The Battle of Trafalgar (re-written for our PC world)

(courtesy of Sarahoo commenting in the Telegraph)

Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy"

Hardy: "Aye, aye Sir".

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to the signal officer. What's the meaning of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry Sir?"

Nelson (reading aloud): "England expects every person to do his duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious persuasion or disability. What gobbledygook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, Sir. We're an equal opportunity employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England' past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson : "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry Sir. All naval vessels have been designated smoke-free working environments.

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the main brace to steel the men before battle.

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished Admiral. Its part of the Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it. Full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the crow's nest, please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, Sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and safety have closed the crow's nest, Sir. No harness. And, they said that a rope ladder doesn't meet regulations. They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay, Hardy."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the fo'c'sle Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, Sir. We have to provide a barrier-free environment for the differently abled."

Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of Admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, Sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under-represented in the areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, Sir. Health and safety won't let the crew up the rigging without crash helmets. And they don't want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny."

Hardy: "It's not that, Sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of legal aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?

Hardy: "Actually, Sir, we're not.

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, Sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are our European partners now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity co-coordinator hear you saying that sir. You'll be up on a disciplinary."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy who speaks ill of your King.

"Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age. Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules."

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum, sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: "As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe it's to be encouraged, sir."

Nelson: "In that case. Kiss me, Hardy

Never Completely Right, Never Completely Wrong!

Now I don't claim to be an expert about anything! But that doesn't necessarily stop me having my own personal opinions about a diverse range of everyday subjects, from politics to potholes, from Sunday shopping to secondary education, from land banking to local government, some of which I have in common with other people, some of which I don't. As a fairly mature grown-up, I fully accept that some people will share my views and that others will not, but it certainly wouldn't occur to me to get so upset about this basic fact of life that I would then begin publicly and maliciously smearing those people who held an opposing point of view to my own.

 

On the rather ticklish issues of immigration, nationalism, multiculturalism and religion, all of which have been much in the news of late, according to most of our mainstream media there are only two diametrically opposed points of view to take on the various subjects, for or against, good or bad, believer or unbeliever, racist or non-racist, fascist or anti-fascist. There is no middle ground apparently when it comes to declaring one's preference over the question of migration, national identity, religious affiliation, cultural traditions or gender specifications, there are only a set of absolutes, most of which are being dictated by certain media outlets and covert political organisations that are pursuing their own specific agendas.

 

Currently, if you're opposed to unregulated migration you're a racist. If you're opposed to the concept or actual imposition of multiculturalism, then you're a fascist. If you're a nationalist, you're both a racist and a fascist. If you're opposed to gay marriage, then you're homophobic. And if you're against the rise of all intolerant religions in our society, then you're Islamophobic.

 

Of course it's become too easy to label and stereotype anyone who falls outside of the widely accepted norm, so that if you don't "buy into" what we're told, or what we perceive to be the generally accepted view, then it is more than acceptable nowadays to just label someone as a racist, a fascist, homophobic or islamophobic, rather than just accept that they might in fact have a perfectly legitimate point of view, just one that doesn't tally with everyone else's.

 

In reality however, what is deemed to be the "norm" is often nothing of the sort! In most cases the widely reported attitudes of the country and the vast majority of the people who live within its borders, towards issues like immigration, religion, multiculturalism, gay marriage, etc are nothing like those which are regularly being stated by the TV, press, mainstream political parties, or the bevy of political pressure groups that currently receive their funding from one of the main political parties, or from politically inspired newspaper owners.

 

In truth, a good many of these so-called social "norms", rules to live by, or standards we should all aspire to, are being drafted, written down and implemented by comparatively small numbers of largely un-elected, unregulated, unrecognisable and unaccountable activists, lobbyists, theorists, or strategists, who are simply ensuring that their own personal opinions and points of view take primacy over everyone else's, without them having first been subjected to any sort of wider counter argument or scrutiny by the wider population.

 

Just why is a professed nationalist now commonly referred to as a fascist or indeed a racist? Why are those who want a reintroduction of proper national border controls often referred to as being racists? Why are those who oppose gay marriage described as being homophobic? Why are those who attack religious intolerance regularly described as Islamophobic? Is it perhaps because such lazy and wholly incorrect labelling simply helps play into a much more secretive agenda, one where a social problem is created or invented, even though it does not really exist, simply to justify the existence and expense of a social solution that no-one really needs or ever actually wanted.

 

Central to the perceived problems revolving around immigration, racism, multiculturalism, sexism and religious intolerance, extremist groups like Unite Against Fascism and their sister group, Hope Not Hate, are reported to have been pivotal in managing the public perception's relating to such issues, but probably not in the way most people would imagine. With the general demise of Britain's traditional Far Right parties, such as the National Front and even to some extent, the British National Party, the UAF had essentially become an army without any sort of enemy to fight. Late to the battle; and perhaps raised to protect some of the funds that were being donated by various political parties, newspapers and trade unions, the group Hope Not Hate appears to be the new vanguard of the new and improved anti-intolerance brigade, set up to counter a problem that hasn't really existed in mainland Britain for the past thirty years or more.

 

In and of themselves, both of these anti-fascist groups would, in normal circumstances, be generally irrelevant to the wider landscape of normal British political life, after all, if they and the English Defence League, who seem to be their main targets, want to square up to one another in the street, get drunk, get arrested, then why would anybody else be bothered? When all's said and done, they are all what they are, unrepresentative street mobs of unrestrained louts, who individually have little to contribute to any sort of meaningful educated discourse on the subject of immigration, racism, sexism, multiculturalism or even religious intolerance.

 

Unfortunately, the likes of the UAF, HnH and the EDL have all begun to recognise that the battleground surrounding such important social issues has fundamentally changed, from the streets of Britain, to the internet servers of the world, allowing each of them to bring their vitriolic hatred of the other to all of our computer screens. Now no reasoned debate, no earnestly held view, no rational argument or opinion is safe from the uneducated rant of the UAF, HnH or EDL poster, who wants to act as a spoiler for legitimate political debate. As a rule, such extremist groups generally start off from the premise that they are always right and everyone who opposes them is always wrong; and they generally know that to be true because members of such groups rarely disagree with one another, thereby creating a self sustaining lie. As the old adage tells us, a lie repeated often enough; and widely enough can quickly become the truth; a fact that has never been lost on the politically savvy manipulators who can often be found at the centre of such radical groups.  

 

Indicate that you're a member of UKIP; and you're instantly a "RACIST", or a "FASCIST"! Express your concerns about our country's open border policies and the reply is "RACIST"! Complain about the growing influence of Islam in Britain and you become a "FASCIST"! State that you don't agree with gay marriage and you're instantly "HOMOPHOBIC"!

 

Of course, in most cases the posters are anonymous and offer no justification, rational or any sort of substantive argument to underpin their informed opinion, or their personal point of view, no matter how limited it may be. No doubt that's the label thing again, why have a rational debate when you can just as easily label someone as a "racist", "fascist", "sexist", "homophobe", or "islamophobe", without having to go to the bother of actually substantiating the claim?

 

The particularly sad thing about some of the UAF and Hope Not Hate supporters specifically is that they purport to be reasonably well educated people, brag that they know what they're talking about; and yet absolutely refuse to make any sort of cogent argument in support of their sometimes outrageously offensive claims. And when they do attempt to justify their positions, or their opinions, it is often in the most ridiculous fashion possible, such as, "if you want controlled borders, you must be a racist", or "if you're against gay marriage, you must be homophobic", or even "if you're opposed to Muslim extremism, then you must be Islamophobic".

