For casual and foreign readers, ‘Brexit’ means ‘Britain to exit the EU’.
For some reason that he is not prepared to spell out, Cameron is in favour of staying in the EU. Let’s face it, if it were not for the furore about migrants and immigration, Cameron ET AL would be perfectly happy to go on enacting legislation produced by EU directives. Thus, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Tobacco Control Directive, which also controls substances which are not tobacco (being e-liquids), will be nodded through, as usual, by a compliant and ignorant Parliament. After all, if MPs are 80% non-smokers, what would they know about ecigs and ecig liquids? Why should they bother to find out? Far easier to avoid all that difficult reading and just vote as demanded by The Party. And The Party will demand that the directives must be enacted because the UK ratified some treaty or other.
Is that not the whole problem? That the UK ratified a treaty which required the UK to enact legislation with which it disagreed? Is that not a contradiction? If the UK is a Sovereign Nation, it can decide what to enact and what not to enact. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for the UK to be forced to enact legislation with which it disagrees, if it is a sovereign nation. It is as simple as that. I remember that silly person, who somehow got herself promoted to a ministerial position (can’t remember her name), who said that our Parliament had no option but to enact legislation because the FCTC said so. She was quickly removed consequent upon that gaff (and possibly many others). Ah! Wait a minute, her name was MILTON! Anne Milton, to be precise).
After Milton was sacked, she was replaced by Soubry MP, who was just as bad if not worse. She opined in Parliamentary Committee, which was examining the wholly irregular commitment of the UK to some sort of EU abomination without that commitment being examined by the appropriate Parliamentary committee. During that meeting, she said that she thought that ecigs had been removed from the draft directive, which she had just voted for. Incredible, isn’t it?
But is that not precisely the same regarding Cameron’s ‘re-negotiation’? What is wrong with him? Why does he not see that he is being manipulated in just the same way that Milton MP and Soubry MP were manipulated?
It appears that there is such a thing as ‘The Vienna Convention’. That convention tried to make rules about treaties. By that I mean, international laws about treaties. Does anyone see the contradiction? The contradiction is that only a superior power can bind lower powers. For the UN (Vienna Convention) to make laws about treaties, it must be a superior power. It is nothing of the kind, and never has been. There is no One World Government with such powers.
What is really important about the UK breaking away from the EU is to re-establish National Sovereignty. I cannot understand why Cameron et al are so determined to destroy national sovereignty.
What it comes down to is this. The EU might have been a good thing had it been a ‘best practices’ organisation. Clearly, if a nation wishes to be part of a common market, it must abide by the rules of that market, otherwise it must leave. That does not mean that there are not aspects of the market with which it could engage. For example, it could engage with the common market in respect of agricultural products, but not in respect of electrical goods. That may sound silly, but that is the nature of treaties. Treaties are essentially short-term agreements. Essentially, they are, “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”. The idea that treaties could be the foundation of One World Government is laughable.
There are fundamental faults in the EU, and the same faults occur in the UN. A great fault is ‘equality of nations’. For example, the UK is probably the strongest nation militarily, followed by France. Or it could be the other way round.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS SAID BY EITHER NATION, UK AND FRANCE, about this imbalance. Is Germany secretly being re-militarised? Cameron does not mention it. Nor do the other Top People. They give enormous attention and publicity to smoking bans and ecig liquid bans, while ignoring militarisation.
As I see it, we have to get out of the EU. It is corrupt. I do not mean that only in a financial sense. I mean in a political sense. The People have no control whatsoever over it. The EU Parliament is a joke. Anyone who has watched videos of EU Parliament discussions can see immediately that the outcomes of votes have already been decided. But what is worse is that Nations have equal standing, depending upon population. In effect, the UK has 65 million votes, which is OK. But other nations have, in total, say, 300 million votes. Fine, but we must then come back to the nature of treaties. Treaties ARE NOT dependent upon votes. That is a huge fallacy, and is in fact historically false.
Any nation can abrogate any treaty whenever it wishes to. It does not have to explain to any World Government because their is no World Government. Nor is there any such thing as ‘International Law’. For example, there is the Geneva Convention about the treatment of prisoners of war, and, in a vague way, about the conduct of wars. Can anyone tell me how ISIS is complying with the Geneva Convention? It is not, and does not even know that it exists, or cares. Murder, mayhem, beheadings, smoking and alcohol bans, etc.
The Geneva Convention was a Treaty, and not some sort of One World Government law. In WW2, the Japs were not the least bit interested in such treaties.
If Cameron continues to support the EU, in its present utterly corrupt form, in every respect, then he is a fool.
The future of European countries depends upon SOCIAL integration. There will always be States which are tourist destinations because those States are warm and sunny, but have no easily accessed mineral deposits. Easy access is the key. In the UK, coal deposits were not far below the surface, and were easily accessed. Spain, at the moment, does not have such easily accessed deposits, and so it must rely upon imports.
These economic factors work themselves out. There is a ‘benefit’ merely by inhabiting a warm country like Spain. Spaniards (and Portuguese and Italians) do not suffer freezing cold sleet, and freezing cold rain.
Is it not weird that Tobacco Control hit the easiest targets first? By that I mean that indoor smoking bans were only likely to have an economic affect in places where most people were likely to be indoors, eg England. In Australia, the affects would be different, since most people there, like the Spanish, tend to favour the outdoors.
