Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Polly and the Euro-crazies: a cautionary tale

I have not really attacked poor Polly for a little while. This is partly because I have only just finished laughing at her howl of despair at Gordon's faithlessness. Mr Eugenides summed it up beautifully, casting the two in the final reels of Gone With Wind. Your humble Devil was reminded more of The Cure's Apart.
He waits for her to understand
But she won't understand at all
She waits all night for him to call
But he won't call anymore
He waits to hear her say Forgive
But she just drops her pearl-black eyes
And prays to hear him say I love you
But he tells no more lies

He waits for her to sympathize
But she won't sympathize at all
She waits all night to feel his kiss
But always wakes alone
He waits to hear her say Forget
But she just hangs her head in pain
And prays to hear him say No more
I'll never leave again

How did we get this far apart?
We used to be so close together
How did we get this far apart?
I thought this love would last forever

He waits for her to understand
But she won't understand at all
She waits all night for him to call
But he won't call
He waits to hear her say Forgive
But she just drops her pearl black eyes
And prays to hear him say I love you
But he tells no more lies

How did we get this far apart?
We used to be so close together
How did we get this far apart?
I thought this love would last forever

Alas, it seems that Polly's big Norse warrior has deserted her, leaving her bereft. The thought of her silent, heart-aching misery has meant that I have barely stopped laughing for days and days and days and days; however, reading her latest load of tossing horsespunk has promptly ceased my mirth.
We can't let the Euro-crazies drag us out of the club

It seems that, having been disappointed—nay, spurned—by her love has led to Polly lashing out in all directions and, as usual, writing bollocks. For starters, Polly, who is "we" exactly? All of the opinion polls that I have seen show that the country is split about 50:50 on whether we should be part of the EU, so I take it that this "we" is the EUphilic part of the population?

And the other half of the population are "Euro-crazies" are they? Nice.
Here we go, seatbelts on, the battle for Europe starts in earnest as Gordon Brown heads off to Lisbon on Thursday. It will be deja vu all over again...
Isn't that a slight tautology, Polly? You can't have deja vu all over again, you fucking numpty.
... and it will bore most people rigid, slogging through mud into the spring, debated clause by clause in parliament. But boredom may be the treaty's best friend.

Indeed. All of the frigging around will blind people to the real issue: that it is a power grab by one of the most dangerous institutions ever erected. But you know what else will help the Reform Treaty Constitution go through? That's right: fucking tedious, know-nothing commentaters like Polly Toynbee.
This marathon is the last thing Labour needs now. But if everyone keeps their nerve, this relatively minor piece of EU good housekeeping will be forgotten by the next election by all but Ukip.

You are right, Pol, it probably will be. But only because the MSM is so fucking lame at actually pointing out the origin of legislation. Those fortnightly bin collections, for instance, are a result of EU laws. The closure of the Post Offices are because of EU laws. And yet the number of newspapers which mention these facts has been minimal.

So, as more and more bad laws get passed through our parliament, affecting more and more of the minutiae of our lives, the newspapers will collude with the government to conceal the true origin of these laws. And so people will forget about the EU's impact.
The EU will work better in ways Britain urgently wants, however much during the next months ministers pretend they have had a knockdown drag-out fight with the filthy federalising foreigners.

Yes, yes, you are right: the government is pretending to be in a strong fight: actually, they will just cave, as usual.
The government is now in for a perfect press storm. The dysfunctional dominance of four newspaper groups, with four fanatical Europe-hating owners, will try to force a referendum.

And good for them, Polly, you fuck. The government promised a referendum and we should get one. Because this is the last chance, you evil old bag; this Treaty is self-amending. That means that there need be no more treaties, no more easy triggers for a referendum on this issue.

But, as Timmy points out, do the newspapers make the climate?
Do media outlets create the opinions of their consumers or do they chase them? Is the Mail’s immigrant lesbians building mosques will damage house prices something that Paul Dacre forces down everyone’s throat or is he a masterly reader of the prejudices of Middle England (sad though it may be to think that that actually is what motivates Middle England)?

As has been pointed out here many times before, the academic research seems to indicate the latter.

Quite so. But Polly's through the starting gate now, and she's running fast. She has fish to fry (masking the smell of her stale cunt) and she's not going to stop for anyone...
Rupert Murdoch...

