Patriotic Right not stupid - huge shocka

And I was just a boy, giving it all away.

I’ve been pondering these last few days quite how to respond to David Cameron’s recent statements about the EU and Lisbon, and waited until I had something politely-worded to post on the subject.

Mrs. Northwester assures me that I’ll go straight back in the cellar and the chains’ll go right back on me (and not in a nice husband and wife relaxing in the privacy of their own home and just how they do it is nobody else’s business kind of way) if I don’t find something positive to say about the Leader of the Op.

Okay, here goes. Any second now. Phew. Gulp. Cripes.

David Cameron has led the Conservative and Unionist Party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from being merely one amongst several opposition parties that did not: debauch the Constitution; install separatist administrations in each of the non-English parts of the Union; corrupt public service to such an extent that Party and State have merged indistinguishably in some places; import as many foreigners as possible to deliberately change forever the nature of British demographics; bankrupt the public finances; or render Britain’s wholly necessary and righteous defensive war of existential survival against the world’s most virulent and confident totalitarianism unpopular with the very people whom it protects (including the united Right who should be 100% behind its prosecution if not its conduct in detail), to being the very party that might just win a huge majority at the polls.

Well done, Mister Cameron.

Conversely, he might only lead them to a hung parliament (as distinguished from a hanged parliament which is an entirely different thing.)

‘Ah’, you might say, ‘But that hung parliament story was immediately after Labour’s party conference when all the cameras were on it and its leaders were being interviewed in a sympathetic light. I’ll be different in a real general election.’

To which I might reply, ‘Well, what do you think the mainstream media’s election coverage is going to look like next summer? What do you think the BBC’s treatment of Labour versus the Conservatives' ‘Left v Right’ struggle will resemble – from an ‘impartial’ national broadcaster that two weeks ago all but supplied David Dimbleby with a wig, black silk cloth and Royal Navy cutlass for the Nick Griffin edition of Question Time?’ Perhaps that Tory lead is not as solid as it seems.

More than that, perhaps it is not evenly spread.

Here’s part of why. Last year Mister Cameron was full of vim; giving it some rabbit about what he’d do if the Lisbon Treaty which is The European Union’s permanent Constitution in a fig leaf disguise (the fig leaf being all of our broadcast media plus almost everybody in each of the three main parties and the Celtic-fringe Nationalists and most of the national newspapers and news magazines) was passed into 'law.'

Via Voice of the Resistance we are reminded of Cameron’s 2008 words:

The Tories would hold a referendum on the EU treaty, if they won power before it was ratified by all EU states. Party leader David Cameron said even if Parliament ratified the treaty, a Tory government would hold a referendum.

Translation: ‘I’ll give the British people a say in which nation(s) shall govern them despite what the New Labour State decrees in this, its last Parliament.’

Give it to me, big boy. It’s so big. It’s so hard.

By April this year he’d lost a little of that delightful buzz.

”We have pledged that if the constitution is not in force in the event of the election of a Conservative government this year or next, we will hold a referendum on it, urge a no vote, and – if successful – reverse Britain’s ratification”.

Translation: ‘I will not give the British people a say in which nation(s) shall govern them despite what the New Labour State decrees in this, its last Parliament. But I’ll make a fuss about any fait accompli.’

Um, do it a little harder please, Dave. Don’t stop.

By today, the rabbit’s batteries have gone quite flat.

David Cameron is set to announce within days that he will not call a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if he takes power and it is already law.

Translation: ‘I shall not give the British people a say in which nation(s) shall govern them despite what the New Labour state decrees in this, its last Parliament. And I won’t even make a fuss about this fait accompli, and my party, including its Right wing, won’t either, probably.’

Don’t bother. I’ll do it for myself.

And doing it for themselves is indeed what a hefty chunk of the British people have determined to do. It seems that national self-government-wise our patriotic companions have discovered that there are more choices to political life than doing it upstairs in bed wearing pyjamas with the lights switched off.

