Thursday, January 10, 2008

Endemic corruption

Somewhere, perhaps, we should have a non-party political website to document the endemic, cross-party corruption of our MPs. But maybe it would be too wearying; this story from Dizzy certainly makes me feel that way.
Yesterday for example, according to Helen Goodman, junior minister at the Leader of the House of Commons Office, MPs are going to be allowed to use their additional cost allowances to pay for the costs of local authority charges for the collection of household rubbish.

In other words, those politicians in central Government who are giving the authority to local Government to charge us for special rubbish collection, special biodegradable bags etc etc, are going to be allowed to use taxpayers money to cover their own charges. Do any of them have any shame? That is what I want to know.

No, of course they don't, and that is why they are so utterly despised. No doubt that, along with the fat fucking pay rise that they are inevitably going to vote themselves, they will be voting up their maximum expenses too—not that they actually stick to the expenses spending limits anyway.

MPs get a fat fucking salary—almost three times the median wage, in fact—and effectively unlimited expenses. This allows them to vote to increase the living costs of we poor fucks (or, all too often, palm off the responsibility to QUANGOs) and then simply raise their expenses and salaries so that these increases have absolutely no impact on their own pampered fucking lives.

The whole edifice is rotten and needs to be torn down, razed to the ground, and every single agent of government thrown out. Let's destroy all but the essentials—by which I mean only that required to protect the to protect the liberty and property of each individual of this country—and keep it there.

As for paying MPs more: Fuck. Right. Off.

UPDATE: how the fuck MPs think that their personal household waste is, in any way, a cost that relates to their job and therefore a legitimate expense, I just don't know. They are all cunts.

37 comments:

Max Van Horn said...

Spot on DK...with you all the way.

Daniel said...

I wonder how far this idea will get:

MPs Salaries

I remain deeply cynical!

Anonymous said...

As they pass on regulations from the EU and we now have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly why do we need them?

verity said...

Frankly, the sooner we get down on our hands and knees and beg to be considered for US statehood, the better.

The checks and balances and scrutiny are so far superior to Britain, they're not even on the same planet. That is at both Federal and state level. Of course, there is individual corruption sometimes - where there are human beings, there is corruption, but it is not institutionalised as it is in Britain and Europe.

It's a far cleaner system of government and light years ahead in democracy.

Anonymous Coward said...

Please move there, you defeatist bastard.

I'm not prepared to do a single thing for my country if the best solution to our problems that intelligent men and women can think of is to turn around and ask Uncle Sam if he wants his dick sucked; I don't see why anyone else would, either.

The Several States are, charitably speaking, not good at free trading. Further balkanization of our country would be necessary for Washington to even consider admitting twice the population of California into the union. We would probably end up with the exact same political institutions - three corrupt parties and a lazy Parliament - because the States are free to set up any variety of government they wish, so long as it is republican in nature. Oh, and we can't secede if we decide it's not that great a deal.

We wouldn't turn into a kind of Colorado with spires and maypoles. We'd be exactly the same as we are, but with absolutely zero political clout.

verity said...

What a stream of free-floating nonsense.

A state can indeed secede.

The population of CA is creeping up on 40m. Texas is around 30m.

States make their own laws and govern themselves according to the wishes of their voters. If the voters in a particular state don't want free trade, they don't have free trade imposed on them. Although, they did have NAFTA imposed on them and it is working out just dandy. Everyone's a winner. The Federal Government does impose somethings.

No, you wouldn't turn into a kind of CO with spires and maypoles. CO's in the vast Rocky mountains and is a big supporter of the right to bear arms and the death penalty, so no.

I find the British have not supported their freedoms for the last 12 years or so, so they don't really care. They've had Fascism imposed on them but they were getting easy credit, so no big deal. The life has been sucked out of Britain by the Blair incubus who also dismantled civil society.

The US still has a well-woven civil society that they defend robustly. When Blair wrecked Britain, the people just yawned and voted him in again.