 

Obviously for the political paymasters of such groups, there is very little down side to their financial support, as each group is largely disassociated from the political party, newspaper or trade union body that's actually providing the funds to fight this supposedly necessary fight. However, in the wider political context they inevitably do benefit directly from the work that UAF and Hope Not Hate undertakes, if only by responding to, reporting on and legislating against the very problems that such anti-intolerance groups are thought to be fighting. The problem is of course that the actual scale and depth of the vitally important social issues that they purport to guard against are very much products of their own making and their own imaginations; and do not really exist in fact. However, for them to admit that would fundamentally bring into question the need for these groups themselves; thus threatening their very existences, along with the vast amount of monies that they generate for the people who run such unrepresentative organisations.

 

The reality is that being a British "nationalist" does not automatically make you a racist or a fascist, only your own actions and beliefs do that. Being opposed to our country's open borders policy does not automatically make you a racist, as only your own personal actions and beliefs do. Being worried by the spread of Radical Islam does not necessarily make you Islamophobic, only your deeply held personal beliefs and actions will ever prove that; and being opposed to gay marriage doesn't automatically mean that you're homophobic, only your actions and personal beliefs would prove that also.

 

As has been stated before on this blog, personal opinions are a bit like noses and backsides, everyone has them and everyone is perfectly entitled to have them, whether or not the likes of UAF and Hope Not Hate agree with them. And as with noses and backsides, not everyone is going to agree that you've got the best ones going, but you can always be sure that at least somebody somewhere will agree with you about them, so sadly you're never going to be completely right all of the time, but then again you're never going to be completely wrong all of the time either, so always consider that to be a good thing :)  

A Foreign Land Known As Britain!

In the "idealist's", or the dreamers world of the mythical so-called global village, every race, every ethnicity, every religion, every culture and all of the world's many and disparate peoples would get along with one another, united in common aims, strategies, languages, cultures, religions and lifestyles, thereby creating the ideal of a truly multicultural and ethnically diverse world family.

 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your individual point of view, this mythical global family village, is entirely that; a myth, a fabrication, the product of delusional minds, created in part by the sorts of great two dimensional social thinkers and commentators, who always see the good, never the bad, always the upside, never the down; and who steadfastly refuse to accept that such a world can never, ever be created, simply because there is one great stumbling block to its creation, the people themselves!

 

Even though the human race has been interacting, interbreeding and trading with one another for thousands of years, giving the various peoples of the world more than enough opportunity to amalgamate or assimilate into one big happy family, instead, here we are in the 21st century, still separated by permanent national borders, defended by powerful armies and protected by weapons of mass destruction, yet the "idealist's" still cling to their deluded theories of multiculturalism and the ethnically diverse world family.

 

If the theory of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity had any sort of logical justification, then why did India and Pakistan separate so quickly and so violently following the end of British imperial rule in 1947 ; and why do they continue to threaten and fight with one another to this very day? Why do hundreds, perhaps thousands of ethnic minorities die every year throughout the globe, as a result of being attacked by other minority groups, or followers of majority faiths? Why does Muslim kill Muslim in any number of Middle East disputes, whether that be in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan or Iraq? If multiculturalism or ethnic diversity are such ideas, why is the Korean peninsula still divided between north and south, some sixty years after they fought a bitter and brutal war with one another?

 

If the concepts of multiculturalism and ethic diversity don't apply to these particular countries, then does that perhaps suggest that they are purely western concepts; and that only those countries which are rich enough, developed enough, or perhaps foolish enough, are the only ones that should actually implement such ill-thought out and dangerous social theories? The term multicultural was only ever really intended to be a descriptive one, illustrating that a particular country contained a diverse number of differing cultures, but instead since the 1970's successive British governments and their various creative policy advisers have attempted to turn it into some sort of real social experiment, which has tried to purposefully integrate any number of disparate foreign cultures into Britain, often without the agreement of and sometimes against the wishes of the indigenous British population.

 

Sadly, like with most things today, it seems to be the vocal minority, including these now largely discredited multiculturalists and ethnic diversity campaigners, who were allowed to set the agenda for everyone else, including the generally silent and compliant majority that were often too busy getting on with their lives, to fully realise that their country, its rich history, its culture, its traditions and its native tongues were slowly but surely being taken away from them. One cannot imagine that any other of the great historic nation states, such as China, Russia, America, Canada, or anywhere else for that matter would willingly allow their own native cultures to be rapaciously subsumed by foreign cultures or practices, so why should we?  

 

In the period 2010 alone there were reported to be an estimated nineteen foreign born ethnic groups in the UK, consisting of at least 100,000 individuals each, including migrants from Australia, Bangladesh, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, United States and Zimbabwe. In total, there were estimated to be approximately just under five million foreign born residents of the UK in 2010, compared to just over two million in 1951.

 

Now, in and of itself, one might imagine that some five million souls, out of a total population of some sixty-odd million might not appear to be that troubling, but often even the smallest numbers can have a wholly disproportionate effect on the larger figure. In a 2011 ONS survey the largest migrant groups in the UK were said to have consisted of Australians (107,000), Irish (457,000), Indians (729,000), Pakistanis (457,000), Poles (643,000), Germans (297,000), Bangladeshis (230,000), South Africans (200,000), Nigerians (190,000), Chinese (136,000), Sri Lankans (120,000), French (137,000), Americans (189,000), Italians (124,000), Jamaicans (143,000), Kenyans (133,000), Philippinos (137,000), Somalians (102,000), (Lithuanians (107,000), and Zimbabweans (125,000)

 

Even if you discount the likes of the Irish, Australians, Americans, Jamaicans, South Africans and even the Kenyans, all of whom have had some sort of shared history with the UK, either through being geographical neighbours, having a shared language, or a basic understanding of Britain's cultural heritage, it still leaves some three million people living here, whose various languages, cultures, traditions, beliefs, etc have to be catered for and accommodated. One only has to consider the rather thorny issue of Islam to recognise the immense cultural and religious effect that even a relatively small community can have, especially if is forced on a indigenous population.

 

In total there are estimated to be a couple of million practicing Muslims living in the UK, most of whom are centred around a number of our major towns and cities, which on the face of it would seem to suggest that Islam itself poses no real threat to our country's culture, heritage or indeed the way we live our lives. But that's not the case, is it? The events of 7/7 proved that conclusively, as has all of the other attempted Islamic terrorist attacks that our security services have successively managed to foil in subsequent years. Such extreme events aside though, just how many millions of pounds are being spent and wasted every year in translation services, because migrants who have come to live in our country, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Poland, Lithuania or wherever, are just too lazy or indifferent, to learn the basic English language? How many Muslim women or girls are being physically abused, or forcibly married each year, simply because their religion or their culture states that it's right or proper to do so? The thing is, we don't live in Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, or any of those other Islamic countries where such cultural practices exist, we live in Britain, with an entirely different set of values and a completely different cultural heritage.

 

Why should a religion with such a comparatively small number of adherents in Britain, when weighed against the total numbers of people living in the UK, affect the way all of our children are educated or entertained? Why should our animal welfare rules be specially adapted for, what is after all, a relatively small religious community? Why should annual celebrations, such as Christmas parties, be adapted or cancelled, simply because they "might" offend a member of a minority group, which is foreign to our country?

 

The answer is of course that they should not! There is absolutely no justification for anyone, be they local councillor, national politician, religious leader or individual believer, to enforce what are fundamentally foreign practices onto the wider indigenous population, even when they try to justify them under the guise of social cohesion, multiculturalism or ethnic diversity. The ritual slaughter of animals, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, religious courts, the public and vitriolic denunciation of other religions, or the advocating of cold-blooded murder against members of our Armed Forces, none of these things belong to Britain's rich cultural heritage; and neither should we expect to see them added to it, through the influence of foreign migrant communities.

