This picture isn’t about the pros and cons of Scottish independence, but the cons of Alex Salmond as the politically correct, EU-loving future leader of a Scotland which has ‘independence within Europe’: an oxymoron, as even those two wee eejits in the lower right could tell you.

Please vote on Monday to allow the people of the United Kingdom to have a say in OUR future. We demand the right to a referendum on EU membership, denied for so long and promised by Labour and Tory.

The time is now. Please don’t believe the following two common misconceptions:

1) The EU has brought peace to Europe.

2) We would suffer economically outside of the EU.

The truth is that the European Union has only existed since the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty 18 years ago. The EU Constitution (Lisbon Treaty) has been in effect for less than two years. Before this, were such groups as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and the European Economic Community (EEC) or “Common Market”.

There has been ‘peace in Europe’ since WWII largely because of the vast numbers of allied troops stationed in Germany. And of course, this has nothing to do with the EU.

As far as economics are concerned, we should be better off out of the EU, just like two of Europe’s three richest countries, Norway and Switzerland. The former has oil and the latter has a major banking industry.

The UK has both, and tons more beside, yet inside the EU, we are poorer than the only two main Western European countries that never entered the EU or its predecessors. We have been over-regulated and impoverished by the organisation which we are *still* led to believe by some that we cannot live without. The delusion has to end for all our sakes, right across political divides and right across the Continent.

There seems to be a growing number of MPs in the Labour and Tory parties who are now tuning in to this reality and understanding the dangers of our continued EU membership.

But David Cameron wants to whip his MPs into obeying orders. He is bought and paid for by his masters in Brussels. He is happy for us to continue being part of a repressive regime with a President none of us voted for, or even had the opportunity to vote for, and which we pay through the nose to sustain in contributions and through other losses (and as in all tyrannies, corruption is endemic), and now after being forced to have this debate on the EU, he refuses to allow a free vote as if he also is an unelected president with dictatorial powers.

Where does the will of the people enter into the equation in our so-called democracy?

Ed Miliband has used the upcoming debate to attack the Tories. He has written on his website, “They are looking inwards. They are out of touch. They are squabbling about Europe and not fighting for Britain.”

Does he really not understand that ‘fighting for Britain’ means exactly that – fighting for Britain, not laying down and allowing ourselves to be controlled like some vassal state of old, whose people are kept in serfdom for the economic benefit of the parasitic invader.

I urge you, as a loyal citizen of our country, to vote to allow the people of our country to decide on its future. This is the very least we deserve and a referendum now would finally honour the promise made in Labour’s 2005 General Election Manifesto, and the promises and sentiments expressed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg before the 2010 General Election would also be honoured.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Stewart Cowan

————————–

Further reading:

Why the European Union MUST be dissolved

The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.

This has to be one of the saddest sights in the world, indicating a union of two people of the same sex who are settling for a fake life together, denying themselves the joy of true marriage, children and grandchildren.

Just to prove that the SNP are as keen to follow the same agendas as the Lib/Lab/Con Party on support for the European Union and love of social re-engineering, talk of “gay marriage” is in the air north of the Border. And just like in those other parties, people who express an opinion contrary to these agendas are portrayed as being fruit loops. People like me who argue (reasonably) calmly and logically are the “nutters” while those who try to shout down people with opposing views by calling them names and demanding they shut up and apologise, are standing proudly atop the moral high ground.

Yes, all the usual names have been trotted out for people like Dunfermline MSP, Bill Walker, who signed fellow SNP MSP John Mason’s motion against marriage being redefined in Scotland. And those names are the same ones I have been called: “bigot”, “homophobic” and accusations of living “in the Dark Ages”.

Sodom and Gomorrah were millennia before the Dark Ages, so just who is living in the past here?

Subrosa writes,

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason’s objection ‘a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion’ – and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.

She is concerned that should gay “marriage” become legal in Scotland, Mr Mason’s motion may be needed to protect clergy who do not want to perform ceremonies for same-sex unions. She writes,

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they’re not a paid up member then they can’t complain.

This isn’t just about redefining marriage and therefore society as a whole, but making churches conform and denying all people the right to act on their conscience.

When Labour were in national government, they engaged in a campaign of degeneration of society while condemning anyone who held traditional views, i.e. often the majority. It is therefore not surprising that Labour MP Thomas Docherty wrote a letter to Alex Salmond about Bill Walker’s comments and said to the First Minister,

break your silence on the despicable and disgusting comments.

Mr Docherty then claimed that Mr Salmond had gone mental when they discussed the issue at the opening of a new school. But it seems to have backfired on the intolerant Labour MP,

Councillor Douglas Chapman (SNP), chair of Fife education committee, said,

Any suggestion that Mr Salmond lost his temper is absolutely incorrect.

I was in the room along with guests and senior council officers and nothing untoward happened, other than Mr Docherty’s approach was totally inappropriate given that the focus of the visit was making children feel really proud of their new school.

In fact, most people in the room were unaware of any supposed incident and Mr Docherty and his press office are guilty of pure fiction. If anything, it was Mr Docherty’s inappropriate approach to Mr Salmond that was aggressive and the First Minister’s response was a model of restraint.

Mr Docherty’s childish behaviour was questionable in raising a political issue at the opening of a new school, which was a day for the proud pupils, parents and teachers.

Mr Docherty then left – presumably to prepare his fantasy press release – and didn’t even have the good grace to stay to share the day with the children.

