Speech
Rt Hon David Cameron, Tuesday, May 26 2009
* Fixing Broken Politics *
THE EU AND THE HRA
But the tragic truth today is that no matter how much we strengthen
Parliament or hold government to account...
...there will still be forces at work in our country that are completely
unaccountable to the people of Britain.
People and organisations that have huge power and control over our daily
lives and yet which no citizen can actually get at.
Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from
the EU.
And since the advent of the Human Rights Act, judges are increasingly
making our laws.
The EU and the judges - neither of them accountable to British citizens
- have taken too much power over issues that are contested aspects of
public policy...
...and which should therefore be settled in the realm of democratic
politics.
It's no wonder people feel so disillusioned with politics and Parliament
when they see so many big decisions that affect their lives being made
somewhere else.
So a progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from
the EU to Britain and from judges to the people.
We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law
requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the
EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed
scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.
http://conservative-speeches.sayit.mysociety.org/speech/601355
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Why is there a Northern Ireland
Why did the UK not just let go of the north of Ireland at the establishment of the Republic. Do we really think they did so to spare the loyalists - or did the loyalists exist as protagonists for the very reason separating of Ireland; by preventing Catholicism engulfing the country and then by precluding separatist nationalism.
It is one thing for the English to divide Ireland for ideology or even for whatever tithe it could yield but it is another to prevent the whole nation's economic emergence in competition with Britain. Yet another is about defence.
Northern Ireland contained the heavy industry, specifically shipbuilding: the economic powerhouse. NI contained the deep sea ports that faced Britain and could blockade Liverpool's shipping lanes. Northern Ireland could not be allowed to fall from control. We did not want a Russian port in Belfast.
The endless dispute, and enraging violence that festered, allowed Britain to refuse independence on the grounds of never capitulating to terrorism. It suited the objective well. Conversely, for those who truly desired a united Ireland, the violence prohibited any peaceful process that could have achieved independence in less than ten or twenty years of simple but tireless campaigning.
For those who did not comprehend the true nature of 'the troubles', the snake-oil Blair (spit) had on offer was:
(a) for the republicans: the end of British involvement with Northern Ireland, for ever
(b) for the loyalists: independence from the UK but anonymity and separation from the south.
To understand how this will to occur is to understand how the regionalisation of the UK is to take place as it is progressively absorbed into the EU.
Scotland and Wales are separate regions and will deal directly with the EU (hence the currant independence shenanigans). England will be nine independent regions with a faux national government at the outset.
The UK will exist no more. That is a level of authority the EU has absolutely no need for. National governments will eventually be replaced by individual regional assemblies but for the interim this concept will not be allowed to blip on the public's radar - too difficult to sell.
Ireland (Rep. of) is to be divided into two regions. The south had Cork and Dublin. The north looks like a jigsaw in an Oxfam shop - with a big important chunk missing. That chunk is NI. The logic is very elementary.
The Loyalists cannot cry that they want to be a part of the UK because there will not be any UK - it will be gone - just a dusty twinkle in a museum to housed in the Palace of Westminster remembering the old days of the United Kingdom and British Empire.
It is one thing for the English to divide Ireland for ideology or even for whatever tithe it could yield but it is another to prevent the whole nation's economic emergence in competition with Britain. Yet another is about defence.
Northern Ireland contained the heavy industry, specifically shipbuilding: the economic powerhouse. NI contained the deep sea ports that faced Britain and could blockade Liverpool's shipping lanes. Northern Ireland could not be allowed to fall from control. We did not want a Russian port in Belfast.
The endless dispute, and enraging violence that festered, allowed Britain to refuse independence on the grounds of never capitulating to terrorism. It suited the objective well. Conversely, for those who truly desired a united Ireland, the violence prohibited any peaceful process that could have achieved independence in less than ten or twenty years of simple but tireless campaigning.
For those who did not comprehend the true nature of 'the troubles', the snake-oil Blair (spit) had on offer was:
(a) for the republicans: the end of British involvement with Northern Ireland, for ever
(b) for the loyalists: independence from the UK but anonymity and separation from the south.
To understand how this will to occur is to understand how the regionalisation of the UK is to take place as it is progressively absorbed into the EU.
Scotland and Wales are separate regions and will deal directly with the EU (hence the currant independence shenanigans). England will be nine independent regions with a faux national government at the outset.
The UK will exist no more. That is a level of authority the EU has absolutely no need for. National governments will eventually be replaced by individual regional assemblies but for the interim this concept will not be allowed to blip on the public's radar - too difficult to sell.
Ireland (Rep. of) is to be divided into two regions. The south had Cork and Dublin. The north looks like a jigsaw in an Oxfam shop - with a big important chunk missing. That chunk is NI. The logic is very elementary.