You can almost hear Polly's thoughts: "Demon! Killer! Eater of babies..."
... owner of titles that claim more than 40% of Britain's newspaper readership (plus Sky and part of ITV), was at Chequers last week, yet already he is flirting with Cameron, swinging with the polls. But on Europe he is immutable, because the EU is the one power that could check his monopolistic impulses. Only Margaret Thatcher, by demanding an exemption, allowed him to launch Sky on almost entirely US programming - against EU rules.

Ummm... Polly, is Sky a bad thing? There is more consumer choice, and we have some fine series coming from the US. It's not as though we were going to start importing French programming, is it?

On balance, I think that Sky is a good thing. And you, Polly, think that no other businessmen has "monopolistic impulses"? Murdoch may want a monopoly, but he hasn't got it, so what the fuck are you whinging about, you old bag?
The question is, will Labour stand firm in the face of press bombardment? Rumours of a wobble on holding a referendum are alarming - but almost certainly wrong, or perhaps deliberately misleading, to frighten the Lisbon summit into submission.

For fuck's sake, we are frightening precisely nobody, Polly. Fuck me, but you are a fucking hideous little tit.
Nothing will be what it seems in the coming conflagration. Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso, arriving for a final "red lines" session with the prime minister, announces: "I am not happy."

Yeah? You know what? The fact that the unelected Portuguese president of the majority-foreign EU Commission is not happy really doesn't lose me any sleep—in fact, Pol, I couldn't give a shit that that fat, corrupt dictator isn't happy. Fuck him.
He probably isn't, since Britain, behaving as badly as ever, itself put forward many of the proposals to improve the EU's tackling of terror, crime, climate change and aid - and yet we now want noisy opt-outs from our own ideas. But that's what Britain does, and Barroso is resigned to British barbarism.

Barbarism? What the fuck? We are barbarians?

No, Polly, we are fucking saints and saviours. Every fucking year we pay billions of pounds into the EU coffers so that the Poles can have a new subway system, so that Portugal can pay its national debt, so that sheep-fucking Greek farmers can claim massive subsidies for their shoddy produce.

Barbarians? We are a civilising influence: our hard-earned money goes to helping other countries to survive.
Brown, however, is no doubt very happy to have the emperor of the European superstate say he is "not happy" with Britain's red lines.

Oh, poor Polly. The Gobblin' King really did spurn you, didn't he? Did he bend you over the arm of the sofa, slam his other one-eyed head into your sparsely-haired pepper and salt cunt, and then tell you about his betrayal of your principles (inbetween the grunts of Scottish satisfaction) just as he was spurting his spunk into the very depths of your foetid hole?

Did he elaborate on his abandonment of your plans whilst slapping you on the cheek with his stubby member? Did he detail it all as you cleaned his cock with your mouth, him fucking your face as you crouched, his thick semen dripping out of your slack fanny onto your finest Persian rug? And did he reinforce each point as he buttoned his trousers and left you, slack and soiled, sobbing into your hands?

He must have, and yet still you'll take him back, won't you; if only he came knocking at your door, you would let him back into your house and back into your scabby vagina and claim that you were doing it for the good of the country.

I despise you, Polly.
What's more, before the ink is dry in December, British ministers will claim they have won even more red lines, opt-ins and opt-outs.

And this, too, will be a lie.
We are obnoxious...

Speak for yourself, love.
... but it seems to be the only way we manage to stay in Europe, ducking and weaving past a press that is as mendacious in its Euro-mythmaking as it is malevolent and xenophobic.

For fuck's sake, our press is as bad at telling the truth about how the EU affects our lives as our politicians are.
There was never any need for a referendum.

Really? I would say that anything—any agreement—which gives away any of the powers that we loan to our politicians requires a referendum. And this Constitution most definitely does do that. As did the Single European Treaty, as did the Maastricht Treaty; the Tories held no referenda on those issues and they were wrong. But the Tories are as Europhile as NuLabour.
It is a legacy of Jack Straw, always Euro-dubious, when he bounced Tony Blair into it before the 2005 election. Although the noise and pressure was strong, Blair should have resisted: Howard was not about to win, Hague had lost resoundingly on his 2001 Euro-panic campaign.

What? The only reason to offer to consult the people who lend you their powers on a matter of national importance is simply so that your party can win the election? Fucking hell, Polly, how cynical can you get?
Nothing in the original constitution made any significant shift of sovereignty from parliament to compare it with previous momentous UK referendums - on staying in Europe or devolution for Scotland and Wales.