What I am saying is that artificiality has always failed. It seems like some part of the UK Gov has woken up. I wonder what that ‘part of the UK Gov’ is? It has been on the cards for a long time. We must understand that Economists in the UK Gov are not entirely stupid. It is a political decision whether or not to accept their views.
The FACT is that smoking bans have merely changed the habits of people. Frankly, I think that it is better to assess your political thinking by what you see on the internet than what you see in newspapers. That is, until newspapers like the Telegraph stop purveying Government propaganda.
But what is the justification of Gov propaganda? There is none.
I should imagine that most readers have heard the phrase ‘crude oil’. It describes the nature of the oil which is pumped out of the grounds. That ‘crude’ oil has to be ‘refined’ to a greater or lesser extent, before it becomes usable.
I think that is is reasonable to describe the initial Smoking Ban as ‘Crude’. As most of us know, the measure to ban smoking in enclosed places was deliberately wrapped up inside a parcel which was mostly about chemists’ shops. That was deliberate. Further, most of us will remember that the original Government proposal exempted ‘wet led’ pubs. That is, pubs which were not quasi-restaurants. That exception had already been objected to, and was removed in the final decision making process.
Clever though the manipulations might have been, the REALITY is that dirty tricks were used. Those Dirty Tricks were probably applauded by ASH ET AL and Tame Politicians.
Are those tame politicians still in office? If not, what are they doing, who is employing them, what are their salaries, what are their duties, and to what extent are they ripping off the taxpayer?
The ‘crude’ smoking ban had the affect of a bludgeon. It is still absolutely incomprehensible that pubcos did not dispute the use of their staff as enforcers. I remember it very, very well, and could not believe it. A 17 year old youths, not long out of school, and doing a part-time job temporarily, took great delight in admonishing me, as a smoker for not quite being outside. I mean, standing in the porch when it was raining. The crazy thing was that the he was a really friendly and ‘nice’ person. What is even weirder is that the Manager of that pub gave an interview to the local rag in which he applauded the smoking ban. He is a non-smoker.
What people seem to be unaware of is ‘Cruelty’.
Generally speaking, we understand that the word ‘Cruelty’ must have physical connotations like beatings, but we also recognise mental cruelty, which might involve infusing feelings of guilt etc.
I must to bed.
This idea is worth exploring. It might well explain why politicians fall for the hype. and continue to pour millions of pounds into useless blatherings from certain certain female ‘professors’ who have been taking advantage of Sexism.
The end is nigh.
It seems to me to be so.
Whenever a person goes onto a fairground ride which involves great speed and multiple twisting and turnings, and lots of screams, that person seriously risks his life, no matter how safe the fairground ride might be. I mean, in his own mind.
In his own mind, he accepts the enormous risk of being flung about in all directions at great speed, knowing that, if something goes wrong, he will be flung out of the apparatus and fall with ever increasing speed, to hit the very hard pavement, which will kill him. He accepts that risk. No matter what Government dictats might say about the safety of such fair-ground rides, the reality, on every individual ride, is that the rider accepts ENORMOUS risks.
Accepting enormous risks is very common. When I say ENORMOUS, I really mean accepting the possibility of death. Overcoming the Fear of Death might well be a ‘Driver’ for explorers. It seems to be so.
Is it true that taking a big risk, which might cause death, is pleasurable? Are there any studies? Of course there are no studies!! Or there might be, but they are buried.
Pleasure and danger are somehow closely related. When the Queen attends some official banquet, does she really enjoy it, or is she going through the motions? We do not know. Since she is just an ordinary human being, the probability is that she concentrates her attention of the delights of the menu. I could imagine the upturned lip if the ‘starter’ was tomato soup. There again, tomato soup might have a totally different taste when produced by a Master Chef.
What we Smokers are looking for is a RESOLUTION. I shall not go further into that idea tonight, but that idea is essential.
I fancy a bit of fun tonight.
I got my car back from the MOT today. All is well, after a hiccup. Thankfully, I do not take my car personally for the MOT test. I have ‘a man’ who looks after my car. (I have a number of ‘men’ for such jobs – [plumber, electrician, fence erector, roofer, etc]. He has his own, shared operation. He is the mechanic and his partner is a body-work specialist. When I say partner, I mean that they share the premises and obviously refer work to each other, although they operate separately. So my ‘man’ presented my car for the test – and it failed on an emissions issue. He knew what to do. He put some de-coke fluid in the petrol tank and then drove the car around for around 20 minutes and re-presented it while it was still warm. It passed the emissions test. J has been looking after my cars for over 25 years.
It is weird how little problems accumulate. First, I had a tyre which kept losing pressure, but very slowly. I couldn’t be bothered getting it seen to so I put my spare wheel on. I have a little electric compressor to blow up tyres, so I put it in the boot with the wheel with the faulty tyre, for the time being. Secondly, the central locking started playing up and the starter motor was not working properly, making funny buzzing noises. Thirdly, I discovered some rot on a wheel-arch, which would need to be repaired before the MOT.
