Category Archives: EvilEU

The FoodNazi farm-animal-Police dishonoureth us, doth bully us and yea, seriously degradeth us (from and old and unremembered tongue-twister)


David Davis

Here we see the Salt-Nazis regrouping for another attempt to either ration salt, or tax it, or both. As War Secretary of an incoming British Libertarian Minimal-Statist Classical-Liberal government’s first administration, I’m not especially worried about these people, for they will simply “have to go”. What salt is in what purchased food will become a matter for the manufacturing sellers and their buyers, as is good and right.

However, there is hope for proper capitalism still since there seem to be enough people still alive who are old enough to write stuff like the following:-

I have no objection against government offering advice and to an extent it is duty bound to pass it on. I don’t, however, go along with the tiresome narrative that food companies are evil because they deliberately hide toxic, addictive, additives to make profits knowing full well that it is killing their customers. Go along with that and one ends up demanding that the state should protect us by ‘acting’ against ‘Big Food’. It’s a trope that is encouraged by the WHO and ‘health’ activists, peopled as they are by those whose agenda is to use health as a tool for attacking western capitalism via global companies. Simplistic though it is, the idea of sinister corporations covertly poisoning populations to make money is a powerful one and seems to find sympathy with many people. I’m quite sure that in the ideal world as envisaged by the WHO and it’s cohorts that state food rationing would be the norm. Perhaps by manufacturing fears of ‘Big Food’ it will eventually encourage a demand for the state to control the food supply? Some might want this, I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t a world I’d wish to inhabit.

Further Comment on Clegg v Farage


by Robert Henderson

Note: We have a mature oligarchy in Britain. As oligarchies mature they become more and more exclusive – the Venetian council in the Middle Ages is a classic example – and the quality of their members becomes less and less. This failure of generational renewal is disguised from the oligarchy members by the sealed nature of the oligarchy and they all go around discounting the views of anyone outside the oligarchy and praising the oligarchies’ members lavishly. Clegg demonstrated how limited our political elite are as individuals. He did not even have the wit not to tell easily revealed lies.

As for Farage, he missed quite a few obvious points in the debates and he is poor at explaining the detail of policies. Time and again he starts making a point or a reply strongly, then two or three sentences later he fades noticeably. Ideally you want him exposed in situations where he can make his point quickly and get out. I could seriously improve his performance by preparing him to anticipate and answer questions in detail a Q and A, whereby you put down all the likely questions your opponent will ask and all the responses he is likely to make and then follow that with anticipated secondary questions and answers. You can go on ad infinitum, but my experience of using them when working for the Inland Revenue and questioning someone under caution is that an initial question or reply and one supplementary is all you can usefully create. Lawyers who have to cross examine often use such Q and As.
The other advice I would give Farage is (1) cut out the jokes because they are generally poor and he is not a natural comic and (2) never but never make the mistake of whining about how hard his job is, as he did in the first debate when challenged over putting his wife on the EU funded payroll – the general public really do hate that sort of thing.
It is important to understand that while the general public detest the likes of Clegg, Cameron and Miliband and have a strong dislike of the EU, that does not mean they have any great liking for or trust in Ukip or Farage. There is also the inertia factor whereby it is the devil’s own job to get people to vote for a party in Britain which does not have a Westminster presence. Moreover, most people will not to vote in UK elections – the turnout in EU elections is generally in the 30 per cents and only in the 60 per cents in recent general elections.

Clegg v Farage: Report and Analysis


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/bbc-2-farage-versus-clegg-debate-2-april-2014/

BBC 2 Farage versus Clegg debate 2 April 2014
Chairman David Dimbleby

The full debate on IPlayer can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0401ht2/The_European_Union_In_or_Out/ It will only be up until 10th April so catch it while you can. If I can find a permanent recording of it on YouTube or suchlike I will post the url here.

The re-match between Farage and Clegg resulted in an even more humiliating hour for Clegg than the first debate. YouGov and ICM polls taken shortly after the debate had Clegg and Farage scoring as follows:

The YouGov poll gave Farage 68%, Clegg 27% Undecided 5%

As last week, this YouGov survey for The Sun questioned just over 1,000 people who viewed the debate. We weighted the data to ensure that it was representative of Great Britain as a whole by voting intention and attitudes to the European Union, but did not weight demographically; it therefore reflected the actual audience by age (older than average), gender (more male) and social class (more middle class). It was a fresh sample: we did NOT re-interview people we questioned after last week’s debate. Continue reading

Brexit: the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84841

Brexit: the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus000a OE-001 report1.jpg

From the press office of Open Europe yesterday came a brazen attempt to control the “Brexit” agenda, with a tendentious evaluation of how Article 50 cannot work, leading to a predictable call for EU reform.

Having now opened a Berlin office, it does seem that the organisation is learning from a previous denizen of the city, offering a Goebbels-like claim that it is an “independent think tank” which is “seeking to contribute new thinking to the debate about the direction of the European Union …”.

Yet, it far from being independent, <i>Open Europe</i> is a front for the “EU reform” wing of the Conservative Party. And, rather than “seeking to contribute new thinking to the debate”, it is seeking to close down the “Brexit” debate and concentrate attention on the EU reform. It is not a think tank. It is a propaganda operation.