These actions will be seen by many of his constituents as being not only juvenile and inappropriate but wholly crass and opportunistic.

There seems to be a feeling among the general population that “gay marriage” won’t affect them at all. I disagree, because there are sound reasons why homosexual activity has been a taboo throughout the world, as it is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

And when homosexuality becomes accepted, that society naturally suffers the decline that comes with hedonism. As I wrote on Leg-iron’s coverage of the subject,

The sort of society children grow up in will define that society when they are in charge (or think and act like they are in charge).

The resulting sexual ‘revolution’ (of all sorts) has caused all manner of social breakdown in the West.

Naturally, this affects us all.

And it does in so many ways. Changes in society’s norms have seen the need for many more houses, which has resulted in a shortage and house prices and rents going through the roof. It is not just financially that social re-engineering is costing everyone, but through intolerance and rudeness, fear and crime and the attitude of the police.

A marriage is between man and woman. God declared it. The human anatomy confirms it. Healthy societies need healthy relationships for them to flourish.

This is not me being a “bigoted Nazi homophobe,” but a realist. If marriage is redefined, it will weaken society even further. We will all pay for it even more.

I know many Americans, and Europeans, too, have more or less written off Western Europe as lost to Islam already. I would be lying if I said that I didn’t think this too sometimes, but I do see encouraging signs of a real shift of public opinion beneath the surface. Judging from information such as the extremely high number of Germans hostile to Islam, I still believe, or at least hope, that Europe can be saved. But this hope hinges on the complete and utter destruction of the European Union.

The EU must die, or Europe will die. It’s that simple.

Bat Ye’or in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis is right in pointing out that ordinary Europeans have never voted for this merger with the Islamic world through massive Muslim immigration and Multiculturalism. This is closely tied to the rise of the European Union, which has transferred power away from the people and the democratic process to behind-the-scenes deals made by corrupt, Eurabian officials and bureaucrats. Several observers have noted that there is a serious disconnect between the European elites and ordinary citizens. This has been made possible largely because of the EU.

I have heard the term “neo-Feudalism” being used of the EU. There are definitely certain elite groups in Europe who have never really accepted the loss of power to “the mob,” and think that everything that’s wrong with Europe is because of “populism,” what others call democracy. These are also the people who created Eurabia and “forgot” to consult the public about these plans. The EU should be viewed that way, as a de facto, slow-motion abolition of European democracy, disguised as something else. The real force behind the EU is to cede national sovereignty to a new ruling class of bureaucrats, a new aristocracy and a throwback to the pre-democratic age.

I’m really worried about a complete collapse of the democratic system here. It has already been weakened by the EU, the UN etc. for a long time, and now we also have direct physical threats by Muslims to freedom of speech. Ordinary Europeans are no longer in control of our own fates. Sweden has for instance in reality ceased being a democratic country, in my view. We need to recapture this, or Europe is finished.

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, former Soviet Dissident Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, an EUSSR as some people call it. In a speech he delivered in Brussels, Belgium, Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

“I am referring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.”

Bukovksy replied negatively to Belien’s question whether the member countries of the EU didn’t join the union voluntarily, and that the integration thus reflects the democratic will of Europeans. “No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage.”

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents. According to him, some of these documents “show very clearly” that the idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was encouraged in agreements between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home” “Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. I am not saying that it has a Gulag.”

“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals.” From 1985 onwards, “the Soviets came to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.”

In January 1989, during a meeting between Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d’Estaing is supposed to have stated that: “Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Eastern European countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.” As Vladimir Bukovksy points out, this was 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. “How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?”

Yes, it does smell of conspiracy. This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed talk of a political union to subdue the nation states as scaremongering. Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and chief drafter of the awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book of hundreds of pages without any of the checks and balances of the American Constitution, has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referendums in 2005 “was a mistake which will have to be corrected.” “The Constitution will have to be given its second chance.” He said the French people voted No out of an “error of judgement” and “ignorance”, and insisted that “In the end, the text will be adopted.” “It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.” Mr Giscard d’Estaing indicated that the treaty could be put to French voters in a second referendum, or be ratified by the French parliament. “People have the right to change their opinion. The people might consider they made a mistake,” he said on a possible new referendum. Anybody who still questions whether Eurabia, the deliberate merger between Europe and the Arab-Islamic world described by Bat Ye’or, is “just a conspiracy theory” should read these statements by Giscard d’Estaing. Why should we be surprised if leading EU officials make behind-the-scenes agreements that affect the future of the entire continent, yet say nothing about this in public or flat out lie about their agenda? This is how the EU has been working for decades, indeed from the very beginning.

From its inception, European integration has been a French-led enterprise. The fact that the French political elite still want to maintain their leadership over Europe was amply demonstrated during the Iraq war. President Chirac famously said in 2003 after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic backed the US position “They missed a good opportunity to shut up,” adding “These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position.” Jean Monnet, French economist who was never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity. Richard North, publisher of the blog EU Referendum and co-author of the book The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? together with Christopher Booker, describes how Jean Monnet for years, at least from the 1920s, had dreamed of building a “United States of Europe.” Although what Monnet really had in mind was the creation of a European entity with all the attributes of a state, an “anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so that it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.” In their analysis of the EU’s history, the authors claim that the EU was not born out of WW2, as many people seem to think. It had been planned at least a generation before that.

The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. As critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence. A federation is of course a State and “yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws.” The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North calls the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so in public.

