Monthly Archives: January 2016

If the deal is good enough, I’ll take it.

So is reported the words of David Cameron in respect of his ‘renegotiations’ on the UK’s membership of the European Union. The full statement reads: I can’t be certain we’ll get there in February (in respect of agreement on his ‘reform agenda/negotiations’ at the next EU Heads of State Council) ,” he said. “If there’s a good enough deal on the table that meets all of the concerns the British people have – cutting the bureaucracy, getting out of ever closer union, making sure this is an organisation for those not in the euro, making sure we take the pressure off our borders and we have a system where people have to pay in before they get out – if all of those things are put in place, if the deal is good enough, I’ll take it. If it’s not, I won’t.

Since when is it Cameron’s choice to accept that – do we not have a referendum coming and is that acceptance of any deal the choice of the people in said referendum? Since when has the UK been an dictatorship? Oh, hang on……….

Cameron talks about ‘getting out of ever closer union‘, yet the preamble of the last treaty signed states that the signatories are: Resolved to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe; ergo Cameron cannot deliver on his aims on this one point without treaty change – and even if he delayed his referendum until late 2017 – a concrete promise of escape from this wish of his cannot be finalised until after his referendum. History tells us we should never rely on any promisory note from a politician – and Cameron is, above all else (besides a proven liar), a politician. Although I suppose the two go ‘hand in hand’ – but I digress.

In any event the four ‘areas’ he mentionsd do not constitute all ‘the concerns of the British public’ – some of us are concerned about the matter of sovereignty and democracy. As we all know sovereignty is the ability of any nation to the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. The requirement to set fishing rights is not a factor of sovereignty’; the right to conclude a taxation settlement is not a factor of sovereignty – without the agreement of a supranational government? Give me a break do!

The fact that Cameron chose four areas in which he thought he might gain something by way of concession is fast unravelling – yet still he persists at what one might call Cervantes’ Don Quixote (tilting at windmills) , or in other words, an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies. If the UK is to regain sovereignty then we must leave the European Union – simples.

Within the UK ‘political elite’ sovereignty means parliamentary democracy – whch is a misnomer if there ever was one. As we all know, democracy comes from the Greek: demokratia – demos: people; kratos: power. Until the UK adopts the principles of direct democracy the people can never achieve the power that is rightfully theirs. Parliamentary democracy is not – and can never be – democracy per se!

The Referendum Planning Group, within their publication of FlexCit, have taken ownership of The Harrogate Agenda – yet  leave the subject of democracy as a footnote (item 6 of 6). Just where is the logic in that within a publication that seeks to restore democracy to the UK? Just when will they extract the proverbial digit – or do they too believe in a form of dictatorship, one comprising opinion and beliefs? Compared to politicians, where the Referendum Planning Group is concerned, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?

On that last point; for the umpteenth time, just asking……………………………………………………



Dynastic Rule

William Hague writes in the Telegraph posing the question whether extremists are one crisis away from power – or to put it another way, whether the ‘chosen’ might be in danger of losing power. So those ‘related’ to past political leaders have an automatic right to power? I think not – and therein lies the problem with democracy as we now suffer it.

Whether ‘dynastic rule’ is hereditary or by ‘annointment’  matters not – here in the United Kingdom we have both. It is only necessary to consider the sons of MPs securing safe parliamentary seats (Straw/Kinnock, to name but two examples) or a prime minister ‘working’ to ensure his ‘office’ is handed to another (Cameron/Osborne).

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts asolutely is a phrase attributed to Lord Acton (1834-1902), yet Pitt The Younger, Prime Minister (1766-1778) said, in 1770, Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. When a politician can attempt to grant the leader of his nation the ability for unlimited war powers with no expiration date then one had to ask: wherefore democracy? In the United Kingdom the Prime Minister of the day has to obtain the agreement of Parliament to commence miitary actions against another nation – yet when that agreement is ultimately reliant on having his party forming a majority of votes that can be cast, : wherefore democracy?

We then turn to another form of ‘dynasty’ which involves what I term the ‘hangers-on’: so-called charities and pressure groups, the heads of which are ‘appointed’ and over whom those who ultimately pay their salaries have no say over said appointments. Witness this article in the Guardian citing past heads of RSPB and National Trust who believe EU membership has a positive effect on Britain’s natural habitat. Investigate their fundiing sources and it will be found they receive grants from the European Union to assist them in furthering the environmental agenda. That this nation’s membership of the European Union has no bearing on what environmental policies the United Kingdom would follow, appears to have passed them by.