So desperate is the Goebbels Institute to stake its claim that it has issued a 24-page booklet purporting to be the “real Brexit debate”. This reports on its fatuous “war games” last December in which it managed a bizarre simulation of Article 50 negotiations, devised to produce a messy failure and thus demonstrate that reform was the better option.

So weak was the argument that the Goebbels Institute finds it necessary to distort the exit options, maintaining its classic stance that if the UK adopted the “Norway Option”, it would have “no say over EU decision-making”.

This has been addressed so many times, that even Open Europe director Mats Persson can’t pretend he doesn’t know it is a lie, but still the Muppets continue with it. They have little alternative because they know that, if they acknowledge the truth, their game is over, Their vision of reform is bankrupt.

Thus the Muppets contrived a simulation which had pretend “colleagues” expressing concern that allowing the UK to join the EEA would establish a dangerous precedent. They were wary of allowing member states to “cherry pick” access to the single market without actually being an EU member. Not a word was said about the “colleagues” offering precisely that to Ukraine and the rest of the “Eastern Partnership”.

Keen on what they call a “reality check”, the presumptuous Muppets then tell us that the EEA “was designed as an improvised measure for governments seeking closer integration with the EU, but whose electorates had rejected full membership”.

This gives them another opportunity to inject a dose of poison, concluding with the a scary tale of a dismal future. This is the one where the UK has to accept “many of the existing tenets of EU membership”, and expensive EU law, “with no way of influencing it”. The net effect, goes the narrative, “would be less opportunity to hold Brussels to account, not more”.

Underpinning the Goebbels Institute are analyses of several different exit options, but they contrive to offer just sufficient detail to make their evaluations look plausible, but the options never quite manage to be workable. They cannot be allowed to provide a better alternative to their preferred option of reform.

Article 50, the Muppets then tell us, is a one way street. Once triggered, there is no going back, they say – as if that was a disadvantage. This, they actually say, “it is likely to put the UK on the back foot in any negotiation”, then whingeing that the UK will not take part in the final qualified majority vote on whether to accept the new deal, sounding for all the world like and out-take from a Gerald Batten video.

But, having stacked the decks against “Brexit”, they then come to the stunning conclusion that Article 50 is “best kept as an implicit threat, as in practice it cedes more control than it provides. However, “any leader negotiating new membership terms must clearly be ready to trigger it”.

So that’s the Open Europe game plan: EU reform of an unspecified nature, backed up by a threat, implicit or actual, that if the “colleagues” don’t do exactly what we want, we threaten them with Article 50 – without actually using it, of course, because it doesn’t work anyway.

In offering this scenario, we are of course seeing a fundamental failure of imagination and nerve. <i>Open Europe</i> is staffed and supported by timorous wee beasties who haven’t the wit to devise a proper exit plan. But, confronted with the inherent impossibility of achieving meaningful EU “reform”, they have to rig the debate in order to offer anything that looks even remotely workable.

Oddly enough, in this endeavour, they claim one Martin Ricketts, a registered supporter of Open Europe. By pure coincidence, he is also a Managing Trustee and Chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), and a member of the judging panel for the IEA’s “Brexit prize”. In another of life’s coincidences, so is Roger Bootle a registered Open Europe supporter.

And in yet another complete coincidence, the IEA now looks set to pick an exit option straight out of the Open Europe play book – one that looks superficially plausible, but which cannot possibly work. Thus does the Open Europe/IEA propaganda nexus keep the faith.

Farage Defies Clegg’s Lies on Televised Debate


by Stewart Cowan
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2014/04/farage-defies-cleggs-lies-on-televised-debate
Farage Defies Clegg’s Lies on Televised Debate

Like Frank Davis, I too watched Round 2 of Clegg vs Farage on BBC iplayer, seeing as I don’t pay the TV tax. I mention Frank, because I left a long comment on his blog that I thought I would make into a post here. As he says,

The battle was between two visions. On the one hand there was Farage saying that the British should govern Britain, and on the other hand there was Clegg saying that we had to find “strength in numbers” by being a member of the “world’s largest economy”.

Clegg was almost unbearable and spoke just like the very worst internet trolls type. Always banging on about “turning the clock back”. Progressives assume that conservatives think there was some bygone “Golden Age” to which we can simply go back. There was indeed a golden age for those who profited from the Empire. It gave us full employment (mainly slave labour) and Glasgow, where I come from, was transformed through trading with the Empire into a magnificent city, much of which was still evident when I last visited in 2006, but one-by-one, those fine-looking 19th century – and earlier – buildings are being replaced by monstrous carbuncles: proof that modern isn’t always better. Far from it. Continue reading

LBC Nigel Farage versus Nick Clegg EU debate 26 3 2014


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/lbc-nigel-farage-versus-nick-clegg-eu-debate-26-3-2014/

LBC Nigel Farage versus Nick Clegg EU debate 26 3 2014

(The full debate can be viewed here http://www.lbc.co.uk/watch-lbc-leaders-debate-live—26th-march-87667)

Robert Henderson

Farage walked the debate with a YouGov poll of 1003 people giving this result:

57% Farage

36% Clegg

7% undecided

It is rare in a two man debate on any subject for a win to be so crushing and that is doubly so when politicians with such polarised views are put up for the judgement of the public.