In 2005, an unprecedented joint declaration by the leaders of all British political groups in Brussels called for PM Tony Blair to push for an end the “medieval” practice of European legislation being decided behind closed doors. Critics claim that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s supreme law-making body, which decides two thirds of all Britain’s laws (and the majority of laws in all Western European countries), “is the only legislature outside the Communist dictatorships of North Korea and Cuba to pass laws in secret.” As one of the signers put it: “We still have this medieval way of making decisions in the EU; people hide behind other member states, and blame them. It increases people’s sense of cynicism, but what we need is some straight talking.” According to British Conservative politician Daniel Hannan, this is how the EU was designed. “Its founding fathers understood from the first that their audacious plan to merge the ancient nations of Europe into a single polity would never succeed if each successive transfer of power had to be referred back to the voters for approval. So they cunningly devised a structure where supreme power was in the hands of appointed functionaries, immune to public opinion.” “Indeed, the EU’s structure is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.”

Vladimir Bukovksy, too, warns that it looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. “Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone.” “Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?” He doesn’t have much faith in institutions such as the elected, but largely powerless European Parliament, to curtail these developments. “The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous.” “It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo,” which was the real centre of power in the USSR, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.

Another former citizen of the USSR, Vilius Brazenas, has noted some of these similarities between EU and Soviet institutions, too. “When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist.” “It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model.” “Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”

Meanwhile, the vast and inflated EU bureaucracy puts its tentacles into regulating every conceivable subject in Europe in great detail, not just the percentage of fat in yoghurt. Beer drinkers in Germany were frothing at the mouth during the summer of 2005 over EU plans to make Bavarian barmaids cover up. The aim of the proposed EU directive was to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays. But the so-called “tan ban” was condemned as absurd by breweries, politicians — and the barmaids. It was eventually withdrawn. In Sweden, most clothes sold in shops contain labels with washing instructions. But the labels were viewed at the EU level as a hindrance to free trade, as it was prejudicial to foreign clothes sold in Sweden that don’t have the labels. A poll commissioned by the Swedish Consumer Agency showed that eight out of ten Swedes read the washing instructions before they wash new clothes, and six out of ten read them before they buy clothes.

These are examples of the more ridiculous or funny aspects of the EU machinery. But there is also a much more sinister side to it: The promotion of an official, “Eurabian” federal ideology promoting Multiculturalism, denouncing all those wanting to preserve their democracy at the nation state level as “xenophobes” and those wanting to limit Third World immigration as “racists.” A report from the EU’s racism watchdog said Europe must do more to combat racism and “Islamophobia.” New anti-discrimination laws to combat Islamophobia are to be enacted, as they already have been in Norway, where Norwegians need to mount proof of their own innocence if Muslim immigrants accuse them of discrimination in any form, including discriminatory speech. The EU also wants to promote an official lexicon shunning offensive and culturally insensitive terms such as “Islamic terrorism.”

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, after the ripples caused in early 2006 by the Muhammad cartoons published in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that “freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions.” Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that “religious symbols can be protected”. Such steps could materialize through various mechanisms, “and maybe inside the new human rights commission created in the UN”, he said. He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa. In a meeting with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Solana said that “I expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt”, vowing “to reach out… to make sure that people’s hearts and minds are not hurt again.” Dutch daily De Telegraaf quoted the Dutch state secretary for European Affairs Atzo Nicolai as characterising the appeasing tone used by Mr Solana as “shocking.” Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that “the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence.” The irony that he himself later was trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship and speech codes apparently did not strike him.

Journalist Nidra Poller, commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, noted other incidents of this deliberate, submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands. “The Euro-Mediterranean “Dialogue” is a masterpiece of abject surrender. The European Union functions therein as an intermediate stage of an ominous Eurabian project that calls for a meltdown of European culture and its recasting in a monumental paradise of cultural relativism… that closely resembles the Muslim oumma. Isn’t this a more accurate vision of what the Union is preparing for its docile citizens? When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of “Dialogue,” what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word “Constitution”?”

Intelligent people have been warning against this development for years. British philosopher Roger Scruton, in books such a The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat and England and the Need for Nations, warns that: “We in Europe stand at a turning point in our history. Our parliaments and legal systems still have territorial sovereignty. They still correspond to historical patterns of settlement that have enabled the French, the Germans, the Spaniards, the British and the Italians to say ‘we’ and to know whom they mean by it. The opportunity remains to recuperate the legislative powers and the executive procedures that formed the nation states of Europe. At the same time, the process has been set in motion that would expropriate the remaining sovereignty of our parliaments and courts, that would annihilate the boundaries between our jurisdictions, that would dissolve the nationalities of Europe in a historically meaningless collectivity, united neither by language, nor by religion, nor by customs, nor by inherited sovereignty and law.” “The case against the nation state has not been properly made, and the case for the transnational alternative has not been made at all. I believe therefore that we are on the brink of decisions that could prove disastrous for Europe and for the world, and that we have only a few years in which to take stock of our inheritance and to reassume it.”

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an admirer of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, has said that the EU enlargement with ten new member states, mostly former Communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe, “increased the EU’s democratic deficit.” He warned that “The EU has continued – at an accelerated speed – to expand the number of pages of its legislation which now deals with almost every aspect of human life and human activities.” Mr Klaus also stressed that the nation-state “is an unsubstitutable guarantor of democracy (opposite to all kinds of ‘Reichs,’ empires and conglomerates of states).”

