Free trade caused WWI
Via Trixy, who was at the debate last night, I find this piece of cunt-crap, in reply to Lord Willoughby de Broke's speech, from a hitherto unnoticed (by me) Lord Maclennan of Rogart.
Well, thank you for that, my noble Lord. Just to show the respect in which I hold you, let me do you the favour of pissing all over the paragraph in which that shining jewel of historical accuracy resides.
Indeed, for as the noble Lord points out "The importance of this ratification is that if we as a country fail to pass the Bill, the treaty itself will come apart." That is hardly a cogent argument for voting it through, is it now?
If the Treaty said that we should gas every Jew in the EU, should we still vote it through because "if we as a country fail to pass the Bill, the treaty itself will come apart"?
I think not.
No, we would not regain control: you and your ilk, you disgusting little man, have already given away too much of the powers that do not belong to you. But it would, however, be a start.
No, you fuck; it is climate change that is the fantasy. Let me state this, for the record: anthropogenic climate change is not happening, will not lead to Armageddon and is absolutely not worth beggaring ourselves for (I shall be blogging about several pieces of new evidence for my assertions later today).
Why is this a fantasy? What, pray, did we do about it before we gave away most of that power to the EU?
Absolute cat-crap. Here is what our trade policy should be: "we will buy whatever you want to sell us without any quotas, tariffs or other barriers."
There, that was easy, wasn't it? What, precisely, do we need to negotiate? Sure, we might want to make some effort at getting other countries to do the same, but once they can be made to realise the truth—that imports make us rich and they want what we export quite as much as we desire what they export—I don't foresee too many problems.
That's right everyone, this LibDem shithead fully believes that we should not be able to rule ourselves because that makes us 100 years out of date.
This statement displays a woeful ignorance of history. I spent nearly a year studying the very many and varied tensions that led to the First World War, but certainly free trade was not one of those tensions. Nor, in fact, was sovereign autonomy (quite the opposite in fact, since one of those tensions was the Empire-building contest between Britain and Germany).
But this is yet another variation on the old canard that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for twenty billion years, etc. It wasn't true when this argument first started being used and it's still not true now.
Ah, another old argument: one used by that cunt, Vernon Bogdanor, which essentially translates into "why are you all such xenophobic Little Englanders still yearning for the days of Empire?"
As I said before, we shouldn't be surprised when people like Maclennan insult us.
Like Bogdanor, this Lord Maclennan is a total fucking cunt and should be beaten to within an inch of his life. Then given a reprieve and allowed to entertain a little hope...
... and then he should be beaten that extra inch.
UPDATE: Timmy raises another pertinent point.
Quite. Lord Maclennan: you are a clueless cunt.
UPDATE 2: Sam Tarran has a good post on this; here's the money-shot...
Well said, that man...
It is also pure fantasy to think that we can, through our lone voice in the councils of the world, influence trade policy to protect our citizenry without aligning others in support. These notions of self-control are 100 years out of date. They reflect back to the thinking of the pre-First World War Concert of Europe, to which the answer was 1914.
Well, thank you for that, my noble Lord. Just to show the respect in which I hold you, let me do you the favour of pissing all over the paragraph in which that shining jewel of historical accuracy resides.
If we do not ratify the treaty, we in this country and in the Union at large face the problem of potential impotence.
Indeed, for as the noble Lord points out "The importance of this ratification is that if we as a country fail to pass the Bill, the treaty itself will come apart." That is hardly a cogent argument for voting it through, is it now?
If the Treaty said that we should gas every Jew in the EU, should we still vote it through because "if we as a country fail to pass the Bill, the treaty itself will come apart"?
I think not.
This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said, a question of regaining control.
No, we would not regain control: you and your ilk, you disgusting little man, have already given away too much of the powers that do not belong to you. But it would, however, be a start.
It is pure fantasy to suggest that this country has control over climate change...
No, you fuck; it is climate change that is the fantasy. Let me state this, for the record: anthropogenic climate change is not happening, will not lead to Armageddon and is absolutely not worth beggaring ourselves for (I shall be blogging about several pieces of new evidence for my assertions later today).
... and can pursue an immigration policy in the modern world entirely on its own.
Why is this a fantasy? What, pray, did we do about it before we gave away most of that power to the EU?
It is also pure fantasy to think that we can, through our lone voice in the councils of the world, influence trade policy to protect our citizenry without aligning others in support.
Absolute cat-crap. Here is what our trade policy should be: "we will buy whatever you want to sell us without any quotas, tariffs or other barriers."
There, that was easy, wasn't it? What, precisely, do we need to negotiate? Sure, we might want to make some effort at getting other countries to do the same, but once they can be made to realise the truth—that imports make us rich and they want what we export quite as much as we desire what they export—I don't foresee too many problems.
These notions of self-control are 100 years out of date.
That's right everyone, this LibDem shithead fully believes that we should not be able to rule ourselves because that makes us 100 years out of date.
