How disappointing for the Left and the Palestinian cause

FIRST OF ALL COMES some disappointing news for the Left. Russian forensic experts studying the remains of Yasser Arafat have concluded that he died a natural death. Along with the French and, after further reflection, the Swiss, the old boy was free of any radiation. But Palestinians will still see a sinister role for Israel, as will Left-wing sympathisers in this country.

            

            Arafat, by any meaning of the term present in any dictionary, was a terrorist. He was also the Palestinian paymaster who collected, over decades, billions of pounds meant for his people's welfare from the West and Arab sympathisers; but it was used for nefarious purposes such as buying armaments and paying off his coterie of  supporters, thousands of whom were dependent, financially upon him.

            

             I can remember when his death was announced a female BBC reporter breaking down in tears at the announcement. The BBC protected Arafat's reputation; believing him to be the Nelson Mandela of the Middle East. The usual liberal suspects such as the Guardian also deflected any criticism of Arafat's actions by declaiming Israel's ultimate responsibility for them.

           

            Arafat was, and his memory is still today, protected by the Left. Israel is demonised in every liberal establishment in this country. In our universities Israeli academics are being turned away by the likes of Stephen Hawking, a man I once admired, not only for his intellect, but for his iron will in overcoming motor neuron disease.

            

             Academia and the free exchange of ideas, in the interests of whichever academic discipline they were applied, is, after all what any scholarly environment was supposed to be all about.

           

             Arafat had civilian blood on his hands; which the Left would excuse by comparing such acts of premeditated terrorism on Israeli civilians with acts by Israel, that never deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians. If such an occurrence took place then it came down to either an individual or individuals in the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). Such action was never sanctioned by the state.

ARAFAT DID  MORE harm to the Palestinian cause than did Israel. Indeed, I would suggest that because of his actions, more Palestinians were killed by fellow Arabs than were ever killed by Israelis; in for instance Jordan[1], followed in turn in Lebanon. Wherever it seems, in the Arab world the Palestinians have sought sanctuary freely given: they have abused it.

            

             As president of the then Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), Yasser Arafat proclaimed terrorism as a legitimate practice in attaining a Palestinian homeland; even if it meant killing the innocent: and over time the Left in the West concurred, and did so by seeking excuse after excuse for every act of terrorism committed.

            

            Of course those who support the Palestinian cause will never be convinced that it was not the Israelis that caused Arafat's death; just as in the Arab world and on fringes of the Left in the West, they insist that 9/11 was caused (a) by the Israeli's, (b) by the CIA, or (c) by a partnership between them both.

            

            The Left  are natures great conspiracy theorists, and will no doubt insist that there was a conspiracy between the French, Russians, and the Swiss investigators, not to disclose the truth. After all, they will tell themselves, the Swiss were convinced that Arafat was poisoned, but they later retracted; and that retraction will become their main source for the conspiracy.

                       

           

           

           

---

[1] Between September 1970  and July of 1971, a civil war was fought between two parts of the Jordanian population. The Palestinians represented the PLO, and the Trans-Jordanians under King Hussein  - let Wikipedia pick up the story. " At its core the civil war sought to determine if Jordan would be ruled by the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the Hashemite Monarchy. The war resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority Palestinian. Armed conflict ended with the expulsion of the PLO leadership and thousands of Palestinian fighters to Lebanon".

The descending darkness shrouding our liberty

MARKS AND SPENCER should be boycotted after a Muslim employee at a checkout refused to serve a customer with alcohol because her faith. But let us not blame M&S entirely. They, after all, did not invent political correctness, but only fell afoul of its invidious nature. No, ultimately, it was the over sensitised liberal politicians on the Left of the political spectrum that brought forth such inanity, and made M&S nervous in the first place.

            

            Employers are walking on egg shells; they are falling over themselves to accommodate the politically correct agenda, which, if they fall foul of it, can result in thousands of pounds in compensation. We have the hate crime, which this young lady could have used, had M&S told her to serve or leave.