And then herself got ill and had to go into hospital, which caused me to have to cancel a holiday trip at short notice which cost me hundreds of pounds, and to put off the rot repair and the MOT. And while she was in hospital, the fridge/freezer broke down and had to be replaced. There might have been other things of a more minor nature as well, which I have forgotten. Oh wait, some time before the above events, I discovered that we had a roof leak. I needed to get the dormer bedroom roof repaired, the chimney flashings repaired and the roof ridge tiles re-mortared. Oh, and I found a leak in the garage roof (for which I was able to do a temporary repair until spring).
But all was not lost because I could go to the pub and have a quiet pint (pubs being empty these days) and a fag. Oh wait. No I couldn’t, not because the publican prohibits it but because our EU Government and the UN have forced the publican to throw me outside.
Funnily enough, it is the last of these tribulations which has been the worst. Why, because it is like a leak in the roof which a tradesman is forbidden to repair. In fact, if any authority notices the leak, he is entitled to force a tradesman to make it worse. He can and does, spread the leak further and further. As a result of the malevolent interference of misguided psychopaths and weak politicians, the original small ‘leak’ of the ban on advertising tobacco products has now become a veritable ‘waterfall’ of very dodgy workmanship.
But fortunes have a habit of turning round, don’t they? I managed to get the body-work repair done really nicely; the central locking problem and the starter problem turned out to be battery related and were solved by a new battery; the MOT has been sorted and all is well in that respect; the tyre repair in in hand; herself was soon out of hospital and the ‘issue’ is improving all the time; I have another holiday break well into the planning stage – dates and care-cover organised.
Apart from the hospital bit, at no time have I had a need for NANNY. In fact, as you can see from the above, all that NANNY has done for me is to get me thrown out of my favourite pubs by forcing the publicans to do the dirty work. Would it not be wonderful if there was a State NANNY whom you could telephone or email and who would come round and solve the REAL problems which I have had, and not solve the NON-EXISTENT problems which I have NOT had?
Is it any wonder that the Nation is in such a mess? How can it be tolerated for much longer?
For example, the WHO – can I capitalise that – THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION, has decided that it is of supreme importance that smoking scenes in movies must be airbrushed out, because they those scenes make kids long to smoke and get fat. Further, a new study has
faked discovered that children of poverty-struck people who enjoy tobacco, are dumber than children of non-smoking rich people, and they claim that it is the smoking that is the cause of the dumbness.
At the moment, Cameron is trying to save the EU. I do not understand why. It isn’t as if business in the UK will fall into utter despair, since the idea of divorcing from the EU is to put an end to the POLITICAL side of it, and not the Common Market. Let me put it this way. There are manifest benefits from a State which has the climate to produce lots of tobacco coming to an agreement with another State which can produce lots of coal, to permit free trade between the two states in those products. But for the best benefit to ensue, competition within those states must be the order of the day. Thus, a State monopoly of coal production or tobacco production would make such an agreement meaningless. State A, a producer of tobacco, would gain nothing if its importers of coal were forced to pay a monopoly price. It needs to be able to approach numerous coal producers to get the best price – in the agreed free market. And vice-versa. The coal producing State’s tobacco importers need competition in the tobacco market within the producer State. The Common Market worked reasonably well despite the ‘wine lakes’, ‘butter mountains’ and such. It worked reasonably well, but was not excellent. ‘Wine lakes’ and ‘butter mountains’ arose because of the subsidisation of Production. That sort of thinking was truly Socialist, in the sense that ‘Nationalisation of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION’ will solve all the problems of rich and poor. That idea has been found to be false. What it does is stultify innovation. There is no progress. Those who are dirt poor are condemned to remain so.
But it may well be true that subsidisation was necessary at the time, and was a good idea. Massive changes in a short time period would cause great suffering. But what seems to happen is that the subsidies become set in stone. Thus, the free market is distorted. That situation permits people like Tobacco Control Charlatans to profit.
The ideal situation is that the UK exits the EU and becomes positive. That is, exit and promote a NEW DEAL. The New Deal would vastly slim down the EU Bureaucracy. I mean VASTLY. Further, any Directives from the past ten years would be automatically repealed on the grounds that they were not agreed by the specific permit of the People of the UK. The reason for this provision is that many EU directives were voted against by the UK, but were passed and implemented for the benefit of the majority. Erm… Is it right that the wellbeing of UK citizens should be reduced to raise the wellbeing of citizens of other States in the EU? The answer must be, “NO!” And yet there is a philosophical question about ‘equality’. For example, it might well be that entrepreneurs in the UK ought to go to, say, Bulgaria and set up businesses. Great – except that the local mafia would soon make itself felt.
The fact is that the EU collaboration was always based upon the idea that all States within it were the same. As we have seen, to our immense cost, all States are not the same. There is a benefit to living in a State like Greece which comes from warm weather, and there is a cost to Greece to not having mineral and industrial wealth. There is a benefit to, say, the UK in having cool conditions, which encourage physical activity, financial centres which are trusted worldwide, concentration of populations, and a ‘free’ society.
But our ‘free’ society becomes less free day by day.
There has been something really, really weird going on, and it is difficult to pinpoint it. It seems that, as time passes, Parliaments become Regimes. It does not matter which political parties are in the ascendant. The result is the same. One Regime follows on from the previous Regime.
I do not really know what to make of it.
Again, this will have to be short because I have to pick up my car tomorrow, presumably having been MOT tested and found good, so I dare not over-indulge in the wine. I’ve tried to be good by waiting until midnight before my first taste. I am already tired and a glass or two of wine will make me feel even more tired, which is what I want.