The fresh air of liberty may be a bit too bracing for you.

Roger Thornhill said...

When Blair wrecked Britain, the people just yawned and voted him in again.

Hardly - the "red rosette on a shaved gibbon" brigade did that.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

Somewhere, perhaps, we should have a non-party political website to document the endemic, cross-party corruption of our MPs

In the pipeline, but more far-reaching ;)

Anyhoo, on to the slightly more disturbing comments:

Frankly, the sooner we get down on our hands and knees and beg to be considered for US statehood, the better.

So we can be more like California, for example?

I honestly do not think that British politics has quite reached the same level of endemic corruption that is rife in American politics. The size and scope of pork barreling should be more than enough to satisfy that point. Granted, it has done somersaults in the past ten years, but it is not at the point where it is unsalvageable, and that is the more important point.

Frankly, I would not want to be the 51st state as I am British and will always be absolutist in my identity, regardless of whether or not the EU seeks to impose itself on me. The US is not the Freedom-lovin' panacea that is so often hyped by the armchair generals. It is not more liberal than the UK by a longshot- it does not leave us standing in the rights stakes.

Furthermore, I'm more than a little wary about giving credence to an idea that would have massive implications for me from someone who would remain largely unaffected
by what they're suggesting. It's easy to say such things, but surely saying them whilst you're hundreds of miles away, living in another country, is the least credible way to suggest ideas for the future of 'our' country?

verity said...

Roger Thornhill, the majority voted for the wrecker of our country times. The others couldn't even be bothered to vote. The Tories were much in the minority.

They didn't defend their liberties against an overmighty government, and they have lost them, including free speech.

Roger Thornhill said...

Verity - the majority who voted voted for Labour in Britain but not even that subset of the electorate voted in the majority in England - the Tories got that.

The people either yawned or could not see a viable destination for their votes, which is an entirely different thing to what you suggested.

verity said...

Atlas Shrugged - We would be no more like California than we would be like Louisiana, or Idaho or Arkanas. BTW, Texas used to be an independent country and they still say they're Texan before they say they're American (at least the ones with deep roots in the state do). So was Hawaii a country.

Much of the Code Napoleon is still in force in Louisiana. I think it's in Arkansas where you can get married aged 14. There's no state income tax in Texas. There is in most other states. You can't own a gun in Massachusetts and around eleven other states. You can in Texas,Colorado, New Hampshire and some forty other states. Some states have the death penalty for murder, and some don't.

If we joined the US, we wouldn't be subsumed. Indeed, we might get some of our freedoms back.

Marketing, mainly of gasoline and fast food, has made the United States look homogenous on the surface, but that's free enterprise for you. But it really is 50 separate countries cooperating - although, inevitably, the Fed is encroaching.

As a point of interest to those people, if any reading here, who complained about George Bush's not sending Federal troops into Louisiana after the outer fringe of Katrina touched down in New Orleans, he called Governor Blanco three times asking for permission and she refused twice. Eventually, she agreed and they were there within hours. They'd been waiting at the ready. An American president cannot just order Federal troops into a sovereign state without permission from the Governor.

Think about it.

anonymous coward said...

"What a stream of free-floating nonsense."

Jolly good.


"A state can indeed secede."

Actually, you may be right - on the grounds that a seceding state is no longer likely to be described as in the grip of a revolt that needs to be crushed, yes, states can indeed secede.


"The population of CA is creeping up on 40m. Texas is around 30m."

Double that of Texas, then; my point stands. We, with our bizarre voting habits, would have a much larger presence in the House than any other state - why on earth would Washington be happy about that? Why would that be desirable to them?


"States make their own laws and govern themselves according to the wishes of their voters."

Therefore...


"If the voters in a particular state don't want free trade, they don't have free trade imposed on them."

But!


"Although, they did have NAFTA imposed on them and it is working out just dandy. Everyone's a winner. The Federal Government does impose somethings."