UKIP achieved another fantastic gain in vote share at yesterday's Huntingdon North By election, reports Eastern Regional Organiser Cllr Peter Reeve.

The by-election was caused by the resignation of the sitting Liberal Democrat Cllr.

UKIP increased its share of the vote from 8.2% in 2008 to 22.3% . (Increase of +14.1%)
The Liberal Democrats held the seat by achieving a small increase in their share of the vote (+2.7%) and the Labour Candidate also achieved a small gain (+1.8%) but came 4th Place being beaten by UKIP.
The Conservatives saw their vote plummet going from 47.2% in 2008 down to 28.5% (Down -18.7%). Despite their candidate being a local sitting County Councillor for the area (Cllr Liane Kadic)
Cllr Reeve, who was elected as a UKIP Councillor on to Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council in July this year, said: “This result is typical of what is happening to UKIP right across the country.
"Voters are now deciding to back UKIP in huge numbers because of our commonsense policies and our passion for listening to and representing the man in the street. Though Cllr Kadic is an impressive individual, the Conservatives adopted some desperate measures including delivering an all Polish language election address. It seems that the Conservative Leadership no longer wish to represent traditional British values and as well as being passionately pro-EU and led by a Polish MEP in the European Parliament, they also now seem to be anti-English language.
"We would like to thank the residents of Huntingdon North for voting UKIP and to Peter Ashcroft our Candidate, our hard working local resident, and also thanks to the election agent Robert H Brown and the dedicated team in Huntingdonshire.

Now Huntingdonshire is an area where, really and truly, (and wimping out to the local Liberal Democrats aside), at Westminster elections they shouldn't count the Tory votes at all: they should be weighing them. They’re not planning to recommence fox hunting with hounds in that sort of constituency if the Conservatives get in – they’re going to move straight on to the social workers.

Even if at a General Election some of that UKIP share of the vote turns out to have been tactical, ‘personal,’ locally-determined or ‘protest’, it’s still likely that nationwide the expected Conservative majorities in many constituencies will be reduced and a clear message will have been sent via UKIP saved deposits and second or third places, and perhaps even a UKIP MP or two.

The victorious Tory backbenchers can be made to hear that message and ponder it:

You’ve lost a constituency that just won’t come back to you (and not even to throw out New Labour’s gaggle of traitors and dhimmi-colonialists.) If you continue to behave as if Mister Cameron throwing out the conservative baby with the ‘Mean Party’ reputation bathwater and in so doing abandoning the notion of personal hygiene altogether was a permanently good thing, then you’ll never get us back.

Country trumps party.

But here we are in our millions; distinct, organised and determined. And when you spot that your party’s popularity is falling in the polls (as the federast and Big State media will surely arrange eagerly as Labour’s crimes fade in the public’s memory), then you don’t only have the choice of handing out more organic, carbon-neutral lollipops, say, to steal a few Liberal Democrat votes and get a slightly gentler battering on Question Time, or of abandoning Britain’s nuclear deterrent or caving in to teaching unions and even cease to build any new prisons, if you want to be re-elected. You can have us. At a price.

The Conservative Party is like Western Europe in the early 1940’s; basically a decent place with mostly good institutions and civilized people, but currently occupied by an alien power; one intent on stealing its good name and deeply perverting all that into something new and wrong. Some of its best talents are either collaborating with the invaders for the time being because they can see no way to break free, or are organizing a liberation from exile. Cameron and his political class cronies (the reimported Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine and all their supporters) are Big-State Goerings marching up and down its Champs-Élysées and posing for photographs and planning how they’ll dig themselves in for generations.

To change metaphors yet again, the Conservative Party couldn’t more resemble its previous idiot form in the early 1970s if it sang Grandad’s Christmas Disco Womble instead of Land of Hope and Glory.

If it is to be liberated once again and thus allowed to perform its true raison d’être of providing Britain with conservative government, then there also has to be a place where free people can offer refuge for exiles, plus encouragement - and allies for those who will help return it to its true path and nature. For all the cavilling and scandals and egotism that there have been at its top, I have to say that UKIP most closely fits the bill.

