands the payment of a tax on television ownership.

            The BBC, if it is serious in its boast of being the premier broadcasting outlet, should tell the government that they wish to go it alone without public subsidy. For such a boast deserves to be quantified within the private sector.

            If Mark Thompson truly believes that the BBC is the finest broadcasting outlet in the world, then he can prove this by championing the BBC’s neutrality from the tax payer; and, like Sky and ITV, rely upon advertising instead of the highway robbery of the British taxpayer currently enjoyed.

             

---

[1] Both the above quotes are taken from the BBC Bias website 

1984

GEORGE ORWELL SAW himself as a man of the Left - as those on the Left  still see him. He was part of the of the International Brigade that fought in the Spanish civil war against Franco’s fascists. In his book Homage to Catalonia however, he targeted and chastised his own side with as much rage as he felt for the fascists. The Left as always, were split into ideological groups; anarchist, socialists, and communists…the latter being sub divided into Stalinist and Trotskyite. The Stalinists took their orders from Moscow and loathed the Trotskyites as much, or even more so than the fascists; and under orders from Stalin would not hesitate to kill what they would have regarded as counter revolutionaries.

                Orwell fought with the POUM; the Trotskyite faction against Franco. One would have thought that the dystopian vision of 1984 would have been a vision of fascist domination. But Orwell perceived that the greatest threat would come from the Left. He understood how the Left thought and behaved; he not only had practical experience of its behaviour in Spain, but also the  Big Brother template that was the Soviet Union.

                Such a world vision, he believed, would come from the Left side of the political spectrum. Orwell was an English patriot who understood his country and its people better than anyone at the time. When war broke out he worked tirelessly on behalf of his country to defeat Hitler. His work for the BBC during the war (having been wounded in Spain) was patriotic propaganda; which many journalist’s today would be repulsed by. He believed in his country, if not its colonialism.

                Today Orwell would sit comfortably on the Right. He would see the idea of a European super state evolving over time, into the very entity described in 1984.

YET THIS IS WHAT IS ABOUT TO happen in Europe, and our (that is British) politicians are being panicked into seeing it come to fruition.

                Over the past few weeks we have seen two democratically elected leaders of two of Europe’s nations overthrown and replaced by what are being referred to as technocrats. On top of which both Italy and Greece have been told they must form a national government. Were these leaders replaced by the people democratically? Was it the people of these nations who demanded such a national government?

                No, they were the victims of a coup. The coup was led by Germany and France, because they objected to George Papandreou, for allowing his people a referendum on whether to make the sacrifices in order to remain part of a single currency, or to vote to leave.

                If this was not a forewarning of what was to come, then it has gone unnoticed by the journalistic benefactors of Orwell’s legacy. I find it outrageous that two European nations can be dictated to and ordered to comply by two other European nations. This could only have happened in the past if Italy and Greece were defeated in war and occupied. For this is what Germany and France’s demands amount to…an occupation.

                We are on the brink of an Orwellian nightmare. Politicians, unelected by anyone, are in control of the European machinery of government, that effectively governs us all. They are called commissioners and their power goes unchallenged by national governments. The very people whom the people elect are impotent to act.  Through treaty after treaty, they have consigned, bit by bit, our national sovereignty to the dustbin of history.

               

WHAT IS FAST becoming the survival of our nation state is taking place. Its survival at one time would have been determined by Napoleon and Hitler. It never entered anyone’s mind that a few unelected European bureaucrats could orchestrate the defeat of our nation state with the blessing of our leaders… via the implementation of treaties that the British public were never given the chance to vote on.

                Remember the Lisbon Treaty which we were told by our politicians was a mere technical adjustment and needed no referendum to implement; remember the Maastricht Treaty, also dismissed on such grounds. For how much longer are we going to trust our politicians when the ‘ideal’ of Europeanization seeks to cantonise every nation within Europe led ultimately by a reinvigorated Germany?

                Hundreds of thousands of our people were killed during the last war in order to defend the nation-state. It was this sense of nationhood  that our fathers and grandfathers were prepared to die for - not to see their nation dissipated into a Federal Europe by arrogant, disingenuous, and at times mendacious politicians.

                Europe is on the brink of something cataclysmic. The troubled single currency should be done away with; instead, the unfolding tragedy has actually whetted the Eurocrats appetite for immediate monetary union. Of those 17 members of the euro, some will have to be sacrificed, and we have no need to ask who will be booted out. Among the remaining, monetary and political union will forge ahead, leaving those 10 countries who never joined to become part of  a two speed Europe.

                Although the euro will survive, it will do so because of Germany’s economic power; and with such power comes control and authority. It was seen at the time of this great European union’s birth, that Germany would be brought into the European family after two attempts at trying to rule the continent and become an equal partner in the European family.