So laws aren't imposed from above, except they are, but that's okay! Everyone wins, and anyone who says they aren't winning is not worth listening to.

I'll say it again - we would be exactly the same as we are now, but with far less political clout. The people - as the people are everywhere - would still be conservative, jealous, not very clever and, indeed, suspicious of intelligence in and of itself. Nothing would change, except a flag and an anthem.

Oh, and we would be bound by laws crafted by a deliberative assembly other than our own.


"No, you wouldn't turn into a kind of CO with spires and maypoles. CO's in the vast Rocky mountains and is a big supporter of the right to bear arms and the death penalty, so no."

I'm familiar with Colorado; it's the square one in the middle, and the capital's named after some truly fucking awful singer ;) (If you agree with me on nothing else, agree with me that John Denver had it coming.)

My point is that we would not become happy shiny people the second we joined the union - we would still be us, with all the good and bad that this entails, but the little political clout we actually still have would be grossly diluted. How is that desirable?


"I find the British have not supported their freedoms for the last 12 years or so, so they don't really care. They've had Fascism imposed on them but they were getting easy credit, so no big deal. The life has been sucked out of Britain by the Blair incubus who also dismantled civil society."

Maybe. But, again, joining the US would change absolutely nothing.


"The US still has a well-woven civil society that they defend robustly. When Blair wrecked Britain, the people just yawned and voted him in again."

Or couldn't see a better alternative in the other parties?

I'm not trying to find out which of the two countries we're discussing is the best; I don't care which one has the bigger dick. The simple fact is, joining the union would change - all together now - absolutely fuck all.


"The fresh air of liberty may be a bit too bracing for you."

Doing something for the country of your birth may be a bit too scary for you.

verity said...

I no longer have the country of my birth. It's not there any more.

I cannot see,no matter how many people we had, how we would have more influence in DC than AL or Idaho. IIRC, each state gets two senators and two representatives.

Maybe. But, again, joining the US would change absolutely nothing. It would remind people of what liberty is. No quangoes making decisions for me. No government on my back 24 hours a day with picky little thought Fascist laws to obey or face imprisonment. It would be nice to see rapists, paedophiles and murderers go to prison and stay there rather than being given a free ticket out after six months or so.

Chris Langham, who was found guilty of paying - I assume hefty -sums of money to the site owners of child torture and paedophilia had his sentence reduced and was out in six months.

The thugs who murdered Stephen Lawrence are already due to be released and they are already threatening his widow. If there is one thing the Americans are not sentimental about, it's law and order. Life means you die in prison. The death sentence means you die after 10 years of state-funded appeals. Convicted rapists, in most states, serve a minimum of 20 years - some much longer.

Britain is lawless. Let a home-owner threaten an intruder with a kitchen knife and the police will charge him for assault. In around 40 states of the US, anyone entering your home without an invitation is assumed to have malintent and is asking to be shot. In Texas, as long as their feet are over the threshhold, you won't be charged. The police who were investigating an incident at my house told me to shoot to kill. That way, they can't get recover and then claim you invited them in for a drink, or to help you move a heavy bookcase or something. Texas has a low incidence of breaking and entering.

I like this attitude. It's robust.

Spent Copper said...

I cant help but feel DK, that UKIP misses a very good opportunity here. If they were to commit to introducing legislation that anyone elected to Parliament would receive, oh, say a salary of 3 X average earnings and nothing else; no pension, no allowances, no 'expenses', of any kind, it would strike a powerful chord with many in the Country at large. Doubtless many (well BBC types anyway)would say that, shock horror, this would lead to the end of professional politicians in this country, implying that we would somehow be worse served by our representatives.

I doubt that many of us would mourn their passing.

verity said...

Spent Copper - By the time UKIP gets substantial representation in Parliament, the EU will have passed legislation for minimum compensation for elected representatives.

The one good thing about David Cameron is, he is driving people into the arms of UKIP.