 

Were a British born citizen to choose to live abroad, they would fully expect to have to learn the native language of that country, respect its laws and customs; and if necessary curtail some of their own personal practices that might otherwise prove wholly unacceptable to the native peoples of that particular land. One has only to consider how Saudi Arabia might treat any Christian evangelist who was foolish enough to try and convert a member of the Islamic faith. What would be the reaction to a westerner who publicly denigrated a member of the Pakistani or Indian armies? Would an Islamic country purposefully alter its national holidays or ceremonies in order to accommodate the feelings of a foreign community within its own national borders? We all know the answer to such questions, yet so many immigrants come to the UK each and every year with an arrogant determination not to offer the same sort of basic courtesy to the native British population.

 

Of course it would be naive in the extreme to believe that all such unwelcome changes are purely the result of the immigrant communities themselves, as they are not. Ever since the 1970's and the time of the Wilson administration, successive governments have deliberately pursued a largely unannounced and undemocratic program of cultural change, without giving the British public any sort of say on the matter. Our membership of the European Union aside, the centrally driven erosion of our shared cultural history and our traditions is most evident in the steady decline of our schools, our churches, our governments, our communities and most importantly, our own sense of national self worth. There was a time when being "British" actually meant something, but increasingly this has become less and less so, as we have allowed ourselves to become slowly immersed in our new multicultural and ethically diverse society, which does not have a history of its own and seems to stand for very little really.  

 

It is perhaps hardly surprising then that as each year passes we move further and further away from the remarkable country that we once were, to the unremarkable country that we're almost certain to become. The more that we allow ourselves and our society to become diluted and demeaned by unwanted foreign influences, the harder it will be for us to hold onto those cultural traditions and practices that once made us a unique people in our own right. Quite how we do that is open to debate, but unless we find an answer to our present predicament, we're in serious danger of finding ourselves in a foreign land that we once knew as Britain.

Consigning Political Correctness To The Dustbin

Given yesterdays hullabaloo over Godfrey Bloom's utterance of the term "Bongo Bongo Land", one can't help but be drawn to the conclusion that Britain's mainstream media are becoming sillier and sillier by the day. The fact that editors, commentators and producers are so far removed from the vast majority of the British public on this particular issue and on the wider subject of political correctness generally, makes you wonder whether or not the ruling elite of our country, the politicians, the media, the political lobbyists have any common sense left at all, assuming that they had any to begin with?

 

Bearing in mind that the entire leftist crux of the argument regarding Mr Bloom's speech was to do with the term "Bongo Bongo Land" and its perceived connotations with any state of African origin, which the progressive minority found deeply offensive, but only amongst themselves, it begs the question do they really believe that they're actually changing anything by being so publicly and vocally opposed to any and all types of speech that they themselves are opposed to, or personally offended by?

 

By making racial, sexual or religious intolerance unacceptable in the public domain, is that helping to eradicate racism, sexism, or religious hatred within our society? Probably not! Can politicians, political commentators, newspaper editors, or television producers actually force people to comply with artificially enforced social norms? Probably not! Unless of course they're prepared to enforce these new social norms by either locking people up for their transgressions, or by making them too scared to say what they really think, which is a bit of a dilemma for any elected leader who purports to govern a modern democracy.

 

Like it or not, people who choose to hold racist, sexist or religiously intolerant views are going to hold them; and what they don't say public, they will almost certainly say in private, which often also includes their access via the internet through to the world wide web. You simply cannot legislate for, or regulate against people's personal likes or dislikes; and to believe otherwise is just sheer lunacy on the part of those who hold such a view. As with any nation of several million inhabitants, Britain has always had significant numbers of citizens who choose to believe that one race is superior to another; that one gender has primacy over the other, or that one religious faith is more righteous than the others. Those beliefs are often not simply rhetorical, but are firmly and faithfully held; and no amount of legislating, tut-tutting, or publicly telling off is going to change that fact.

 

There also seems to be a mistaken belief that virtually all of these personal intolerances, on daily display in our country, are entirely one way, be that out and out racism, with white demeaning black; rampant sexism, where men impose their sexual will on women; or religious intolerance, where Christians or non-Christians regularly attack those believers of Islam. Clearly, by playing into these traditional and almost stereotypical types and agendas helps underpin the basic premise that only Blacks, Asians and other non-whites are ever the victims of racial discrimination, violent assaults or tragic murders. Likewise, we are lead to believe that women are rarely if ever the perpetrators of sexual impropriety, or that White Christians are ever the victims of Black or Asian gangs, whether or not they're inspired by their Islamic faith. In reality of course, our society and events that occur within it are much more complicated than the progressive minority would have us all believe, both Black and White regularly antagonise, attack and kill one another, women do occasionally commit acts of sexual impropriety; whilst Muslims and Christians do disparage, assault and murder one another, simply because that's the nature of individual people, be they Black, White, Brown, Red, Yellow, or be they Agnostic, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Muslim, or even if they're male or female. To suggest anything else is absurd; and the very idea that you can somehow regulate, educate, or legislate for any or all of these differences, whether they're racial, sexual or religious is quite honestly, ridiculous.

 

We have not, will not and cannot create some sort of homogenised British society, where each feels equally pleasant about the other, human nature and its inherent weakness and frailties prevents that from happening. By regulating, or legislating in favour of one group, whilst accidentally or deliberately discriminating against another group in society, is and has been a recipe for disaster for Britain. You cannot under any circumstances legally compel someone to "like" a Black person, an Asian person, a Muslim person, or a Gay person, anymore than you can make one White person like another one, it's all too often all down to individual choice, personal chemistry, or whatever it is that drives the individual to like a complete stranger.

 

The problem with adopting the dogmatic approach of our "politically correct" elite, is that it only really works if everyone is willing to embrace their one-size-fits-all agenda, which is an impossibility. Individuals who don't like Black people for instance, aren't going to change their views, just because they're told to do so by some or other politician, newspaper editor or television producer, whether their opinions are backed up by legal statute or not. Similarly, a Muslim isn't likely to change his belief system, or his opinions just because the law of the land says that he has to.

 

It seems between them, our politically correct elite, including the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have helped to create and perpetuate a modern day version of the medieval witch hunt, where potential suspects have their every word, meaning and inflection minutely dissected by those who have charged themselves with safeguarding our supposed social harmony. Reputations, careers and livelihoods appear to mean little to those who have taken on the sole responsibility for enforcing this new ill-thought out policy of political correctness, as they generally don't allow themselves to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that they are prepared to impose on others. However, rather than helping to create the integrated social homogeny that they would aspire to, instead their largely unwanted interference has merely resulted in greater intolerance, increased tensions and a more divided society than we ever had in the first place.

 

Not only have elements of our native language and culture been eradicated in pursuit of a completely alien concept of political correctness, so that traditional annual festivities, certain children's toys and specific English words have become completely "unacceptable" in our brand new multicultural Britain, unless of course they happen to belong to one of the many newly arriving ethnic minority groups whose presence is behind many of the changes. It is probably true to say that such alterations to what could be termed "traditional" British life are not so much driven by members of the immigrant communities themselves, but commonly by local and national bureaucrats who take such decisions unilaterally, without any sort of recourse to the indigenous British population most directly affected by such changes.

 

It seems scarcely believable that up and down the country native British communities are being asked to forego traditional Christmas religious festivities, for fear of offending migrant settlers; or that school sport's races no longer have winners and losers, for fear of upsetting those who aren't able to win a foot race. Certain local Councils refuse to fly the flag of St George over their civic buildings, in case it offends; and some Muslim groups can freely set fire to poppies on Remembrance Sunday, because they choose to. Black sisterhoods can publicly berate our border officials for simply doing their jobs, whilst our soldiers can be spat at and murdered on the streets of London, because the perpetrators claim their foreign religion permits and orders them to do so. Slowly but surely our laws and our courts are not only being demeaned, but being replaced by alien jurisdictions, purely on the basis of it being more politically correct to do so.