                Now Germany once more stands on the brink of dominating Europe. She will be the piper that calls the tune in this new slimmer monetary union. No wonder a French politician has described Angela Merkle as another Bismarck.

EVER SINCE ITS creation, the European union has had, to paraphrase Ann Widdecombe, ‘something of the night about it’. It has sought its legitimacy, not through democratic procedures, but through a bureaucratic commissariat of commissioners who dispense their demands throughout the continent; and legitimately elected national governments are forced to heed their directives. They have power over national sovereignty because our politicians have salami-sliced it away through signing those nefarious treaties that the people have never had any say in agreeing to.

                We are fast approaching a time when we can legitimately ask the question; what are our elected politicians for? Having deferred so many of their powers to Brussels, their primary task as law makers is being made ever more sterile by their need to take cognisance of Europe when writing our laws – especially when it comes criminal and human rights law.

                If European federalism is not an Orwellian construct, then the Pope is not a Catholic. It is incredible that we have, though a misplaced idealism, allowed this to get so far without even being aware of its dangers.

                But of course there were people who were regarded as party-poopers who did indeed warn; first of all about the direction that European Union would take us in, as well as flag up the dangers of a single currency being created among so many divergent economies.

                At the time such people were considered as swivel-eyed fanatics. These ‘Eurosceptics’ belonged to what was regarded as the xenophobic Right. They, once Thatcher was gotten rid of, were an irritant to the Tory leaders that followed her, but never managed to stop the contagion. The Tory Left, which got rid of Thatcher, thought at the time that they had not only driven a steak through the ‘vampires’ heart but, as Europhiles, had saved the country from isolation.

                Then came the  Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)crises, that the chancellor Norman Lamont allowed his prime minister to talk him into joining in the first place. We were humiliated on a day when Germany preferred to stand by the French and allow us to sink or swim. We should have learned from this experience but in the Tory Party the Europhile torch never dimmed. As a Labour Party supporter at the time, the sight of Norman Lamont’s humiliation in front of the media as he announced our withdrawal from the ERM, after interest rates had surged to 15 per cent during the course of the day, brought me untold joy.

               

GEORGE ORWELL knew what the Left were capable of. Today in Europe (including the UK), there are no parties that could describe themselves as Conservative. In Europe both socialists and Christian Democrats, are social democrats. For if there were a truly Conservative Party in Europe today, it would oppose political and monetary union.

                In other words, the Left dominates the European union and are determined to solidify the whole continent through political and monetary union, and are doing so by waving away any attempt at allowing the people to vote by referendum on the course of their wisdom.

                The modern European politicians (including the UK’s) reminds one of the Divine Right of Kings in the way they so easily dismiss the electorate. To our modern generation of UK politicians; when it comes to Europe its people remain the nuisance.

                 

               

               

                 

               

               

               

               

               

                 

THE GREAT MOSAIC THAT MAY SPELL OUR END

A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE springs to mind when we look at the state of the Western democracies today. We in the West are in the midst of the greatest economic downturn and debt crises in our collective history. While in terms of foreign policy, the Arab Spring threatens our security with a war in the Middle East, and Iran is fully prepared to orchestrate such a war.

                I cannot remember in my lifetime of 61 years my country being in such a perilous situation as it is in today. Indeed, it is not as fanciful as it would have been 20 years ago, to wonder whether what we call the West has, like some distant star, gone supernova. In other words, has the Western democracies finally concluded their life cycle? Like all empires (and, economically speaking, this is what the West has been), the West’s time is up and it is time for the countries of the Far East to replace us. China, India, Japan, South Korea…you name it, they manufacture it.

                In Europe, the sovereign debt crises has forced the EU to go cap in hand to China, as well as seek an ending to the nation state in Europe through political and economic union. The EU, having mismanaged the single currency, now seek to continue with their suicide pact and go hell for leather toward a federal Europe where nationhood and sovereignty are brazenly despatched by a mere stroke of a politician’s pen.

                This process however will cause civil unrest unless the public are carried forward with the politicians by being given a referendum.

                The pincers are beginning to nip. The Arab Spring has liberated Egyptians and Libyans from the hell of dictatorship and allowed the people to vote for their government.

                We in the West supported these developments either diplomatically or, in Libya’s case, militarily. But as with Syria we have no idea what will follow. Once the flood subsides and the elections have taken place; will all Arab eyes turn toward Israel? Will their governments be secular and tolerant, or will the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists gain power and seek Israel’s annihilation?

THESE ARE TROUBLING TIMES indeed. The economic sacrifices the people of Europe are being asked to make may provoke resistance, despite all the promises an Italian or Greek technocrat makes to the markets. These sacrifices are needed, not only to keep the EU afloat but the whole of the Western world. Never in our history could we have foreseen the day when a small country like Greece could bankrupt America. But this is what, in a convoluted way, a mismanaged introduction of a continental single European currency can now do… and was warned that it could happen.