            

            The other players in the market, like Asda and Sainsbury's, have released statements to the effect that any Muslim employee put in a similar position to that at M&S, would be moved to other duties…but why?  Would they give such an accommodation to vegetarians or to teetotallers who may insist upon refusing to handle tins or bottles of alcohol? What about vegans? To try and accommodate every acquired taste in the multicultural soup is bordering on madness.

            

             Christian workers who refused to conduct a civil partnership between homosexuals were immediately sacked, and judges have ruled that those who do not like their employers rules should be sacked…then why was this person not sacked? No wonder the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey feels the need to write in the Daily Telegraph that Christians are under pressure to keep silent.

            

             Yet when it comes to Muslims, our supermarket chain stores fall over backwards to accommodate them, fearful of the repercussions if they do not.  M&S should have dismissed this employee immediately.

            

              Political correctness is the engine that makes multiculturalism function, and it is beginning to overshadow our freedoms, and removing them from those who fall fowl of it -  their liberty. It is sinister in an Orwellian sense too; it is the modern Newspeak where words have had ism's and phobia's attached: we have sexism, ageism, Islamaphobia and homophobia. Words we once freely used, some of them were indeed offensive; but not as offensive as the hate crime brought in to stop such offensive words from being used.

            

            Liberals sensitive to the feelings of  all ethnic minorities have gone overboard in appeasing those feelings to the point where they ban any kind of reference they feel might, just might, offend them…like Gollywog.

            

            As someone born in the 1950's, Gollywog - more affectionately, and commonly called Golly, had no racist significance, and George Orwell would have concurred. As children we collected the Gollies from Robertson's jam jars, and when we had collected what was needed, hundreds of thousands of children sent off for a Golly badge,  that came in a series with the Golly playing a different musical instrument. At school children wore them proudly on their school uniforms.

            

           Never ever did any child enunciate on the colour of the Gollywog. This did not stop (in the following decades) white liberals from assuming it to be offensive to a particular ethnic minority, and so banned his appearance on Robertson's jam or anywhere else. The poor Golly had been demonised, and as such is seen today, to be as offensive as the Nazi swastika…and don't get me started on the Black and White minstrels.

           

            I have a deformity. I have a curved spine, and when younger, it was not uncommon to be called hunchback in the streets…and, among the more literary bigot, the bell ringer Quasimodo. Today I could get Victor Hugo's classic banned because it encouraged and gave sustenance to the bigots; and I would have the cultural liberalarti up in arms - and quite right to!

           

             I am glad I am the age I am today, for I would not want to have to relive my 63 years from this point in our history.            I fear for this country's democracy and our Nationhood. It is a great pity there is no Jonathan Swift alive to debunk political correctness and the follies of modern politicians and their mediocrity - also, let me not forget, their ludicrous worshipping at the altar of celebrity to make themselves 'popular'.

            

             M&S have, like many other of this nation's great businesses, been drawn into applying this dystopian  concept of political correctness because of the threat of prosecution -  or merely from a fear of upsetting what the liberal's believe will cause offence to any particular ethnic minority. I fear this dark piece of nonsense will get far worse before it gets any better, and many injustices and restrictions on our liberty will have to come about before it ends.

           

            

A fraudulent double act

THE LIB DEMS are in single figures in the polls well behind Ukip; and they represent only a small part of a small liberal elite. Yet we have Mr Clegg and Vince Cable attacking Cameron over his very limited changes to EU immigration, such as the 75,000 cap.

            

            Mr Clegg, writing in today's Sunday Times wrote; 'Sticking a big no-entry sign on the cliffs of Dover may be politically popular, but at a huge economic cost. What would happen if tonight every European living in the UK boarded a ship or plane and went home?

'Are we really that keen to see the back of German lawyers, Dutch accountants or Finnish engineers? Do we want the NHS to fall over and the City of London to grind to a halt?'