I read somewhere that the Roman Empire broke up because it became top heavy at the centre. Rather than be a lean, mean conquering machine, it became a bloated bureaucracy, centred in Rome. No doubt ’empire-building’ was rife, with various ‘leaders’ building up their ‘departments’ at enormous cost. Eventually, the cost of the administration overwhelmed the provisions for defence of the borders, and Rome collapsed as an Empire.
It took several hundred years for Rome to reach that point. Weird, is it not?, that the EU has reached that point in the space of a decade or so. Whilst directives were being issued about the shape of bananas and medical porn on cig packets, the defence of the borders of EU States was ignored. There was a ‘directive’ (if it was a directive, rather than a suggestion) that asylum seekers must ‘register’ in the first country that they enter. But what does ‘register’ mean? Let’s not go there.
My point is that it took a couple of hundred years for Rome to become a bloated bureaucracy, whilst the EU was actually SET UP as a bloated bureaucracy. I doubt that the original ‘founding fathers’ in the Club of Rome actually intended such an outcome.
As I understand it, certain far-seeing individuals got together with the intention of bringing to an end the proliferation of wars between and within European States which had been going on for several centuries, culminating in the slaughter of WW1. It was WW1 which was important. WW2 was different. WW2 would never have happened if the lessons of WW1 had been learnt. The slaughter had to stop, but what was needed to stop it was not present and WW2 took place, with even more slaughter.
The ‘Thinkers’ (should we call them philosophers?) decided, during the course of WW2, that the answer was to do away with individual State’s control of oil and other resources, and to create a ‘General Market’. Note that I have avoided the word ‘Common’ in this instance. The word ‘Common’ was only better as a nuance. What was important was that oil, and especially coal, would be produced to the extent decided by the OVERALL demand throughout Europe, and distributed via that market mechanism. Thus, lack of resources need not be a reason to wage war. The ‘General Market’ would encourage increased production and satisfy all European States’ needs, one way or another.
That idea worked and resulted in the ‘Common Market’. It is important to understand that the original idea was the sharing, via markets, of basic energy-important products.
Perhaps it was because of the success of this idea that some grandiose politicians got the idea of a European Empire, to match the Chinese Empire, the Russian Empire, the USA Empire. What these dreamers failed to understand is that those Empires are no such thing. They are Nation States, with their own cultures and ideas. There will never be, within our lifetimes, a ‘European Culture’ since a specific ‘culture’ requires differences and not conformity. In any case, prior to WW1, there already existed a European identity. it was based upon Christian ideals…..
As we have seen, the EU does not really exist. France exists, Germany exists, Spain exists. Comparing that to the existence of USA States, is there not a huge difference? Why does the State of Florida not have a seat in the UN? The State of Bolivia has.
All of the above simply illustrates the powerlessness, and therefore the existence of the EU. The EU does not really exist. it is an intellectual construct without foundations.
The reality is that it is not ‘ponderous’ at all. ‘Ponderous’ suggests weight. The reason that the EU is so slow and ‘ponderous’ is that it is not ‘ponderous’. it has no weight. It has no strength. it is a construct of words, and that is all. it seems to be ‘ponderous’ but is, in fact, the equivalent of a lab experiment with mice. There is no ‘weight’ at all. There is only the semblance of weight. it is the same as when some actor is declaimed to be called “Sir”, or an actress is called “Dame”. Their titles did not come from their worth but from popularity.
Is it not weird that the EU was set up to be ‘ponderous’ without having any weight? The EU is like a battleship constructed using compressed wood pulp with pop guns as as armaments. Or you could perhaps envision it as ‘a paper tiger’, or perhaps more realistically as ‘paper’.
Forgive Typos. Up early tomorrow. Must to bed.
Continuing briefly from last night, here is an article by Janet Daley in the Telegraph:
She posits that, in the early 1900s, the USA invited the ‘downtrodden masses’ of Europe to emigrate to the USA, but the immigrants were strictly vetted to ensure that they could look after themselves. Most importantly, they had to be fit. Demand for labour was very strong, but what would be the use of accepting aged cripples? She claims that the Soviet Union collapsed when huge numbers of people fled to Western Europe. She claims that the reverse is true of the EU; that the massive influx of migrants cannot be absorbed and integrated due to huge cultural deficits which have led to serious lawlessness. But the real problem is that the EU is totally unable to do anything about it. Only individual countries can do so, and to do so, they need to abandon EU directives. They have needed to erect fences to stop the invasion, and to abandon the free movement ideal, and to make plans to repatriate the migrants – by force if necessary.
I was watching some sort of semi-debate about the emigrants in Calais who want to cross the channel to the UK. Some argued that it was shameful to stop them; others, that we would not know what we were letting in. No one made the obvious point, which was that they were already in a modern, free, first-world country named France. Why were they not totally relieved to have reached such a country and settle down there? I don’t or a minute accept that it is about benefits. Benefits can be obtained in France. Isn’t the ubiquitousness of benefits in the EU precisely what Cameron is trying to change? It may be that the UK’s benefits are more generous than the French, but are they really so different that it is worth living in squalor for months and months rather than settling in France for a few years and gaining French citizenship, and thus an EU passport? Or why not make their way to Germany which had a demand for labour, and ‘welcomes’ immigrants?