The Loyalists cannot cry that they want to be a part of the UK because there will not be any UK - it will be gone - just a dusty twinkle in a museum to housed in the Palace of Westminster remembering the old days of the United Kingdom and British Empire.
Sunday, 4 March 2012
The Noble Cause of a Centralised World Super State
A darn good way to end the prospect of war would be end the age old paradigm of the ‘state’ altogether. People don’t wage wars, governments do – normally governments working at the beck and call of interested parties. The ‘people’ are then suckered into it.
The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.
The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.
And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.
I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.
As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.
And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.
First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.
Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.
Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.
The apparent ‘noble cause’ of working towards avoidance of the future possibility for global war continues for those acting with the authority of state. We can now all see the supposed fragility of the EU concept, economically, but the forces concerned with this construct are not stupid. They knew ever deeper political union would be essential once this path was taken; this was planned for, caused even to provide the impetus for the next step. They could see, regardless of the horrors of WWII, people would resist the end of the old paradigm of national sovereignty and so the ‘discarding of the old and formation of the new’ could not be spelt-out publicly.
The idea that war can be avoided by political union, first regionally then globally, is the greatest of the reasoning provided by the force behind both the EU and the broader drive towards an ultimate global political union the same.
And the supposed advantages are not just to end war. Through the scientific management of every aspect of human endeavour, from education, health, population control, terrorism, energy, pollution to all that of concern to a state, the root of authority will be centralised for apparent greater efficiencies and parities.
I have no doubt there are many who see this goal of world union as desirable for the future of humanity. I also have no doubt that this pup has been broadly sold for at least the last 100 years by not only the hapless well intended but also those entities who have fostered and seek to use this movement to ever consolidate their global interests regardless of any supposed general benefit to mankind.
As long as there have been states, tribal leaders, imperial monarchs and all, there have been the very few winners and the many of the rest. Why on earth would this forthcoming super state, the greatest and most controlling in all history, be any better than any of those that have gone before.
And who is to say that a global state would not wage war. They would say “but who would a one world government wage war against”. The obvious answer is: that war would be against all the people.
First a war to form and control the people by means ranging from education and propaganda to maybe genetic determination of breading stock to ensure a compliant general population type.
Secondly to suppress resistance of any sort to any dictate; from the operation of a police state to the mass extermination of the of non-compliant.
Or we could do away with the idea of a state altogether.
Saturday, 3 March 2012
9/11 programming
Following the destruction of the World Trade Buildings I was unquestioning of the explanation that this was the action of Al Qaeda, a group of Islamic terrorists of who I had no previous knowledge. A few days later whist motoring in an open-top on a cold evening a large aircraft flew low overhead as I drove and as it did so water vapour plumed from it's wings. My immediate assumption was that this was a poison attack and I had been directly subjected to it. Fortunately I have survived.
Subsequently a friend e-mailed, just as a curio, a link to 'Spot the Boeing' the French website questioning the nature of the damage to the Pentagon and, right or wrong in every detail of it's thesis, it was this alternative view that made me start to examine the official explanation of these and other related events. That journey has lead me to the understanding that, upon the balance of probability, these events are all a part of an ongoing series of deceptions to control the minds of the majority.
One detail that I consider to be very telling is the date of the attack. 911 does not mean much to people in the UK, for a start we write our dates the other way around: 11.9.01. But for Americans this number being also the emergency phone number has deep set subliminal inferences. The number has connotations of fear, injury, loss and so on.
But most significantly, to use the 911 phone number (999 in the UK) is for a citizen to willingly capitulate responsibility to authority. I do not see how reference to this effect would contribute to the aims of Al Qaeda. And if one is supposed to think Al Qaeda did not realise the dates subliminal significance, why would they want to reference it and reinforced it's effect with the Madrid bombing being 911 days after '911' ?
I consider Al Qaeda would not want the people to abdicate authority to government, they would want people to reject authority as inept and powerless. Al Qaeda would want people to capitulate to them.
911 is the date of choice for a government that wants it as a memorable and fear invoking 'trigger' to be referred to daily, in one way and another, repeatedly to reminded the public of it's old and new meanings.
Indeed 911 was referenced by '311', the Madrid train bombings, and less commonly realised 311 occurred just a little over 911 days after Sept the 11th 2001 (Between the collapse of the second of the Twin Towers, the North Tower Building, and the first train's departure to Madrid there was - within less than 5 minuets - 911 days, 911 minutes and perhaps 911 seconds).
The Bali ONE took place 999 days before the London 7/7 attack. (999 is the UK emergency number).
Bali TWO took place on 1/10 - ( 110 is the police telephone number in Bali).