Continue reading

The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government


by Stewart Cowan
http://www.realstreet.co.uk/2014/03/the-uks-most-radical-revolutionaries-are-in-government
The UK’s Most Radical Revolutionaries are in Government

I look forward to reading Frank Davis’s blog every morning. Yesterday, he wrote that while the mainstream media paint UKIP as the revolutionaries, it’s actually the so-called mainstream parties who are,

After all, with a few exceptions, the political class is now fully signed up to merging the UK into Europe. After 1000 years or more of being a nation-state, it’s all going to be replaced with membership of the brand new European Union. And this is an extremely radical departure. It’s nothing short of a revolution. And it wasn’t being seriously contemplated just 40 years ago, when the EU was still the European Economic Community. Continue reading

Watch your arses (number-142a)


David Davis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10605328/EU-has-secret-plan-for-police-to-remote-stop-cars.html

A number of years ago, Richard Littlejohn wrote about the EU using this dreadful device in his novel “To Hell In A Handcart”. In his story, the people win. I’m not so sure about how reality will pan out.

Now, people, do you still want to remain in the EU after reading this? Expect the cars of all libertarian, classical-liberal and other anti-EU bloggers to be “remotely stopped” frequently.

Many years before this, in fact in about 1985, Bernard Adamczewski gave a talk at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, saying that the coming technological revolution (this was before the internet, remember) would free people from government tyranny. He seems to have become wrong about this.

(I know when it was, for I have a b/w photo of him and me talking there, on the wall of my Library. And I know which suits and tie I wore that year.)

Political Reasons for Leaving the EU


Political Reasons for Leaving the EU

D.R. Myddelton

Political Notes No. 198

ISSN 0267-7059 (print)
ISSN 2042-2776 (online)
ISBN: 9781856376648

An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.

© 2014: Libertarian Alliance; D.R. Myddelton

Professor D.R. Myddelton is Chairman of the Institute of Economic Affairs and a Vice-President of the Society for Individual Freedom and the Chairman of its National Council. He is also Emeritus Professor of Finance and Accounting at Cranfield University and the author of numerous publications.

This essay is a revised and somewhat expanded version of a talk given by Professor Myddelton to a meeting of the Campaign for an Independent Britain held on the 4th May 2013. It first appeared in the September 2013 issue of The Individual, the journal of the Society for Individual Freedom.

The views expressed in this publication are those of its author, and not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee, Advisory Council or subscribers.

FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

Britain’s membership of the European Union may soon be the subject of an ‘In/Out Referendum’. So those of us who want the United Kingdom to leave the EU are starting to assemble our arguments.

Economic arguments Continue reading

Let Us Leave the EU – But Not Yet! (2013), Speech by Sean Gabb


http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2013-12-14-sig-im.mp3

On Saturday the 14th December 2013, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, spoke at the Intellectual Minds Conference at the Hilton Hotel in Syon Park, “The European Union and the New British Constitution. Here is a brief summary of what he said:

Part of the consensus within the libertarian and traditionalist movements in England is that membership of the European Union is destroying our free institutions; and that, to recover these institutions, our first step must be to leave the EU.

This claim is not wholly supported by the evidence. For example, many of us blamed the EU for the loss of our protection against double jeopardy at law. Yet Germany and many other EU member states do not allow people to be tried twice for the same offence. Australia, on the other hand, has brought in the same deviation from the rule as we have, and the statutes use the same wording. Australia is not a member state of the EU. Continue reading

I just thought all you people would like to see how the EU is allowing Nazis to say things about Britain and Gibraltar. Nothing about the fact that these are “minors” at schools then.


David Davis

http://order-order.com/2013/09/27/watch-spanish-school-children-stage-sick-gibraltar-massacre/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb9-2F0Npgo

There’s no point in trying to keep on buggering on and on, and on and on and on and on and on, about “Ceuta and Melilla” as the SpanNazi Government will simply unlisten as soon as its GCHQ get the syllable “ceu”. Apart from giving nuclear weapons to Morocco, there is nothing to be done about this one.

 

But this relates back to what I said in a comment on an earlier post: this was about whether, and how, or even if, we allow the expression of GramcoFabiaNazism after a victory.

My thesis is that we really, really, truly, madly, deeply, do NOT want to have to go through all this stuff all over again.

 

Queen Elizabeth-the-Useless failed in the execution of her Coronation Oath. But I expect we will all cry sincerely when she passes on.


David Davis

I am not always precisely in tune with my colleague Sean Gabb, regarding the failings of Elizabeth-the-Useless. Although he is quite correct in stating that she _could have_ blocked Rome, the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon at any time when these were issues. On any one of these – and the earlier the more chance of success – The Queen could have refused to assign her signature to any of this pretentious socialist rubbish, could have forced a General Election, and prevented the Franco-Collectivisto-Gramscian re-Nazification of Europe, saving her own subjects hundreds of billions of Sterling, not to say even trillions, in the process. We might even have got our managed-fisheries back before they were destroyed utterly (ask my father, who worked in the 70s for the MAFF, and who is now dead.). And at least up to Nice, she might also have got away with it. It would have been wise to resist early on.