            

            No one, not even Nigel Farage is proposing such a move. He mentions German lawyers Dutch accountants, and Finnish engineers and asks us what would happen if all Europeans living hear went back home?

            

            Well, you have to ask, why are these engineers and lawyers here in the first place? They are hear, presumably, because they believe this country offers them better prospects than they receive at home, in terms of pay and career advancement - for why else would they be hear? Do the German's enjoy constantly being reminded of the war as they walk around London and seeing  statues of Monty and Churchill dotted about; or the newly completed memorial to Bomber Command?

            

             The German's are hear because they need us as much as we need them, and we will continue with such an arrangement. Clegg you may notice refers only to those with skills; but he selects the very group who will always be welcomed by whoever runs the country, including Ukip. There is a skills market, just as there is in every sphere of commercial activity under capitalism. People will go were the prospects for themselves and their families are most advantageous. In this respect this country is more in competition with America than Europe.

            

             The NHS will indeed 'fall over' eventually; not however, because of a lack of Europeans, but because of an excess of them, on top of migrants from other parts of the world coming here. We then have the illegals who cannot be turned away from the NHS. The truth is Mr Clegg, skilled workers will always be welcomed in any capitalist economy, where energy and enterprise are rewarded. Why for instance, have so many French men and women crossed the channel? It is because Hollande , the French socialist president has punished the French wealth creators by acts of state larceny.

            

              The only way the City of London (another Clegg gripe[1]) will grind to a halt; is if it was put into the tender care of Brussels and governed centrally. As long as the City of London is left to its own devices in a free market - it will survive, but it will not survive within a political and monetary union; where the euro-state will reign supreme and nation's will have been replaced by  regions; where central dictate will replace the free market.

ALONG SIDE Nick stands Vince Cable, who put in an appearance on the Andrew Marr Show today. He drew (which come the morning news coverage he may deny) comparison with what Cameron has been suggesting, on immigration, with Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood Speech of 1968, which sent the 1960's liberalarti into a tizzy of disgust - a disgust which has been passed down through liberalarti folk law ever since, from sons and daughters to grandchildren .

            

            Cable and I are both old enough to have seen Enoch perform. I was at the time an 18-year-old Marxist and was of course outraged by his Rivers of Blood Speech delivered in April 1968. As the MP for Wolverhampton South West, he served his indigenous constituents well. Most of the what are now regarded today as racist comments; were in fact quotes from his own constituents that expressed their fears when they wrote to him or attended his surgeries.

           

             Vince Cable knows nothing of the man because, like myself when young, the liberal  Left were seizing control of the establishment and were left prostrate by what they considered to be the 'evil' comments of Enoch Powel[2]. Comments, taken from his 1968 speech; "We must be mad - literally mad as a nation to allow the annual inflow of some 50,000[3] dependents.  It is like watching a nation busily heaping up its own funeral pyre".

            

              This one simple sentence has tarred Enoch ever since as a racist. He of course was no such thing; and may still prove to be, for the indigenous population, their grand Messiah - an exemplar of the nation state that Europe seeks today to remove from the European continent. But even Enoch could never have foresaw what modern so-called political statesmen seek to bring about -  the birth of a European super state.

            

               As next year's European election draws ever closer, the incendiary language will come from the liberal elite. Ghostly chains will be rattled and fearful threats made. The whole landscape of the country will be compared to a post nuclear disaster area if we were ever to leave the EU. Like children being scared by talk of bogeymen; the British people will be scared by talk of millions of jobs and of billions of pounds lost if we do not stay loyal the ambitions of Brussels.

            

               Both Cameron[4] and Cable are habituated to the federal cause, and have, as such, closed minds. Cameron became part of the Borg collective in Europe long before he became leader of the Lib Dems; Brussels is a second home to him. I would no sooner trust his opinion than I would that of those earlier fellow travellers who visited Soviet Communism in the 1930s, such as George Bernard Shaw and the  Webb's; who helped destroy a generation of political prisoners during that decade  in the Soviet Gulags by giving the Soviet Union such favourable reviews when they returned home.

