The Politicisation of the Civil Service (2)

Continuing briefly from last night, here is an article by Janet Daley in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12130589/janet-daley-eu-migrant-crisis-brexit.html

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.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Politicisation of the Civil Service (2)”

  1. The Blocked Dwarf Says:

    Hitler was histrionic, whereas Churchill was comfortable with himself.

    There would appear to be growing evidence that the mentally ill ‘self medicate’ with tobacco goods, that tobacco can at least ease the severity of some mental illnesses.

    I wonder if Hitler’s descent into full blown madness/paranoia coincided with his giving up smoking -whilst in prison , I believe, but will stand correction.

    • junican Says:

      Well, BD, I personally tend to see things the other way round. The paranoia was already there and was intensified by stopping smoking. What I wonder is whether or not there are similar people in TC who used to smoke and were psychopathic to some extent already, and that they too gave up smoking themselves and went worse. I am talking about people like Richard Doll. But we should also include people like Arnott, Duffy, Chapman, etc. There is something inhuman about the way in which the are cruelly hunting down and tormenting smokers.

  2. Roberto Says:

    Very interesting comments in this and the last post. Not living in Europe I was not fully aware of how heavy handed and incompetent is the EU bureaucracy, not only on the issue of smoking and “Public Health”, but on all sorts of issues (migrants, finances). When the EU emerged it was regarded by most of Latin American public opinion as a first step into a sort of utopia leading to a benign world government. This utopia has turned into a nightmare, with non-elected impersonal corporate bodies issuing directives and policies that trample national sovereignty and local authorities elected by their constituencies. Do you think that British politicians will be more receptive of what those who elected them think if the UK leaves the EU?

  3. junican Says:

    Your query is a tricky one, Roberto. The EU has greatly distorted democracy. There are the trappings of democracy, but they are artificial. For example, each State in turns holds the Presidency of the EU, but all that means in practice is that the State holding the Presidency can introduce some new initiative. But that initiative is not democratically decided. It comes from the Administration in that State, but has already been decided by collusion. The initiative then goes to the Commission which draws up plans. There is a lot of horse-trading before the initiative is passed to the EU Parliament for agreement. That agreement has almost always been decided in advance by the horse-trading. There is a Council of Ministers composed of Junior Ministers who are MPs, but they are briefed by EU supporting apparatchiks in the Civil Service. At the end of the day, the EU then issues a Directive which all States are assumed to have agreed to during the above process. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors. You finish up with adifferent Minister, some years later, saying that this or that measure MUST be enacted because of an EU directive.
    What will happen if the UK breaks away from the POLITICAL union is that politicians in the UK will once more be responsible for the conduct of the relationships of the UK with the rest of the world, and not just as a State in the EU.
    But politicians will still try to lead The People along irrelevant lines, promoting minor matters as important while avoiding major matters. Anti-smoking is just such an irrelevancy. Here is an interesting question: “Why is it good for the State that people should live longer and longer with the decrepitudes of old age?”

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: