Monday, 16 January 2012

Neither Brussels nor Washington but national independence!

If Mickey is about to stick his head up his arse it must be through shame of his country
It is an oft-repeated line that, following the Second World War, Britain had 'lost an Empire and has not yet found a role.' That was Dean Acheson, a key player in the Truman administration.

Acheson died in 1971 but I think it's fair to say his assertion still stands. That said, I don't believe Enoch Powell was wrong when he said in 1983 that 'Britain's fondness for America has turned this country into something horribly resembling a satellite of the United States.'

I have remarked before on the way in which the myth of the 'special relationship' serves only two purposes; namely to delude Britons into believing they still hold any relevance on the world stage and to serve American strategic interests. Only one benefits from this arrangement.

Insofar as any 'special relationship' has ever existed, it has done so only personally, between presidents and prime ministers such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

America's open agression towards the British Empire, its betrayal over Suez, its funding of the IRA, its invasion of Grenada and its support for Britain's deeper integration into the European Union all overshadow these all too brief partnerships and emphasise how little love we can really share with a nation in which we were violently separated over 200 years ago.

Readers of this blog will know that, despite all this, I nurture a deep affection for the Great Republic, its Revolution and its Constitution. Indeed, were I alive at the time, I would most certainly have supported the Patriots over the redcoats of  George III.

And, despite the United States' disastrous foray into imperialism since the war, it is a country built on the principle of anti-imperialism - and any powerful country will attempt to use other nations for its own strategic interest. My beef rests with the vain, deluded and spineless politicians of this country who allow this exploitation with no resistance.

In their unquestioning loyalty as vassels of Washington and their treasonous treachery in Brussels, they have destroyed the independence of this nation. In the pursuit of foreign adventures, the memory of Empire, phoney prestige and the empty promise of lucrative markets, they have made this country the puppet of alien powers.

Nothing can be more exemplary of this than the grotesquely one-sided extradition treaty which exists between Britain and the United States. On Friday, Richard O'Dwyer became but the latest victim of this most unjust arrangement.

Richard, who in running the TVShack website provided links to pirated US films and TV shows in much the same way as Google does, now faces extradition to a country in which he has not set foot in since he was five years old and for actions which are not even considered a crime in the UK.

It is an infantilising arrangement eerily reminiscent of the extraterritoriality western powers imposed on China and Japan in the Unequal Treaties - in which western nationals were forbidden from being tried by oriental courts in favour of western consular authorities.

And, while much is made of the (very real) threat the European Arrest Warrant poses to the liberties of British nationals, Richard's mother Julia made the very good point when I spoke to her today that, at least those extradited under the EAW are accused of committing crimes in the extraditing country. Richard is being extradited for breaking US law while in the UK.

This is a moral, legal and sovereign travesty as well as the most compelling vindication of Enoch Powell's view of Britain as a US satellite. Though even he may not have foreseen the very literal unfolding of this observation.

During the Cold War, Trotskyites summed up their opposition to Stalinism and capitalism with the slogan 'Neither Moscow nor Washington but International Socialism!'

Despite recent articles arguing a choice for one or the other (here and here), I suggest a new clarion call, for true patriots of this country; 'Neither Brussels nor Washington but National Independence!'

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

If we can have fairness on a shoestring, why did it cost the Earth last time?

Miliband! Pay attention!
Ed Miliband really is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't he? Hot on the heels of the #blackbusters débâcle, his latest cock-swinging assertion of leadership has managed to skilfully avoid rhyme, reason and - as usual - detail.

This last point is hardly out of keeping with what we've come to expect, of course. Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition has hitherto failed to spell out exactly how it would avoid the 'cuts' the present Government is having to make, despite having almost a year and half to think it over.

No, what astounds me, is how Mr Ed has managed to turn one of the more persistently ludicrous socialist mantras on its head into something even more ludicrously nonsensical.

Those of us on the more fiscally responsible wing of politics have often scoffed at the way in which socialists (including those masking as 'liberals') presume that they can 'create jobs' by taking money out of the economy through tax, losing a great deal of it in the machine of bureaucracy, then injecting it back into the economy as a 'stimulus'.

The logical question to ask of course is, if spending $450bn really does create jobs, why not spend $900bn and create twice as many? (Hat-tip, Daniel Hannan).