What I have been describing is bureaucratisation of politics. It has been said that tobacco control is a template for other kinds of control, and it is. But it has also been the template for the take-over of organisations like the UN by a variety of special interests groups. The Security Council was THE main committee in the UN for years. It comprised only a few countries – essentially, the victors in WW2 – The USA, Britain, France, China, Russia, and a couple of others. It provided a means for those countries to discuss differences of opinion and their demands/aspirations. It is my opinion that it was the Security Council which prevented even greater devastation by war. It was certainly not the then Common Market.
While all the stuff in the Security Council was going on, groups like the fledgling Tobacco Control were quietly inserting their people into the WHO and building up their ‘body of evidence’ in preparation, at the vast cost of taxpayers. There came a point where all was prepared and the time was right to railroad individual countries into accepting the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, but note that The USA signed the Treaty, but has STILL not ratified it. I wonder why that is when it is one of the worst offenders as regards civil liberties in respect of tobacco?
Does anyone notice that it is the States which do not produce tobacco which are at the forefront of the persecution of smokers?
It is very sad that European cooperation is falling apart. What is becoming more and more clear is that it was always doomed from the start because of the way in which it was set up. The People, all over Europe, are rejecting the One World Tyranny, which would inevitably result from a One World Government. The Tobacco Control Template is a perfect example. What is the difference between mental health patients being forced not to smoke and such people being exterminated? There is a vast difference of course, but, even so, it is only a question of degree. Force is force, whether it be terminal force or not. In the USA, there are moves to throw people out of their public housing if they refuse to be forced to stop smoking in their homes; prisoners have been forced to stop smoking in Australia and elsewhere. Cruelty is cruelty, and it does not only apply to animals. Cruelty to people who have no alternative is execrable.
We have sometimes wondered if Tobacco Control has any weakness via which it can be attacked and demolished. Well, there lies at least one answer. It DOES have a weakness. In this regard, things like Plain Packaging are irrelevant. What matters is the right of a person to chose for himself, or the right of his family to choose for him. An employee of a Mental Health Institution has no such rights. In those circumstances, a statement like, “Smoking is not permitted in the grounds” is meaningless since it assumes that there is some sort reality in the phrase ‘in the grounds’. There is no such reality. The only reality is ON the grounds. Car parking ON the grounds; walking ON the grounds; standing ON the grounds. Those are the realities. We smoke in the air ABOVE the grounds. No one has any rights over the atmosphere because it never stays in the same place. True, Clean Air Acts greatly improved atmospheric conditions in cities and towns decades ago when the UK actually had Industries. But comparing a whiff of tobacco smoke with the vast belching of pollutants from factories is utterly silly.
Smokers cannot produce a ‘movement’ to march about and hold rallies. I don’t know why, but I suspect that smoking is an intensely personal thing. Sure, Churchill had his prominent cigar and Wilson had his pipe. But was not the use of those props intended to display some sort of confidence? Compare Churchill with Hitler. Hitler was histrionic, whereas Churchill was comfortable with himself. That was how Wilson came over. He puffed on his pipe in TV interviews occasionally, and always appeared calm. But is it not true that smoking tobacco promotes calmness? Is that not why visitors to hospitals nip outside for a fag? Is that not especially true in the vicinity of courts? It may be the substance, nicotine, which promotes calmness, but who knows? Where are the studies? Do nicotine patches promote calmness? Does nicotine gum promote calmness?
None of these possibilities will be studied are talked about while the UN/EU hegemony hold sway and our elected representatives are cowards. I refuse to accept ignorance as an excuse. If a little old man like me can see the blemishes, why cannot the university Honours graduates see the same? What do they fear?
Excuse typos. I have to take the car in for MOT tomorrow. I need to go to bed.
There was a time when the UK was governed by Parliament and the Civil Service. Those two organisations were very different, but needed to cooperate to produce sensible laws and regulations. It was for that reason that Parliament and the Civil Service were kept separate from each other. Politicians produced policies and Civil Servants turned those policies into draft laws and regulations. I have no doubt that there was benign collusion between the two so that policies were constitutional, do-able and cost effective. Even the Opposition had access to Government Departments to talk about its own policies. In any case, Political Parties had their own advisers, no doubt drawn from the ‘expertise’ of knowledgeable people.
There was a time when the Civil Service was notorious for employing only the very brightest of young people. If a position required A level qualifications, only those youths with the top grades were accepted. The same applied to O levels and Uni qualifications. The Civil Service was the elite. It had to be because politicians could come from anywhere since they were elected. They did not have to be intelligent – they needed only to be popular.
There was a time when the Conservative Party Leader ‘EMERGED’. I suppose that you have to be of a certain age to remember that. There was no election of the Party Leader. If a new Leader was needed, then a person was presented at a conference and declared Leader by acclamation. Who decided whom that person should be?
I don’t thing that that situation has really changed. For example, who decided that Cameron should be a candidate for election? I thought that it was very weird how confident and word perfect he was as he strutted the stage at the party convention at which he was elected Leader. How much time did he spend learning his speech off by heart? How much was he tutored? Who wrote his speech? Everything was just too perfect. So who are the people in the background who make such decisions?