According to Vladimir Bukovksy, “the most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse.” “I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.” “I think that the European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized. Gorbachev tried to democratize it and it blew up. This kind of structures cannot be democratized.”

Richard North writes that “If, against all the odds, the Constitution does go ahead, it would be like locking down the lid on a pressure cooker and sealing off the safety valve. The break-up might take a little longer, but it will be explosive when it comes.” In the book he co-authored with Christopher Booker, the authors conclude: “Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short, evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato’s Guardians, guiding the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster: partly suffocating in its own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men; partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those countries who knew how to ‘work the system’, among whom the Irish and the Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled master. The one thing above all the project could never be, because by definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense democratic.” They believe this is why the EU is doomed and why it will “leave a terrible devastation behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples of Europe to emerge.”

I understand concerns that the destruction of the EU could cause “instability” in Europe. It will. But we will probably end up with some “instability” anyway, given the number of Muslims here that the EUrabians have helped in. Besides, if “stability” means a steady course towards Eurabia, I’ll take some instability any day. I can’t see that we have any choice. The truth is that Europe has got itself into a bad fix, again, and will have some turbulent and painful years and decades ahead regardless of what we do at this point. The choice is between some pain where Europe prevails and pain where Europe simply ceases to exist as a Western, cultural entity.

Some would hope that we could “reform” the EU, keep the “positive” aspects of it and not “throw out the baby with the bath water.” I beg to differ. I was naïve, too, once, and thought there were positive aspects to the EU. There aren’t, or not nearly enough to keep any of it.

The EU is all bath water, no baby.

Which is why, as Bukovksy says, “the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas.”

The creation of Eurabia is the greatest act of treason in the history of Western civilization for two thousand years, since the age of Brutus and Judas. In Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy, Brutus and Judas Iscariot were placed in the harshest section of Hell, even below Muhammad. If Dante were alive today, he’d probably make some room for Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his Eurabian cronies in the Hot Place. The EU elites see themselves as Julius Caesar or Octavian, but end up being Brutus. They want to recreate the Roman Empire on both sides of the Mediterranean, bound together by some vague references to a “shared Greek heritage.” Instead, they are creating a civilizational breakdown across much of Western Europe as the barbarians are overrunning the continent. The EU wants to recreate the Roman Empire and ends up creating the second fall of Rome.

Eurabia can only be derailed by destroying the organization that created it in the first place: The European Union.

When English taxes are being used to subsidise services we apparently can’t afford for ourselves, I don’t discriminate between Scottish student paying nothing for uni or having their council taxes frozen and Greeks civil servants retiring at 53.

In another comment, Jim Morgan mentions the fact that we no longer have prescription charges in Scotland (as of this Spring).

Now, I think it is wrong that the devolved parts of the United Kingdom get these benefits and England doesn’t when we all pay the same rates of tax. It isn’t fair, but I think it is counterproductive to blame Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people, especially as of the 650 Westminster parliamentary constituencies in the UK, 59 are in Scotland, 40 in Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland. England has a whopping 533 MPs, allegedly representing their interests, so why not blame them when they clearly do not care about the “equality” most of them always bang on about?

Why blame a couple of million Labour voters in Scotland and Wales for the UK’s problems, while ignoring the larger number of Labour voters in England? This has bemused me for some time. I guess it is easier to blame others than to accept any responsibility for your own lack of action. Why hold your own elected representative to account when you can rant at the telly as News At Ten announce free prescriptions north of the Border?

The really stupid thing is that, while people get upset about tuition fees and prescription charges, the far weightier matter of treason has gone largely unnoticed and completely undealt with. Labour’s admitted re-engineering of society should have millions demanding trials for a number of anti-British villains who have skulked among us and slither through the corridors of power still.

Jim Morgan also writes,

England is governed by anti English British establishment.

Yes it is, but it is not a case of the rest of the UK ganging up on the English, giving them Chinese burns and stealing their pocket money so that we don’t have to pay for our prescriptions. The anti-British establishment hates us all equally, but the English are the dominant party and so they are the ones who have been earmarked for cultural genocide first. Likewise, our Judeo-Christian laws and customs are attacked because they are mainstream and have made us strong. The traditional family is undermined because it is the building block of a stable society. What is normal is being denormalised. Right becomes wrong and vice versa.

It is all to divide and conquer to bring this country to its knees. This is why I believe we should fight our common enemies together and not allow ourselves to be divided by all these crude, yet highly effective, social re-engineering tricks.

A comment from Paul Kevin Wiffen sums it up,

This is why the EU will always win! You people fall out with each other just like the Judean People’s Front verses the People’s Front of Judea. It’s the way the EU works, Divide and Conquer (they got it from Caesar’s Gallic Wars) they promote devolution, the Scots then hate the English and the English hate the Scots and hey presto, no-one attacks the EU any more! Get wise, stop having a go at each other and face the common enemy Brussels/Strasbourg. Otherwise we’ll be in EU chains forever!

So where are we going in this country? Will we carry on being paranoid and continue to whinge about being “offended” at every turn and demand “rights” designed to get one over our fellow man before he gets one over on us?

Will we ever learn to grow up and stop fiddling while Britain burns?

On the face of it, these differences would seem impossible to reconcile, but fortunately for the hideous-looking beast, the conservative side wasn’t conservative and the liberal part wasn’t liberal.

But whatever was to happen, the ConDem would surely be an improvement on the Brown Gorgon.