Anonymous Coward said...

Two Senators and... I think it's one Representative for every ~10,000 people; California has roughly 39, I believe. We would have something in the region of 60.

I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on your other points if that's alright. I would like to posit the following, though:

Imagine that the United States elected a government; one which did to that country what you see happening to this country. Would you stay and try to put things right or would you move on to another country and start complaining about the US? Which do you see as the most justifiable course of action in these (highly unlikely) circumstances?

I think migration - at its best - is a fine thing, especially as it can so easily be for the benefit of all involved: the country in question gains a skilled worker and loyal citizen, and the migrant gains a new and more fitting identity.

At its worst the migrant brings their home country with them; I kind of equate the whiny expat with this, in that it clearly wasn't acceptable to stay in the home country and try to fix things, but it's perfectly acceptable to complain about how things are from the outside, because then it's no longer the whiny expat's fault.

Nice talking to you.

Anonymous Coward said...

What am I talking about? It's ~700,000 people to each Representative.

Budgie said...

Better to be a state of the US than a vassal of the EU. But best by far to be independent. Especially with direct democracy.

verity said...

Anonymous Coward - I stand corrected on the House of representatives. If we were able to join the US, I am sure there would be some beforehand ledgerdemain regarding a lid on the top number of representatives allowed for any one state. Or a change to 1m voters for each representative. These are small things.

The Americans would not elect a government like that of Tony Blair and his hard left Politburo because they are touchier regarding the rights handed down to them by the Founding Fathers. They are steeped in liberty. They grow up learning how they got their liberty. If something of the nature of Blair got in, you would see moves towards secession. Guaranteed.

Your follow-on question is therefore not valid in my view.

I am always reading about whiny expats taking their country overseas with them, as in your post, but I have honestly never met such an individual. Absolutely never. Mind you, I haven't lived in Spain, Portugal or Greece where I believe they congregate.

Incidentally, you are not going to be able to "fix things" in Britain, because the system is now skewed towards disempowerment of the citizen. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution have been pulverised. You have no power any more. The leader of the Conservative Party is Socialist Lite. He is too frightened that he may not get into Downing St to be a genuine Conservative. So don't look for anything radical about junking bad laws from him, if he manages to get in.

I can assure you that if anyone tried to take a wrecking ball to the US Constitution, he would have been impeached before he had finished his breakfast. The British were bullied and cowed by iron-fisted Blair and Campbell(as were our famously "independent-minded" British press, who also kow-towed to the islamic freaks propagating CartoonRage). For the first time in our history, they feared to speak out. Using this advantage of no Opposition, the socialists marched forward nailing ever-more brutal, controlling laws into place.

You have been hammered into the Euro socialist mode and I don't believe you'll ever be able to get out.

Rob said...

"the end of professional politicians in this country"

A wonderful dream.

verity said...

The Conservatives should promise to scrap 75 per cent (or whatever)of laws hammered in by the socialists with their huge majority that didn't brook debate, and allow the public to vote electronically on which ones should go. That would be a very popular move. Guaranteed.

Anonymous said...

Election Fraud?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_corv_080109_new_hampshire_electi.htm

Mr Free Market said...

I have 150 tonnes of fertilizer being delivered today. Let me know when you want to pick it up – I’m feel sure that you can put it to good use

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

The one good thing about David Cameron is, he is driving people into the arms of UKIP.

And on such a scale that they recently recorded in polls a massive voting intention of... 0%.

Don't get me wrong- I quite like the idea of what some in UKIP are trying to achieve- it's admirable and akin to what some of their colleauges in the Conservative Party are also trying for- but let's not be misguided when we talk about voting intentions, eh?

As for this utopian notion that the Septics are steeped in liberty and all that... Perhaps they are steeped in your idea of liberty, Verity, but they are certainly not steeped in the traditional definition of it and haven't been for a long time.

Anonymous said...