There is also something peculiar about how Corbyn came to be the Leader of the Labour Party. I have been reading about the Labour investigation of how the polls got the ‘voting intentions’ prior to the GE so wrong. The investigation was chaired by ‘Lady’ Margaret Beckett. You can read about it here:
What struck me when I read that analysis was how structured must be the Labour (and Tory) reactions to polls must be. There must be strategies already in place, should the polls reflect a particular situation. For example, had the polls shown a significant Tory lead, then much more effort would have been made by Labour in the marginal constituencies.
It seems to me to be true that the failure of the polls was what threw Labour into confusion after the Tory win. Perhaps they expected to be the party with most seats and that the Liberals would join them in a coalition. They did not foresee the decimation of the Liberals or the rise of the SNP. Thus, when Miliband resigned, there was no obvious candidate for Party Leader. The Far Left exploited the uncertainty and got Corbyn elected.
In the above paragraphs, I have led the reader along a path. I went from the former, general proposition of the real separation of Parliament and Civil Service to the artificiality of polls, party leaders and elections.
The POST DEMOCRATIC AGE is real, and we must try to understand how it came about.
In times gone by, a political party got most seats in Parliament. That party formed a ‘government’, although I think that the word ‘government’ was the wrong word. The ‘Government’ had not changed at the GE. What word could we use to describe the Cabinet and the Ministers? I don’t know, but it would have to be something like ‘Policy Makers’. For example, it might have a wish to create Flood Defences. But what happens if a previous Parliament has accepted, on the nod, a EU directive to stop dredging rivers? How is it possible to correct that error? The reality is that it is not possible. The directives are written in stone. You cannot alter the writing. You would have to smash the stone to pieces to destroy the writing.
It is also reasonable to ask how NGOs/Quangos came to exist. It is awfully easy to believe that they just ‘appeared’. Perhaps they seemed to be the most efficient way to handle some government responsibilities. That would be very easy to accept as reasonable.
But some events have revealed an underlying structure to these bodies. A good example was the flooding of the Somerset Levels last year. A Quango known as ‘Environment’ was set up under the leadership of a POLITICIAN. That Quango brought the dredging of rivers to a halt so as to promote ‘nature’, or ‘natural’. Right. The result was the drowning of ‘nature’ and ‘natural’. The reality, as regards the Somerset Levels, was that ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ in those areas were no longer swimming creatures after two hundred years of draining.
But what was alarming about the Somerset Levels flooding was the decent into blaming. Yes, the political appointees were totally to blame, ie, Lord Smith. But there were two things that should have immediately followed:
- The return of ‘The Environment’ to Civil Service control, and,
- The end of EU dictats.
What is important is that the Head of the ‘Environment’ Quango was a POLITICIAN. So we have unelected, amateur politicians running the EU, giving orders to unelected amateur politicians who run quangos, who deliver a package of instructions to the amateur ‘Policy Makers’ in the Cabinet.
Is it any wonder that the UN, WHO, IPCC, EU are hopelessly corrupt?
When the distinction between Politician and Civil Servant was blurred, it was bound to be the case that charlatans would invade. ‘Charlatan’ does not necessarily mean ‘thief’. It can just as easily mean ‘zealot’. But what is common among charlatans is that they are quite prepared to tell lies. At the moment, Ecigs are their target. It is no accident that the UN, WHO, EU are anti-ecig. There is deliberate collusion.
Weird, is it not, that Prime Minister Cameron, could destroy the merchants of doom about ecigs in an instant. It would be so, so simple. All he would need to do is endorse ecigs, with suitable safety features, such as those normally applied to bleach and such. Considering that millions of Brits are now using ecigs, it makes no sense for TC to be involved. Ecigs have nothing to do with TC.
Our Nation has a problem. That problem is the insertion of quangos into government. It is perfectly obvious that those quangos are destructive. It is obvious because the whole purpose of those quangos and NGOs is to destroy. That is almost always their purpose. There is little doubt that those quangos and NGOs are creations of the EU.
I do not understand Cameron and co. I really do not. Migrant problems are just passing things, even if the are urgent. But they are not the important things.
The one most important thing about the EU is that the UK can be FORCED to adopt a directive with which it disagrees. But it is worse than that. There are forces which control the EU, coming from the IPCC and the FCTC, which Cameron or Corbyn have no alternative to enact laws about.
Erm… ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! They have no such duty. IT IS A LIE!! The UK Parliament is still supreme. I was amazed some time ago when a Minister said in Parliament that it had no option to but to pass the law because it was an EU directive.
Is it any wonder that the EU is on the verge of collapse? It has always been a spider’s web of corruption, other than the original idea of closer relationships between THE PEOPLE. Why do we not remember the artificially created hatred of Germans? Why do we not remember the artificial hatred of Brits by the Nazis. In fact, why are the artificial hatreds still permitted by Government of Smokers?
I am not saying that individual hatreds should be monitored. They do not matter. What matters is persecution of minorities. But, just for fun, here is a comment by someone:
The ignorance displayed by that comment is amazing, but such comments are very common. What can you do about such ignorance? But it is also of the greatest importance for ‘academics’ to research how it became possible for people like ‘Errol’ to become so deluded.
The importance of such research comes from the misuse by Tobacco Control of studies and statistics. In very general terms, Universities should be encouraged to research the research to estimate the corruption.