But she continues to continue to soldier on, probably because she reminds the masses of their favourite great-aunt (I also have one, my aunty Betty who is actually a real aunt for I am rather old now and who even looks and sounds like the Queen a lot, and is only slightly older) or Grandmother.

As the Queen is old, and as she is a woman, and as it is not suitable to impeach or charge women for high treason – at least not “directly” – I would like to cleave to the position that “The Queen has been very, very badly advised, continually, for 61 years, in the matter of her constitutional dealings with the Continue reading

Local government: the enemy within


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84207

Local government: the enemy within Local authorities in the UK have “firmly backed EU leadership and direction of the country’s waste and environmental policies”. So says the Local Government Chronicle as overpaid chief executives look to Brussels rather than Westminster for their laws. Continue reading

The European Union and the New British Constitution, by Sean Gabb


http://www.libertarian.co.uk/multimedia/2013-04-08-la-sig.mp3

On Monday the 8th April 2013, Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, spoke at a meeting of the other Libertarian Alliance on the subject “The European Union and the New British Constitution. Here is a brief summary of what he said: Continue reading

Heretical Thoughts


Whatever name it currently uses, we have been in the European Union since 1973. It became fashionable in our ideological community, circa 1988, to denounce the EU and all its works. Back then, we could still believe that our basic constitutional freedoms were intact, and accuse the Eurocrats of wanting to roll back such economic liberalism as Margaret Thatcher had restored. By 1997, not to be a rabid Europhobe was evidence of deviationism. When I became Grand Inquisitor of the Candidlist, in 1999, I was hailed even by those who found the Libertarian Alliance a bit iffy.

That was then. Today, we live in a soft totalitarian police state delivered entirely by our own ruling class. Our foreign policy is run from Washington, and involves us in endless and largely inexplicable wars that we don’t win. The only brake on our downward progress is provided from Brussels.

Is this a case of Autre temps, autre merde?

All answers welcome.

EU referendum: the way forward


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83865

Note: Worth reading and considering. Richard North is right that there is no point campaigning to leave the European Union, if it simply means handing back absolute and unaccountable power to the same rotten Establishment that got us there in the first place – and which, even if imperfectly, is kept under some control by the EU. SIG Continue reading

UK politics: barely a ripple in the pond


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83861

Note: I don’t always agree with Richard North’s analysis. In particular, I have much more respect for Nigel Farage than he has. However, his insistence that we should pay attention to the turnout in elections is one of the keys to understanding the current state of British politics. The electoral system is already biassed in favour of the Regime parties, so that an indifferent minority of the votes cast can produce a big majority of seats. Take this one step further – looking at percentage of the registered vote, rather than of the actual vote – and we see the beginnings of a crisis of legitimacy.

This isn’t all gloom, however. When turnout collapses, power, even in a system as corrupt as ours, can be seized by well-organised minorities. I saw this for myself when I was at universities. The lefties would follow a simple plan to take control of student union meetings. These would start with a vaguely representative attendance. The lefties would then hold up business for an hour with opaque points of order that would drive ordinary members off to the bar. Once the meeting was down close to “inquoracy,” we’d move on to motions of support for the IRA and so forth. Low turnouts nowadays are more likely to benefit movements from our own ideological community. SIG Continue reading

Nearing Your Pension? You’re Too Old For Politics, Then


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/tMW6bR3FspE/nearing-your-pension-youre-too-old-for.html

Nearing Your Pension? You’re Too Old For Politics, Then Who would you trust more to understand or run a country? A 65 year old who has seen life in all its glory and desperation over many decades, or an 18 year old straight out of a history and politics degree?

You see, I struggle to see how this kind of unimaginative tittering from a Europhile against Ukip is in any way helpful. Continue reading

The EU IN/OUT referendum: strategy and tactics for those who want to leave the EU


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/the-eu-inout-referendum-strategy-and-tactics-for-those-who-want-to-leave-the-eu/

The general strategy

A) How to leave

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Continue reading

EU regulation: the sledgehammer to miss the nut


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83734

Note: There may be something in what Richard says. The car part scam is certainly true. A bulb went in my front light a few weeks ago, and I am facing a bill for hundreds to replace the whole light unit when I finally get the service done. It is almost impossible to buy third party spares for cars or gas boilers; and, once you have paid a fortune for something, you are locked into an increasingly expensive cycle of repairs. However, planned obsolescence claims for appliances as a whole have been around for a long time, and are mostly based on a misunderstanding of market forces and technological progress. Consider:

1. There doesn’t need to be anything like perfect competition for manufacturers to compete on price and quality. If one manufacturer sells products that are designed to die within a year, people will tend to switch to better products. For example, I bought a Toshiba notebook computer in 2004. Just outside the warranty period, something called the fl inverter died, and I had to choose between an expensive repair and replacement. In fact, one of my clients gave me a new Toshiba notebook. Eighteen months later, I had the same problem. Since then, I have avoided anything made by Toshiba. If this was a ploy to increase sales for Toshiba, it didn’t work in my case.