It’s not perfect or all-powerful or superbly resourced, but then neither was Britain after the fall of France.

Tory genius 3: special takeaway edition

Spare me if you will for a moment the accusations of racism that might rightfully derive from this post’s title.

There’s method in my madness and it’s not to rile my non-anti-immigration readers; nor to win undeserved praise from some of my fellow anti-immigration readers.

Both 13^th Spitfire and Calling England have pointed out this piece from Conservative Home from the Conservative MEP Nirj Deva, concerning who rules Europe.

Read this interesting and truthful article, and look at the Lisbon breakdown graph that the gentleman has provided.

Much of what Mr Deva says is true, and even sounds a bit like Euro-skeptics such as I might make. In the main body of the argument, with a squint and a quick read and a full bladder that makes you finish it fast and move on, you might think that I had penned many of the criticisms, or Trixy, or EU Referendum. (How’s that name-dropping and egotism for you! I’m on holiday, so I’m treating myself.)

I’m just going to take exception to one or two things in the early, descriptive part of his post, just for fun and context, and then I’m going to do what I guess most of my readers will have done when reading the speculative part of his post.

The European Union, first established as the EEC in Jan 1958 comprises of three separate but interdependent institutions.

What’s in a name? An alleged collection of economic groupings which developed from European Economic Communities to the European Community to the European Union. What’s next, we wonder?

Unless you think that that old thing in the Treaty of Rome about ‘ever-closer union’ actually means something, but that would be crazy, right?

Remember this history so when we get onto the Tory-bashing it’ll be fresh..

Oh, and:

In legislating for these 500 million people my primary duty is to first determine what is best for my own constituents in the South East of England, what next is best for my party the Conservative Party and third what is best for all the peoples of Europe whose interest are represented by the European Parliament.
This is no more different than a Member of the Indian Parliament from Mumbai going to Delhi every week and representing first his electorate and then the interest of the whole of India or a United States Senator from California going to Washington every week and voting to protect the interest of California and then that of the United States according to his party interest be they Democrat or Republican.

Did you see what he did there? He said that a national of one country legislating for his constituency first and then for all the members of a collective polity of many nations is the same as, say, an Indian legislating for his home constituency first and then the nation of India, or an American legislating for his home state and then for all of the United states of America.

It might do some good explaining to someone involved the difference between regional representatives from all over a single nation (albeit some very diverse nations) legislating for the whole nation, so that Indians only make India’s laws and Americans only making America’s laws, and Englishmen making Ireland’s laws (without bayonets being involved,) or Germans making France’s laws (ditto) or Austrians making Italy’s laws (but with nicer pastries.)

Now for that table.

Wow.

I’d love to know where those percentages come from. I imagine they’re true in some way though as with all things ‘European’ we’re in a number of halls of mirrors as well as smoke-filled back rooms when trying to quantify anything at all; except possibly the number of ‘member states’ involved.

Now it’s time for the boot of sarcasm to meet the buttocks of Cameronian ‘Euro-skepticism.’

So how do we fight back?

Firstly, like all British Conservatives, I am working tirelessly to demand that Prime Minister Brown deliver upon his party’s manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the European Constitution.

So, trying to persuade Gordon Brown to fulfil a promise is your first line of attack?

What’s number two: build this big horse and then run away from Brussels, but when the Belgians come out to drag it inside, and you what…?

It is a travesty of political and common law justice to deny the British people and (peoples of other nations) a say in how they should be governed.

So restoring legislative sovereignty to the nation-states would be a minimal first step, I’d guess, unless you have a sophisticated new version of ‘pooling sovereignty’ which has always made the same sense as ‘pooling virginity,’ and for similar reasons. Let’s see if restoring legislative sovereignty is on your menu, shall we?

Secondly, the importance of the party’s new European Conservative and Reformists Group in the European Parliament – the body’s first ‘official opposition’ - should not be underestimated.