 

By no stretch of the imagination can such marked changes be regarded as progressive, or correct! It is simply the ideology of the completely and utterly insane. Rather than progressing our country, our society, such madness will almost inevitably lead to the fracturing of any remaining social cohesion that may still exist on these small islands. To positively discriminate in favour of one particular cultural, ethnic or religious group, at the direct expense of others, can only ever lead to isolation, division and civic turmoil, to the extent that we have already witnessed elsewhere in the world, be it in Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Iraq, Syria, etc; and what will the politically correct elite have us do then?

 

Although some may argue that Britain is a nation of immigrants, made up of Anglo Saxons, Normans, Vikings and many more such disparate ethnicities, it is perhaps worth remembering that these various people's, along with the native Britons and Celts have had several thousand years to adapt, to assimilate, to merge and to blend with one another, to create our own unique hybrid nation. Compare that to the current situation though, where millions have flooded into our country over the course of a few decades, bringing with them their varied and completely alien cultures, beliefs, practices; and then ask yourself why multiculturalism hasn't, doesn't and cannot work as its supporters believe it should. Modern day Britain hasn't just been supplemented by a few thousand Anglo Saxon settlers, or a few thousand Norman conquerors, it has literally been swamped by millions of foreign strangers, many of whom have absolutely no intention of integrating into British life, but instead are content to supplant our own native cultures, beliefs, practices and language with their own.

 

So as far as I'm concerned, it's refreshing to hear the likes of Godfrey Bloom and others dare to challenge the unmitigated disaster that the politically correct elite have helped create here in Britain. We can only hope that more and more Britons, be they English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, finally wake up to the real danger that lurks behind the PC agenda that our politicians have bequeathed to us all over the past twenty or thirty years; and choose to consign it to where it belongs, the dustbin of British history. 

More Bongo Bongo Please!

I wonder just how many people heard about Godfrey Bloom's "Bongo Bongo Land" remarks today and secretly smirked, given that someone in the media spotlight had either been brave enough, or perhaps for some foolish enough to actually use the term "Bongo Bongo" in public, knowing full well that the wrath of the progressive British mainstream media would probably rain down on his head like a bucketful of bolts?

 

Unsurprisingly, the newspaper responsible for exposing Mr Bloom's non-PC remarks, the Guardian, which was reported to have acquired the material from an outside source, was thought to be cock-a-hoop with its exclusive story, probably because it played right into the mindset of the ever decreasing readership that it now purports to lay claim to. Judging by some of the reader comments attached to the story, indeed most "Guardianistas" were glad of their new UKIP related bone to gnaw upon, once again demonstrating to the entire internet community, what a bunch of anal and out of touch lefty's they really are; middle class, excessively liberal and politically correct, to the point of being dangerously irrational.

 

Of course once the story of Mr Bloom's remarks was out in the public domain, we were then treated to the spectacle of most of the remaining mainstream media jumping on the politically correct bandwagon, including the increasingly disreputable and largely irrelevant Aunty Beeb, whose political even-handedness is at best highly questionable, at the best of times. Rather foolishly, like many others in this country, I once chose to believe that our public broadcasters and newspapers simply reported the news, now it is clear that they not only decide "what" is the news, but also help to engineer it, if indeed it suits them to do so! The fact that Godfrey Bloom chose to use the description "Bongo Bongo Land" when speaking to a public meeting, is and of itself, is probably of little interest to most people in Britain, who probably hear far worse in their everyday lives, whether it's walking through a public space, or sitting on a bus. The remarkable thing about this particular incident, if you follow the mainstream medias line of thinking, is that Mr Bloom is not only an elected representative of the European Parliament, but perhaps more importantly is a leading member of UKIP, whose every gesture, murmur and scribble is somehow worthy of public scrutiny.

 

Rather disingenuously, the mainstream media would have us believe that the United Kingdom Independence Party and all of its would-be representatives have to be constantly scrutinised by their reporters, in order to ensure that the British electorate aren't in anyway mislead into voting for any of the reported fascists, racists, or white supremacists who supposedly inhabit the UKIP ranks. After all, such people don't exist within the Labour, Conservative, or Lib Dem parties, although we'll just have to take their word that that's the case, because the media are far too busy checking up on all of the UKIP candidates, rather than scrutinising their Labour, Lib Dem or Conservative opponents. Is this just paranoia on the part of UKIP supporters? Well, people will just have to make up their own minds about that, but it does seem mighty odd that virtually every recent newspaper story relating to political intolerance, outright racism, or inappropriate language seems to find a focus on UKIP or its prospective candidates; which cannot simply be put down to some sort of eerie coincidence.

 

Having backed the wrong political horse in the 2010 General Election, when they advised their readership to back the Lib Dems and their leader Nick Clegg, the Guardian is reported to have reset itself towards Mr Miliband's Labour Party, clearly explaining its decision to "dish the dirt" on any party that might in anyway hinder Labour's chances of returning to Downing Street in 2015. Likewise the Mirror and other socialist publications have dedicated themselves to a similar objective, even to the point of funding a small number of extremist groups to do their dirty work for them via the internet and on the real streets of the UK.

 

For their part, the Tory media are already planning for the electoral fight in two years time, with the Telegraph and Mail leading the way, along with their, as yet unwritten "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" series of sensationalist expose', all of which will be designed to undermine and seriously damage their political opponents. It is indeed highly regrettable that a number of newspapers that purport to be serious journals find themselves so easily inclined to adopt the strategies of their tabloid counterparts, thereby dragging the reputation of British journalism even further down than the levels it has descended to over the past thirty years or so. For a daily newspaper which has helped expose some of the greatest wrongdoings in Britain's long history, the fact that the Guardian is now choosing to adopt such partisan and infantile storylines, simply helps to illustrate how low it has fallen when judged by its own previously high editorial standards.

 

The Guardian, Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Mirror readership's apart, one wonders what the vast majority of British people might actually make of Mr Bloom's "Bongo Bongo Land" remark; and whether they might equally demonstrate the extremely high levels of faux outrage as has been the case with much of our mainstream media. Mr Bloom seems to believe that most everyday people will not share the media's attitude to his off-the-cuff remarks, sensing instead that most right-minded individuals might choose to support his non-PC attitude to the subjects that he chooses to discuss, or talk publicly about. Whatever the case, ultimately people will make up their own minds about Mr Bloom and his suitability to represent them, whether in the European Parliament, or at Westminster, should he ever choose to stand for our own national elections. Personally though, I like the idea of politicians who are willing and able to speak their minds, without fear or favour, rather than the usual brand of non-descript political appointees, who are too afraid to open their mouths, for fear of offending this religion or that, this race or that, this country or that!

 

For far too long we have allowed a vocal minority to dominate the political discourse in our country, to the extent that we are no longer able to freely speak about any subject we choose, for fear of upsetting some or other overly "sensitive soul", who feels aggrieved by someone else's opinion. Sadly, we have become a nation of compromisers, to the point that the indigenous people's of the UK have become prisoners in their own country, trapped by a series of progressive laws and regulations that have not only stifled free speech and intelligent thought; but also allowed outsiders to gain mastery over us.  

A Few Thoughts On The Health Service

I'm pretty sure that many of those who choose to read the likes of the Daily Mail on a regular basis must have a pretty poor opinion of the NHS and many of those who work within it, after all the startling revelations that particular publication has chosen to highlight over the past few months, ostensibly as part of its own national campaign to uncover multiple and widespread instances of horrifying healthcare, which people might expect to receive if they are ever unfortunate enough to become seriously ill and require hospitalisation in the UK.