Well I moved to the Americas years ago and nothing on earth would get me back to England. Like verity I've never met any so-called whining ex-pats, so to the aptly named anonymous coward I'd say stay over there in Europe and shut the fuck up.

verity said...

MU - I wouldn't be so bold and so insanely self-regarding as to imagine that America is "steeped in [my] idea of liberty". The country is steeped in the idea of those giants, the Founding Fathers', notions of liberty and those notions have been copied but never bettered anywhere on earth.

verity said...

Like [12:38], I have found the whiners and the malcontents, the whingers in other words, seem to stay in Britain. Those who settle elsewhere are, in my experience, don't regret it and don't complain. The whiners stay in Britain where they can find plenty festive whinging for 365 days a year.

Antipholus Papps said...

I can assure you that if anyone tried to take a wrecking ball to the US Constitution, he would have been impeached before he had finished his breakfast.

Have you watched the news at all in say, ooh, the past 7 years? Have you heard of a piece of legislation called the 'Patriot Act'? What was it Bush said about a 'god-damn piece of paper'?

verity said...

The Patriot Act was passed by Congress in the pursuit of fighting islamic terrorism on American territory. British socialists think that fighting terrorism on our home turf simply ruins our imagined credentials as a multi-culti, diverse dog's breakfast.

Anonymous Coward said...

Verity,

I'm thinking we should take this conversation to e-mail or something if it goes on much longer, rather than keep on spamming DK's comments. But some points for you:

On the subject of my question, I belive it still stands; we have a famous example of socialism being practised in the US, and it comes in the form of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

On the back of around thirteen million unemployed Americans, FDR claimed the lawmaking power of Congress and gave it to a body of his own devising, fixed wages and prices for roughly seven hundred industries, and suspended competition law.

This dabble in national socialism, as I am sure you will point out, lasted a mere two years before the Supreme Court managed to end it. However, it happened; FDR created a regime eminently similar to the catastrofuck we have in Britain, and the voters of America loved him for it.

We might also look at the example of Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, enacted a blockade, imprisoned thousands of suspected sympathizers of the Confederacy without trial, and went so far as to spend money without the authority to do so.

Tough measures for tough times, to be sure, as the US was at the time embroiled in a bloody civil war; history has since vindicated him. Again, though, it happened; an elected President took powers reserved for Congress by the Constitution.

So, again: should a great leader - because what were Lincoln and Roosevelt, if not great leaders of their country? - seize power in this manner, pass laws that create a situation you find to be intolerable, would you stay and attempt to change this, or would you move on to another country and begin complaining about the United States being "hammered into a [national] socialist mode" and unable to get out of it?

Back to a more genial topic; that of British entry into the union.

"If we were able to join the US, I am sure there would be some beforehand ledgerdemain regarding a lid on the top number of representatives allowed for any one state. Or a change to 1m voters for each representative. These are small things."

There is, of course, a limit on the number of representatives admitted into the House; currently it stands at 435, with states receiving representation proportional to their population, and with each state entitled to at least one representative, regardless of population.

California, with a population of just over 33 million, has 53 representatives; let's be simplistic, leave the upper limit on the size of the House to one side, and say that our 60 million will grant us 106 representatives.

That is to say, we would command one fifth of the entire House. How would Washington find that attractive? An unfamiliar electorate, with an unfamiliar system of government, electing one hundred and six full, unpredictable voting members to the House.

As for capping the number of representatives a state may have - why is that meant to be attractive to me? That we enter the union only to have less rights than any other state? No, no, no.

"Britain is lawless. Let a home-owner threaten an intruder with a kitchen knife and the police will charge him for assault. In around 40 states of the US, anyone entering your home without an invitation is assumed to have malintent and is asking to be shot. In Texas, as long as their feet are over the threshhold, you won't be charged. The police who were investigating an incident at my house told me to shoot to kill. That way, they can't get recover and then claim you invited them in for a drink, or to help you move a heavy bookcase or something. Texas has a low incidence of breaking and entering.