Wherever one looks, when considering the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU – whether that be from the declared Remain or Leave sides, the political class, or pressure groups – one cannot but be reminded of the lyrics in the song: Come into the garden Maud; the underlying message of which is: Maud, you’re about to get screwed.

The last I heard, the Referendum Planning Group (RPG) were due to launch, next month, their bid for lead designation of the Leave camp – and one can only hope that this still is the schedule. Whether one agrees with FlexCit or not, at least the media will then be forced to report on a detailed scenario to exit the EU. Contrast the content of FlexCit with the vacuous output from Vote_Leave and, BSE, the political class and various commentators. That the aforementioned groups have had the playing field to themselves does no good where democracy is concened and unfortunately ‘brexit bloggers’ can write all they like – and as often as they like – but their audience remains the blogosphere.



A rose by any other name

Part of the dialogue spoken by Juliet in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, a phrase nowadays used to imply  that the name of something or someone does not reflect what they really are.

Unless, of course, you are a ‘rose’ by the name of Stuart; who, it seems, is unable to recall the name of the movement of which he is the ‘head’ – or who thinks that a campaign group which wishes to promote the case for remaining in the European Union should not include ‘the people’.

What is in a name? What, for example is a ‘eurosceptic? According to Wikipedia a eurosceptic is someone who believes that integration, vis-a-viz the European Union, weakens the nation state. So what is a ‘Conservative’? According to David Cameron the Conservative party is one that means government should be closer to the people, not further away. So why do we accept the leader of a party who believes in that and then elect/accept that same individual whose stated aim is to remain within a supranational entity and thus keep government further from the people?

We learn by the day of Conservative MPs who are unable to state which way they will vote, come the referendum – the latest being Zac Goldsmith. Those Conservative MPs waiting to see which way Cameron ‘jumps’ are, methinks, just ‘hedging their bets’; wanting, more than anything, not to spoil their chances of ministerial promotion. Obviously there are some Convservative MPs who, knowing that any opportunity of advancement ‘within Cabinet’ is zilch, have cast their net wider where advancement is concerned: hence Zac Goldsmith running for the position of London Mayor. Then there are those Conservative ‘eurosceptic’ MPs’ who knowing their chances of ‘advancement’ are also zilch wish to make a name for themselves for ‘future use’ – think John Redwood, John Baron, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, et all. The problem with the latter is they haven’t a clue about that on which they pontificate.

Much the same scenario would ensue where the Labour Party in office – think: Kate Hoey? Where politicians are concerned one has to ask: does a leopard change its spots? MPs have a career- and their career is more important than principle. Just look at the history of political advancement, coupled with the resignations of those who did put principle above career?

This leads on to whether the current system of representative democracy is ‘fit for purpose’ – which the foregoing most definitely shows it is not. For how much longer must we be led by those whose errors we cannot punish? Just how much longer must we endure the errors of those who propose ideas – aka policy – which can only lead to disaster without the ability of we, the people, having the opportunity of saying: wait a moment, we don’t agree.

Therein lies the failure of The Harrogate Declaration (THA), because if the Director of same had extracted his important digit – if of course he knew which one it was – the people would already be in uproar about their ‘democratic deficit’. On that point, the Director of The Harrogate Agenda obviously ‘Warrys’ not – but many of us do.

I still wait for an explanation for the  reason why THA is stage 6 of FlexCit when the sole purpose of FlexCit is the reclamation of this nation’s democracy. If ‘democracy’ – demos: people: kratos: power – is to be achieved, then surely the ‘idea’ of THA needs to be implanted in the minds of the people accompanied with an explanation of how it could be used to keep the political class ‘in check’?

A movement for ‘democracy’ exists – the problem is that those ‘in charge’ of a need for said democracy appear  to have their own ‘agendas’. If those concerned about ‘democracy per se’ were truly concerned with that, would not the ‘Warry’s of this world be but a footnote?

Just for whom are they working – us, or themselves?