 

It's important to note from the outset that I don't work for the NHS, never have; and apart from a few days spent in an observation ward, following a heart attack, I actively avoid having anything to do with doctors, nurses, medical consultants, clinics, surgeries or hospitals, as they make me extremely nervous and uncomfortable, not because of what they are, or what they do, but simply because you're asked to hand over control of your body, your health and sometimes your dignity to a complete stranger, which I would rather not have to do.

 

Even though I am a comparative stranger to the NHS, on those few and rare occasions that I have had to put myself into the medical expert's hands, for the most part, my overriding memory of the experience hasn't necessarily been the exceptional standard of care provided by the nursing staff, or the encyclopaedic medical knowledge of the doctors, but rather the generally piss-poor behaviour of a minority of patients, who sometimes seem to behave as though they're paying guest's staying in a swanky hotel; and that the nursing staff are little more than paid servants who are supposed to be attendant to their every need and whim.

 

Because of campaigns lead by the likes of the Daily Mail; and a number of other supposedly outraged publications, we now seem to have handed huge areas of control of our national healthcare system to the patients themselves, or in some cases to their relatives, neither of which are in anyway qualified to know what they're doing. As a result, we now seem to have a situation where nurses, healthcares, doctors, matrons and managers are occasionally having their decisions made for them, or forced upon them by a small number of patients, or relatives, who happen to know their "rights"; and threaten to make a formal complaint, or worse still litigate, if their express wishes are not followed to the letter, by the nursing staff who are actually supposed to be in charge of the ward.

 

Knowing someone who works within the nursing profession, in an extremely busy hospital, I am often astonished, even occasionally gobsmacked at some of the incidents that occur on our hospital wards, mostly as a result of individual patients or their relatives playing the system, or just knowing their rights. There are those who demand to be given the use of bedpans or commodes at all times of day and night, even though they're fully mobile and perfectly capable of using the ward's normal toilet facilities. There are the patient's who deliberately and regularly wet or soil themselves, just because they can't be bothered to ring the bell and ask for a bedpan, commode, or to be taken to the hospital toilet. Then there are those patient's who can't get up to use the bathroom, but are still mobile enough to go outside for a cigarette; or the patients who are too weak to go to the bathroom, five yards away, but can somehow summon up the energy to walk well over two miles to go and buy themselves a burger from the local McDonald's, still dressed in their pyjamas, slippers and dressing gown.

 

And then there are the concerned relatives who loudly berate the nursing staff for allowing Aunty Flo, or whoever it is, to sit in a comfortable bedside armchair for more than half an hour at a time, noisily demanding that the poor dear be put back to bed, even though she's been lying in the bed for so long that she's begun to develop sores. Then there are the relatives who demand that their disruptive uncle, who refuses to stay in bed, must be attended by a member of staff during all of his waking hours, in order to prevent him from falling over and hurting himself. And of course there's the relative who insists that their feeble or dying, mum or dad, aunt or uncle should be practically force-fed by a member of staff, because they happened to notice that there was some food still left on their plate. And then there are those occasions where an entire ward's timetable and procedures are suspended, just because the nursing staff are forced to monitor a single troublesome patient, at the behest of a concerned relative, who has made it quite clear to the hospital's management that she knows her "rights" and is quite prepared to enforce them, should she not get her own way.

 

What a complete and utter shambles some of our NHS services have become! We not only have A & E departments and Ambulance Services dealing with cases like dog mess on people's shoes; and cat scratches that could easily be treated by the individual themselves, but we also appear to have some our busiest hospital wards being run by patients and their relatives; and all because the NHS and those that run the service seem to be terrified of being sued by this new army of timewasters who purport to know their "rights".

 

On top of this, A & E Departments around the country are being massively overstretched by wave upon wave of patient's many of whom should not be there in the first place, or would not be there if other healthcare professionals were doing their jobs properly. Thanks to both the Labour Party and the current Coalition government, we have arrived at a point where the newly privatised "111" Health Help-lines are tasking Ambulance crews to increasing numbers of non-emergency calls, whilst GP patients, unable to see their family doctors because of new working practices, are voting with their feet and making the choice of visiting Accident & Emergency departments, often for the most spurious of reasons.

 

To add to the growing frustrations, we now have a situation where one of the main providers of the "111" service, NHS Direct, is seeking to withdraw from its numerous emergency helpline contracts, simply because the commercial viability of such contracts are largely unsustainable, given the increasing level of demand generated by the British public. In the meantime, GP's, who are typically being rewarded with salaries of £100,000 per annum for a rapidly diminishing medical role in British life, have seen some of their members exhibit the barefaced cheek of suggesting that patients should be charged for each appointment, with the suggested fee range being in the order of anything between £5 and £150 per consultation, despite the fact that these doctors are already being paid for their time and expertise by the NHS in the first place.

 

Although nobody doubts that problems have occurred at the likes of Stafford and Tameside hospitals, which were highly regrettable for those who lost loved ones; and should not in any way reduce an injured parties right to seek fair and equitable compensation. However, thanks in part to the likes of the Daily Mail and their often questionable revelations, aren't we seriously in danger of "throwing the baby out with the bath water", so to speak. Having created an almost endemic climate of fear within the NHS amongst those who work there, the healthcares, the nurses, the doctors, matrons, consultants and managers, haven't they essentially given the whip hand to every man and his dog who wants to take advantage of this very precious health commodity, the NHS. To have created a situation, where the lazy, the mean spirited, the malicious and the selfish minority can put their own needs and demands above those of the less demanding majority, is an unsustainable absurdity. We vehemently demand that our healthcare workers show us kindness, respect and courtesy whilst we stay in hospital; and yet no similar demands are made on the patients themselves, leaving them to freely abuse, mistreat and occasionally physically assault our care workers, generally on the basis of "they're too ill to know better". This excuse is such a "crock of shit", as for the most part, those who are committing these verbal and physical assaults are perfectly aware of their own actions, but because they're in hospital they seem to think that the normal rules don't apply; and they should! So when our politician's come to have a rethink about how we might create a better, more equitable NHS, perhaps they might consider introducing a set of enforceable rules and regulations both for the patient's, as well as the staff.

 

As for other matters, such as the recent overcrowding of our local A & E Departments, with "emergencies" such as dog mess on the shoe, or cat scratches, or severe hangovers, perhaps the government and NHS England might like to consider fining those private companies, who consider such events to be so serious that they require an ambulance in the first place. Maybe by targeting the actual bottom line, the profits, of such companies, might make them a little more careful about how they use such precious resources. At the same time, maybe the current government should consider renegotiating the extremely generous GP contracts that Mr Blair's former government apparently signed off without any regard for future consequences. A £100,000 of anyone's money is a significant sum, even today; and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect GP's to actually earn their vast salaries by actually treating most of their patients in their surgeries, rather than forcing them to rely on the local A & E Department instead. In the event that government and GP's can't reach an accommodation on any new contract, then perhaps the most obvious solution is simply to remove any GP that doesn't wish to sign a new contract from the national NHS list; and use the money saved to employ a new group of doctors, who are generally more amenable to the fresh terms, or alternatively simply use the funds to try and bolster existing A & E services, thereby filling the gap left by the newly unemployed family doctors. 

Playing The Victim Card, Unless You're British

It seems funny to note that up until recently most British people had been reluctant to publicly air their personal views on such thorny issues like immigration, race, or religion, for fear of being reported to Tony Blair's "thought and speech police", by some neighbouring earwigger, who probably shouldn't have been listening to someone else's conversation in the first place. But hey!, whose pretending that basic good manners, or for that matter, the principle of "minding your own goddamn business" actually exists in the UK anymore?