Oh, I’m sure that we don’t underestimate it, exactly.

As British Conservatives, we are an outward looking, free-market oriented and in favour of greater individual freedom and less regulation.

Anybody out there not either glumly nostalgic now or weeping tears of laughter again?

For the first time, the European Parliament has a group which shares our credo – and a genuine commitment to reform.

In the early days of the group, we should now be asking the following questions:

How do we reform the EU to bring about smaller government and more powerful citizens?

Who knows? Nobody’s ever tried it, though I did read in a libertarian science fiction book once that there’s no political situation anywhere that can’t be improved by the importation of a couple of million Saturday Night Specials.

Of course, I’m not a libertarian and would prefer some solution based around an actual collection of elected and genuine representatives of the people such as, you know; big place built by Pugin, in London – no foreign citizens allowed voting for representatives except for certain Irishmen by long agreement, big fuss about some receipts a few weeks ago.

How should Europe do less… –

Mate, just exactly who in the Commission, the powerless ‘parliament,’ or the Council of Ministers actually wants ‘less’ and is prepared to make sacrifices (such as facing up to critical editorials in Le Monde, the Guardian, or on the BBC) to achieve ‘less?’ When did anyone in the Court ever pass a verdict that enforced ‘less?’

Ever?

…and how should they do it better?

‘Better’ implies well. What does the EU do well that anyone ‘outward looking, free-market oriented and in favour of greater individual freedom and less regulation’ would sincerely want it to do, and which couldn’t be done easily enough by mutual consent and goodwill without the ’help’ of the Commission, parliament, Council, and Court? Customs union? Nothing easier for nations that really wanted to co-operate, I’d have thought.

It’s not like, say, building armed forces and then getting them to agree to enthusiastically and effectively fight a common enemy which would be a good idea if you could do it, but I wonder if you managed that you’d also need a powerful and intrusive continental bureaucracy to enforce more intimate things like weights and measures, plug design, banana curvature…

Recognizing that an average birth rate of 1.5 will leave a deficit of skills talents and a depopulated internal market,

… or who shags whom and with what result.

Though effective border controls that doesn’t allow floods of modernity-hating barbarians to head for European welfare entitlements might help, plus lower taxation that allows working couples to have a decent standard of living and to afford modest but slightly larger families. But if even we can’t manage that in Britain - and we’re an island for crying out loud! – then it’s unlikely (to say the least), that ‘Europe’ will be able to do it.

… how do we deregulate the EU?

Without latter-day Lancasters and Wellingtons, you’ve got me beat.

Any ideas yourself given the permanent institutional and legislative bias for centralization explicit in the Treaty of Rome’s ‘ever closer union; you being the elected and publicly financed professional politician and all?

How do we develop new safeguards for the rights of member states?

Tricky...

Might have something to do with the fundamental nature and internal processes of the European Communities…EEC…EC…EU…

Nope. Nothing springs to mind.

How should subsidiarity be strengthened: by a subsidiarity panel, new treaty provisions on interpretation or a ‘states' rights' clause?

How has ‘subsidiarity’ ever returned delegated powers back to ‘sovereign’ nations without larger powers being internationalized up to the EU by treaty or just plain cheating? Has it ever been done? Is it possible given, blah, blah, blah…

What legislative areas should we repatriate and how?

See above. I mean it. Seriously. Check the history.

How can – and how far should – National Parliaments otherwise be more closely involved in EU decision-making (by pre-Council meeting mandates for ministers, for example) or by sitting as the revising Upper Chamber of the European Parliament to review subsidiarity and intergovernmental pillars or through a permanent "Congress of National Parliaments" to review subsidiarity and pass treaty amendments (except those of "constitutional" nature)?

Putting national parliaments on top of continent-wide European institutions to check that continent-wide European institutions pass internationalized powers back to national parliaments, huh? It’s so simple, it’s brilliant!

Oh.