                Jacques Delors, the architect of the single currency has admitted to its failure from its start.  He even acknowledged that the ‘Anglo-Saxons’ (i.e. the UK) had been proven right, with their (Margaret Thatcher) warnings at the time of its creation.

                As our leaders are focusing on the debt crises, the events in Syria should also be worrying to the Foreign Office. Syria is supported by Iran, and Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran. While the Israelis (to which all this Arab anger will eventually turn) would prefer the Assad devil they know to what may come after; so they seek to remain neutral and silent. But when it comes to Iran and its capacity to do real harm to the Jewish state; then they will act alone if need be, despite the Obama administrations protestations.

               

THIS WEEK IS meant to be the last chance for the EU to save both the euro and itself. The whole European project, we are told, will be dispatched into the dustbin of history if Angela Merkle and Nicolas Sarkozy’s remedy is not accepted by the rest of the euro zone countries.

                David Cameron, as always, uses the rhetoric of scepticism by promising to use our veto on any new treaty that puts the City, our greatest earner, at a disadvantage. While his promise to claw back powers from Europe that were given them by previous governments, has met with resistance from the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke, who, using the most contemptuous of hyperbole suggests that it is no time, with the present euro crises, to renegotiate our relationship with Europe with ‘ the financial stability of the Western World at stake’.

                Clarke’s intervention, is of course fanciful. It was he, after all who went native and supported a single currency, or whatever other concoction the EU would have suggested for the UK. So why must we take advice from a two-time loser like Clarke?

                Ken Clarke is a spent force. His only activity it seems, is to remain inactive by sleeping through televised debates of  autumn statements on the government benches - as well as any other parliamentary procedure that demands his attendance.

                Clarke, politically speaking, is in his dotage and should be placed on the benches of the House of Lords. For he has outlived his usefulness to contemporary politics. His time has passed, because his view of Europe has been discredited.

               

THIS MOSAIC of economic and diplomatic trouble for the West comes at a time when all Western nations are without any leadership of quality; which only adds to my sense of fatalism and fear for the next generation.

                Western leadership in Europe steered the continent straight toward the iceberg; believing the euro would one day replace the mighty dollar, and believing there was no impediment on the horizon great enough to sink it.

                The euro was mismanaged by third rate politicians, who are today seeking to cast further spells over the continent by continuing with the same recipe, but with added spice. Rather than apologise to the people, as a Japanese politician or businessman would do; they arrogantly demand further sacrifice and ever deeper union.

                As far as foreign policy is concerned, our Western leaders fair little better. When they should be siding with Israel at a time in her history when the Arab world is threatening her yet again, they chose only to insult Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu; and demand he once more opens up the peace process, and concede the 1967 boarders to the PA; even though to do so, would leave Israel defenceless.

                The storm clouds of the Arab Spring are starting to encircle Israel, and it will soon be time, I fear, for another conflict with her neighbours. Iran is building up her arsenal of nuclear weaponry and supplying Hezbollah and Hamas with armaments smuggled into Gaza via Egypt.

                Once the Arab Spring has turned into summer; what is the betting that Iran will seek to influence the Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians and Tunisians by promising a powerful remedy for the ‘Jewish problem’ in their back yard?

                Our politicians today are followers, not leaders. They court popularity and their horizon is always the next election; our leaders today (in the UK at least) have little empathy for their country’s history. They comprise lawyers, business men and women, ex-union men and women and the most obnoxious of all, media types and spin doctors. The majority either have no thought for, or any love of the nation they were born into. This present trawl were born, like myself, after the second world war and became the selfish 1960’s generation whose grandsons and granddaughters are now encamped outside of St Pauls or some traveller domicile in Essex.

                If those serving in parliament today had any kind of regard for their nation, they would not sit idly by on the green benches, while their nation is being subsumed into the European collective, as a mere county council.

                It seems to me that, the first quality a nation’s leader needs is leadership. Those prime ministers who exemplify the position they held were those, like Margaret Thatcher who came to be despised at home, but lauded abroad. This was because she had a vision for her country and proceeded to enact it whatever the cost to the party she led. She did so because the nation was, at the time, in desperate need of leadership by someone who did not revile patriotism as the many Europhiles within the Tory Party have done since.

TODAY THIS COUNTRY is in need of the same kind of leadership but has fallen well short. Today we have David Cameron, a Blair-like clone who’s premier ambition is to remain in power. It is easy to give the people what they want – it is far more difficult to deny them their wants in the nation’s interest.

                The turmoil that now engulfs the European continent will not be ended by seeking an inner ring of the 17 euro countries, and an outer ring of 10 countries.