2. In many cases, it is sensible for products not to be made with durability in mind. I bought my first notebook computer in 1992. It had 1Mb of RAM and a 20Mb hard drive, and a 286 processor. Would I really want it still to be in working order? How about the Kodak digital camera I bought in 2001, with its c250Kp resolution? No. Let such products be made to work well until they become useless to do what people want of them. The same is true of the music system I bought in 1988. I might add that things like digital cameras and mobile telephones easily outlast their usable lives. Every year, I give things away that are still in perfect working order, but that I regard as obsolete. Also, many people are highly conscious of fashion. They want to replace appliances for purely aesthetic reasons. When such people comprise enough of the customer base, there is no good reason for those appliances to be made to last forever.

3. Over the past twenty years, the prices of most electrical products have fallen sharply in both real and nominal terms. This is partly due to improvements in manufacturing and distribution technology, and partly to cost cutting. If you want a pair of headphones to last as well as they did in the 1980s, you only need to pay roughly what you did in the 1980s. Mrs Gabb and I spent £1,000 on a Sony widescreen television in 2000. It is still working as well as on the day I took it from the box.

4. When even electronic products are mature, and there is no reason to keep upgrading, durability does seem here to be a standard feature. For example, I bought an HP Laserjet 1100 in 1999. It had a design fault that made it malfunction in 2000. HP sent me a piece of cardboard to shove into the paper feed. That sorted the problem, and the printer is still working today. It still does exactly what I bought it to do, which was to produce high quality black and white text on one side of the paper. Oh, and the toner cartridges have come down in price from £c60 to £c6.

I suppose the summarised case is that, if you want it to last longer than three years, you should consider paying more than £250 for a fridge-freezer. SIG Continue reading

Europe and the Iraq War


Note: It was the Iraq War that prompted me into public dissent from the orthodox rightist line on the European Union. I have never accepted that membership of the EU is an attack by weasily foreigners on our free institutions, and that leaving it would give us a reasonably accountable government with low taxes and the common law. The truth appears to be that we are utterly corrupt as a nation, and British membership is more a symptom of what we have become than its cause. I don’t see the hand of Europe in the transformation of the police into cowardly thugs, or the universal degradation of our politics and culture. Even very bad things like the European Arrest Warrant are not applied in other European Union countries with the same wooden stupidity as in Britain. In Germany, for instance, it is still not legal for citizens or even residents to be extradited for trial elsewhere.

The main disadvantage of being in the European Union is that it enables our own ruling class to govern by decree. British ministers and civil servants push for certain things behind closed doors in Brussels, and then tell us, when we complain about the resulting laws rammed through Parliament, that is it all the fault of those beastly Europeans. As a prime example of this, see the history of the rise and progress of the money laundering laws.

Of course, this is to be deplored, and a decent government – assuming we ever get one – would leave at once: its rules would prevent or delay policies of radical reform. Until that day comes, however, British membership gives us certain offsetting advantages. These are:

1. Oppression has to be co-ordinated between several dozen governments, not all of them run by certifiable lunatics. See, for example, the block so far on minimum pricing for alcohol. Or see the compelled harmonisation of our porn laws with those of more sensible countries. Without that brake on action, I have little doubt we would by now have bar codes tattooed on our foreheads and on the spot castration for suspected child molesters.

2. The supremacy of European Union law, and our associated importation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law, have empowered our courts to stage a slow-motion coup against the absolute legislative sovereignty of Parliament. This was just about acceptable when the country was run by a committee of hereditary landlords. It became an unmitigated evil once Parliament was filled up with scoundrels. I was one of the very few people on the right to welcome the judgment in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council. I thoroughly approve of the transformation of judicial review from a yapping at Parliament’s heels into an increasingly powerful weapon of control over legislation. It would be nice to go back to something like the 18th century constitution. Since that is not possible, the new constitution emerging round us is an improvement on what we had until recently.

The connection between this and the Iraq War is that the second of these forced me to think more clearly about the nature of our “special relationship” with America. No advantages come from this. It is, indeed, rather like being handcuffed in a car driven by a drunk. If I had my way, we would choose neither Washington nor Brussels. Since the main issue in British politics is over that choice, I tend increasingly to regard Brussels as the lesser of two evils. The European Union has committed no atrocities comparable to those of the Anglo-American alliance. On the contrary, left to themselves, the European elites seem to be mostly interested in making regulations on things like the size of vacuum cleaner bags. Doubtless, these tend to privilege big French or German companies. But they never result in blowing the arms and legs off brown children. Even after ten years, what was done in Iraq continues to fill me with outrage and shame. SIG Continue reading

Ashley Mote Done over by the Plod


by Ashley Mote

Publish Book – Get Turned Over by Police

No, I am not making this up.