Or would it?

The beast soon fell passionately in love with the giant bloodsucking leech called EU. This came as no surprise, despite ConDem’s dad pretending to play hard to get before the election. The Dave part of this pushmi-pullyu clone soon forgot about his cast-iron guarantee and the Clegg head had always loved the idea of being dominated.

“Four legs good, two legs bad!”

Or as the first of the “Seven Commandments” in Animal Farm says: “Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.”

That sounds like a good summary of ConDem’s policy.

A llama in la-la land.

Firstly, here is proof that Obama is a liar. He previously said that no long form birth certificate exists then all of a sudden one is released – at a time of almost unparalleled financial meltdown in the US and wars on numerous fronts.

Whether or not the certificate is real (and if you look at it, it seems either to be a fake or to have been made to look dodgy, probably to keep the circus going), Obama is the winner here, as it has taken so much attention away from the more important issues. The phrase, “Nero fiddles while Rome burns” comes to mind.

Then Obama continues, in a joking way of course, to compare himself to a king. He certainly acts like King George III with his taxes and control freakery.

He is as shallow as they come. I love comedy as much as the next man, but I cannot abide to watch a man who is wilfully destroying his country have the audacity to behave like a stand up comic – and just after hundreds of his countrymen have been killed by tornadoes. It is shameful.

H/T Nigel Evans MP (who thought it was a laugh.)

One is a disgusting and unacceptable caricature. The other is a golliwog.

Husband and wife, Bill and Star Etheridge, were due to represent the Tory Party at the upcoming local elections. They also run their local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness. It has been clear for a while now that these two interests go together like chalk and cheese in David Cameron’s unconservative party.

The couple announced on facebook yesterday that they have resigned from the Party:

Forced Out Of The Conservative Party For Not Being Politically Correct

Until today, both myself and my wife were Conservative candidates for the May Council Elections.

I worked as a Campaign Executive in the run up to the last election and am a member of Dudley North and South associations. I am also Chairman of Claverley association.

We are openly Thatcherite and believe in an EU referendum. We also organise the local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness.

We received a letter today from Conservative Head office suspending us from the party as our activities with the campaign against PC could be considered to bring the Conservative party into disrepute. The main problem was that we had been pictured holding a toy Gollie

Our response was that a party which stifled free speech and was prepared to discipline members for holding a rag doll was no longer the Conservative party. We have both resigned with immediate effect.

We do not intend to be silenced and will increase our campaigning in favour of Freedom and Against Political Correctness.

This is why the couple simply had to be disciplined – they were photographed holding children’s dolls. Isn’t it heinous? Have you ever seen such an obvious and outrageous display of racial hatred? I feel faint. Pass the smelling salts, someone.

Awww. Too cute for Cameron.

Pictures of her husband posing with Golly can be seen here. Be warned: they are just as graphic as the one above. I will take no responsibility if these images cause you to hyperventilate or go into spasms. Please ensure that there are no sharp edges round about you in case you pass out at the sight of more of these nauseating pictures.

This is a copy of the letter the couple received from the terrified Tory Party:

BY POST AND EMAIL

18th March 2011

Following a decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Conservative Party, I am writing to advise you that your membership of the Party has been suspended for a period of 30 days from today’s date.

The Committee received a complaint relating to images which appeared on a Facebook website in which you were photographed with a toy “golly” in support of a campaign against political correctness.

The Committee is satisfied that the complaint raises serious issues that might bring the Party into disrepute and/or that you may be guilty of conduct not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party.

You have the right to apply in writing to the Committee for this suspension to be lifted.  The Committee may allow you to make oral representations on the matter.  The Committee may then lift or confirm the suspension, or vary the terms on which the suspension takes effect.

Yours sincerely

STEPHEN PHILLIPS

Secretary to the Disciplinary Committee

It’s the same old story. “We received a complaint”. Did you, Tories? Did you really?

And the Disciplinary Committee may allow the couple “to make oral representations on the matter.”

“Thank you, Massa. We so grateful, Massa.”

Eureka! It has just dawned on me why golliwogs are personae non gratae. It is because they remind us of slavery and we are the new slaves!

So who did complain, if anyone? In 2008, I wrote a post for my old site, thelabourparty.org, called Who is Pulling Gordon Brown’s Strings on the Road to a One World Government?

I began by writing,

Clearly, the leaders of the main Western nations are following a script given to them, which is the reason Western Europe, North America and Australia in particular, are self-destructing under the weight of ‘human rights’, and ‘equality’ legislation, where reality is the opposite of the rhetoric.

Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, has been given the task of continuing to enslave the British people by taking our rights and dumbing us down in the hope that we do not notice and are unable to change things.

Further down the post, I wrote,

Have we been brainwashed into believing that golliwogs are offensive?

Well, some African-American sisters have inaugurated the Black Doll Collectors Convention.

“Among Britt’s favorite dolls is her collections of golliwogs — the century-old “black-faced” rag dolls that are seen as racially offensive-caricatures to modern day sensibilities.”

But Britt says they created in childhood stories to endear rather than offend.

“They are part of my history and I embrace them. You have to learn from the past. You can’t hide from it,” she says.

So I guess the agenda is to make a mountain out of – well – nothing at all.

It is just something else whereby innocent people can be harassed by ‘officials’ obeying orders from corrupt bureaucrats and unthinking politicians who want us to feel threatened continually.

Black folk can love and cherish their golliwogs, but if anyone else does, it means they could be racist. Or something.