Uniform Krap Information Party – aka Ukip

Jill Seymour, Ukip MEP, has published this on her website under the headline: First vacuum cleaners, now the EU targets oven gloves! In the article she castigates the European Commission,writing: I think it is ridiculous that oven gloves will now be subject to the same safety checks that Hard Hats and Safety Goggles go through; adding: Forcing businesses who manufacture oven gloves to go through this extra level of bureaucracy is ridiculous, this will add an extra cost to the manufacturing process and ultimately it will be the public who will have to pay, as businesses cannot afford to absorb these extra costs.

Had Ms. Seymour done any research – to which she would no doubt respond – Research?What is research?: she would have discovered that the Personal Protective Programme (PPE) originated within UNECE  –   which only goes to show,yet again, that ‘soft law – aka diqueles – originate far above the level of the European Union.

The European Commission proposal for a Regulation can be found here in which reference is made to UNECE.

While we have politicians similar to Ms Seymour, no political party with that lack of knowledge should open its mouth – neither should any political commentator or journatist of similar ilk!


The Red Door

Paraphrasing Frankie Vaughan, just what is the problem with red doors – and just what is going on behind them?

A national newspaper broke this story and MPs promptly found something to occupy their  time, which compared to more impotant matters confronting our country – lack of democracy; MPs whose behaviour and lifestyle causes concern to those of us who pay them; whose careers seem to matter far more than their concern for our country and its indigenuous population – is but trivia. For a ‘local’ report on this, try here.

To put this in perspective, I live in a street where every house, bar about three, has a white front door –  do I hear complaints that this appearance marks those inhabitants as ‘white’ English Northeners? No!

If, as it appears, Cameron is worried about how certain immigrant women are treated then perhaps instead of having his slaves rushing off on a fools errand, perhaps he should concenrate on what goes on behind the red doors?

Of course MPs such as Andy McDonald will jump on any bandwagon if it means it raises their profile among constituents, plus going towards ensuring re-election; but one has to ask just how much does this MP really ‘feel’ for his immigrant population? After all it was his party that ‘threw the doors open’ with a view to garnering a compliant electorate.

If anything demonstrates the need for adoption of The Harrogate Agenda, then this is a prime example. Let local people decide how their taxes are spent – and if these residents feel so discriminated against, then perhaps I may make a suggestion: stop whining and get your paint brush out!

Just saying……………

Update: just seen one campaigner, on BBC news, stating that she has been campaigning  on this problem for some time. Seems to me that her heart may be in the right place but her brain most definately has gone awol!

Added afterthouht: Managing properties in Hartlepool, as I do, I’ve seen many white tenants living in what might be described as ‘hovels’ (dirty, ill-kept, etc – even though the landlord maintains same in ‘good order’), so McDonald’s point is?


The ‘news du jour’ is, undoubtedly, the European Union, the UK’s membership thereof, of which much is written and said about democracy; and the forthcoming referendum.

Consequently, an article which appeared under the name of Quentin Letts appears to have passed with little, if any, comment. Being Letts, it was written with a tad of ‘tongue in cheek’; but at the same time contained pertinent points where democracy is concerned.

When snakes shed their skins they tend to do a lot of forked-tongue waving. They wriggle. During that awkward between-skins period they are vulnerable to attack, so may hide behind stones. The spectacle of a skin-shedding, though a marvel of nature, can be slightly disgusting. No doubt a snake would say ‘it’s just a packaging issue, old boy’.

Politicians also shed their skins – principles, to use an old-fashioned word. Now that really IS a revolting business. Am I calling politicians snakes? Oh dear.

One who is currently easing himself out of his old pelt with a shoulder-shimmy here, a greasy word or two there, is Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. He used to be a prominent Eurosceptic (indeed, his scepticism was one of the reasons he was appointed). Now he is mid-restyle. Having sensed that his own political survival may be in peril unless he sucks up to 10 Downing Street, he is turning himself into a Europhile.

The article continues:

David Nuttall (Con, Bury N), a persistent and bold critic of Brussels, said ‘many people are suspicious of the seriousness of the renegotiation’. Was it not a bit limp of the PM to make ‘less red tape’ one of his demands when even the most ardent Europhiles agree that is needed?

Mr Hammond dipped his ladle into a soup of insincerity and claimed that ‘we’re looking for an institutional restructuring’. He did so without warmth towards Mr Nuttall, whose views he might once have shared. But that was back in the days when he was making his political fortune.