My memoirs A Mote in Brussels’ Eye describing my five years in the Brussels lunatic asylum came out as an eBook at the end of January,

On March 5, nine policemen arrived unannounced at my front door armed with a warrant to search our home. Continue reading

The Problem With Maltese EU Commissioners


by Dick Puddlecote
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/yIwO1QfigPU/the-problem-with-maltese-eu.html

The Problem With Maltese EU Commissioners

When England play football against San Marino, what generally happens? Well, they get thrashed of course. In fact, they get thrashed by just about everyone because they’re pants. Even Scotland can put a couple past them! Continue reading

The Bruges Group meeting From Here to the Referendum


by Robert Henderson
http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/the-bruges-group-meeting-from-here-to-the-referendum-held-on-12-february-2013/

The Tory MPs Peter Bone and Richard Shepherd were the speakers . (http://www.brugesgroup.com/eu/from-here-to-the-referendum.htm?xp=speeches). Both are in favour of the UK leaving the EU, although that of course begs the question of on what terms. Much of their speeches were not directly to do with the referendum . To get the parts which were go into the Peter Bone speech at 9 minutes 27 seconds and the Richard Shepherd speech at 11 minutes and 50 seconds to get to their views on the future and the prospective referendum. Continue reading

Kossovo: Still Lying Their Heads off


by Nebojsa Malić
http://original.antiwar.com/malic/2013/02/15/still-a-lie/

On February 17, 2008, the ethnic Albanian provisional government of the NATO-occupied province of Kosovo declared independence. Five years later, the “Republic of Kosovo” has been recognized by half the world’s governments and enjoys unqualified Imperial support. It is also a crime- and corruption-ridden hellhole, and a failure of Western nation-building project. Continue reading

Article 50 And Withdrawal


Article 50 And Withdrawal
Not so long ago, it seemed unlikely that any country politically was willing to contemplate leaving the European Union. Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that all of the treaties pre-Lisbon were silent on the question of withdrawal. There were a number of theories for this; partly it would have been contrary to member states’ commitment to “ever closer union”, partly it could have encouraged members to make the outcome more likely and partly that the process of leaving is a significant legal challenge best left unspecified in a treaty – a legal challenge made more complicated the longer member states remain within an ever integrating Union. Continue reading

Cameron, yawn!


by Anna Raccoon
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AnnaRaccoon/~3/oCcZjgWJdzw/

Note: Of course it’s a fraud. We’ll be softened up by years of advance propaganda. The referendum will be delivered or delayed according to the opinion poll findings. The question will be slanted. Unless out masters decide for their own reasons to leave, we’re staying in. However, I repeat my belief that the Conservatives will win a good overall majority the year after next. SIG Continue reading

A Mote in Brussels’ Eye


JUST PUBLISHED

A Mote in Brussels’ Eye
By Ashley Mote

The diary of a Member of the European Parliament

A full, frank and controversial account of five years fighting the EU from within the castle walls. Continue reading

British Membership of the EEC: A Trip Down Memory Lane


BROWSING THROUGH THE DEBATES IN THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT—-HANSARD.

Most politicians, if not all, know exactly what the European Union is to turn into, for it is written clearly enough in Hansard. It is only the ordinary people of the Country that these politicians of yesterday and today didn’t see fit to enlighten. Yet these ordinary people trusted them, they voted for them to look after them and this their Country.

As I take words from Hansard, and to mean anything at all, they have to be the words taken from before we actually joined the European Community or Common Market as we were told. My one difficulty is, there are so many words to choose from on this subject it is difficult to choose which ones to set down for you to read. I have put the dates and column numbers for your own confirmation.       Continue reading

Image

To be Taken into Consideration


Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Common Law


Note: I am republishing this, because the case in question is under discussion in another thread. SIG

The “Metric Martyrs” and the Constitution
Sean Gabb
(February 2002)
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/?q=node/80

On Monday the 18th February 2002, judgment was given in the Court of Appeal on the “Metric Martyrs” case (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council. These were appeals from four men who had in different ways been told by lower courts that it was no longer legal for them to use the English system of weights and measures for any purpose of trade. The grounds of their appeal were that the relevant laws had been made further to powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972, whereas it appeared that their right to continued use of the English system had been protected by the Weights and Measures Act 1985. According to the doctrine of implied repeal, an earlier Act cannot be used to amend or repeal a later Act. Instead, where any conflict arises between Acts of Parliament that cannot be smoothed by judicial interpretation, the later one always takes precedence: leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant . Continue reading

Greece: a coup averted – a crisis defused?


by Richard North
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83193

Note: A military coup in Greece would be a good precedent for the rest of us. It might also restore the Καθαρεύουσα, which is something I sorely miss on bus tickets and other public notices. SIG

Played big yesterday in the Greek newspaper To Vima (Tribune) is the claim, under the headline, “the coup that never was”, that on 1 November last year, then premier George Papandreou fired the Greek Armed Forces chiefs of staff to forestall a military coup. Continue reading

Beware Splits in UKIP


by Stephen Crowther

Note: As a matter of policy, the Libertarian Alliance does not endorse or support any political party. However, so far I can tell, every one of our Officers is a UKIP voter or even member. We therefore draw this notice to the attention of our readers. UKIP may not be perfect, but it is our only mainstream political party with any degree of libertarianism in its policies. Nigel Farage is our only mainstream politician who remotely counts as a libertarian. We take a very dim view of efforts to disrupt UKIP. SIG Continue reading

An Austrian Defence of the Euro


Note: I agree with this analysis. I oppose British membership of the Eurozone only because it would be another entanglement for a British government of national restoration. In purely economic terms, the Euro is much better than Sterling. It locks politicians out of the money printing works, and forces some degree of economic rationality on governments. I predict that the Eurozone economies will recover sooner and more dramatically than Britain will.