As I wrote on Bill Etheridge’s Facebook page, WELL DONE!! Best thing that could have happened to you, I reckon. The Tories, like Lab and Lib, are too corrupt and full of traitors to care anymore.

There was another Gollygate two years ago after Carol Thatcher was suspended by the BBC for referring to French tennis player, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, as “a golliwog” due to his hairstyle.

This wasn’t live on the telly, but in a private conversation in the green room with some of The One Show crew, including Adrian Chiles.

The Times wrote,

During a conversation about the Australian Open tennis tournament Thatcher used the word “golliwog” in what is understood to have been a reference to a player in the men’s competition.

A BBC insider said that Chiles, who also presents sports programmes, was “very shocked” by the remark and that others in the room told Thatcher that they considered her language offensive.

Could Miss Thatcher’s issue have been that she shares her mother’s love for the French? Is it also “racist” to have a dig at the French?

But friends of the journalist and author said that the remarks were made jokingly during a private conversation that took place after several drinks in the green room. They said that there had been no complaint at the time and that Thatcher only became aware of having caused potential offence 48 hours later when the BBC contacted her agent.

A BBC spokesman said: “The BBC considers any language of a racist nature wholly unacceptable. We have raised the issue with the individual concerned and are discussing it as a matter of urgency.”

A spokesman for Thatcher, who has been a regular contributor to The One Show for three years, said that the comment had been “an off-the-cuff remark made in jest”.

Her spokesman added: “Carol never intended any racist comment. She made a light aside about this tennis player and his similarity to the golliwog on the jampot when she was growing up. There’s no way, obviously, that she would condone any racist comment – we would refute that entirely. It would not be in her nature to do anything like that.”

If someone’s hair looks like a golliwog, why is it any more racist to say so than it is to say that a skinny blonde looks like Barbie? Someone might find it offensive, but that’s not the same as it being “racist.”

Jonathan Calder wrote at the time on Liberal England, about the view of morality that operates today in “vaguely liberal institutions” like the health service or the BBC – and now the Tory Party.

The first is that the individual is seen as weak and unable to defend his own interests, and at the same time as dangerous and in need of control. For both these reasons, modern workers are hedged in by all sorts of policies and codes of conduct that govern how they behave to their colleagues at work. At one time the left would have understood that this was a diminution of their freedom: now trade unions are enthusiastic advocates of the process.

Whether or not a particular word is offensive depends on many factors, notably the relationship between the participants in the conversation in which it is used. But officialdom insists on codes of conduct and allows no room for individual judgement.

And when Carol Thatcher used the g word, could it not have been left to those present to argue with her? Are they so weak that they need to be protected from any possibility of offence.

The second point is that these incidents show that the concept of a private life is rapidly being eroded. Would you like everything you say in private to an old friend to be repeated to the world? The need to avoid offence is now seen as overriding any concept of privacy.

The third point is that these incidents… show that we regard morality as chiefly a question of using the right language. In particular, it is a matter of avoiding the use of certain proscribed words.

I am sure we have all met people who imagine themselves on the left, use impeccably correct language but do not have a democratic bone in their bodies. Surely morality is about what one does as well as what one says?

The fourth point is that racism is just about the worst sin. Indeed, its wickedness sometimes seems to be the only tenet of modern morality.

Finally, it wouldn’t be an article about golliwogs without the author saying what a fond memory he has of them from his childhood, including the ones on the Robertson’s jam jars.

There, I’ve said it.

But seriously, we didn’t know what racism was growing up in the suburbs of Glasgow. Political correctness has created far more divisions than it has healed or possibly can ever heal because it is a vital component of the divide and rule/divide and conquer strategy of the ruling elite. I am convinced this is the reason they are so dedicated to it.

And as Liberal England says, this can also have the effect of making people think twice before saying anything, even to people they think are their friends. If folk feel offended, they should be left to sort it out themselves. It is what adults are supposed to do, not go crying to nanny state or nanny BBC (same thing). If the issue cannot be resolved amicably, then, and only then, is it reasonable to consider other options.

Top picture swiped from here.

New picture found from Lawson Narse:

I wondered what the dynamic duo had been up to now to revive an interest in them.

It seems that they believed that the Cornwall B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull were let off lightly and had called for their £3,600 damages to be increased.

Taxpayer-funded lawyers for the gay couple then submitted documents to the Court of Appeal claiming the religious beliefs of Mr and Mrs Bull should have been disregarded, calling for the damages to be increased.

But today the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is representing Mr Preddy and Mr Hall said the cross appeal was an ‘error of judgment’ by its legal team and was being withdrawn.

I wonder when this error of judgment was noticed. After the negative publicity of the first case, no doubt.

Practically all of the 900 comments under the Mail’s article are scathing of the greedy Stonewall members. Jon from Torquay writes,

Amazing how a gentle and sincere Christian couple are able to be bullied by a couple of PC spiteful intolerant thugs who are using the law as a weapon. And……. for financial gain…. how spiteful and hateful.

It’s no longer amazing. Tragically.

I was wondering what B&B owners – all B&B owners – would do if this person asked for a room. Would a man who looks like a decomposing corpse – a walking Iron Maiden cover – be a welcome sight at breakfast? Could he sue for being turned away? Would he bother? He must have a thick skin to go around looking like that.