Subsequently a friend e-mailed, just as a curio, a link to 'Spot the Boeing' the French website questioning the nature of the damage to the Pentagon and, right or wrong in every detail of it's thesis, it was this alternative view that made me start to examine the official explanation of these and other related events. That journey has lead me to the understanding that, upon the balance of probability, these events are all a part of an ongoing series of deceptions to control the minds of the majority.
One detail that I consider to be very telling is the date of the attack. 911 does not mean much to people in the UK, for a start we write our dates the other way around: 11.9.01. But for Americans this number being also the emergency phone number has deep set subliminal inferences. The number has connotations of fear, injury, loss and so on.
But most significantly, to use the 911 phone number (999 in the UK) is for a citizen to willingly capitulate responsibility to authority. I do not see how reference to this effect would contribute to the aims of Al Qaeda. And if one is supposed to think Al Qaeda did not realise the dates subliminal significance, why would they want to reference it and reinforced it's effect with the Madrid bombing being 911 days after '911' ?
I consider Al Qaeda would not want the people to abdicate authority to government, they would want people to reject authority as inept and powerless. Al Qaeda would want people to capitulate to them.
911 is the date of choice for a government that wants it as a memorable and fear invoking 'trigger' to be referred to daily, in one way and another, repeatedly to reminded the public of it's old and new meanings.
Indeed 911 was referenced by '311', the Madrid train bombings, and less commonly realised 311 occurred just a little over 911 days after Sept the 11th 2001 (Between the collapse of the second of the Twin Towers, the North Tower Building, and the first train's departure to Madrid there was - within less than 5 minuets - 911 days, 911 minutes and perhaps 911 seconds).
The Bali ONE took place 999 days before the London 7/7 attack. (999 is the UK emergency number).
Bali TWO took place on 1/10 - ( 110 is the police telephone number in Bali).
Friday, 2 March 2012
We are not children
The keen eyed reader may note under my little icon I include the tag line "We are not children". I do not mean any disrespect to children by this because I believe children are intensely perceptive and intrinsically pure of thought - I would like to still be like that. I mean that the state treat us like children and train us to remain immature. We do lose many of the the miraculous virtues children possess but are failing to successfully gain all those qualities that should arise with maturity: wisdom, gravitas and so on. This is desirable to the state - this is the deliberate intention of the conditioning we are subjected to via state controlled schooling and onwards throughout our lives. Myself included.
United States of Europe - 1959 statement to the US press
Three European Community Presidents
June 11, 1959
Paul Finet, President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community
Walter Hallstein, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community
National Press Club
Washington DC
PRESIDENT HIRSCH - within his opening statement
... the common market cannot work if there is not a common social policy, if there is not a common monetary policy, and nobody can think of a common monetary policy if it is not calmed by a common political policy. So we feel we are now in a process which with all the difficulties which we will find on our road will lead - nobody can say in how long - but will lead inevitably to the calming of this edifice that is the United States of Europe.
Within questions
QUESTION: These questions are directed to Dr Hallstein. Here is a short sweet one. How long will it be before there is a United States of Europe?
PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: That really is the $64 question, gentlemen.
There will be a United States of Europe, but it's certainly premature to say when and what exactly its structure will be.
QUESTION: Having achieved the United States of Europe they want to know when your going to start taking in Britain and the Scandinavian countries? When will Britain and the Scandinavian countries join the European communities is what the question really is.
PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: It's not only up to the community to decide this. The point we are always making is, that the fact that we have only six member states, it's not due to the six but it's due to those who have not joined us.
http://aei.pitt.edu/14915/1/S80.pdf
June 11, 1959
Paul Finet, President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Etienne Hirsch, President of the Commission of the European Atomic Energy Community
Walter Hallstein, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community
National Press Club
Washington DC
PRESIDENT HIRSCH - within his opening statement
... the common market cannot work if there is not a common social policy, if there is not a common monetary policy, and nobody can think of a common monetary policy if it is not calmed by a common political policy. So we feel we are now in a process which with all the difficulties which we will find on our road will lead - nobody can say in how long - but will lead inevitably to the calming of this edifice that is the United States of Europe.
Within questions
QUESTION: These questions are directed to Dr Hallstein. Here is a short sweet one. How long will it be before there is a United States of Europe?
PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: That really is the $64 question, gentlemen.
There will be a United States of Europe, but it's certainly premature to say when and what exactly its structure will be.
QUESTION: Having achieved the United States of Europe they want to know when your going to start taking in Britain and the Scandinavian countries? When will Britain and the Scandinavian countries join the European communities is what the question really is.
PRESIDENT HALLSTEIN: It's not only up to the community to decide this. The point we are always making is, that the fact that we have only six member states, it's not due to the six but it's due to those who have not joined us.
http://aei.pitt.edu/14915/1/S80.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)