            

               Inspired by socialist idealism, they ignored the reality of socialism.  Just as the old Soviet system was a dystopian nightmare built upon the ideals of Marx, so it will turn out to be the case if Europe proceeds toward a Greater European dystopia based upon the idealism of liberals.

            

               I am 63, and have learnt to distrust any kind of philosophical or political idealism either from the Right or the Left; for it more than often ends in tyranny. This country is overpopulated already, yet come next month, the entire population of Bulgaria and Romania will have the automatic right to come to this country and declare themselves to have as much right to live here as the indigenous population - a right given to them by Brussels without the British people ever being given a say: and it goes on and on without the politicians stopping to draw breath and asking themselves whether what they are doing is wrong and potentially dangerous to the nation's social fabric. Powell expressed it perfectly. "Those whom the Gods seek to destroy first make mad".

             

           

           

---

[1] Bonuses

[2] The liberals then, as they are today, still riddled with the guilt of the British Empire.

[3] Cameron, remember, is suggesting a 70,000 limit

[4] Cameron served an internship in Brussels; followed by a position within the European Commission working for Vice-President, and Trade Commissioner, Leon Brittan 

"Little Zac would like to be an MP…would you arrange it?"

THE HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE and cronyism, which for much of its history has been despised by the Labour Party, is now bedding down well within the party's culture. The House of Lords, have always cherished the hereditary principle of course, but the principle has now been put into reverse by the politicians; and all peerages are now for life only - yet the irony is, Labour politicians now see some merit in the hereditary principle.

            

            New Labour, under its architect, Tony Blair, continued Labour's historical antipathy to all forms of heredity apart from within its natural confines of family genealogy. He attacked the Tories, and their hereditary peers, and did so with right on his side. After all the hereditary principle is a monarchical and aristocratic construct; one which has outlived its purpose (whatever that may have been regarding the ordinary citizen).

            

            Apart from, that is, it's place in any modern constitution; and that is in ours. We have a constitutional monarch whose many powers, such as they are, pose no threat. Our Queen is trusted far more by the people than are our politicians…she is certainly more knowledgeable than any of them about our post-war political history, partly because of her Tuesday meetings with 12 prime ministers from Churchill to Cameron. She has no doubt been told things during that period that would only be disclosed to a very close confidant by her prime ministers in the full knowledge that such disclosures would be kept safe.

THIS REVIVAL OF THE hereditary principle has been left unheralded for obvious reasons and left to the media to expose; and the Guido website is doing so.

            

            The Labour Party has moved on from Tony Bair. But the Blair seed has not. Neither has the Kinnock and Straw seed. The Benn seed has already spread its roots into parliament with Hillary's presence. Now we have Jack's son, Will Straw[1], insinuating himself upon the wretched people of Rossendale and Darwen in order for them to help fire up  his political career.

            

            While in Coventry, Geoffrey Robinson's seat is up for grabs despite the patron of the New Statesman's denial. He has apparently been contacted by the Blair's on behalf of their son Euan, who wishes to pursue his father's political ambitions, at the expense of whatever is left of Geoffrey Robinson's - perhaps a peerage may tempt him?

            

             Stephen Kinnock is of course Neil's son and is married to Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish PM who was photographed sandwiched between David Cameron and President Obama at Mandela's elegy. Stephen however, has his own political ambition centred upon the constituency of Aberavon. The Kinnock name still carries much kudos in Wales and he is likely to be the most successful of the hereditary appointees; and Stephen, if successful, will follow the family tradition of living off the public tit, having never worked in the private sector.

