Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Time To Unite Against Europe

I have been reading Devilled Kitchen of late and while I feel he would be improved by a thrashing before being obliged to stand for the national anthem , he does know his stuff on the Great Satan( Brussels ). He does jolly well puncturing the gaseous presumption of others but like all anarchists has little to suggest positively
I have myself accompanied the very fragrant Arthurian legend to the Bruges group and made pow wow with U Kippers. There is a cigarette paper between them and the Euro sceptic Conservative Party nowadays .A little emphasis aside we are brothers, that should be united in defeating Brown`s plot to turn this green land into a foul gulag . I do not therefore see the point of UKIP which may well do much harm

Mr. Kitchen would no doubt say that Conservatives want to reform the EU but are , (amazingly) , conservative about actually leaving it .True enough.. In the 70s our economy was stuck and the European power houses were racing ahead , Suez had crushed the belief of the country and we felt we could not accept a role and America`s Athens . The war was still a fresh memory, people forget that a midway point between now and the Luftwaffe flying over London was 1976 the year the Pistols came out . The words, “ Ever closer union “, had a quite different resonance . None foresaw that a peace promoting customs Union, would become the United states of Europe . If this Constitution is waved though that’s is exactly what we will have.

It was economic insecurity that propelled us in and the threat of it has been wielded effectively at Conservatives who , reasonably , appreciate independence , but less so than their mortgages. I am always telling UKIP ultras that they should emphasise the problems and expense of the EU less, and concentrate on establishing the firm economic case for life outside. Less of the past and more of the future, in other words .

I am delighted, therefore, to see Ruth Lea doing just that through an organisation called “Global Vision. The argument must be that in return for regaining control over our country and getting back £5000 for every household . We will be as rich as Norway and Switzerland who struggle by with a raft of bilateral treaties, the so called third way.
The word has changed since the 70s we are now the Daddy, while their economies sink into deeper sclerosis every year. Conservatives only need reassurance and I am one of them.

The time has come for UKIP to rejoin the Party and make the case, they will be pushing an open door and one held by timidity not principle .The great advantage of this would be to expose Nick Cleggs weak Euro flank..

The Perfect European Nick Clegg

Son of Russian Banker and Dutch mother this fluent multi-linguist was educated at Westminster, Cambridge and then Brussels internship, posting the usual apple for teacher articles in the Guardian en route . He has , of course , never had a real job or a real English life in any sense at all .He is a gilded gypsy internationalist with weed- shallow roots in the loam of England . He and his Spanish wife Gonzlaez Durantez ( not Clegg) can pitch up anywhere . We, however , have become attached to the drizzly beauty of the place over the last 1000 years . What right has he got to tell us what “we” should do when he does not accept there is a “we” and certainly does not belong to it For him “Flag A ( spit ...) means as much as Flag B. Such a man knows nothing of this country for all his good intentions


Ed said...

Our "leaders" in the 70s were naive or downright devious. Heath is on record as saying that the English are too stupid to rule themselves. He knew what we were getting into and did it willingly. Thatch tried to reform it from within but manifestly failed.

Something like 9% of UK businesses do business IN other EU nations (rather than WITH businesses in other EU nations) but 100% are affected by EU regulations. There is nothing to stop the UK enacting the regulations it wishes to if they were of benefit.

The EU is an excellent scheme to get unpopular laws through and our "leaders" can say "oh it was the EU", such as the privacy destroying laws which Blair punched through Europe because he knew Parliament would never allow them.

But the real killer is the point that no matter how unpopular a particular policy is across the whole of Europe, voters have no power to change it if the Commission pushes it through.

It's about being able to kick out the Executive.

Newmania said...

English are too stupid to rule themselves

That I fear is the attitude at heart...thnks Ed thats a great comment

Ed said...

The attitude of the Euro-elite is that to be anti-integration is to be the stupid boy at the back of the class. To be pro-EU to be enlightened and progressive.

But the problem is it's being done without the consent of the electorate. If you want a prime example of the intellectual snobbery of the establishment, see Mark Mardell's Euroblog on the Beeb.

Anonymous said...

Good topic, n. What I want to know is why no one seems to be covering Labour MP - and Constitution part author - Giselle's Stuart's admission that BROWN IS LYING ABOUT HIS BOGUS RED LINES OR OPT OUTS

Why are the BBC online and majority of the press not reporting this?

Stuart has blasted Brown form his dishonesty and lack of integrity.


Auntie Flo'

Once again the good old SUN newspaper saves the day.


Ed said...

The BBC is becoming an outrage on Europe. Mardell's disgusting blog has been on the front page for ages but anything negative gets sidelined or not even reported.

Newmania said...

I`vb always really liked Gisella Sewtart Flo...read her in the Standard last night . It was utterly damning wasn`t it

hatfield girl said...

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 makes a clear statement of the intention to build a federal Euuropean state; that this state would be built in stages (as it has been) beginning with a unification of a market in basic economic processes; and that there would be a European president of this single state entity. No objective currently being embodied in the new Constitution is not foreshadowed and intended in this founding document. It is not really the case that the EU was ever merely a cutoms or a trading, comercial union. All of the steps to where we are now were seen as necessary developments to the goal of Federal Europe.

Suez was in 1956 and I'm a bit mystified about what it has to do with the UK's achieving acceptance into the EEC in 1972. (Actually I'm not, I'm a bit mystified by what Newmania might see as its contribution to the UK seeking acceptance into the EEC in the seventies.)

What is going on now is the culmination of 60 years commitment, since the end of WW2, not to peace but to correcting the results of that war.

Newmania said...

1The so called Common market was never discussed in those terms

2 Suez I take to stand for the collective loss of confidence following Empire and ensuing cultural cringe that persisted until Thatcher. THis lead to the belief that we had no role outsuide Europe

3 I like your last paragraph although I think its a bit extreme. Yes you may have a point but I am chiefly discussing the way it was seen here.

It still is and I will be posting Polly Toynbee using all the same tactics today

Newmania said...

None foresaw that a peace promoting customs Union, would become the United states of Europe

I see. I mean no- one ( oh alright a few) saw things this way in this country. Not amongst moderate opinion anyway

Newmania said...

...and 56 to 72 is only 16 years . The end of Thatcher say...oh yes effects can last that long especially in the light of the massive shift in the way the British saw themselves

Ed said...

N, what you mean is that the politicians pulled the wool over the electorates' eyes. Heath knew what he was doing. He and his successors all wanted things to be decided neatly behind closed doors. Why let the voters get in the way of the "correct" decisions?

Newmania said...

I really think you are right there , Ed what they fear is the anarchy of the lower classes.

Anonymous said...

Suez was in 1956 and I'm a bit mystified about what it has to do with the UK's achieving acceptance into the EEC in 1972. (Actually I'm not, I'm a bit mystified by what Newmania might see as its contribution to the UK seeking acceptance into the EEC in the seventies.) (Hatfield Girl)

In both cases, you had PMs who appear to have been ill and dependent on major psychoactive drugs with severe side effects. Both PMs appear to consequently have been incapable of formulating sound policies and were driven by their illness and dependency to embark on policy ruinous initiatives.

Newmania said...

on major psychoactive drugs with severe side effects

Heath ? Really ...never heard that

Blog Archive