This does not mean I’d like to replace Sterling with the Euro. As said, it would make for a harder break from the New World Order. However, the smart sneering about how the Euro is crucifying its member states is a product of wishful thinking and economic illiteracy. SIG Continue reading

The Drive to War and the Euro?


by D.J. Webb

The euro is part of a pan-European architecture that is keeping the peace in Europe, they say. I don’t think the European nations have any appetite for war, and such talk is either hysterical or too grounded in the views of people who lived through the Second World War, whose influence on politics today logically needs to start rapidly declining. Continue reading

Any Questions: A View from the Studio


by Bill & Ann Woodhouse

Now we know it is set up! We had Any Questions in Sturminster Newton last night and it was interesting the ‘nuts and bolts’ of how they handle it. We had to book in well in advance and were given a postcard sized ticket, perforated in the middle, half of which had space for name and address and question to be asked. Continue reading

I wonder if they did it on purpose


David Davis

[Subsequent edit by author] Further to receiving one-star ( = very poor) I should just rectify my omission, which was clearly observed by the respondent. I forgot to mention the requirement, that will encumber any incoming Libertarian or Revolutionary-Liberalist administration, whether in England, or the UK, or elsewhere, to criminalize and proscribe the existence of any bodies calling themselves “Trade Unions”, which behave in ways shown by the 19th- , 20th-  and 21st-Century British models of same. These outfits have proved themselves, through the deliberate policies and actions of their “officers”, to be far far more insidiously dangerous to life and liberty than any “terrorist” organisation, even the IRA and “Al-Quaeda” (whatever that might be), both of whom might be thought responsible for the deaths of up to 10,000 people each. The deaths probably attributable to the prevalence of “Trade” “Union” and “Workers’ Council” actions within the past 120-odd years probably run into the millions, aside from the planned and avoidable destruction of the UK’s heavy industries, docks, mining industries, railways and shipyards. (None of this needed to happen: the ability to fire all redundant labour upon the advent of better technology, thus keeping wage rates and hours to JapoChindoBraMexican levels, was prevented.)

Roll on the custard pies and rotting tomatoes….but Libertarians ought to begin speaking for real people, not just metropolitan political intellectuals like ourselves.

The coagulation-government is getting stick and rotting-cabbages from various quarters, for seeming to allow Francis Maude (who is, I admit, a bit of a slimy toad at times) to suggest that people should stock up on motor fuels before any putative strike by tanker drivers.

But I wonder…there could be a subtext here. Perhaps some clever Tory strategist thought that by artificially creating a fuel shortage at the pumps before any strike took place, the mass of inchoate but not negligible public opinion could be turned angrily against “UNITE”, whatever sort of GramscoStaliNazi front-organization that might be. I mean to say, it describes itself as a “Trade Union”, although it’s f**k-all to do with trade, and isn’t a union in any meaningful sense with regard to its members’ welfare – only its “officers’ ” wefare, power and prosperity.

Some of this unfocussed but very public mob ire might then rub off against the “Labour Party”, which predictably has failed to come out condemning the “union” – only mouthed platitudes about “the way to solve the crisis is by the negotiations”, as if there was anything meaningful for the drivers’ employers to talk about.

I just wonder if it’s a “cunning plan”. Of course, the predictable mainstream-media-response has been to toast the coagulation for its incompetence and “dangerous advice” (I mean to say! We used to keep old Duckhams 1-gallon oil cans and keep petrol in them for year after year – I always had 6 gallons in the house at any time, when in London years ago – about two-thirds of a tankful). But them the MSM is not on the side of any administration that is not overtly and aggressively GramscoStaliNazi. Perhaps because it thinks that most people viscerally are that, inand to their very bones….and they may sadly be right. Hitler got in, after all, by not misreading the mood of the German general public.

Who are these people?


Dunno, but they rule us!

The Politics of Johann Wolfgang Goethe


by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
http://mises.org/daily/357/The-Politics-of-Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe

[A version of this was published in The Wall Street Journal
Europe
, December 30, 1999.]

