Hypocrisy of PM eulogising the Queen while abolishing her realm

THE PRESS OFFICE OF                                                           

The Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)

 

News Release

 

22nd April 2016

 

The ‘hypocrisy’ of a Prime Minister eulogising the Queen while trying to take away her realm

 

The independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has taken exception to David Cameron’s eulogising Her Majesty the Queen on the sovereign’s 90th birthday, while he is simultaneously leading a campaign to abolish Britain as a nation state.

Lord Stoddart said:  “It is the most nauseating hypocrisy for the Prime Minister and other political leaders to eulogise Her Majesty on the occasion of Her 90th birthday while, simultaneously, organising a national and international lobby to bounce the British people into voting to remain in the European Union at the referendum on 23rd June.  This is an organisation, whose policy it is to abolish nation states, including Her Majesty’s own realm.

“They have already made Her Majesty a citizen of the European Union without consulting her.  Anyone with genuine respect for the Queen should vote to leave, which will protect her and our country from the EU’s aggressive empire building.”

 

Ends

Mr President, it’s none of your business!

Keep your nose out, Obama! Don’t you think you’ve done enough damage to prospects for world peace in the nearly eight years of your disastrous presidency?

So writes Rev Dr. Peter Mullen as the US President makes his case for us to stay in the EU. Dr Mullen goes on to say:-

“His latest conceit is to use the occasion of his coming to the Queen’s 90th birthday party to tell the British to remain in the EU. “you will be stronger for your belonging to this union,” he said. Imagine his reaction – and the entirely justified fury of the American people – if David Cameron said, “Well, Barack, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The USA would be stronger if you formed an economic and political union with Mexico, Nicaragua and all the other shambolic Latin-American states in your own back yard.” Of course, Dave would never go in for such straight talking, but one of his aides might have a quiet word in the President’s ear and say, “it is not the business of allies to interfere in the domestic policies of those allies.”   

This is precisely the line  taken by Matt Ridley when Obama’s secretary of State, John Kerry, spoke in similar terms a couple of months ago. The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has also been critical of President Obama, calling him “hypocritical” and stating that it would not be right for the US President “to urge us to sacrifice control” when America would not do the same. Iain Duncan-Smith, the former Work and Pensions Secretary Ian Duncan Smith added “He is asking the British people to accept a situation that he patently would not recommend to the American population… I can imagine no circumstances under which he would lobby for the US Supreme Court to be bound by the judgments of a foreign court.”

Obama’s speech was a truly pathetic effort. The man used the word “friend”, but is this really appropriate for someone like this? A few years ago, when the Gulf of Mexico suffered from an oil spill caused by the sinking of BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, the President pointedly referred to “British Petroleum”, even though the company’s full name has not been in popular use for many years. This man is no friend to our country.

Nor is he honest in his claim that TTIP “will advance our values and our interests.” True, it will advance the interests of US pharmaceutical giants, but  since when has a top-secret deal to be governed by a text that no one is allowed to publish been a true reflection of anglo-american values?
Quite honestly, his claim that we would be at the “back of the queue” for trade talks hardly ties in with the behaviour of a real friend. Anyway, we already have a healthy trade relationship with the USA without TTIP and world trade is moving away from big bilateral deals towards smaller, limited agreements in specific areas.

He made the security argument, mentioning the threat of terrorism as one would expect. Perhaps a gentle word in his ear that it is the EU that we wish to leave and not NATO might not have gone amiss.

However, it was particularly sickening to hear him talk of “The tens of thousands of Americans who rest in Europe’s cemeteries” who are “a silent testament to just how intertwined our prosperity and security truly are.” Those Americans, like the thousands of our own soldiers who died in World War 2, died to preserve our freedom and save us from tyranny. It is precisely our desire for freedom that drives us to vote to leave the EU. We should not stay in the EU just because it suits America or any other foreign country for that matter, nor should we be put off voting for leave because Mr Putin may like the idea. It is our country’s interests that count and it should be our decision alone what our future should be.