I like this attitude. It's robust."


I absolutely agree with you.


"Incidentally, you are not going to be able to "fix things" in Britain, because the system is now skewed towards disempowerment of the citizen. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution have been pulverised. You have no power any more. The leader of the Conservative Party is Socialist Lite. He is too frightened that he may not get into Downing St to be a genuine Conservative. So don't look for anything radical about junking bad laws from him, if he manages to get in."

I agree with you to an extent, but history has not ended; things can change, ergo they will - and I am capable of doing everything in my limited power to make sure they do change in my lifetime. If I'm supposed to think that no situation can be changed - what the fuck is the point of doing anything? That's no attitude to have!

"Like [12:38], I have found the whiners and the malcontents, the whingers in other words, seem to stay in Britain. Those who settle elsewhere are, in my experience, don't regret it and don't complain. The whiners stay in Britain where they can find plenty festive whinging for 365 days a year."

But you are complaining. I appreciate we're in a public zone, and that not everything one says is intended as gospel - but you advanced an opinion and put your name to it; I'm happy to debate it as long as you wish.


The eponymous anonymous,

As you can probably see, my plans don't involve shutting the fuck up.

Anonymous Coward said...

NB: One alternative I forgot to mention is that, in the event of Britain entering into the union, another option that Washington might consider is splitting Britain into two or more states. We would still have a truly huge share of the House, but it would be split over different states; that is, four states with around twenty five representatives each, for example.

Of course, then we'd get eight seats in the Senate instead of two, which is, I suppose, just as unattractive a prospect for much the same reasons.

There was, I think, a small push in the Philippines for US annexation some years ago; I think the concept was to make US states out of the island groups that country is currently divided into. I'm not sure if you can still find that group on the web, though. The Canadian province of Alberta - I think it was AB, though I'm stretching what's left of my brain right now - also had a little push for US annexation in the eighties.

Yours &c.

Mr Eugenides said...

You in the pub, Kitchen? There are people fighting on your blog!

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

The country is steeped in the idea of those giants, the Founding Fathers'

But it quite clearly isn't. It's nice to think that it is and that there is somewhere where the grass is greener, but that place isn't necessarily the US.

I am quite fond of the vision that the Founding Fathers had for their country and the foresight that they had in setting out the limitations of government and state, but it is apparent that they had been ridden over roughshod many years ago. As has also been pointed out previously here, a constitution is only as good as the people and institutions that uphold it, and right now, that is not the US.

verity said...

Wrong. I'm not complaining. I don't have any interest in the outcome. I'm observing with interest from the outside.

I thought that either Costa Rica or Puerto Rico was also considering asking to be a state. I don't know what happened to that idea.

Your point about absorbing 60m extra voters who don't understand the American system is a good one, although it doesn't happen that quickly People could be bombed with information for all the run-up time to being accepted. That would be at least, I would think, around five years. Perhaps 10. Also, its by no means automatic. There may be enough negatives so that Americans vote against it.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Not, not in the pub, my dear Greek; I just thought that my opinion on this matter was reasonably clear.

Should it not be, here is what I believe: I have as little interest in becoming a state of the US as I have in becoming a state of the EU. The former might be marginally better, but it is still a defeatist attitude.

The idea that world's fifth largest economy and third largest trading nation need to be subjugated to any other large powerbloc is, frankly, pathetic.

What we do need to do is to destroy our corrupted Parliamentary system that has quite deliberately sapped the will of the people in order to gain power, and to rip out the Welfare State, the tool of said subjugation.

We need to teach the history of our great inventors, eccentrics, scientists and explorers in our schools, so that our children might understand why this tiny, rainy little island on the north west tip of Europe became the most powerful nation in the world.