THE LABOUR PARTY is creating their own hereditary structure, by putting  family members and friends in constituency seats that would vote for a chimpanzee with a red rosette rather than a human Tory. It is in these seats, that are the most advantageous for Labour in the North, and are therefore cherished by the sons and daughters of influential Labour fathers and mothers who have retired from politics, and, in financial terms, retired generously from the political fray: but who nevertheless wish to adorn their seedlings with the power they once enjoyed and create a kind of Kennedy dynasty.

            

            Hypocrisy is a word so well used in reference to politicians, that it longer hurts when hurled at any one of them. It has become like water off a duck's back; and when they use it against each other at every opportunity, the word, like the politician, is debased.

            

            Of course the Blair's, Straw's and Kinnock's are only doing what their social democratic colleagues do throughout the rest of Europe, and we are only starting to catch up. Throughout the EU, such nepotism barely causes a Gallic shrug from among the continent's people. On the continent political preferment is part of the culture: the political class, like the old aristocratic ones that preceded them, have even adopted their lofty arrogance.

            

            The British public (and Guido) had better acclimatise themselves to this new European settlement, for it is set to continue and flower among the political class as a whole.

           

---

[1] With thanks to Guido

Polemic: Pike but not Pikey

Polemic: Pike but not Pikey

Pike but not Pikey

THE TROUBLE WITH  Political Correctness, apart from its inherent evil, is that it can become comic by targeting one of its own disciples for the twitter treatment.

            

           There he was, Jack Dromey MP, the husband of Hattie Harperson and a solid campaigner and fighter against racism, being accused of the very thing he abhorred. He was going about his duties as an MP, on this occasion visiting the Erdington Royal Mail Sorting Office, when he was introduced to 'pikey', an employee at the sorting office whose nickname was given him by his fellow workers, and based upon the Dad's Army character.

            

            Pikey, as you know is one of those words outlawed in the lexicon of political correctness (Multiculturalism's Little Black Book). Pikey is a derogatory reference to Irish travellers, and has been seen as racist since 2007, when Mr Dromey's wife was part of the government that introduced the legislation banning all derogatory references to minority cultures. Poor old Jack new this of course but naively believed that when it came to political correctness, context would have a role to play.

            

             But no such thing. Since he in all innocence twittered that hated word; he has received what the PC evangelists considers his due punishment on twitter…although those twitters quoted in the Daily Mail sound like good and sound Conservatives being ironical. For example 'Hammy Wheel', who posted: ‘Disgraceful incitement to racial hatred there? “Pikey” is a horrid thing to call anyone. Expect a knock on your door from Plod.’ Or Guy Birchall: ‘Worse than calling a policeman a pleb. Disgustingly insulting behavior!’ While Melinda Scott was brief: ‘Raaaaaaaaaaaacist’.

            

             At least Dromey responded to the criticism with humor: ‘Don’t panic, Mr Mainwaring. This morning’s meeting was with Gareth, a Postie nicknamed after Corporal Pike from Dad’s Army.’ Dromey can now at least tell his wife how ridicules political correctness has become. Political correctness was a concept once feared, but more and more people no longer care about being called racist, if, for instance, the following example falls fowl of this invidious concept.

BENJAMIN DENNEHY who represents Ealing's Hanger Hill Ward and was a onetime member of the Conservative Party, and is now a member of Ukip, has been asked to make an apology by Ealing Council's Standards Committee which he rightly refuses to do. His crime was to draw the public's attention to Southall's Indian community that he claims: "harbours and exploits their own people in squalid third world living conditions".           

            

           He has been accused of making "inappropriate and provocative" comments about Southall's Indian community[and he] is asking a top judge to uphold his human right to "shock and disturb".

            

           Councillor Dennehy launched a judicial review challenge to the Standards Committee, and is now awaiting judicial its verdict.

            

           His removal from the 'Conservative' Party was based upon his observations of Southall's Indian community . His party cared little about the accuracy of such observations; only that his comments would be perceived as racist and reinvigorate the 'Nasty Party' image that, for instance, the ring-fencing of oversees aid has sought to help relinquish.

