Whither Cameron?

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Who said: "We are now being told the British people are not capable of judging this issue – the government knows best; the top people are the only people who can understand it; it is too difficult for the rest. This is the classic argument of every tyranny in history. It begins as a refined intellectual argument, and it moves into a one-man dictatorship; 'We know best'
becomes 'I know best'."

No, it wasn't Carswell, Hannan, Redwood, Cash or other euro-sceptic;  it was said in 1962 by Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of the Labour Party in a speech to Party Conference though others have echoed his sentiments many times since then.

Gaitskell effectively scuppered McMillan's entry negotiations with his speech but Ted Heath lied to the British people in 1970: “If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country. The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market ... A Conservative Government would not be prepared to recommend to Parliament, nor would Members of Parliament approve, a settlement which was unequal or unfair. In making this judgement, Ministers and Members will listen to the views of their constituents."

When I started this post it was going to be about Article 8A-4 of the Lisbon Treaty and ECJ Ruling 274/99 but then I stumbled across 1971 FCO 30/1048 (I bet you're all breathing a sigh of relief right now) which states: "The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government. To counter this feeling, strengthened local and regional democratic processes… and effective Community regional economic and social policies will be essential… there would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community".

We have been systematically lied to, manipulated and betrayed.  Any politician in the current House of Commons must know this so, I ask again, whither Cameron?  He's already said that he wants the UK to be in the EU but not run by it; from what I've read on Euro-lex and other official EU sites, that isn't possible - he must realise that.  The EU is an undemocratic body; the Parliament was added as an afterthought and a sop to democracy.  The unelected Commission makes the laws, the ECJ upholds them and the elected Parliament nods them through, much like our own Parliament in Westminster.  Anyone who still thinks that our Parliament represents us is wrong; they do nothing but channel EU laws and examine their expenses.  They spend less time in session than ever before simply because they have precious little to do.  They are, in effect, overpaid social workers to their constituents in the Regions.

I came across this as well:

FRONTEX has an internal policing mandate and will soon preside over one of the world’s most extensive surveillance systems. This will be achieved through the interlinking of several existing EU databases and police communications systems and the creation of two new overarching surveillance frameworks (EUROSUR and EU entry-exit).

The EU is built on an out-moded concept which is now, to coin a phrase we know well, unfit for purpose.  It cannot last.

Regulation is heaped on Regulation in order to maintain some sort of structural integrity but there are weak points, the most notable one being that it sees people as counters and themselves as Greek Gods, untouchable high above the clouds, pushing little figures to and fro and guiding our lives.

Happy days!

PS: You might like this: NeoConOpticon: The EU Security-Industrial Complex:   "In the final analysis, Full Spectrum Dominance offers a new model of policing based not on ‘consent’, as the liberal democratic model holds, but on continual processes of public submission to authority. Perhaps more importantly, as a project, this model implies the end of resistance to this process (complete domination = complete submission). It follows that if freedom is to survive, then this project cannot be allowed to succeed."


No response to “Whither Cameron?”
Post a Comment | Post Comments (Atom)