Now that he is atop the pile, a member of the limousine set, he need not bother. Foreign Secretary! It practically guarantees this stupendous dullard a pulpit for life.

For those interested the Hansard record is here and the video here. These two links are provided as Letts maintains: The Hammond of old is quickly being replaced by a Hammond who gives Europe the benefit of the doubt, a Hammond who is striving to keep Britain IN the European Union, a Hammond who with a superior lifting of the eyebrows, a tone of settled worldliness, asserts that he finds EU-sceptic position options to be unappealing. ‘Doesn’t look like a good plan to me,’ he murmured yesterday, perhaps a mite too ostentatiously, after hearing someone mention Norway’s position outside the EU. Equating Britain to Norway is a worn Europhile tactic. Having listened to the exchanges I was unable to hear the ‘aside’ to which Letts refers – but then old age and hard of hearing tend to go together.

This article ‘hits the nail on the head’ for those of us who believe we have no democracy per se.  In this article we have questions raised about politicians more interested in their careers, their ‘seat sinecure’, coupled with the question of whether their views mirror those they are meant to represent. Here it is worth noting an article I wrote on my previous blog on the subject of ‘democracy’ and in which I quoted the views of A.V. Dicey – from which:

Yet A.V. Dicey held that there was an inherent weakness in the British system of representative democracy and its government. In a letter to James Bryce on 23rd March 1891 (source: Bryce Papers, Bodleian Library MS 3 fo.83.) he writes:

“the possibility….which no-one can dispute of a fundamental change passing into law which the mass of the nation do not desire.”

In effect what Dicey was alluding to was the fact that the foundation of representational democracy was, to use the vernacular, shot to hell; and by inference that it was not Parliament, but the people, who were sovereign.

Yes, I come back to the aims of The Harrogate Agenda (THA) because were that to be the norm MPs such as Philip Hamond would no longer be able to enjoy their exalted position, nor have a ‘job for life’. When one recalls this question from Letts: What do the members in Mr Hammond’s Runnymede & Weybridge Tory association think of his new fondness for Brussels? the response, methinks, would be: not much.

In particular, in blogs, a great deal is written about ‘democracy’ and Leave_HQ is no exception. We all are only too aware the European Union lacks democracy, but then so does our current system of representative democracy. If we are to win the forthcoming referendum I have to repeat an oft unanswered question – should we not be concentrating on the ‘root cause’ of our lack of democracy?

An interesting point arises from FlexCit in that it is stated that there is little point in recovering powers from the EU, only to hand them back to the same institutions that gave them away in the first place. Time and time again, those writing and speaking for an exit from the clutches of the European Union mention ‘democracy’ and the lack thereof. So, to repeat the oft-asked question, why is THA stage 6 of 6?

How often must the point be made that the electorate repeatedly complain that however they vote nothing changes? So, once again, why is THA stage 6 of 6? Does not logic dictate that were a concerted attempt to publicise THA carried out, then the forthcoming referendum  would be a ‘slam-dunk’?

Undoubtedly there are some MPs who do care about the plight of their constituents, but in attempting to solve those problems they are constrained by party policy, maintaining their careers, a lack of knowledge as to the cause of said complaints and their unwillingness to acknowledge that there is little they can do in view of the contraints – ie the foregoing – under which they labour.

When the media continue to write about trivia, which has no bearing on what is important; when bloggers seem unable to concentrate on what is important because they, too, are in their own little ‘bubble’; what hope is there for the rest of us with questions that do not get answered?  What hope is there for those of us who do care about democracy and who wish to control their own lives; and have a voice in any future for our nation?

Just asking…………………..



Important Notice

It appears that my email address has been hacked – please ignore any messages stating I am in Cyprus and asking for help with money. Likewise please ignore any further emails from me until further notice. I will advise a new email address in due course.

BBC Bias

Following the latest article from Richard North in respect of a programme recently broadcast on Radio 4, ‘hosted’ by Carolyn Quinn, advance notice is hereby given that I shall be submitting a complaint to the BBC regarding the paucity of the content, coupled with the ineptitude of Quinn in dealing with what is undoubtedly the most important decision the people of our nation have been asked to decide.

Due to other pressing matters with which I have to deal, this may take 2/3 days to submit; however a copy of my complaint will appear on this blog following said submission.