This year marks the 250th birthday of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Most Europeans know that he was the greatest of all German writers and poets and one of the giants of world literature. Less well known is that he was also a thorough-going classical liberal, arguing that free trade and free cultural exchange are the keys to authentic national welfare and peaceful international integration. He also argued and fought against the expansion, centralization, and unification of government on grounds that these trends can only hinder prosperity and true cultural development. Because of his relevance to the ongoing construction of Europe, I’d like to nominate Goethe as the European of the millennium. Continue reading

Why we must leave the European Union


By Richard North
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-we-must-leave.html

There are many highly principled reasons why we should leave the EU, but down amongst the weeds, there are equally important practical reasons why we should get out as fast as possible. One such is the absurdity bordering on the insane of the ECJ ruling on car insurance for women with favourable terms prohibited by the EU’s Gender Directive, even though women present less costly risks to insurers. Continue reading

That Veto: The story so far


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/story-so-far.html
by Richard North
As events unfold on the great “phantom veto” charade, I think we’re getting to the point where we can collect all the disparate pieces and, with a few more recent additional reports, have a fairly good stab at putting the whole story together in one, semi-definitive piece. So here goes.

The story starts not last week, but in May 2010 when Cameron commits to refusing to agree “to the transfer of any sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels as part of any future reforms to EU institutions aimed at protecting the single currency area from economic instability”. Continue reading

Sean Gabb in The Seoul Times



Wednesday 30th November 2011

Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership
by Ian Milne
Civitas, London, 78pp, £8.00
ISBN: 978-1906837327

Reviewed by Sean Gabb

In its supporting evidence, this is a very useful book. In its overall purpose, it is quite useless. Its former is the claim that British membership of the European Union does not pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Our trade outside the EU has been growing much faster than our trade within. This will continue for at least the next generation, as the main EU countries are demographically in decline and, on the whole, stagnant economically. Indeed, taking into account direct and indirect costs of membership, the gains from being part of the Single Market could be negative. In purely economic terms, Britain is better off out. Continue reading

Gabb on Milne’s Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership


by Stephan Kinsella
http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2011/11/22/gabb-on-milnes-time-to-say-no-alternatives-to-eu-membership/

Gabb on Milne’s Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership

English libertarian Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, has just published an excellent book review of Ian Milne’s Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership. It’s appended below. Continue reading

Review of Ian Milne’s “Time to Say No” [to the EU]


Review by Sean Gabb Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership by Ian Milne Civitas, London, 78pp, £8.00 ISBN: 978-1906837327

In its supporting evidence, this is a very useful book. In its overall purpose, it is quite useless. Its former is the claim that British membership of the European Union does not pass any kind of cost-benefit analysis. Our trade outside the EU has been growing much faster than our trade within. This will continue for at least the next generation, as the main EU countries are demographically in decline and, on the whole, stagnant economically. Indeed, taking into account direct and indirect costs of membership, the gains from being part of the Single Market could be negative. In purely economic terms, Britain is better off out. Continue reading

The Love that Dares not Speak Its Name


by Sean Gabb

Yes, I know that I’m a bone-dry Europhobe and all that. Even so, I do have a sneaking fondness for the Euro. If it weren’t really about unaccountable power for our ruling class, I’d see much to admire in a currency run by Germans that couldn’t be devalued, and where interest rates couldn’t be touched by HMG.

It sounds the next best thing to gold. Certainly, it beats a pound at the total mercy of duffers like Mervyn King and George Osborn.

An Organisational Chart of the European Union


You Are In No Position To Level Criticism Of Me!


You Are In No Position To Level Criticism Of Me!
Guy Leven-Torres
20th October 2011

In six long years I have written 3,500 articles six books and spent £50,000 of my own money trying to get people to think for themselves and act to save this country, indeed freedom and civilisation itself. To add insult to injury- for you injure yourselves and future innocent generations by your cowardly apathy- my wife and father have supported me in all that time to do what I must without complaint, in order to try a last ditch attempt to awaken souls but have miserably failed to do. What good are endless e.mails and blether? In this last I probably excel. Continue reading

On the EU Referendum Vote


I largely agree with this. Getting out of Europe would, in itself, solve nothing. The problem is not villainous Frogs and Krauts and Dagoes, all trying to drag us down to their own level: the EU is one of many devices for our own ruling class to do what it wants without the inconvenience of accountability. Where I disagree with Richard is on his fixed insistence that leaving the EU must follow our own regeneration. Assuming a military or some kind of electoral coup, leaving the EU would be a consequent act. Even so, it is possible to imagine an almost accidental exit by our present ruling class, and then a revolution from below – though it is also possible to imagine an exist, followed by continued tyranny under some other set of excuses. It depends on circumstances.

However, I do wholly agree that voting for a referendum is a diversion from the real battle. The proposed question – in, out, renegotiate – is structurally biassed in favour of staying in. Even a straight in or out referendum would, at the moment, be fixed against us. If we somehow won, the result would be ignored, or we’d be made to vote again. I’ve written to my MP to insist he should vote for a referendum – but that was only to annoy him. SIG Continue reading

We shall ignore them


by Richard North

As Charles Moore reminds us, this coming week – starting on Sunday – sees the Conservative Party conference in Manchester. Continue reading

Latin America: Growth, Stability and Inequalities: Lessons for the US and EU


Latin America: Growth, Stability and Inequalities:
Lessons for the US and EU

James Petras

Introduction: Images of the Past

The image of Latin America portrayed by the mass media and held by the educated public is a region of frequent coups, periodical revolutions, perpetual military dictatorships, alternating boom and bust economies and an ever-present International Monetary Fund (IMF) dictating economic policy. Continue reading