Praise must be given to Mr Miliband for not falling into this trap, however. He has, after all, finally admitted that a Labour government would have to make some 'difficult choices' with a severely curtailed exchequer - even if he is blaming this on George Osborne rather than his former master (to whom we should not forget he was a 'special advisor').

No, declining to fall into one trap, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to jump head-first into another of his own making. The key point in his address at the Oxo Tower today was that a future Labour government could still 'deliver fairness' even on a budget.

The logical question to ask of this, then, is, if he can so easily deliver this fairness on a shoestring, why did his government squander billions of pounds worth of the nation's wealth pursuing it during the good times? Couldn't we have done it on the cheap then, too?

Let us not forget that, even before the financial crisis hit, ten years of Labour irresponsibility had already ensured the UK had the largest budget deficit of any European nation - at £58bn. (This was then doubled by Gordon Brown upon his succession to the premiership via the 'stimulus delusion' we have touched upon).

No, as ever, when a Labour politician attempts to sound remotely competent, responsible and realistic on the economy, it only goes to show what precious understanding they have in that lunatic little world they live in.

Monday, 9 January 2012

Don't forget GB was forged in the same manner as EU

The Acts of Union were not nearly as civilised as Walter Thomas Monnington imagined
How short our memories are here in England. Okay, so I don't expect anyone to remember the Acts of Union. They were given Royal Assent more than 300 years ago, after all, and I'm not Connor MacLeod.

But it is interesting to note that many of those who do not believe the Scots deserve a referendum on the question of independence from the Great Britain are the very same who argue the UK is being absorbed into a Continental Union without its people's consent.

The irony is, the Kingdom of Great Britain was brought into the world in a manner strikingly similar to that with which the EU is currently constructing itself. Namely through bribery, deceit, corruption and in a vacuum of democracy.

It may have been 300, rather than 40, years ago - and the fruits of Union may have been plenty - but the fact remains; Scots have never actually had a say on whether they wanted to be in the Union. Shouldn't someone have asked them by now?

It is, of course, a fair point to make that, in 1707, democracy will never have been on the cards. There were still some 70 years to go before the American Revolution and democracy was still seen as an ancient, dangerous and infantile idea.

But that does not make what transpired any more palatable. The fact remains that Union was incredibly unpopular in Scotland. Despite the country's dire straits and the clear economic advantages of Union, the vast majority of Scots were vehemently against being absorbed by the auld enemy and effectively losing their country.

Indeed, the Act of Union was only passed by the Scottish Parliament because the English Exchequer had enriched many of its MPs - a number of which had accumulated large debts following the very Darien disaster that prompted the issue of Union in the first place.

Sound familiar? EU pay and pensions are exceedingly generous for good reason - money encourages loyalty in weak men and makes it far easier for them to betray their country and people. In this sense there really is no difference at all between what the Duke of Queensbury did then and what everyone from Edward Heath to David Cameron have done since the 1970s.

All the arguments which call for the British people to have their say on membership of the European Union apply in equal force to Scotland. As Alex Massie points out, on the Spectator blog, it is no good telling Scots that Union is for their own good and that they get a bloody good deal financially from England.

Apart from the fact that this is one aspect of Union least likely to engender loyalty in the Scottish breast, it is very much like David Cameron's response to calls for an EU referendum - namely, I think Brussels is good for us, so you don't get a say. If the mutual benefits are so obvious, are we not confident of putting them to the test? Nick Clegg used to think so.

It is interesting to note, too, that it is often Alex Salmond and the SNP portrayed as splitting up the Union, not the Scottish people. This must surely be due to the fact that polls consistently show a lack of enthusiasm among Scots for separation. But the point remains; they have a right to be asked.

The argument over whose terms the referendum ought to be conducted displays a similar level of hypocrisy. Would any Unionist eurosceptic feel comfortable with a referendum on EU membership being conducted by Brussels rather than Westminster? No, I didn't think so.

None of this is to say this writer is against the Union. On the contrary, I agree with David Cameron that it has served the people England and Scotland greatly and has much yet to offer us. But Scottish membership of Great Britain and UK membership of the European Union are twin issues. And in both cases it ought to be the people, not the politicians, who decide.