I implore all like minded people who blog on ‘matters EU’ to follow suit, as to call the programme in question fair, knowledgeable and informative would be a travesty of the truth – consequently with crap such as this programme contained just how can the electorate make an informed decision, coupled with the fact it furthers the accusation that the government, aided by the media, are ‘rigging’ the outcome of the forthcoming referendum.

C’mon people – ‘pile in’ do!


Cameron lies again!

Readers will be only to aware that I have, in the past, attempted to hold David Cameron to account, in the politest sense possible, of being economical with the actualité. The time has come to withdraw politeness – the man is a liar.

Today, following his statement to the House of Commons on the subject of the last European Council meeting, the following exchanges took place – source is Hansard.

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab):

Many of those who argue for us to leave the European Union suggest that we could continue to be part of the single market without having to abide by any of the obligations that go with it. Does the Prime Minister know of any non-EU states that enjoy free trade with the single market but are not part of the free movement that goes with it?

The Prime Minister:

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Look, my argument will in no way be that Britain could not succeed outside the European Union, because of course we could; we are a great country, the world’s fifth largest economy and a great trading power. The argument will be about whether we would be more prosperous and more secure inside or outside a reformed EU. To answer his question directly—I answered this when I went to Iceland—countries such as Iceland and Norway have to obey all the rules of the single market, including on the free movement of people, but without having any say on what those rules are. In Norway it has been described as democracy by fax, because the instructions comes through from Brussels, and they pay more per head to the EU than we do. It will be for the campaign responsible to make the arguments about what life would be like outside the EU, and this is a crucial question that it will have to answer.

Norway does not pay more per head than does this country! This has been illustrated by this article by Richard North. I really can’t be bothered refuting, once again, his claim that Norway has no say on the rules of the European Union; suffice to say that he refused to answer this same point in his reply to my dossier that I handed to him.

Another lie:

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab):

The Prime Minister is right to give his Ministers a free vote, as Harold Wilson did in 1975, but does he realise that underpinning everything in the referendum is trust? How will the British people trust anything that he brings back, dealing with a European Union that they do not trust and with institutions that they do not trust, if we do not have a proper and fully worked out treaty change?

The Prime Minister:

I think people can see that this is a process in which they can trust. We promised a referendum; we have legislated for a referendum. We promised a renegotiation; that renegotiation is well on course. This is all from a Government who said they would cut the EU budget—nobody believed us, but we did; who said we would veto a treaty if necessary—nobody believed us, but we did; and who said we would bring back the largest number of powers since Britain joined the EU which, with the Justice and Home Affairs opt-out, we did. This is a Government who have a track record, but in the end it will be for the British people to make their decision about where our future is most secure.

I am still waiting for an answer from David Cameron to the question just what was the name of the treaty he vetoed and where and when was the venue of the required IGC and convention that would have had to have taken place for a treaty to be vetoed. He has also to answer my counter accusation, again contained in the dossier he was handed, that he did not cut the European Budget.

This man has the effrontery to talk about trust where the process of the fothcoming referendum is concerned? He is doing everything in his power to rig the damn thing  and lies to boot.

An interesting question was also posed by one of his backbenchers:

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con):

The Conservative party manifesto said:

“We will insist that EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit must live here and contribute to our country for a minimum of four years.”

Although I am clear that in the referendum I will vote to leave the European Union, many of my constituents are waiting to see the outcome of the renegotiation. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could explain whether we are still insisting on that idea, or is it now simply a basis for negotiation?

The Prime Minister:

No. I very much stand by what we put in our manifesto. The four issues that we are renegotiating were clearly set out there and we need to deliver in each of those four areas.

If Cameron stands by his manifesto pledge then he has just dug a very big hole for himself. When he returns from his ’tilting at windmills’ foray clutching his piece of paper proclaiming ‘renegotiation success’, Nuttall’s question and his reply should be thrown back in his face.

Another of his backbenchers seems to have found Cameron’s ‘Achilles Heel’:

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con):

The Prime Minister has for many years rightly berated the Labour party for giving up our rebate and getting nothing in return. If his negotiations are so meaningful, why did he not ask for our rebate to be reinstated or for a cut in our contribution to the EU budget? Is it because he does not think that we should have our rebate back any more, or because he just asked for what he knew would be agreed to so that he could claim some bogus negotiating triumph at the end of it?