            

            So the Party treated him as a leaper and exiled him from their no doubt thoroughly decent  society.  I take it that when Mr Dennehy accuses parts of the Indian community harbouring and exploiting their fellow Indians in "squalid third world living conditions"; he is referring to the sheds many members of Southall's Indian community, have had constructed at the rear of their properties to overpopulate and overcharge for the privilege of being shacked up in these human sardine tins.

            

            What should have happened was for these awful sheds to be investigated by the media. They should have been the main item on every British News channel and made the headlines in every newspaper. Instead, the messenger is deemed a racist for "slurring" the community - a community that needed slurring; but as has happened on countless occasions the messenger has been shot.

            

             Do you remember how the police and social services in Rochdale ignored the sexual abuses, including rape, carried out on young girls who were once held in care, and now being prowled upon by a cartel of Pakistanis who preyed on them freely without fear of being arrested by the police, or investigated by social services, despite knowledge of what was happening; and why? For fear of upsetting the Pakistani community.

WHAT JACK DROMEY failed to do, was not realise that there is no acceptable context for a politically incorrect word. He should have paid closer attention to his wife Hattie's strictures on the subject before he entered parliament - after all; ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.

            

             Pikey, Paki, Nigger, Sambo, Wog, etcetera…are all now outlawed. You can say fuck and cunt as much as you like on stage, as far as our modern "edgy" comedians are concerned; indeed, the more frequently they use such references in their acts the greater the laughter it seems to ignite from within their audiences: and for one modern comedian, he goes as far as using "Mong", to describe someone with Down's Syndrome, which is insulting on two levels. Firstly for those suffering from Downs; but also by insulting to the Mongolian people, from which Mongol, was once the common usage to describe those with Downs some 50 years ago when we knew little better; and the "comedian", who uses it today, cares little anyway.  

            

             We are entering, not for the first time in human history, the outlawing of words, phrases, and all expression that does not fit neatly into a modern paradigm. In an autocratic or totalitarian society, it would be seen as understandable if not forgivable. But in a democratic society, it is neither understandable - and certainly not forgiveable.

            

              I am no friend, ideologically speaking, of Jack Dromey, and certainly I despise all that, politically speaking, he and his beloved wife stands for. But all Jack was doing was doing was introducing himself at the Erdington Royal Mail Sorting Office, to an employee who had the nickname Pikey, christened him, for whatever reason, by his work mates based upon the character in Dad's Army.

IN ALMOST ANY workplace in the land, nicknames flourish among the various workforces, and are usually based upon characters found on television, such as in Dad's Army. I once, in my youth, worked in a amusement arcade. We had one employee whose name was Ray; but was christened Charlie, after Charlie George, the Arsenal footballer. We did so because of his shoulder length hair and face, reminded us of the great man.

              

            The staff at Erdington Royal Mail Sorting Office, no doubt, have a good and comical reason for christening Gareth Martin "Pikey", and, no doubt, he was introduced as such to Jack Dromey; and Mr Dromey, being a man of the working class went along with Mr Martin's moniker - for this is all it was.

            

             Now perhaps Jack and his wife will begin to realise the dangers of confiscating words from usage, and threatening imprisonment for persistent offenders. Mr Dromey's treatment by the media and the Twits is just plain silly: but the only way political correctness can be brought to book, is if its authors and supporters are made an example of whenever they fall foul of its bizarre practices - however innocently.

