Friday, 15 November 2013

Revolution 9

"No essential loss of sovereignty" said Heath when we entered the so-called Common Market in 1973. But as we now know due to the infamous Foreign and Commonwealth Office paper 30/1048 of 1971 it was a lie - a lie that the former Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath openingly admitted to 20 years later. The following is an extract from 30/1048:
...the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government...Parliamentary sovereignty will be affected as we have seen. But the need for Parliament to play an increasing (if perhaps more specialised) role may develop. Firstly, although a European Parliament might in the longest term become an effective, directly elected democratic check upon the bureaucracy, this will not be for a long time, and certainly not in the decade to come. In the interval, to minimise the loss of democratic control...
Those that took this country into the then EEC knew what the project was about and knew they had no mandate with which to take the UK into, but they took comfort largely in two presumptions.

The first that EU was such a wonderful project that when people realised what was being done in their name they would hail it with acclamation. It's partly why Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is a genuine exit clause, those in the EU think their project is such a fantastic idea they don't believe anyone would want to leave.

The second presumption was that even if the people didn't celebrate the "brave new world" it would be too late for them to do anything about it. Those that took us in were of the view that they would be long retired or no longer with us before the people of the UK came to realise.

The flaws with the first presumption are self-evident - any system that requires establishment by stealth (the Monnet method) is never going to receive the acclamation of the people who have been deceived. The second presumption is also incorrect. It's never too late; no political system can survive without consent, even if the consent is induced by fear. Once popular consent is withdrawn then it's game over.

We see a good example of this with the Stasi. A ruthless, efficient and effective secret police - one of the best that's ever existed - it relied on huge numbers of citizens to be informants, yet once that consent was withdrawn in 1989 it simply collapsed...almost literally overnight.

The FCO's prediction of "the transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government" was unerringly accurate and is coming to pass in a big way in the 21st century.

With this in mind we begin to see the inevitable outcome of that "political error of the first magnitude"...people are starting to withdraw their consent. As noted by Autonomous Mind the Independent has an article that reports that 4 in 10 people are “alienated” from Britain’s political parties and say they will not consider voting for any of them:
Lord (Paul) Bew, the crossbench peer who chairs the committee, told The Independent today: "One particular cause for concern from the research is the number of people, especially young people, who feel disconnected from the political system and political parties."

He said the growth in the size of this group over the last 10 years represents a real challenge to politicians, parties, local organisations and community groups to provide the public with a sufficiently attractive and relevant set of options to choose from.
Lord Bew continues:
That requires public office holders to be seen to be demonstrating the seven principle of public life - selflessness, accountability, objectivity, integrity, honesty and leadership."
I'll leave readers to make their own jokes at this juncture. But the article (and it's by no means alone) does illustrate an important point that the legacy media is waking up to the fact that something has gone badly wrong with the system even if they are reluctant to pinpoint one of the main reasons.

What we see are the predictions of 1971 coming to pass, however not only were they wrong to take us in they were also wrong to assume it would ever be too late to rectify their mistake.

It's time to eradicate their mistake.

12 comments:

  1. No doubt it will never happen, but I want those who have pushed for our membership of the EU and continue to push for it to be arraigned as traitors - and suffer the consequences of their actions. As a minimum they should be hanged and in public too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I have every confidence the UK public will eventually rebel. We have a recent example in the form of the poll tax, circa 20 years ago. Non-compliance was running at around 40% in some areas of the country

      Delete
  2. There's an irony in the notion of 'Lord' Bew making this point.

    I'm genuinely coming to believe that there's a specific reason the MSM are being openly reticent to discuss the detail of the failures and malignity of the political system openly. And I think my suspicions will be confirmed in the Queen's birthday honours 2015, and in the New Year's honours list 2015-16.

    If Danny Finkelstein can become a Lord for services to Cameron's ego, then Baron Brogan and Earl Kirkup can't be far behind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...the seven principles of public life - selflessness, accountability, objectivity, integrity, honesty and leadership."

    So was the seventh principle drowned out by the laughter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I'll leave readers to make their own jokes at this juncture."
    I'd love to but it isn't funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess not, but many a truth told in jest...

      Delete
  5. Another aspect of this, or maybe just a different way of saying the same thing, is that people don't vote when they see little difference between parties who squabble over minor aspects of the implementation of the same policies. It doesn't really matter if the other lot gets in.

    If the underlying framework within which the parties are agreed to operate is set by the EU, then there's bound to be little difference between them, and there'll be seen to be little difference.

    Nu Labour or Blue Labour?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the unsaid that need to get across to the electorate, We will do anything we can to get into or remain in power, the unsaid that should follow all these emanations is, "within the constraints of eu directives.", None of them wish to tell us that bit!

      Delete
  6. Time to eradicate the mistake indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Please do not, not, not publish pictures of that disgusting traitor - not even unflattering ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry ;-) I did try to publish the most unflattering one I could find...

      Delete