The Prime Minister:

I hope my hon. Friend had an enjoyable Christmas and new year; he seems to have started in a slightly churlish manner.

I would make the point that we negotiated a cut in the EU budget, not just for one year but across the seven years of what is known as the EU financial perspective—in plain language, the EU budget year on year on year. We also protected what remains of our rebate, which is still immensely powerful and saves British taxpayers a huge amount of money.

If anybody thinks that what I am asking for is somehow easy or simple, they can come and sit around that table with 27 other leaders and see that actually that is not the case. I am not claiming elder statesmanship—I think I have now been to 42 European Councils because we have had so many of these things—but I would say that what I am arguing for is at the outside edge of what we can achieve.

To describe a reasonable question from one of his own backbenchers as churlish surely stretches parliamentary courtesy; it was, after all, a perfectly reasonable question. In other words what Philip Davies was hinting at is the point that with so much wrong with our membership of the European Union, where democracy and self-governance is concerned, to select what may be considered four minor reforms is really just playing to the gallery of public opinion.

Yet another lie:

Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con):

I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to end the imposition of ever closer union, if that can be achieved in a binding way for the long-term future, but my constituents want to know what is being reversed. What is happening to the ever closer union that we have been subjected to for the past 40 years, and what powers are coming back to this Parliament?

The Prime Minister:

We have just achieved the biggest return of powers since Britain joined the European Union, which is the opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs, where 100 measures came back to Britain. We have seen exactly the same, and we will see more, with regard to the eurozone, where we want to make absolutely sure that we suffer no disadvantage, we cannot be involved in bail-out schemes, and the British position is protected. That is a return of power. Look at what we are trying to achieve on deregulation, where we are saying that we need deregulation targets and cuts in regulation—that is about powers coming back to Britain. If you look at what we are saying about a subsidiarity test where every year the European Council should be asking, “Are these powers and these areas of powers still necessary, and can they be returned?, you see that the whole aim of this renegotiation is to say, “Yes, we are part of a European Union that is reformed and that can achieve greater prosperity and greater security for Britain, but we are doing it as a proud nation state with institutions that serve the people who put us here.”

Cameron knows full well that the United Kindom is still liable for contributions to any bail-out scheme in which the IMF makes a loan.

If it is Cameron’s policy not to answer any question beginning with ‘If’, then by the same token logically he should not begin his answer with ‘If’? Witness:

Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con):

May I salute my right hon. Friend’s decision to allow Ministers to exercise their freedom of choice on this very important matter? Does he accept that that is a sign not of his personal weakness, but of his personal strength, because he believes that we in this party can have a sensible debate about a fundamental issue of serious importance to the British people? He has just said that the negotiations may come to fruition next month. If they do, when would he envisage the referendum taking place?

The Prime Minister:

I make it a policy not to answer questions beginning with “If”, even if they are put as charmingly as they are by my hon. Friend. If we can achieve a result in February, I do not think we should delay the referendum. I think we should get on and hold the referendum. As I have said, it should not be done in any unnatural haste. It needs to have a proper number of months for people to consider all the arguments, and that is exactly what will happen.

I could continue raising similar points to the above but unfortunately who is listening? Certainly not David Cameron as no rebuttal to the points raised in my dossier; no response to the email sent to him in November last year – and no doubt no response will be forthcoming to the further email encapsulating the content of this article which I have sent.

It has to be said that quite a few of the questions put to him this afternoon were of the ‘patsy’ variety – no doubt at the instigation of Conservative whips – and the remainder were, on the whole, pointless as they only illustrated the lack of grasp MPs have on the subject of our membership of the European Union – and democracy in general.

In view of the fact the media does not want to air our views and our elected representatives will use every trick in the book to avoid answering us, one can be forgiven for thinking it is time we all saved our efforts in attempting to hold them to account.

A question or two, Mr. Cameron

Today I received an email from our Revered (not) Leader which I reproduce:

It’s a New Year. And with our economy growing and a strong Conservative majority Government in power, Britain begins it with renewed strength.

For me there are no New Year’s resolutions, just an ongoing resolve to deliver what our party promised in our manifesto. Security – at every stage of your life.

To do this, I need your support.