Alternatively, Universities should be forced by Government to stick to FACTS, and to state FACTS. That is what they exist for. They have no place in stating opinions.
My point is that Quangos and NGOs are GOVERNMENT, and they are accountable. It is sad that such bodies have been extruded from the Civil Service where they should belong, and are corrupt.
Most readers will be aware of the attempt by Tobacco Control EU to regulate ecigs as medicines, which was struck down by a Judge in some foreign part, which might have been Slovakia or somewhere. The Judge said that ecigs could in no way be medicines since they did not attempt to ‘cure’ some ailment.
Vapingpoint wrote to her MP before Xmas complaining about the EU TPD (Tobacco Products Directive) as regards ecigs. He/She responded kindly and queried the situation with the (pretend to know something about health) Public Health Minister, Jane Ellison MP. Here is Ellison’s reply:
It is interesting to note the language. That language is not the language of a real person. It is the language of a regulator. “The Dept of Health recognises that ecigs help some people to stop smoking…”, completely avoids the possibility that ecigs might be enjoyable. And, as a consequence, as far as the Utterly Corrupt Denizens of Tobacco Control are concerned, ecigs are mechanisms, just as drug company products like nicotine gum are mechanisms.
But the key phrase is “It is therefore important that proportionate regulation is introduced to ensure minimum safety requirements….” Thus, ecigs are to be strangled by de facto medicalisation, despite a ruling by a Judge in Slovakia (?), or wherever, that ecigs are not medicines.
The trick has been to describe ecigs as ‘medically unsafe’. Thus, the demonisation of ecigs is based upon ‘safety’, and not upon health directly. Thus, no matter how ‘healthy’ they might be, they are to be condemned because of the vague possibility that they might be ‘unsafe’.
Allison herself says so in the quote above. Note the last sentence. It assumes the possibility that ‘children’ will have enough pocket money, and the intent, and the desire, to gobble ecig vapour. Can you imagine anything more unrealistic than that?
Somehow, our political system has spawned a class of person who has absolutely no connection to real life. How were people like Allison created? I do not understand. I really do not understand. Such people are not real people.
What is important to understand is that the anti-ecig atrocity is orchestrated. It is obvious. It is very, very, very obvious. The phrase “We do not know….” is an obvious intent to create doubt when the fact is that we DO know. The Proper Science is very clear. What vapers inhale is not the least bit unusual. It is mostly water vapour, which is a substance which we inhale, via the air, with every breath that we take. Further, we inhale flavours with every breath that we take. Further, the nicotine that may be in ecig vapour is harmless.
The TPD has been a bare-faced conspiracy as concerns ecigs. Is there nothing that can be done to reveal the conspiracy?
Oddly enough, there is. But it would require the enthusiastic cooperation of an MP. MPs have privileges. An MP can over-rule FOI restrictions. I should imagine that ‘fake charities’ would be shaking in their boots if an MP started to really investigate their activities. But these fake charities protect themselves by complexity.
While the UK Government continues to back the conspiracy, not a lot can be done to counter it. But that does not mean that there are not ways for decent citizens to act.
The first thing that vapers could do is out-source their liquids. But, because they hold the HIGH MORAL GROUND, they need to tell their MPs, openly, that they are doing so. They must demand from their MPs support for their actions. THEY HOLD THE HIGH MORAL GROUND. They should not allow Tobacco Control to take it away from them.
IT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT that the conspiracy in the EU, the WHO and the USA in general MUST BE DEFEATED. DEFIANCE is the only way, and it is important that Vapers tell their MPs that THEY WILL DEFY. That is critically important. Any vaper who does not do so is stupid, stupid, stupid. Vapers have the high moral ground, and must use it.
Do Vaping Shops TALK to their customers? I am amazed that that there are tens of thousands of vaper shops which have not engaged their customers in a massive frontal attack on their MPs (or other representatives).
But I personally am not a vaper, so I really ought not to be talking about it. I am unclean, a sort of leper. I accept that description, and so normal relationship conventions no longer apply to me. I am a leper, to be avoided. I accept it. Cameron hates me, as he has shown by nodding through the medical porn PP regulations. I accept it.
But the worm will turn eventually. Does Cameron realise that he is a despot? Whilst he publicly pretends to defy the EU, he plainly puts EU Directives into effect.
I mean, what sort of idea could be disguised in such a way? It can only be the idea of disguising an increase in Duty on tobacco products. In fact, the press release from CRUK does not even try to avoid the accusation that its demand for a ‘levy’ is just an increase in tobacco duty. As usual, these propagandists conflate different issues. In this case, they are saying, “Tobacco companies make worldwide massive profits. We want a share of those profits to fund the massive costs of anti-smoking activities”. But their proposal is not actually a demand for a share of the profits. It is a demand for an increase in the retail price of a packet of cigarettes. 1p per cigarette equals 20p per packet. How could that ‘levy’ be achieved with any sort of cost-effectiveness? It could only be achieved, cost-effectively, by an increase in Duty. But there is no need for an increase in Duty. All that is required is for the Government to assign 1p per cigarette from existing tobacco products Duty to “Smoking Cessation Services”.