           

           

The apostate Pissarides

‘Back then, the euro looked like a great idea. But it has now backfired. It is holding back growth and job creation and it is dividing Europe. The present situation is untenable.’ Professor Pissarides

ONLY IN THE UK are the great and good rewarded for failure. Whether it is a failed politician, or one the voter kicks out via the ballot box. All are either tapped on the shoulders by a sword wielding monarch, given a Quango to oversee; or are shuffled off to the House of Lords to continue suckling from the public tit, after which many of them, like Lord Myners manages to become a director of a bank. Admittedly it is the Co-operative, but perhaps he sees it as an act of penance  for his part in the Co-op Britannia takeover which he advised and encouraged should take place (he was also involved in the RBS's taxpayer bailout and Fred Goodwin's pension).

            

             I am sure the British have their own particular favourite who has been so rewarded. Mine is Sir Christopher Pissarides, the  highly regarded economist and Nobel Laureate who lectures at the London School of Economics (LSE).

            

             Sir Christopher was the architect of the euro; and who, in a speech today at the LSE, will announce his apostasy and declare the euro a failure. According to the press his speech will contain references to a 'lost generation' and will refer to the euro 'dividing Europe'. The Cypriot born academic is one of 'the most respected European economists of his generation' according to the Daily Mail. I must say that there are millions like myself who have never heard of the man; but it is nice to put a face to the most catastrophic piece of social engineering seen in Europe since it was attempted by force, by Napoleon and Hitler.

            The euro will hopefully be seen as damaging for the continent a 14^th century plague that wiped out half the population of Europe. At least the good professor has the integrity (lacking in so many politicians) to admit he was wrong. But considering the scale of what he was wrong about; it brings little comfort to millions of Europeans out of work, and the millions of Germans that are being forced to pick up the pieces of this horrendous adventure.

            

            Yet in time Sir Christopher Pissarides will become Lord Pissarides of Nicosia and will lose none of the respect from either his profession, or the European (including the UK) political elites. He will continue to be pressed to the bosom of the liberal establishment, and will, even after his retraction, remain popular.

I FAILED MY 11-PLUS, I am hopeless at maths and configuring numbers and equations. Algebra was a foreign language to me - and I am proud of none of this. But even I, and millions of others, whose mathematical skills fell well short of the minimum standard, did however have an understanding of basic history and human nature.

            

             The trouble with academics is that they reign supreme in their own particular fields of study, but they more often or not know very little about other fields of knowledge which may overlap with their own…such as economics.

            

             That an intellect such as Professor Pissarides could have ever conceived of such a set- up as the European Single Currency, when it is not beyond the whit of  a moron to understand its many flaws, leaves one flabbergasted. That the politicians should have bought into it is one thing; they were, after all, determined to pursue their utopian vision of a Federal States of Europe; or to give it its proper name, a United States of Europe. They would have bought into the magic bean market if it meant fulfilling some equally dubious venture they had been intent upon completing. For even today they are determined still to save this wretched monopoly currency.

            

              How could so many diverse economies, and, more importantly, cultures, be conscripted into such an homogeneous super state? This is idealism turned rancid. Yet the nation states of Europe are still in the grip of such an 'ideal' and the people of Europe are led by politicians determined at any cost to corral them into such cultural totalitarianism; soon, no doubt, to be completed by a political one.

SIR CHRISTOPHER  has come clean, but it will not stop the process. So determined are European politicians to see this project through to its completion that it matters little to them  the cost that will have to be paid. Like Marxists and Fascists, the  human price is not important for our European leaders - for the means justify the ends.

            

             I will tell you the meaning of a fanatic. It is someone whose solutions have been undermined  by reality -  but concludes that a cure can only be found in upping the dose of the same medicine, as happened when the euro hit the rocks.

            

            This is what the EU proposed following the euro crises. Instead of drawing back, the Eurocrats insisted that Economic and political union should advance faster than previously considered; which is where we stand today. The subtle method of integration (proposed, no doubt, by British politicians for the UK) was no longer workable. The euro crises demanded more of the same medicine, introduced more quickly in order to achieve a full European superstate.

            

           The euro crises has only stimulated the advancement of full political and monetary union among the Europhile fanatics and as usual, it is the people who will once more pay the price for the politician's folly.