Over 31 million people will begin the year in work – more than any in our history. And from April, more than half a million working people will be taken out of income tax – and the new National Living Wage will be introduced for everyone over the age of 25.

Meanwhile, millions more will benefit from the new academies, 30 hours of free childcare, rising pensions and extra apprenticeships that we committed to in our manifesto.

And, by building 200,000 Starter Homes, we’ll help even more hardworking people enjoy the security of owning their own home.

As we set out on our journey to build that greater Britain and deliver real security for working people, your support is crucial.

Please donate today, and together we’ll deliver a brighter future for families all across Britain.

Best wishes, and happy New Year,

By clicking on the link one finds the donation is not to the country but to the Conservative Party. Were the donation intended ‘for the country’ one would be permitted to ask why, especially as we all feel the level of taxation, extracted from us by force and under penalty of imprisonment if we decline, is quite high enough (in any case, on this subject what about the argument for ‘Referism‘, a demand repeated in The Harrogate Agenda – Article 5?). As the requested donation is for the Conservative Party one is forced to ask how donating to the political party currently in power will assist in their governance of our country?

On the other hand one can fully understand his not making any New Year’s resolutions – he would only break them anyway, as he has broken manifesto pledges in the past – but I digress.

David Cameron, besides sending out begging emails to all and sundry, also has an article on Conservative Home, an article with which one can take exception due to the content being economical with the actualité.

He writes: And we’ll stand ready to prevent and respond to any threat that comes our way. As I saw for myself this week, the weather can have a devastating impact on homes, livelihoods and whole communities. Because of our competent management of the economy, we are not only able to fund the necessary flood defences, emergency services and support…. let us not go down the route of bringing into that statement the EU’s Water Directive of 2000 and why that has contributed to our woes.

Cameron mentions, in passing, the matter of the forthcoming referendum and that he is fighting hard to fix the aspects of our EU membership that cause so much frustration in Britain. When there is but one overriding aspect that is so important where our membership of theh EU is concerned – namely democracy per se – to pick on the four areas he has is laughable. Where he speaks of it being our decision is derogatory to the electorate when he is guilty, along with so many other politicians, of misleading them.

Moving on he writes: ……we need a more targeted strategy for those most in need of help, focusing on tackling the root causes like worklessness and family instability. Just who is it that has created this problem if not ‘government’ by their continual ‘messing’ of the education system coupled with bribing the electorate with tax credits, child support etc. For him to mention failing care systems where children are concerned, he should remember all the articles by Christopher Booker on this subject – including this one (as I have a vested interest in it).

In his article on Conservative Home, we then come to another misleading statement …we’ll step up our effort to complete the fight for equality with, for example, more work to close the gender pay gap, with a new strategy set out in the New Year. Equal pay for equal work is one of the European Union’s founding principles, embedded in the Treaties since 1957. Currently, the principle of equal pay is enshrined in Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), stipulating that “each Member State must ensure the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for work of equal value is applied”. This article has provided a basis for the adoption of European legislation on equal pay, Directive 2006/54/EC providing the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. Article four of this directive provides that for the same work or for work to which equal value is attributed, direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to all aspects and conditions of remuneration shall be eliminated. This provision also stipulates that in particular, where a job classification system is used for determining pay, it shall be based on the same criteria for both men and women and so drawn up as to exclude any discrimination on grounds of sex. So, in other words, he is only doing that which he is mandated so to do by this countrys membership of the European Union.

We then come to another subject: But we also need to address the issues that for too long have been swept under the carpet. Failure to integrate, the dangers of segregation and deprivation, women treated as second-class citizens, communities living side by side but never coming into contact with each other…….. Has not history told us that forcibly enmeshing two different cultures can only lead to social unrest? Once again Cameron is only putting into practice that which, being the ‘good European’ that he is, he must. The Racial Equality Directive (2000/43/EC) is the key piece of EU legislation for combating discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin and for giving effect to the principle of equal treatment.

If anything is guaranteed to ‘get up my nose’ it is someone who purports to be a person of principle and honour – and, an Englishman to boot who in days of old was renowned for those two qualities misleading – nay lying – to his fellow men and woman; especially when that person is the prime minister of this country.

But then David Cameron may have the title of Prime Minister but he is no more than ‘Gauleiter’ of the region within the European Union known as Region UK.