 

Unfortunately for us, following the introduction of Comrade Blair's, Brown's, Clegg's and Cameron's New Britain, with it's compulsory and supposedly progressive multicultural social mandate, backed up by some of the most illiberal laws in the world, most British people are now too afraid to have an opinion on the subject of immigration, race or religion, let alone express it in a public place.

 

After all, there can't be a single nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or a gender that can't be insulted under the terms of Britain's new multicultural and all encompassing legislation, or indeed a "jobsworth" who will feel that it's their duty to report a wholly private conversation, if they believe that some sort of infringement of these new progressive laws has taken place. It's perhaps hardly surprising that our country is in such a dire state, when our police officers, teachers, council officials and politicians are so busy looking for instances of perceived and real racial or religious intolerance that they forget to do the job they're paid to do, like catch criminals, teach students, run local services and govern the country. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" was once a popular expression some years ago, but now seems to have been supplanted by a much more worrying victim mentality, with its "Ooh! someone's hurt my feelings, better get the law involved" approach.

 

In fact, there doesn't appear to be that many people who can't become a victim in modern Britain! If you happen to be an immigrant of any sort, then you're automatically guaranteed victim status; and it doesn't seem to matter much whether or not you're in the country legally, or illegally. Most people of colour can be victims, but it tends to work best if you're Afro-Caribbean, or from Asia, as they're the ones we native Brits pick on the most, apparently! And if you happen to be a Black or Asian Muslim, then you've hit the jackpot, because from the day that you're born to the day that you die you're virtually guaranteed to be a victim of some sort of British racial or religious intolerance, of the types that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron, along with their various governments have fought so hard to eliminate from our society. If you're gay, you can be a victim! If you're a foreign criminal, you can be a victim, but only if you can prove that your human rights are being threatened! So if you happen to be in danger of being deported simply find yourself some old slapper to get pregnant and you're safe from being expelled. Failing that, pinch someone's cat or dog, claim that you've built yourself a new life around the abducted moggie or pooch and you're sorted!

 

Sadly, as with most systems and laws there are losers, as well as winners! If you happen to be a heterosexual white native Briton, who has worked every day, not been in trouble with the law and paid every dutiful levy that you're obliged to pay, them you're plum out of luck! You cannot be a victim, as you're not allowed! However, as a bonus, you are entitled to be arrested if you publicly bemoan your fate, especially if that involves you publicly attacking or insulting any of the aforementioned individuals on the grounds of their colour, race, religion or sexual preference. Apparently, native white heterosexual Britons cannot be victims of cultural, sexual, religious or racial intolerance because according to the likes of Mr Blair, Brown, Clegg and Cameron, such infringements cannot and do not exist under their newly invented laws, so you're completely and utterly out of luck I'm afraid!

 

Just quite how long the majority of the native British population, the white heterosexual, hard working, wage earning, tax paying, law abiding and much discriminated against will choose to put up with being denied their rights to complain, remains to be seen. Almost inevitably, every dog that's kicked often enough will eventually turn and bite its abuser; and there is no race of people who have been more put upon and abused than the native population of the UK, so it is not really a case of "will" the British people bite back, but rather when. 

 

What other supposedly civilised country would deliberately welcome international war criminals, organised crime figures and stock market manipulators, whilst at the same time cutting benefits and services to some of its own poorest and most deserving citizens? What civilised country would increase its own overseas aid budgets, at a time of national austerity, only to allow some of that same foreign aid money to be used to buy arms for illegal militias? What civilised country would even consider the idea of arming religious militias that are diametrically opposed to our own rule of law; and who would quite happily attack our country given half the chance?

 

What other country in the world would welcome a refugee and his eight children to their shores and then provide him and his children with thousands of pounds in welfare benefits and a multi-million pound house to live in? What other country would allow an illegal immigrant to make a mockery of their judicial system at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer? What other country would allow their Parliamentary democracy to be usurped by a foreign government? What other country would allow its national culture and shared history to be undermined and destroyed by foreign influences? What country would allow its national tongues to be diminished and adulterated by numbers of foreign languages? What country allows its national borders to become fragmented and porous, to the extent that that country no longer controls them fully?

 

What country obsessively controls the conversations and language of its native peoples? What country simply pays lip service to the very concept of free speech? What country appears to give precedence to the social, religious and cultural practices of ethnic minorities before those of its majority indigenous peoples? Which country in western Europe has a capital city where the indigenous white race are now deemed to be in a minority? What country has a political elite that is quite relaxed about national wage levels being driven down by a massive influx of cheap migrant labour? 

 

Of course it goes without saying that all of these questions are fairly obvious and that the answer to each and every one of them is the UK! And although they may not seem to have any sort of relationship to the main subject of the piece; that of certain people being almost statutory victims in the modern Britain created by Tony Blair and his successors, for me, all of the subjects mentioned above are somehow symptomatic of the same failed political ideology and social experimentation. One could be forgiven for thinking that all of our political leaders over the past few decades have deliberately pursued a policy of social fragmentation and division, currying favour with some, but not with others, rewards for some, but nothing for others, depending on which particular socio-economic group the party in power wished to pursue, or alienate, at that specific moment in time. As a result of these various policies, British society has probably never been so divided, with the rich indifferent to the poor, the poor jealous of the rich, the native suspicious of the migrant, the migrant threatened by the native.

 

Most sensible British people are quite rightly alarmed by the massively increasing numbers of foreign migrants, but do not necessarily blame the migrants for wanting to come to Britain to make a new life for themselves and their families. First and foremost, most British natives blame the political classes for the malaise that now confronts our society, as they were the ones who signed the treaties and opened our borders to unregulated numbers of foreign workers, without appearing to recognise the tensions that such a wave of immigration would inevitably cause. For their part too, Briton's have every right to expect that foreign migrants should try and merge with the indigenous population, rather than trying to bring a piece of Poland, Iraq, Pakistan, India or Afghanistan with them and preserve it here on the British mainland. Quite rightly, the British attitude is, if you don't like our culture, our laws, our country, our language, then go back to your own country and just leave us be. However, rather than that; the most obvious solution being used, the likes of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron have tried to fundamentally change Britain itself, including through the use of the law, with the result that they have divided migrant and native communities to an even greater degree.

 

The point is that you can't really regulate an entire population into compliance, unless you're prepared to undermine the very idea of democracy and free speech that our country has been built on. Who is Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg or David Cameron to decide what is acceptable to the public ear? Just because a single Muslim believer might be offended by what a non-believer might say in public, does that automatically make it unlawful? If a person walked down the street clutching a toy golliwog and a single black person was affronted by the sight of the toy, does that make it unlawful to carry such a thing? Why should a court have the authority to punish a guesthouse owner who chooses not to rent a room to a homosexual couple, especially if the booking offends the owners personal religious beliefs? What's more important, the gay couple's right to book a room, or the guesthouse owner's religious beliefs?

 

It's perhaps little wonder that we've allowed our country to decline to such a degree when we have so enthusiastically swallowed the mantra of "where there's blame, there's a claim", to the point that anyone with a personal axe to grind, or a highly spurious claim, or a personal agenda to pursue doesn't have to look to hard, to find some shyster lawyer, politician, judge or peer to take up the legal fight on their behalf. And as a consequence we have become a laughing stock of the world, allowing our courts, our councils and our parliament to be used as public platforms by every carpetbagger, shyster and conman we can possibly imagine, often at a huge cost to the public purse.

 

We now have business owners needing insurance to cover any flat-footed copper that needs their eyes tested, or is incapable of using a torch. We're probably going to need polling stations in every prison before very long. We're going to need two plastic surgery teams to do every breast implant operation, one to put them in and one to take them out when the patient changes their mind. We're going to need a lot more two million pound mansions in London for future foreign immigrants with half a dozen kids. We're definitely going to need an awful lot more public money to pay off all of the victims of hospital mistreatment (judging by the Daily Mail anyway) and no doubt a few million more will be required to pay off all those victims who have been denied justice, but who we've yet to hear from.