As our President, Edward Spalton has pointed out, In 1950 Clement Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, refused to join the forerunner of the EU, the Coal and Steel Community. He said there was no way that Britain could accept that “the most vital economic forces of the country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and responsible to nobody”. The decline of our industries and the near extinction of steel production under forty years of EU control testify to his wisdom. Yet President Obama has the sheer cheek to urge us to continue in this subjection – a subjection which he an all Americans would regard as odious and downright treasonable – far worse than anything George III ever did to them!

“For us the EU is a long-suffered wrong, inflicted by our own political class”, said Mr Spalton. “The American colonists of 1776 took up arms for the rights of Englishmen who happened to live in America. Along with Samuel Adams we can now say loudly to our own betrayers – ‘If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen‘.

What possible objection could President Obama have to that?”

The EU – very risky to your wellbeing and pocket

The EU – a club of former countries that encourages irresponsible behaviour and mutualises the resulting problems, making them worse

In the current ‘debate’ (or, perhaps better, the current game of fear messaging and deceit) about our membership of the European Union, (EU), the subject of risk management is largely ignored.  Yet this somewhat arcane subject  – very mysterious to politicians – is critical to understanding what we are letting ourselves in for.   Its inclusion completely changes the actual or residual risks we face.  Its omission by Mr Cameron and many other senior politicians is completely irresponsible. We could pay a very heavy price in future if we opt for the most risky option in the mistaken belief that it is the safest.

From prehistoric times, even our most intellectually challenged Homo Sapiens ancestors quickly learnt that life is full of risks.  Hunting and progress needed successful management of these risks, whether it was avoiding being trampled by woolly mammoths, getting hurt by chipping flints or being burnt when cooking over an open fire.  If our early ancestors had been ruled by someone like Mr Cameron, his Project Fear would have led to our early extinction because of dire warnings about messing with fire or the dangers of leaving our prehistoric EU cave.

Today, any business activity or enterprise, investment, not to mention scientific experimentation and medical progress, will inevitably involve both risk taking and successful risk management if it is to achieve results. Government is no exception; Some policies come with a possible downside in the shape of unwanted or undesirable consequences. If there is a strong likelihood of this happening, risk management is necessary to mitigate these risks and avoid mistakes becoming disasters.

Of course, government incompetence, malevolence and greed is in itself a risk which needs to be managed. It isn’t easy to do this.  Parliamentary democracy is a step in the right direction, as in theory, our MP goes to Westminster to act on our behalf and use his or her brain to do the best for us and protect our interests. The nation state also acts as a tool of risk management since the more diverse a population in culture, heritage and history the more difficult it is to avoid serious risks of downsides to some. In this country we are very privileged that,  over centuries, laws, checks and balances have evolved, somewhat serendipitously, to provide a decent level of risk control while at the same time reining in the government and the state.

In the real world (as opposed to the bubble which our ruling élite inhabit), we are actually world leaders in risk management. We have also pioneered many techniques for managing risks and have legal frameworks where responsibilities and accountability for so doing (i.e., a duty of care) are clear.  Policy risk management at national level is inherently easier than at EU level, hence residual risks can be made much smaller than the initial, apparent, risks.  The future outside the EU, should therefore hold few fears because we can manage risks as and when they occur.

The EU, by comparison, is a basket case for risk management. It is not just that its leaders ignore risk management;  the organisational structure of the EU makes the task inherently more difficult and the consequences of failure more severe.  As we will consider in more detail shortly, one-size-fits-all policies devised by remote unaccountable bureaucrats and enforced by judges (all ideologically driven), are a recipe for risk, mistakes and floundering about afterwards making the damage worse. This pattern is repeated time and again.

One of the more subtle consequences is that it encourages irresponsible behaviour by the unaccountable ruling élite, be they politicians, bureaucrats, big business, vested interests, special interest groups or corrupt individuals.  Rather than act in the best interests of ordinary people (the common good), they use the EU as a means to an end, to avoid responsibility, to exploit the people while following their own, self-interested agendas.

Commonly known as corporatism, it amounts to government by the few for the few and the re-distribution of existing wealth from the many to them.  From a risk management perspective, giving carte blanche to the EU’s ruling élite poses great risks to the wellbeing and prosperity of the many.  The Euro, EU energy policies and pricing, open borders and bureaucratic regulation as pursued by the EU have all had disastrous consequences.

