It really is quite comical. I read somewhere today that Osborne MP, former chancellor, pocketed some £300.000 recently for speaking at a few dinners. Well done him! If he can rip off a group of idiots prepared to pay hundreds of pounds each to attend such a dinner and listen to his description of his utter failure and uselessness, more fools they. On the other hand, it is almost certain that these people are not paying with their own money – they will be milking their expense accounts and setting the costs off against company profits for tax purposes. I suppose that having the former chancellor speaking at their dinner made them feel important. But what does that say about Osborne? Where is his dignity? He has become a comedian, paid to entertain. That also applies to Blair, who charges £30,000 to speak. Thirty grand is a lot of money, but being an entertainer rather diminishes the worth of a former PM.
How come these former politicians, who have become entertainers, get to pronounce on matters which they, when they were in power, absolutely buggered up? Who cares what these entertainers say? They are entertainers and will say anything to get a laugh. OK – as regards Brexit, what they want is not ‘a laugh’ – somehow, these entertainers want to be taken seriously. They want obedience.
Well, “NO” messrs Blair, Cameron, Major, Brown, sod off. You are all entertainers now. Stick to your new day jobs.
There was an article in the Daily Mail today which pulled no punches:
The headline was:
“The people have spoken and the bad losers in Britain and America – who think they know better – ignore them at their peril. (And if that sounds like a threat – it is!)”
All this stuff about ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ Brexit is irrelevant – it is trickery. As is the invocation of Article 50. ‘The people have spoken’, but not only have they spoken, they have also decided. The UK has not decided to talk about Brexit, it has decided to leave. We are out of the EU, whatever the consequences.
The only things that needs to be decided are what NEW treaties the UK might agree to with the States which are still in the EU. The EU Commission is irrelevant. The UK Government is in a position of massive strength, whereas the EU Commission is powerless. How can it speak for the other 27 states when it has no mandate to do so? I suppose that Article 50 was designed to give the Commission such power, but it will not work since it is THE PEOPLE of the UK which has decided and not the current Government.
But the extraction takes time, even though the decision to extract has been made. It is like going to the dentist who tells you that ‘it has to come out’. You may hum and haw and may even refuse, but ‘it has to come out’ is the reality, and, eventually, you have to accept it, whatever the pain and consequences. So negotiations are similar to deciding with your dentist what happens next. The tooth is rotten and must come out. Are you to have a denture, a bridge or an implant? What are the costs, etc?
What it comes down to is that the treaty which established the EU (including an update of the common market I assume) is dead and buried as far as the UK is concerned. The new question is what sort of treaty can be put in its place? In the meantime, just as you might discuss options with your dentist, the status quo is maintained temporarily.
So “Invoke Article 50 by the end of March 2017” is only a way to allow time for such discussions. Invoking Article 50, in itself, is NOT the point where ‘it must come out’ was decided. That point arrived in June 2016.
Blair, Major, Campbell, etc, must know that, so what are they about? What are they trying to do? It seems to me that their sole objective is to try to sway Public Opinion. But what they SAY, is not what they INTEND. They want to retain the ‘project’ by any means possible – the United States of Europe. In their BIG PICTURE, a few jihadists raping, pillaging and killing are of no importance. They are above such trifles. Tobacco Control is also a trifle.
They might be right, but it would be a damned sight more honest if they would say so and explain how a United States of Europe would benefit THE PEOPLE of Europe. And why not also include Russia in that United States?
The situation in Europe is not in the least similar to the situation in the USA when the USA was founded. Individual states were weak but, by amalgamating for the purpose of defence, they became strong.
But what does that matter? It matters because ‘customs and practices’ matter. Napoleonic Law and English Common Law arise as a result of different cultural expectations and the different circumstances of life, including such things as climate. I find it very weird that the first places to ‘exile smokers to the outdoors’ were countries with intemperate climates. Was it deliberately designed to be so? We do not know because such decisions were taken in secrecy. But what about Australia? Maybe the Zealots in high places saw Australia as ripe for the taking, regardless of the climate.
What we come back to, again and again, is strong elites and weak politicians. Smoking bans were only enacted because politicians were weak. Blair might have appeared to be strong when he killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, but was weak when he caved in to the Medical Profession and ‘exiled smokers to the outdoors’. His legacy lives on – as a murderer and tyrant.
But, to be realistic, it was not the deposition of Saddam Hussein which caused all the subsequent trouble. It was the decision of the USA to treat Baathists as though the were the same as Nazis after WW2. The Iraq war was not the same as WW2. The probability is that regional administrations in Iraq were fine and honest to the extent that such organisations could be considered to be honest. Maybe it was normal for payments to be made (aka bribes) for services rendered. “Will you do me a favour? If you do, then I shall reward you”. What is wrong with that? We do it all the time. It is called TRADE.
What is important about Brexit is that we gain control of our own laws, even if they are crap laws. Our own crap laws can be repealed, but EU crap laws cannot be repealed. They are set in stone.Thus, we have the TPD pronouncing on ecigs, which are not tobacco products. Who said that the Commission had any right to even discuss ecigs? Who gave them that right? No one gave them that right – they stole it. They literally stole control of ecigs from vapers. So why did not our Parliament in the UK not defend vapers?
Why does it have to be such an intrigue? Why all the plotting? Why the vastly expensive COP7? Why is there not a cost analysis of COP7? What did it achieve as a reward for the cost?
Consequently, it is reasonable to ask what the reward is for the cost of the FCTC, the IPCC, WHO, UN, etc. What is the reward for all the costs? Raising the profile of politicians is not a reward. It is entirely a cost.
I suppose that transferring the consumption of taxpayers to UN delegates and employees is justifiable, but I do not see how it can be done.
It is up to people like Trump to reverse that situation and stop the extraction of perfectly healthy teeth from the body politic in order to increase the wealth and power of the UN.
It is hard for ordinary people, including ordinary MPs, to know about and understand the machinations of the Elite. What on Earth is ‘The World Bank’? Does anyone at all know what it is and what it is for? Does anyone know what the ‘International Monetary Fund’ is and what it is for? Does anyone know what the ‘Bank for International Settlements’ does or exists for?
Why is it that only The Elite know? Why are youths in schools being propagandised about smoking but kept in ignorance of ‘The World Bank’, etc?
UK Government committed to ‘transparency’ some time ago. But it seems that ‘transparency’ is relative.