Fuck, but you are thick, Toynbee. We have never had a referendum on staying in Europe because Europe is a geographical delineation, you dumb bitch.

If by "staying in Europe" you mean "staying in the EU", then we never had a referendum on that. We had a referendum on whether we wanted to stay in the Common Market, which was sold to the British people as a free-trade area and not a political project.

Although, of course, as EU referendum constantly points out, a political entity was always the aim.
Writes dear Ruth [Lea, of Global Vision], "the EEC has been transformed from a customs union 'with ambitions' into a would-be "country called Europe", somehow missing the point that the whole ethos of the "project" was to employ economic integration as a means of achieving political integration. Thus, there has been no "transformation" – the one was always intended to beget the other.

That didn't, of course, stop the politicians of the time lying through their teeth to pretend that political union was not the real aim. We should have another referendum on the subject if only because the people, and Parliament, were lied to so consistently in 1975.
Britain's red lines and opt-outs toughened last June, and will be toughened again before signature.

Crap. As I have discussed before, the red lines are very, very thin, and no thin red line will protect us from this attack.
The treaty shifts power back the other way.

National parliaments have new powers to pre-scrutinise EU legislation. They can send back legislation, if a third of them oppose a new law with a yellow card warning or a red card veto. That's new.

Not really. A similar system was in place in the old Constitution. National parliaments now get eight weeks, rather than six, to scrutinise the legislation, but that's not a massive change really.

And you have to muster a third of countries? You have to get 9 countries to agree with you? Ha!
Contrary to more outrageous myths, Britain loses no power over its foreign policy, embassies or UN seat.

Balls; the takeover of our embassies is already happening.
With 27 members, qualified majority voting is essential. But "qualified" means nothing passes without a majority of countries that also represent a majority of EU citizens. At last, the European parliament gets more power: until now it could only accept or reject the entire budget, but now it can reject particular items.

Well, whoopie-fucking-do! Quick, chaps, break out the Champagne!
Watch it vote down the CAP it has always opposed.

Aaaaaaahahahaha! Hahahaha! Over to Elaib...
Have you ever met an MEP Polly? On this evidence I very much doubt it. Though the Parliament is slowly getting the message about the appallingness of the CAP, the fact that the current head of the European People's Party is a certain Mr Joseph Daul, (a man in the pocket of the French Farming Lobby rather puts the lie to that idea). Indeed, and excellent organisation only last week made this statement,
"The European Parliament makes positive noises about the transparency in the CAP, but continues to miss the point of how transparency can most effectively be achieved."

The simple fact that the Parliament is preparing a prebuttle against those who suggest that 14 years of failure to sign off the accounts suggests some failings within the EU institutions without even seeing the report should make even Ms Toynbee a little concerned.

And, for the first time, there is a mechanism for a country to quit the EU.

You see, here is a problem: I do not consider this to be a good thing. It is an indication of how much power this Treaty has over us that there needs to be a mechanism.

The only mechanism that we should need is to say, "we're leaving" and repeal the 1972 Communities Act. Instead, we are now locked into an organisation which requires that we follow their protocol if we wish to leave.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.
Does anyone really want to keep a presidency that rotates every six months? At the crucial Nairobi climate summit, it was a bad idea that the president of a very small country represented all of Europe, and not very well.

To have influence, the EU's foreign diplomacy needs putting together under one minister. Javier Solana can't at present put pressure on a foreign government over, say, human rights, when trade, aid and defence belong to other commissioners acting alone.

And how is that going to change? Well, we will have a "permanent" EU president, who will represent the EU as an entity. But if this Treaty is so very minor, Polly, how could he do that? For the EU is a conglomeration of countries and the only way that an EU president could represent the EU and negotiate on behalf of the EU is if the EU effectively becomes one country.

And if the EU becomes one country, then it must have a government that can enforce the EU's obligations over its constituent parts. Which is, of course, precisely what this Treaty does, Pol; it creates a legal entity called the European Union, whose law is supreme and enforceable over and above the laws of its constituent countries.

That is the point of this Treaty, you silly cow.
The truth Britain never hears is that between the foolishly grandiose federal rhetoric of old Giscard d'Estaing and the reality of the constitution that emerged, a wind of change blew. The Europe of 27 is now strongly intergovernmental and not federalising by instinct.

Fuck off! The governments may not be, but the EU itself is. Don't be such a naive cunt.
For better or worse, the old federal dream is over. It was already dead in the constitution, but a final stake was struck through its heart by French and Dutch voters. Times changed - and Tony Blair was a key instrument of that change, together with the new nations.

Woo! Tony's back in favour eh? And the new nations? Perhaps Polly has found a substitute for Brown; that's right, Tony has his cock in her mouth, whilst the Polish President and Bulgar ambassador make her airtight, their cocks inserted into her cunt and arsehole. And, lo! Polly is happy again...
The irony is that this treaty marks the victory of the British vision...

No it doesn't: the British have, as I pointed out above, never been asked. It may well "mark the victory" of our government (although I am pretty sceptical about that too) but this federal, legal entity called the European Union is no British vision.
... and yet here we go again, pretending it is the work of devious foreigners from which our valiant leaders will rescue us with red-line lifebelts.

It is the work of devious foreigners: the original foreigners who set up the original European Economic Community.

And if the red lines are our lifebelts, then we are all going to drown. And if that happens, Polly, I shall personally ensure that you are strangled painfully first...
That is why if Britain voted the treaty down in a referendum, it would lead rapidly to the EU exit gate.

Oh please, please, please...
Charles Grant, of the Centre for European Reform, points out that now we have all our opt-outs from a treaty largely of our own flavour, what could the other 26 do but tell us to go?

Um... Surely, if they ratify the Treaty, then they agree with it. They should, in fact, be thanking us for making such a lovely Treaty for them.

But where does this shit about it being "our Treaty" come from? Since when was Giscard D'Istang British?
We would have become incapable of participation, even in basic practical reforms we support.

We would join Switzerland and Norway on the outside, subject to EU laws on the single market but unable to influence them. That, of course, is what the Euro-crazies want.

Well, yes, that is the bare minimum of what we want. And, you know what, Polly? Norway and Switzerland don't seem to do too badly, do they? They are rather healthy, as I recall.

But, once again, Timmy sums it up rather well.
Now the question becomes, why would that be a bad situation to be in? Can anyone provide rational arguments to bolster the view that this would be worse than the current situation? We’d be free of CAP, of the CFP, of all of the federalising motions, we would have freedom of movement of capital, goods and labour across the marketplace: exactly what we’ve always wanted anyway.

Precisely. So, Polly, why is it a bad thing? Won't you reply to your favourite "pendant"?
Referendums can only work on matters of simple and profound principle. Since the treaty is about many technicalities, the government can only reply to the Euro-hysterics with dull technical explanations.

They reply with dull technical explanations so that everyone will be put off asking; to bore people so that they will not realise the truly momentous shift in power that this Treaty represents. For our politico scum, these dull technical explanations are a feature, not a bug.
This is not referendum material but the stuff of representative democracy.

Look, you stinking sack of shit, when NuLabour represented itself to the people at the last general election, it promised to have a referendum on the EU Constitution. In a truly representative democracy, we would be having a referendum because this document is 96% the same as the fucking Constitution. It does the same fucking thing, just in a different way.
The very word Europe in any vote is toxic, thanks to Murdoch and company, who would ensure few ever knew what they were voting on.

And thanks to you and The Grauniad too, because you, Polly, quite patently haven't got a fucking clue what you are talking about. I mean, you never do have a fucking clue what you are talking about, but on this topic you are particularly fuck-witted.
We need the treaty to act on terror, crime, climate change and foreign aid. Europe needs an effective voice to stop any US madness in Iran.

Ah, here we go: the same old paranoia about the US. Look, Pol, either this Treaty is utterly insignificant or it is this big thing that will allow the EU to become a federal country to rival the US.

So which is it, Pol? Is it a basically unimportant technical document, or is it the formation of an Axis country? Come on, answer me. Oh, right, you can't because you don't actually know, do you?
It is the only collective voice on global warming.

Yes, Polly, and it is one of the least environmentally friendly organisations around: look at the disaster that is the carbon trading system, the hugely wasteful tramp to Strasbourg every few weeks, the banning of incandescant light bulbs whilst maintaining the 66% tariffs on energy efficient light bulbs, the destruction of fish stocks through the CFP, etc. etc.

Shut your fucking face, Toynbee. Please, Gordo, will you not come and shut her up by jamming your dick in her mouth so that she can suckle on it, like a babe suckles on a teat?
Now Labour has to make the positive case and start to undo the damage of decades.