This bizarre story turned up yesterday: Squabbling gay lovers ’sparked Heathrow terror alert with hoax bomb call’

Two squabbling gay lovers sparked a terror alert in Heathrow Airport’s Terminal Five when one of them rang police and said the other was going to ‘blow something up’, it was revealed today.

Officers swooped on the 72-year-old man as he walked into the building – before realising the call was a hoax.

Today a man in his 30s was being questioned by Thames Valley Police officers on suspicion of dialling 999 yesterday and saying the pensioner was equipped with explosives. The pair are believed to be in a civil partnership.

It doesn’t sound like a very civil partnership to me (boom, boom!).

I wonder if the punishment will be anything like that handed to Paul Chambers, who last winter tweeted a blatantly obvious (attempted) joke: “Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh** together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!”

He was fined £3,000 in total.

How should this young “gay lover” be punished, considering that,

Officers had rushed to Oxford railway station as they launched a massive security operation to trace the ‘bomber’.

Officers from Thames Valley first responded to a 999 call saying the older man was on his way to Oxford railway station armed with a bomb.

Passengers and staff were evacuated from a section of the building and the terminal was closed for more than an hour at about 1pm yesterday while police searched the man’s bags.

The man was arrested before he had gone through security at Terminal 5 but some planes were delayed by the scare.

Heathrow luggage shop worker Sanju Ghale said stores were ordered to close and staff told to leave the building.

She added: ‘We didn’t know what was going on. We were so worried.’

If Paul Chambers’ joke was worth £3,000, what should this crazy charade cost the perpetrator?

Officers said the younger man faces prosecution for wasting police time and making false claims about a bomb.

Yes, a lot of police time and a lot of passengers’ time and producing fear in a lot of people, including the poor old sod he is in an uncivil partnership with.

Surely a spell in jail is the only option, as he is unlikely ever to be able to pay back the money that his nastiness cost.

I await the case with interest.

Eunice and Owen Johns, the experienced foster parents from Derby, who had applied to the local council to offer respite care for children aged five to eight, were turned down because they refused to compromise their beliefs that homosexual behaviour is sinful.

Last week’s Question Time was from Derby and the question of the Johns was raised. I have imbedded the video below, as the discussion is quite interesting.

Margaret Beckett admits that the couple has done a lot of good for a lot of people in the past, BUT their attitude towards homosexual relationships should rule them out in the future. And like the experienced politician she is, compares apple and oranges by stating that racists shouldn’t be foster parents either.

So basically, Mrs Beckett thinks that Christians are as bad as racists. I guess that’s standard Labour issue. Next up is the homosexual historian David Starkey, who perhaps surprisingly says that,

Penalising Christians for their beliefs about homosexual behaviour is intolerant, oppressive and tyrannical.

He also mentions the Cornish B&B, suggesting that they should be allowed to put up “what seems to me a quite proper notice… that says, ‘We are Christians and this is what we believe’.”

Being a historian, he no doubt knows very well where such tyranny inevitably leads if it is not nipped in the bud.

A young lady in the audience is given her chance to opine. She says that “there are far worse parents out there than just Christians who don’t believe there should be gay people.” She also agrees with Mr Dimbleby that some parents hold the same views as the Johns, so why shouldn’t foster parents?

Of course, the more control that the State succeeds in taking from us, the likelier it will be that a couple won’t be permitted to take their own baby away from the maternity ward unless they sign an agreement promising to be politically correct in front of the child at all times.

Iain Duncan Smith is next to speak. He is a conservative who cares about family values. Or does he? He claims that foster parents should not be allowed to push their views on children in their care.

Everyone has “views”. Children will be exposed to all sorts of “views” whoever they are placed with. Perhaps the Johns should have promised not to utter a word and let the children get their morals from the telly instead. I’m sure that would have been an acceptable arrangement.

And another thing, a great many youngsters have homosexual feelings at some time – but they are not homosexual!

The Johns were expected to nurture these hormonal imbalances, or whatever causes temporary same-sex attraction, to become a full-time, full-blown homosexual lifestyle.

Now that is the real child abuse.

And the children they applied to foster were five to eight years old. I hope that even the biggest stickler for political correctness can see the sickness in this.

Liam Halligan of the Daily Telegraph, said the Johns should be the kind of people we are celebrating and giving MBEs and OBEs to. He added

I’m a tolerant guy, but sometimes if you absolutely push tolerant people they become intolerant because you go past the point of no return.

And this is a situation where the absolute letter of the law, which may have been drafted with good intentions, has completely blown away any proportion of common sense.

The final panellist to speak was Lord Malloch Brown, former UN Deputy Secretary General, who hummed and hawed a bit before coming down on the side of Messrs Starkey and Halligan.  He said,

We just have to be so careful to not let the state become the decider of morality and choice and freedoms.

The only two panellists who thought the council’s decision was the right one just happen to be the two members of parliament – ostensibly from different parties, but they follow the same agenda. It doesn’t seem to matter to Duncan Smith that this decision will increase the number of children who stay in care homes which “ultimately don’t do them any good at all,” because following this totalitarian PC agenda is more important to him.

When I read this headline: Cameron wades into Christian foster row, I thought, thank goodness; he is going to show there is still some sanity among politicians. What a fool I was to credit him with the measliest morsel of sense. He came out with:

Christians should be “tolerant, welcoming and broadminded”.

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge responded:

The Prime Minister has waded in on one side of a deeply controversial case, and suggested that Christians who share the Johns’ beliefs are automatically intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded.