The illogicality of such a suggestion is clear and obvious. Since Government, whether national or local, is cutting the cost of Smoking Cessation Services because they are a failure, then it would be very, very stupid to make special endeavours to raise more money for the failed SCS when it would make a lot more sense to raise more money for repairs to potholes, etc. Thus, it would make a lot more sense for calls to be made for a ‘Levy’ of 1p per litre of petrol, justified by the profits of Big Oil, to repair the roads. After all, Big Oil ’causes’ the potholes.
There is a fairly exact symmetry between the two. If Big Tobacco ’causes’ Lung Cancer and the costs thereof, then Big Oil ’causes’ the potholes in the roads and the costs thereof.
Further, since Fatties are not responsible for their own greed, but are forced by Big Food to eat and eat, then a Levy of 1p per potato chip is justified. The funds raised by that Levy must go to funding the propaganda which blames Big Food for the increase in the number of fatties, but does nothing to reduce the number of fatties.
But what do we notice about these Levies? It is that they NEVER affect the politicians who vote for them.
Is that not also true of Smoking Bans? When would your average politician call into his local, wherever that may be, and get a bit pissed? He would not dare! Nor would he stand outside with the smokers, unless he was Nige. No. He would do what we all do on aircraft, and put up with the ban. Our average politician will get home, light up and breath a sigh of relief. That is the beauty of tobacco – it is wonderful for the relief of low-level stress.
But do not expect such an illogical, costly, time-wasting addition to Tobacco Duty to be ridiculed out of existence. It can only be that CRUK publicists have some sort of blackmail material which they can reveal if politicians do not act as CRUK and the Medical Profession desires. Nothing else can explain the inexplicable grovelling of PM Cameron and Health Sec, Hunt, in the face of a few Crazy,Corrupt, Unaccountable Zealots.
‘Crazy, Corrupt, Unaccountable Zealots’ is a phrase which might encompass the Elite of the EU. Personally, I find it very sad that the people of Europe, the indigenous people, who were brainwashed for decades to believe that other nationals were devils, are now being misled into believing that we are all ‘standard human beings’; that we have no cultural differences, no climate differences, no religious differences, no natural mineral differences, no agricultural differences, etc (and there are loads and loads of differences).
I vaguely see the problem with the EU as a ‘Mission Creep’ problem. That is that politicians in the UK and elsewhere were so NOW involved that they were oblivious of the future.
Is that not patently true of the UN and the WHO?
There really is only one answer. It is to stop funding them and ignore them. The IPCC? Who cares what these corrupt quasi-scientists say? Refuse to fund them and refuse to fund the UN to the same degree.
The British Commonwealth is not dead, but it needs some revitalising.
Gosh! I am way out of my depth here. For example, when will European ‘refugees’ invade Syria and Saudi Arabia on the grounds of ‘human rights’? Would it matter if that invasion was accomplished by an army as compared with the pressure of numbers? Suppose that Europeans engaged boats (which do not sink) and invaded, say, Lybia? Why not? In fact, that might be the precisely correct way to correct the imbalance of zealotry. Perhaps an invasion of Syria by Serbocroats, or Romanian gypsies might be just the thing to drag the populace out of the 9th Century. Perhaps tens of thousands of black Africans could be persuaded to relocate to Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Why not? The USA is committed to ‘the standard human being’, is it not?
I leave the reader to consider the implications.
Excuse typos – it is late.
When the EU was first promoted, I was all in favour. My reason was that, for years, we Brits had been brainwashed into believing that ‘foreigners’ were to be feared and avoided. I suppose that that was a consequence of WW1 and WW2. Only when I had the courage, as a 18 year-old youth, to cycle off to Brussels and visit the World Fair, did I realise that French people and Belgian people and Dutch people were not demons. They were ordinary kind and helpful people.
It was 1957 when I went on my cycling trip. I was out for three weeks. I cycled up the coast of France, having crossed the channel at Dover, and marvelled that the Nazi artillery was still in place, pointing into the English channel. I also marvelled that, even 12 years or so after the war, there were still piles of rubble in the centre of Lile.
Those signs of the jackboot were very visible. What is less visible is the jackboot of EU ‘conformity’. Gradually, the EU has been creating a ‘level playing field’ which benefits only corporations. It has done so by ‘standardisation’. A classic case, which most reader will know about, is the ‘standardisation’ of ecigs. That ‘standardisation’ encourages monopoly in that the only groups which can compete are ‘Big Business’.
But, by its nature, the EU has no option but to consort with Big Business. It is far too big and far too structured to cope with Small Business.
BRITAIN MUST GET OUT! Only when we are ‘out’ can we expect to influence the rest of Europe. The Common Market was great. Everyone was happy. The Euro could have been great as a common currency for the Common Market into which it would have been simple for local currencies to be converted. The EU has attempted to convert ordinary, intelligent people into dummies. WE ARE NOT DUMMIES!
The debacle has always been there, and the refugee crisis has merely brought it to the fore. The debacle is about Middle East and North African poverty. The UN has had 50 + years to get to grips with that problem and has done almost nothing at all. It is useless in a ‘real world’ setting. It buggers about with smoking and alcohol bans, when the real problems of Africa are abject poverty. And yet Africa is unbelievably rich in desirable minerals.
What are our Glorious Leaders like Cameron doing about those real world problems? They are doing nothing, nothing at all. Nor is the Glorious EU. The Glorious EU is nothing of the sort. It is akin to Victorian England. Great works were accomplished, but extreme poverty was the norm.