 

Happily though, the British people themselves, the white heterosexual working class, tax paying, law abiding citizens won't cost anymore than usual, because fortunately for all the other professional victims, they're just the ones who usually end up paying the bill. 

From "A Doomed Marriage" By Daniel Hannan MEP

A brilliantly insightful piece written by British MEP Daniel Hannan offering his view on the faults and failures of the European Union. A must read for anyone who wants to understand the dangers posed to Europe's independent nation states by the dangerous behemoth that is the EU. I was so impressed by this particular piece, I just had to reproduce it for my own blog, in order to allow other people the opportunity to read this excellent extract.  

 

"There is a popular joke in Brussels that if the European Union were a country applying to join itself, it would be rejected on the grounds of being undemocratic. It’s absolutely true - and, believe me, it isn’t funny. Or, if it is, then the laugh is on you and me.

 

Democracy is not simply a periodic right to mark a cross on a ballot paper, It also depends upon a relationship between government and governed, on a sense of common affinity and allegiance. It requires what the political philosophers of Ancient Greece called a ‘demos’, a unit with which we the people can identify. Take away the demos and you are left only with the ‘kratos’ - a state that must compel by force of law what it cannot ask in the name of patriotism.

 

In the absence of a demos, governments are even likelier than usual to purchase votes through public works schemes and sinecures. Lacking any natural loyalty, they have to buy the support of their electorates. And that is precisely what is happening in the EU.

 

One way to think of the EU is as a massive vehicle for the redistribution of wealth - though not in a way that many of us would consider fair or beneficial. Taxpayers in all the states contribute money to Brussels through their national taxes. The bureaucrats then use this huge revenue to purchase the allegiance of consultants, contractors, big landowners, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), corporations, charities and municipalities. In other words, all the articulate and powerful groups they rely on to keep themselves in employment.

 

Unsurprisingly, the people running the EU have little time for the concept of representative government. The (unelected) President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, argues that nation states are dangerous, precisely because they are excessively democratic. ‘Decisions taken by the most democratic institutions in the world are very often wrong,’ he claims, without a hint of irony.

 

The plain fact is that the EU is contemptuous of public opinion — not by some oversight, but as an inevitable consequence of its supra-national nature. The EU is run, extraordinarily, by a body that combines legislative and executive power. The European Commission is not only the EU’s ‘government’, it is also the only body that can propose legislation in most fields of policy.

 

Such a concentration of power is itself objectionable enough. But what is even more terrifying is that the 27 Commissioners are unelected. Many supporters of the EU acknowledge this flaw — the ‘democratic deficit’, as they call it — and vaguely admit that something ought to be done about it. But the democratic deficit isn’t an accidental design flaw: it is intrinsic to the whole project.

 

The EU’s founding fathers had mixed feelings about democracy — especially the populist strain that came into vogue between the two World Wars. In their minds, too much democracy was associated with demagoguery and fascism. They prided themselves on creating a model where supreme power would be in the hands of ‘experts’ — disinterested technocrats immune to the ballot box.

 

They understood very well that their audacious scheme to merge Europe’s ancient kingdoms and republics into a single state would never succeed if each successive transfer of power from the national capitals to Brussels had to be approved by the voters. They were unapologetic about designing a system in which public opinion would come second to deals stuck by a bureau of wise men.The EU’s diffidence about representative government continues to this day. When referendums go the ‘wrong’ way, Eurocrats simply swat the results aside.

 

Denmark voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, Ireland against the Nice Treaty in 2001 and Ireland (again) against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. Their governments were all told just to go away and try again. When France and the Netherlands voted against the European Constitution in 2005, the verdict was simply disregarded. As an MEP at the time, I well remember the aftermath of those last two votes. One after another, MEPs and Eurocrats rose to explain that people hadn’t really been voting against the European Constitution at all.

 

They had actually been voting against Anglo-Saxon capitalism or the French leader Jacques Chirac or against Turkey joining — anything, in fact, except the proposition actually on the ballot paper. As in any abusive relationship, the contemptuous way in which Eurocrats treat voters has become self-reinforcing on both sides. The more voters are ignored, the more cynical and fatalistic they become. They abstain in record numbers, complaining — quite understandably — that it makes no difference how they cast their ballots.

 

Eurocrats, for their part, fall quickly into the habit of treating public opinion as an obstacle to overcome rather than a reason to change direction. To get around the awkward lack of enthusiasm for their project, the Euro-elite of Brussels claim the people are being misled. If only they weren’t hoodwinked by Eurosceptic media barons and whipped up by unscrupulous nationalists, if only there could be an informed and dispassionate election campaign, then the people would surely see that deeper integration was in their interests. But, the argument goes on, because people are unable to make an unclouded judgment, Eurocrats are therefore entitled — indeed obliged — to disregard their superficial desires in pursuit of their true preferences.

 

In his final interview as prime minister, Tony Blair stated: ‘The British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don’t expect their government necessarily to share it or act upon it.’ Got that? According to Blair, we don’t want our politicians to do as we say: we want them to  second-guess our innermost, unarticulated desires. From the point of view of the politician, this is a remarkably convenient theory. Not all Eurocrats are cynics. There are some committed Euro-federalists who believe it is possible to democratise the EU without destroying it.

 

Their ideal is a pan-European democracy, based on a more powerful European Parliament. The European Commission would become the Cabinet; the Council of Ministers would become an Upper House, representing the nation states; and the European Parliament would become the main legislative body. Give MEPs more power, runs the theory, and people will take them more seriously. A higher calibre of candidate will stand, and turnout will rise. Pan-European political parties will contest the elections on common and binding manifestos. European democracy will become a reality.

 

The problem with this idea is that it has already demonstrably failed. Turnout for the 2009 elections to the European Parliament was a dismal 43 per cent - compared to 65 per cent in our 2010 general election, a figure that was itself considered embarrassingly low. In other words, less than half the population could be bothered to vote - despite voting being compulsory in some member states and Brussels spending hundreds of millions of euros on a campaign to encourage turnout.

 

One of its gimmicks was to send a ballot box into orbit - the perfect symbol of the EU’s pie-in-the-sky remoteness. The plain fact - which Brussels chooses to ignore - is that over the past 30 years, the European Parliament, like the EU in general, has been steadily agglomerating powers. Yet people have responded by refusing to sanction it with their votes.

 

Turnout at European elections is far lower than at national elections for the obvious reason that very few people think of themselves as Europeans in the same sense that they see themselves as British or Portuguese or Swedish. There is no pan-European public opinion, there is no pan-European media. You can’t decree a  successful democracy by bureaucratic fiat. You can’t fabricate a common nationality.

 

But MEPs respond to this by blaming the electorate. They demand better information campaigns, more extensive (and expensive) propaganda. Europe matters more than ever, and, they argue, voters must be made to see it! It never occurs to them to infer any loss of legitimacy from the turnout figures, nor to devolve powers to a level of government — the nation state — that continues to enjoy proper democratic support. On the contrary, those nation states find themselves in danger of being subverted by the Brussels machine and its sympathisers.

 

Ireland used to have exemplary laws on the conduct of referendums, providing for equal airtime for both sides and the distribution of a leaflet with the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ arguments to every household. When these rules produced a ‘No’ to the Nice treaty in 2001, they were revised so as to make it easier for the pro-EU forces to win a second referendum. Henceforth, the free publicity would be divided up in proportion to each party’s representation in parliament. There is no pan-European public opinion. You can’t fabricate a common nationality. And since all Irish parties — except Sinn Fein — were pro-Treaty, impartial information was replaced by State-sponsored propaganda. Worse, the result was that all subsequent Irish referendums, not just those to do with the EU, are fought on an unbalanced basis.