B) Does this mean we get to play the boy for once, and even so how does it prevent us still being screwed? or

A) Is this on offer?

I mean, seriously; are they just humming in Paris and Berlin and Madrid and Rome to let their 65 year-old parliaments (along with our 745 year-old parliament) climb on top the 55 year-old European institutions and ask them to Stop! Wait a minute! What do you think you’re doing? That’s no way to treat an expensive constitutional instrument.

Is there anyone singing that song who isn’t a British Tory speaking in Britain to other British Tories?

How do we open up the Council of Ministers?

I’d use surgical knives myself but hey, that’s just me.

Should its legislative work be held in public?

That worked so well in Britain these last few years, yeah? We were right on top of that old expenses thing – we hardly let it get anywhere these last 12 years…

Maybe if you did it like the US Congress does it, and also broadcast all the committee proceedings…

Maybe then, and only then, would the BBC inform us it’s all so beautiful and sign off with a humourous piece about the Yoghurt Wars, or Alfonso, the Commission cat…

How should we increase the reporting requirements to national parliaments of ministers before and after they attend the Council of Ministers?

You know, if ministers only governed their own countries according to the traditions, moralities and the shared myths, histories and legal systems of those particular countries, then they’d only have to report to their own parliaments, and you’d get to cut out the middle man, and even the ubermensch…

How do we make enterprise, employment growth and wealth creation central to the EU's instincts and philosophy?

I think we may well be back in Lancasters and Wellingtons territory here.

Look, the continentals vary a lot, from state-worshippers to liberty-lovers, but I doubt that continued membership of the EU or its looming successor is going to achieve anything of the sort. Why not let the French do their own thing and farm weekday mornings and drive to Paris in the evening for income top-ups? Let the Germans make cars to go fast on their autobahns only to slow down when they hit everyone else’s wiggly roads anyway, and let the Czechs, poor buggers, be free for once.

A career open to the talents was a French aspiration: let us all dream of such a thing by not telling us how many hours we can work, and for whom, and for how much.

Should we make even greater use of "mutual recognition and cooperation" rather than "harmonisation", in completing the single market?

How about free trade or separate intra-national agreements? Look how well suppressing landfill to meet Dutch and Danish drainage needs is working for UK refuse disposal and see how well continent-wide legislation about work and trade function.

Is there much further scope for self-regulation by sectors on the basis of EU-wide guidelines and codes of conduct?

Try non-regulation of sectors, or the law of the land, buster – they just might work.

This particular land, by the way.

Which European social legislation poses the biggest burden on the labour market and needs to be repealed?

Nobody help him, folks. He’s got to work this one out by himself.

Is further action needed to tackle the continuing problem of anti-competitive price differentials across Europe, as Conservative manifestos have proposed?

Protectionism, tariff-unions, or free trade. Take your pick, and stick to it, why don’t you?

How much co-financing or re-nationalization of the CAP should there be?

This isn’t a trick question. I think he really means it. Oh dear.

How far should the CAP provide financial incentives for environmental protection?

Or anti-virus software? Or better munitions? Or nicer-shaped tomatoes? Or better footballers?

Should the CFP be abolished?

!

If so, what should replace it?

Er...Fishing?

How do we allow two-way flexibility, with opt-outs available to member states in policy areas other than internal market, competition policy and trade?

How indeed? How also do we allow two-tone flip-flops with bake-outs to member states in hay fever areas other than internal junket, quizzes and fade?

Keep it simple, if you can.

These are but some of the challenges facing my political generation. If we do not address them, future generations will not thank us for leaving behind a Europe of turmoil, chaos, failing birth rates, debt, low employment and even conflict - the very thing the founding fathers of the EU set out to eliminate forever …

(Failing birth rates? Really?)

… when they created the current unstable, undemocratic, unrepresentative edifice.

That was simple but somehow I don’t believe he’s got it, do you children?

Someone seems to have taken the clue away, and I don’t think it’s coming back via the Conservative Party any time soon.