It would seem that many parents these days are far too tolerant and broadminded which has had the direct result of making the lives of young folk more problematic.

We can get an idea why it’s happening with this slip up.

The taxpayer-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission had warned that children could be “infected” by the moral views of Christian foster parents who oppose homosexual behaviour.

Black is the new white.

These people want us to move Beyond Tolerance. I expect that they realise that some of us will never renounce our faith and beliefs for thirty pieces of politically correct legislation or 3,000 pieces, therefore we need to have wholly inappropriate and discriminatory barriers put in our way, so for example, if you refuse to promote homosexuality to very young children, you don’t get to adopt or foster them.

Beyond tolerance? It’s beyond belief.

I see on the Pink News website that the Johns are looking for political intervention rather than take their case to the High Court because judges are having to interpret “bad law”.

Instead, they and Mr Diamond [their lawyer] are seeking a review of equality laws and will begin lobbying MPs and ministers to support their cause.

Last month, High Court judges Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beeston upheld the council’s decision and ruled that that the Johns’ views could harm foster children.

They also dismissed Mr Diamond’s claims as “a travesty of reality”.

Mr Diamond said in a Christian Legal Centre statement: “The courts are so set against religious freedom for Christians that an appeal is likely to only make matters worse.

“In recent years, there has been a combination of bad laws and a number of poor judicial appointments by the previous government.

“Where there are excellent judges they are restricted by bad laws. Unfortunately, there are also judges making law based on personal predilections. Parliament must remedy this situation as a matter of urgency.”

He added: “The British people have reversed silly laws in the past; the time is ripe for a review of the equality laws. It is time for the ‘Big Society’ to become a reality and to re-strengthen the communitarian institutions such as the church and other such bodies that can build this.

“Finally, the absurd ‘human rights’ agenda needs to be re-visited including the Human Rights Act.”

Mr Diamond and the Johns are to ask MPs to sign an ‘Equalities and Conscience Petition’ which calls on prime minister David Cameron to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.

Getting the law changed is something we can all engage in. They have come for the smokers; they are coming for the Christians; they will come for us all. They are against us all, even the homosexuals, who they are just using to change society to break us down in order to sell us off.

They are destroying the moral order and trying to force everyone to comply with their new version of what they say is right and wrong.

How much worse can it get? Much worse still, because when a government decides on morality, it can make up any new laws it chooses.

And don’t think it is just Christians who will be affected. Everyone has lines which they won’t cross and those lines are getting closer and closer to us all.

Labour’s warmongering, with Tory backing, is well known. If Tony Blair had been dictator of a tinpot county, he would have been dragged to the court in The Hague years ago, and we would all have applauded. Now it seems that William Hague is calling for the UK to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, without a UN resolution and even if it means the UK goes it alone.

Someone should point out to the ConDems that Britain no longer rules the waves, or the air – or even Britain. And we must question the sanity of these politicians who desire to police yet another country, at the same time as announcing that thousands of servicemen and women are to lose their jobs and two Tornado squadrons are to be disbanded.

It shows to what extent our governments are prepared to take their orders from their elitist masters in their efforts to change the planet geopolitically.

And when it comes to the very serious crime of treason, it is becoming clear that Cameron, Brown and Blair are equally guilty. When Cameron was trying to get our votes in the 2009 European Elections, he made it very, very clear why it is imperative we have an EU referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty includes a massive transfer of powers from the nation states of Europe to Brussels.

He said, and went on to expand on that by painting a very bleak picture of the UK’s future being stolen by the EU. He also said that,

The best way to get that referendum is to vote Conservative.

The politics of the so-called “modern democracy” seem to be very similar to “good cop, bad cop”. At the moment, the Tories are the baddies, with the cuts and failure to deliver a referendum on our EU “participation” (for want of a better word).

Labour are now the good guys by opposing the cuts, even though it was their gross mismanagement – when it was their turn to be the bad guys – which has necessitated them. Some in Labour now have the nerve to say that too much power is being siphoned off to Brussels. They couldn’t say it when they were in power when they could actually, maybe, have done something about it – something really drastic, perhaps, like express their opinion – but they had to wait until it was their turn to be the good guys again.

It is an amazingly simple con trick, which still gets nine out of ten cats voting LibLabCon at each election. Really, a four year old could spot the con. They probably do, but then say to themselves, nah – grown-ups can’t possibly be that stupid; I’m just a kid, so I must learn from them why it is good to vote for liars and cheats all the time.

The treason not only stems from politicians throwing away the sovereignty and freedom bought by the blood of millions, but also from the attacks on our culture, traditions and moral values. I never tire of linking to this post: Treason like this deserves the gallows.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

This is also part of the crime of the genocide of the British. If you think I am over-reacting, this is what the UN’s Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

When you consider the extent to which Labour in particular succeeded in “radically chang[ing] the country,” i.e. basically destroying what it means to be British, and especially English, then this is certainly an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national or ethnical group through:

* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group**

** This has been achieved through modern eugenics disguised as women’s rights, family planning and sex education. The result is that the British fertility rate is below the replacement figure of 2.11 children per family.

Of course, continued interference by the EU will increase our assimilation into the United States of Europe, or whatever it will be called next, by carrying on this agenda of national destruction with the collusion of the “British” Government.

And David Cameron should fully understand that he could be a future Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi, because his “services” are no longer required and his crimes grave.

Blair and Brown and all others remotely connected with this collusion should also be quaking in their Quisling boots.

Their time will come too.