And then we need to reject the pissy ambitions of the EU Soviet, reconnect with (and apologise to) the rest of the Anglosphere that we sold down the river when we joined the EU (we could dig up and dismember Heath's body and send the various bits to be exhibited in gibbets in the major cities of this land, pour encourager les autres) and stand once more on the world stage as a free nation.

We are the instigators of one of the most widely formed alliance of countries in the world -- the Commonwealth -- and our head of state is still the head of that group. The idea that we would be isolated were we to leave the EU is just horseshit.


Fuck the US and fuck the EU: those who want us in the EU and those who suggest that we become a US state are both as tragically misguided and cowardly as each other.

Fuck it: we are Britain and we are Great. Get off your knees and be proud of this nation.

Now, let's go hang ourselves some politicos: bagsy the head of the civil service...

DK

Anonymous Coward said...

Verity,

"Wrong. I'm not complaining. I don't have any interest in the outcome. I'm observing with interest from the outside."

You seemed to be making suggestions to me; suggestions that wouldn't impact you a tiny little bit if they were implemented, due to you no longer being a Briton. In essence: you've already run away from the problem, have the decency not to snipe from so far away.

"I thought that either Costa Rica or Puerto Rico was also considering asking to be a state. I don't know what happened to that idea."

That would be Puerto Rico, a Commonwealth of the US.

"Your point about absorbing 60m extra voters who don't understand the American system is a good one, although it doesn't happen that quickly People could be bombed with information for all the run-up time to being accepted. That would be at least, I would think, around five years. Perhaps 10. Also, its by no means automatic. There may be enough negatives so that Americans vote against it."

And are we to bombard Washington with information so they they understand the soon-to-be most powerful interest group in Congress? Whichever is done, neither would work; we have been bombarded with information from Brussels for years, and we would still leave the EU on about a second's notice.

It all comes down to being a very impractical idea. It be a very dangerous move for Washington - yes, they'd gain Airstrip One, but they'd also gain a powerful voting block who they really don't understand. Even assuming those problems could be ironed out, we would still lose our sovereignty - whether it's to Washington or Brussels doesn't actually make much difference.

Americans would vote against it as a matter of common sense, and Britons would vote against it for the same reason. Sorry.

verity said...

Anonymous Coward: Don't be sorry. I have no vested interest, living in neither country. It's an intersting thought is all.

DK - You say We need to teach the history of our great inventors, eccentrics, scientists and explorers in our schools,

Yes. But we don't. For one reason. The One Worlder fascists want to make Britain ever weaker and its young people ever more remote from our glorious history. Where once our glorious battles were taught, today is taught gender equality, diversity and the benefits to 12 year olds of the morning after pill.

And then we need to reject the pissy ambitions of the EU Soviet,

Yes, but we can't. The agenda is set and the wheels are in motion and anyone who has the wild thougt that David Cameron would pull on the big brakes is wrong. He's part of it.

What we do need to do is to destroy our corrupted Parliamentary system that has quite deliberately sapped the will of the people in order to gain power, They have torn up the Constitution, so you don't have the legal means to object any more. If you do object, you will find yourself in court for "hate speech" and "anti-europeanism" which, I am certain, will shortly be made a crime.

and to rip out the Welfare State, the tool of said subjugation.

I absolutely agree with all your points, but you have not said how you are to accomplish this with our weakened democratic rights. I wouldn't put it past them to make speaking against the EU into a speech crime. And the jaganath of the EU will trundle on no matter the voices of dissent, because it will just roll over you.

I am full of contempt for Heath, who should not have been allowed to die a natural death, but should have been hanged as a traitor, in public.

Blair has loyally pushed the EU agenda - first for income for his wife, the manatee, with the Human Rights crap, then for himself and his dream position as unelected president of a population larger than that of the US. Hiw own Air Force One! The black limousines! The motorcycle outriders. The closed streets to allow him to travel unimpeded. Coming soon to a town or city near you.

My heart breaks, but they have crushed the means to dissent, and they have their spy cameras,under the guise of protecting you, and thought police everywhere.