 

There are many other examples of Brussels’ influence undermining the democratic processes of its member countries in order to sustain the requirements of European integration. Croatia dropped the minimum threshold provisions in its referendum rules in order to ensure a result in favour of joining the EU in 2011. When the president of the Czech Republic declared his reluctance to sign the Lisbon Treaty into law, senior Brussels Eurocrats called on their Socialist allies in the Republic to threaten the President with impeachment, even though he was trying to stick to a promise he had made to his people in the run-up to his election.

 

Meanwhile, in Britain, successive party leaders have had to abandon their pledges of a referendum on one aspect or another of the EU. Each such betrayal damages their credibility with the electorate, yet it seems they are prepared to pay that price for the sake of Europe. However, British party leaders have got off lightly compared to others.

 

In Ireland, the ruling Fianna Fail party found its support slump from 41.6 to 17.4 per cent in last year’s general election, as voters turned against a government that had meekly agreed to the EU’s loans-for-austerity deal, turning Ireland into a vassal state.

 

In Athens, George Papandreou’s mistake was to call for a referendum on Greece’s austerity deal - a move which was to prompt fury in Brussels where, as we have seen, the first rule is ‘no referendums - unless we can fix the result’. Papandreou was not a Eurosceptic. On the contrary, he fervently wanted Greece to stay in the euro. His ‘sin’ was to be too keen on democracy, and so he was out.

 

Silvio Berlusconi, too, got on the wrong side of the EU. His pronouncement that ‘since the introduction of the euro, most Italians have become poorer’ was factually true, but sealed his fate. The European Central Bank’s sudden withdrawal of support for Italian bonds, verbal attacks from other EU leaders and a rebellion by Europhile Italian MPs combined to see him off.

 

Both Papandreou and Berlusconi were already unpopular for domestic reasons — just as Margaret Thatcher was when EU leaders and Conservative Euro-enthusiasts brought her down in 1990. Had any of these leaders been at the height of their powers, they would not have been vulnerable. Nonetheless, to depose an incumbent head of government, even a wounded one, is no small thing. It shows the hideous strength of the EU.

 

With Papandreou and Berlusconi out of the way, Brussels was able to install technocratic juntas in their place — unelected administrations called into being solely to enforce programmes which their nations rejected. The most shocking aspect of the whole affair was that so few people were shocked.

 

The Brussels system was undemocratic from the start, but its hostility to the ballot box had always been disguised by the outward trappings of constitutional rule in its member nations. That has now ceased to be true. Apparatchiks in Brussels now rule directly through apparatchiks in Athens and Rome. The voters and their tribunes are cut out altogether. There is no longer any pretence. In place of democracy, we now have the tyranny of a self-perpetuating, self-serving elite, all wedded by self-interest to the European project.

 

They are, it must be said, a worried and tetchy bunch. Ever since 55 per cent of French voters and 62 per cent of Dutch voters rejected the European Constitution in 2005, the Eurocrats in Brussels have been noticeably defensive. They have given up trying to win round public opinion. Their primary interest is keeping their well-paid positions.

 

Before those ‘No’ votes, they could convince themselves that Euroscepticism was essentially a British phenomenon, with perhaps a tiny off-shoot in Scandinavia. Now, they know that almost any electorate will reject the transfer of powers to Brussels. So they concentrate on wielding power in the way they know best — through influence and money.

 

It is a shock to discover just how extensive the EU’s reach is. Take its claim in 2003 to be ‘consulting the people’ about the draft of a new constitution by inviting 200 ‘representative organisations’ to submit their suggestions. Every single one of them, I discovered, received grants from the EU. If you scratch the surface, you find that virtually every field of activity has some EU-sponsored pressure group to campaign for deeper integration, whether it  be the European Union of Journalists, the European Women’s Lobby or the European Cyclists’ Federation.

 

These are not independent associations which just happen to be in receipt of EU funds. They are, in most cases, creatures of  the European Commission,  wholly dependent on Brussels for their xistence. The EU has also been active in spreading its tentacles to established charities and lobbying groups within the nation states.

 

The process starts harmlessly enough, with one-off grants for specific projects. After a while, the organisation realises that it is worth investing in a ‘Europe officer’ whose job, in effect, is to secure bigger grants. As the subventions become permanent, more ‘Europe officers’ are hired. Soon, the handouts are taken for granted and factored into the organisation’s budget. Once this stage is reached, the EU is in a position to call in favours.

 

When he introduced the Bill to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, made a great song and dance that it was backed by a whole range of independent organisations including the NSPCC, One World Action, Action Aid and Oxfam. Yet every organisation he cited was in receipt of EU subventions. In a single year, Action Aid, the NSPCC, One World Action and Oxfam had among them received €43,051,542 (£33,855,355).

 

Can organisations in receipt of such colossal subsidies legitimately claim to be independent? Hardly surprising that they should dutifully endorse a treaty supported by their paymasters. In much the same way, the Commission pays Friends of the Earth to urge it to take more powers in the field of climate change.

 

It pays the WWF to tell it to assume more control over environmental matters. It pays the European Trade Union Congress to demand more Brussels employment laws. The EU hoses cash at these dependent organisations, who then tell it what it wants to hear. It then turns around and claims to have listened to ‘The People’.

 

Here is the swollen European behemoth, its interests utterly tied into the European project. And I fear it’s not going to stand aside for a cause so trivial as public opinion or democracy. And here’s the clever bit: millions of workers linked to these groups are thereby drawn into the system, their livelihoods becoming dependent on the European project.

 

Meanwhile, big businesses see a way of manipulating the EU system for their own purposes, grasping that they can achieve far more in the Brussels institutions than they could from administrations whose legislatures are dependent on public opinion. Between 2007 and 2010, the EU banned several vitamin supplements and herbal remedies and subjected others to a prohibitively expensive licensing regime.

 

The reaction from consumers to this attack on alternative medicines was overwhelming as millions of Europeans found that an innocent activity they had pursued for years was being criminalised. I can’t remember receiving so many letters and emails on any question in all my time in politics. It turned out these new restrictions were pushed strenuously by big pharmaceutical corporations. They could easily afford the compliance costs; their smaller rivals could not. Many independent herbalists went out of business, and the big companies gained a near monopoly.

 

The lesson here is that whenever Brussels proposes some apparently unnecessary rules, ask yourself, who stands to benefit? Nine times out of ten, you will find there is a company or a conglomeration whose products happen to meet all the proposed specifications anyway, and is using the EU to its own advantage. Thus are businesses, as well as charities, drawn into the Euro-nexus. Thus are powerful and wealthy interest groups in every member state given a direct stake in the system.

 

These days, the EU’s strength is not to be found among the diminished ranks of true believers or the benign cranks who distribute leaflets for the Union of European Federalists. Nor, in truth, does it reside primarily among the officials directly on the Brussels payroll. The real power of the EU is to be found in the wider corpus of interested parties - the businesses invested in the regulatory process; the consultants and contractors dependent on Brussels spending; the landowners receiving cheques from the Common Agricultural Policy; the local councils with their EU departments; the seconded civil servants with remuneration terms beyond anything they could hope for in their home countries; the armies of lobbyists and professional associations; the charities and the NGOs.

 

Here is the swollen European behemoth, its interests utterly tied into the European project. And I fear it’s not going to stand aside for a cause so trivial as public opinion or democracy."

 

Extracted from A Doomed Marriage by Daniel Hannan, published by Notting Hill Books at £12. © 2012 Daniel Hannan. To order a copy (p&p incl) call  0843 382 0000.

 

EXTRACT TAKEN FROM DAILY MAIL 24/07/2013