Someone is going to need to undo the domestic damage done by NuLabour's decade first. But if anyone is going to "undo the damage of decades" then the first thing to do is to repeal the 1972 Communities Act and leave this fucking useless, fascist, soft-socialist organisation.

Butler! Bring my cockroaches and the carapace-sharpener: there are some orifices to fill and they shall feast tonight...!


Peter said...

I think I have actually fallen
in love with you - please keep on
socking it to this insatiable
monster (i.e. Polly and the EU)!

Anonymous said...

Not sure how you feel about plugs, but one of these lets you know my thoughts on the lady in question...

Roger Thornhill said...

"monopolistic tendencies"

We all have them, but the State can and routinely DOES use the "law" to enforce them.

Private organisations can only maintain one against the will or ignorance of the people with the connivance of, you guessed it, The State.

Prodicus said...

Mayo asked Batshit on R5 today whether he had read this piece of, er, comment. BS replied: 'Er, I'm afraid, I try to, er, was that today?' Mayo said, drily: 'Friday.' Batshit said 'Oh. No, fraid not.' Almost a week gone and only two days to go to Fuck Britain Day and the Foreign Secretary had not read Polly's opinion on the matter. Sad, innit. (No question mark because that is not a question.)

Little Black Sambo said...

Magnificent! Do you know whether she will actually have read it herself?

the doctor said...

Gosh , After reading your post about Poly and the Goblin King I tried to re-enact the scene with my partner . I am posting this from the A&E Dept. at the local hospital , they are trying to find a " cock up splint " .

Reactionary Snob said...

Fantastic. I thought I'd done well but you've done brilliantly...


Careless said...

"deja vu all over again" is something said by a baseball player famous for coining odd phrases. Google "Yogi Berra" if you'd like to read more such as "Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded!" and "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Sort of an American cultural legend.
I can see how that might seem an odd thing to write to a Guardian audience.

diogenes said...

Are you calling me a guardian reader?

Good luck with that!

Elaib Harvey said...

You win
(no cok f pm)

Letters From A Tory said...

Anyone who thinks that (a) the French will let anyone even think about winding down the CAP, or (b) the electorate will let Labour get away with signing us up to the treaty - is an idiot. Polly is therefore an idiot.

And where the hell do you get time to write this stuff? Amazing.

Newmania said...

Gets better with each re reading ...although I think deja vu all over again was a gag. You know what DK if you get a book out over the next month it would sell like hot cakes . This period could be the defining one for the whole Europe debate .

I was thinking about the Conservative Party which you say ( wrongly) is pro Europe. It isn`t , it is just relatively conservative about anything so dramatic , obviously there is no wish to be ruled by foreigners.

With a little reassurance about the economic future outside the EU the residual timidity would be won over , you cannot expect ordinary people to follow the thing all that closely . I feel this is a job for groups whithin the Conservative Party and not a difficult one . As I say it tis the "Third way" that needs to be stressed

Your problem is that by winning the arguement you argue UKIP into irrelevance. Mind you the Liberal Party is still going despite having banked all the gains from Social Liberalism years ago .

You should join the Conservtive Party. Nice tidy haircut and a picure of the Queen and you`re laughing .
The truth is that in order to defeat brown we need a coalition of not just Conservatiuves and UKIPs but also Liberals of the Clegg tincture .
It basically a matter of crushing the indivudual or subsuming his ego into the greater cause where he will find happiness in collective endevour. Tempting eh ....join us.....join us....... join u s........

Anonymous said...

She knows exactly what she is talking about. She wants to squeeze Britain into the EU because the EU has socialism stamped all the way through it. whats more it is a bureacratic socialism which has no interest in democracy - just as the French have no real choice of government, just two different flavours of socialism.

Toynbee knows that socialism is about as popular as dog-crap, just as NuLabour knows that it is about as popular as dog crap. Doesn't stop them believing in it though. They don't give a shit about democracy. They despise most of us. They truly believe they know what's best for us, just like the EU does. They know we will never vote for statist socialism so they have signed us all away to a new government in Brussels that doesn't waste its time with democracy and only believes in statist socialism run by bureacrats like the lametable Peter Mandelson.

Lies upon lies upon lies. Its time we all got ourselves shot-guns and marched on Parliament to turf these disengenuous evil water-down Marxist dick-wads out of power.