They reflect back to the thinking of the pre-First World War Concert of Europe, to which the answer was 1914.
This statement displays a woeful ignorance of history. I spent nearly a year studying the very many and varied tensions that led to the First World War, but certainly free trade was not one of those tensions. Nor, in fact, was sovereign autonomy (quite the opposite in fact, since one of those tensions was the Empire-building contest between Britain and Germany).
But this is yet another variation on the old canard that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for twenty billion years, etc. It wasn't true when this argument first started being used and it's still not true now.
When are we going to realise the reality and the limits of British power and the necessity of our country concerting its policies within the legal framework that the Union provides?
Ah, another old argument: one used by that cunt, Vernon Bogdanor, which essentially translates into "why are you all such xenophobic Little Englanders still yearning for the days of Empire?"
As I said before, we shouldn't be surprised when people like Maclennan insult us.
... since the EUphiles have lost the economic debate, and the political debate, and the cultural debate and the moral debate, they have nothing left in their armoury except pathetic little insults. And the only insults that they can think of are those related to "the nasty foreigners", so they call us "xenophobes", "Little Englanders" and "racists". It is why the debate with EUphiles is always so fucking pointless: because they cannot win their arguments on the basis of the evidence.
Like Bogdanor, this Lord Maclennan is a total fucking cunt and should be beaten to within an inch of his life. Then given a reprieve and allowed to entertain a little hope...
... and then he should be beaten that extra inch.
UPDATE: Timmy raises another pertinent point.
It is also pure fantasy to think that we can, through our lone voice in the councils of the world, influence trade policy to protect our citizenry without aligning others in support.
When has trade policy, uni- or multi-lateral, ever been used to protect our citizenry?
To protect producers, yes, but that’s always at the expense of the citizenry.
Protection of the citizenry would be unilateral free trade, something which requires no voice in the councils of the world nor the alignment of support.
Quite. Lord Maclennan: you are a clueless cunt.
UPDATE 2: Sam Tarran has a good post on this; here's the money-shot...
I translate it as more or less the same argument used by socialists to enslave individuals, that we can't be trusted to do things for ourselves and the great benevolent state must therefore act in our own interest. Just as socialism is insulting to the human being, so is the EU an insult to Britain and all nation-states.
Well said, that man...
Labels: Cunts of the Highest Order, EU, evil, total and utter bastards, totalitarianism
| 11 blogger comments
| links to this post
11 Blogger Comments:
It's a totally bogus argument and the ignoble lord would do well to read up even the most basic history which starts with a bloke called Gabriel Princip of the Black Hand (Serb separatists) shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and all due to all sorts of treaties and friendships, we end up (in quite a bizarre way) with Europe at war.
Had the Austro-Hungarian empire let Serbia be independent, it would probably never have happened.
Might be worth asking whether creating another superstate in Europe is a good idea, hmmm?
"Princip was, of course, a notorious Eurosceptic as well as a free-trader, hence his assassination of the Archduke, an eminent EU enthusiast"
quoted from "The History of the EU" by Lord Maclennan of Rogart (The Mendacious Press 2009).
It is not Parliament's job to be selfless on behalf of the citizens. As individual nations we should be benignly self-interested - i.e. we should only sign treaties that directly benefit us and fit in with our traditions and culture. That doesn't mean tearing our constitution up to suit the present government, especially when the present government were elected on the basis of a pack of lies.
"Cunt-crap" - nice phrase. Can see myself using that one soon.
If memory serves Maclennan is a man who is nearly reduced to tears by high pressure, aggressive meetings. Hopefully some miracle will occur and he will read your post, and another bout of tears will occur.
This tw*t was the leader that took the SDP into the merger with the Liberals. Yes - that's right - he was the leader of a major political party (well, quite major then) and - even on this site for political anoraks - he is unrecognized. That surely demonstrates what a dull c*nt we are dealing with!
Everyone know it was the Jews that caused WW1.
I personally welcome our new European Overlords.
Ein Reich. Ein Volk. Ein Kommission.
"It is also pure fantasy to think that we can, through our lone voice in the councils of the world, influence trade policy to protect our citizenry without aligning others in support."
Of course, if that lone voice is never raised, it cannot influence. ANY policy, not just trade.
As well as being wrong, and a Cunt, and a Lib Dem as well come to that he is also irrelevant.
Even if we bought into his hysterically mad ideas over the EU, what relevance does it have to the treaty????
Do we need to give up vetos over home affairs in order to benefit from the EUs trade "advantages".
Do we fuck. The alternative is to vote against the treaty and stick with the status quo. Or will the Germans invade Poland if we do that? Twat.
"Eine Kommission", it's a feminine noun.
Foreign policy ought to be very simple; it goes like this (not my original, don't know whose it is.)
1. If you have good stuff, we'll buy it.
2. If you want our stuff, we'll sell it to you.
3. If you hurt our citizens, you're dead meat.
The rest, as the Talmudist said, is commentary.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home