Continuing EU membership is a systemic high risk proposition that can only get worse as its leaders recklessly pursue their goal of creating a superstate while at the same time increasingly expanding their unaccountable control of our daily lives.  Sadly, the damage spreads far and wide because of the contagion factor. A local issue which may crop up in one member state – or even one part of one member state – cannot be dealt with locally.

This is quite deliberate policy and results in us all being affected by events taking place far away of no direct relevance to us. One example of this is the Landfill Directive, which addressed the problems faced by Denmark and Holland, two fairly small, flat countries which had run out of space to bury rubbish. Our quarrying industry creates more than enough holes for this country to deal with our garbage, but EU legislation has forced us increasingly in the direction of smelly, air-polluting incinerators..

Sadly, all that Mr Cameron is doing through Project Fear is showing everyone that he knows very little about risk management and consequently is unfit to govern anyone or anything. This has been amply demonstrated by the devastation of the Steel Industry.

If we are to build a prosperous future for the UK, we need to be able both to take risks (business is always inherently risky) and to manage risks successfully. Mr Cameron’s ignorance is potentially very damaging to our future prospects. We could end up with the worst of all worlds, subject to a reckless EU while frightened to build a confident, prosperous and secure future for our country.

Photo by Oregon State University

Sovereignty – no politician should be able to give it away.

“The right of the British people to govern themselves was not a matter for bargaining or concessions; it was a historic legacy that no sitting government could offer to trade for whatever favours might be granted … no politician should have the power to give away the self-determination of the country. It is not theirs to give.”

“It is not a difference of opinion over the ‘advantages’ or ‘disadvantages’ of being in or out of the EU … What is at issue is whether any generation of political leaders who happen to be in office can choose to relinquish the historical identity of the United Kingdom as a nation state.”

“The referendum is supposed to be an opportunity for the people themselves to make that decision but the choice can only be properly understood if the politicians leading the public argument are addressing the question on the same terms. Is this about the benefits of staying, as opposed to the risks of coming out? Or does it give one particular electoral generation the chance to close down (presumably forever) what has been taken for granted as part of the country’s constitutional heritage in the past, and to severely limit what may be possible in the future?”

Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph, 20th March 2016

Our Chairman’s remarks at the Leave Alliance launch, Wednesday 16th March

Our cross-party Campaign (known as CIB) was formed in 1969 by concerned parliamentarians and organisations, opposed to membership of the EEC. When they failed to prevent the passage of the European Communities Act 1972 by a margin of eight votes, CIB continued to keep the flame of opposition alive. Literature and events publicised the anti democratic structure of the European Project through the wilderness years and to this day. I am greatly heartened that one of our founders, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is with us today. I served my CIB apprenticeship under him. Nowadays we work closely with other organisations, acting as a facilitator and force multiplier in the referendum campaign.

Whilst CIB has done much to expose the damage done to our constitution and freedoms by EU membership, less thought was given to the mechanism by which we would leave the EU and establish a new, constructive relationship with our European neighbours.

The enemies of democratic self government portray such a step as a dangerous “ leap in the dark”. Thanks to thorough research, the Flexcit Market Solution provides the safe means of a seamless transition to independence whilst retaining full access to the EU market. It is not a risky leap but a confident step from the smoke and mirrors of the EU into the wider, sunnier world. Because the arrangements which underpin it already exist, it provides a secure, proven platform for our further development as an independent nation.

Britain on the brink: A useful link to pass on to the uninformed.

This video was produced a few years ago, but is still a useful tool to enlighten those who are unaware of the true nature of the European project. Speakers include Christopher Booker, Christopher Gill MP, Vladimir Bukovsky and Ian Milne, with an inttoduction by the late Sir Patrick Moore CBE.

Featured in the video is Bukovsky’s famous quote: “I have lived in your future and it didn’t work”.

While there is no discussion about the mechanics of Brexit and the debate has moved on since the video was made,  its graphic style pulls no punches when it comes to descibing just how dreadful the EU is and why we need to regain our independence.