In 1990, a schoolmulticulturalism_thumb exercise was put in front of me that carried the words: “Today we live in a multicultural society”, and I wondered where it came from and how it sneaked its way into the mainstream, with the majority of the population apparently accepting it with little resistance. It would be another decade or two before it dawned on me that this was simply what everyone was being told and not necessarily what was true. Surely, to live in a multicultural society, everyone has to get along well and be reasonably happy about it, right? But the evidence around me was pointing in another direction.

Then one day I learned of something that happened in the general election of 1964. The residents of a place called Smethwick were getting pretty fed up with excessive immigration and voted in a Conservative MP who had pledged to support them. To be fair, the win was pretty narrow and the seat was re-taken by Labour in another election shortly after. But what it told me was that multiculturalism was something that had, albeit in the past, been thrust upon us. Is this really an acceptable situation in a society that calls itself democratic? This does sound like a gross disrespect of peoples’ wishes.

Since 2002, schools have been teaching citizenship classes. The supposed goal of these classes is to provide a generation of well-rounded individuals who can make positive contributions to society. I’m fairly sure I included the right amount of meaningless buzz-words there. This is all well and good, but my digging is making me wonder whether they are actually a conduit of government indoctrination. Seriously, this sort of thing goes on in North Korea, but at least their government admits it. Here, in the UK, our government seems more given to say that it’s for our own good and we seem more content to swallow this sort of brainwashing, sometimes to the point of defending it. It seems that the goal here is to effect conformity and obedience, rather than education, so that future generations blindly support the government’s agenda. I have, for some time, seen teachers as little more than the extremities of the civil service; the hands of the government itself, if you will. And these hands are currently tasked with effecting a politically correct agenda, where “correct” is, of course, a point of view. Perhaps if we didn’t have such a problem with political correctness, we wouldn’t have such a problem with immigration.

UK-immigrationOne could argue that attitudes are shifting, but this does not sit well with me. I think it’s more political than that. Both sides of the political argument have reason to effect high immigration. The left like immigration because it dilutes patriotism. More immigrants leads to a lower percentage of the native population, which translates to fewer people voting against it and more in favour of the party that welcomed them. The right, on the other hand, like immigration because it lowers the wage bill – assuming most of the newcomers are willing to work for low pay. And this is my beef. I’m all for competition, but this is getting extreme. I work very hard, but my hard work has got me no pay rises in the last four or five years. That equates to an effective pay cut if you factor in inflation. Therefore I’m working as hard as I can to stay exactly where I am. So I would appreciate it if whoever is in power could kindly reign in immigration. Failing that, I’d settle for those present to stop undercutting me because, you know what, I need pay rises not just to keep on top of expenses, but to raise my standard of living as well. Yes, that’s right, I want some extra cash for myself. But as things stand, the government has made it very difficult for me to settle down and start a family and it has replaced the kids, I’ve not been able to have, with immigrants. So unlike the current doctrine, I do not believe “this country needs immigration”, because, for every immigrant that sets foot on our soil, the chances of me being able to continue my own flesh and blood decreases.

Immigration also changes the character of an area. We can celebrate “diversity” all you like, but it’s not much good if “diversity” means not “every culture represented” but instead “every culture represented apart from mine”. This is not an exaggeration. There is a school, not far from me, which, aside from being proud of having an excessive number of languages under its roof, is also proud of representing every religion apart from Christianity. Like I said – every culture apart from mine. Why should I be content to live in the shadow of such bigotry? I could move out of London of course, but why should I? I was born here and I call this place my home. But I didn’t ask for ethnic groups to swarm the place and lord it over the high streets, making it too intimidating for me to walk into certain areas and then have the audacity to call me a racist for either pointing it out or questioning it. Or should I just walk through as though nothing is wrong? There is no such thing as racism when it comes to my personal safety.

As well as showing disdain for our way of life, immigration crowds this country. We are a relatively small island and have limited land area. Our infrastructure can only take so much. By having unchecked immigration, we swamp our own ability to keep pace. People need houses, roads, supermarkets, doctors, etc, but we can’t build these things quickly enough to keep up with the demand. I’m not going to get into a digression on how this pushes up house prices, but I am going to point out that it’s getting a bit wearing having to wait so long to get a GP appointment because their books are so full and that the three people in front of me have decided to let the surgery know they’re cancelling their appointments, not by phoning ahead a few days in advance, but by simply not showing up on the day. Don’t get me wrong, I salute them for clearly being able to live like divas, but I have to take half a day off work just to be there, from a job that I keep, not, it seems, to advance my own standard of living, but to pay for theirs. So show some consideration.

On some level, I do take it as a compliment that anyone would want to come to the UK to improve their way of life, but please, not at the expense of mine. We are not a charity for the rest of the planet. I was here first and see no reason why I shouldn’t get either the lion’s share of the spoils of living here or why I should be second in line to get it.

But rather than be self-limiting, this starts to spill over into a disdain for British culture. Rather than integrate, as we are told to do with them, they form their own communities and disrespect our laws and culture. By disrespecting our laws, I refer to activities such as fly tipping (to name one). Why would I want to see a discarded TV or sofa on the street in my suburb? I had to opportunity to ask about this when I was once in an eastern European household. The answer was, and I quote: “in case someone else wants to take it”. No! You can’t do that. You can’t turn up in someone else’s country and impose your sensibilities. When in Rome, do as the Romans. Again, this isn’t racism, it’s common decency. And on a practical level, you’d have to be pretty desperate to want a TV or sofa that’s been sitting in British weather for a week. Call the council to collect it, or take it to the tip in one of those expensive cars that you mysteriously seem to be able to afford. Actually, while you’re at it, and I’m being really serious here, grab a copy of the Highway Code and damn well read it. I have had just about enough of you bringing your aggressive driving techniques to our shores. Not only does it scare the hell out of me, it borders on dangerous and is most certainly illegal. Just over a decade ago, it was a pleasure to drive. Now it’s so cut and thrust, I think twice before driving around even my own neighbourhood. Stop overtaking me on the inside, be a little more patient and please drive significantly more than 2cm away from my rear bumper.

racist-brain-adIn the 1990s there was a campaign aimed at forcing the native population to accept immigration. I’m referring to a certain poster that depicted four brains. Three of them were of equal size. The fourth was of smaller size and was labelled “racist”. I guess the surface-level message there was that, if you’re a racist, you’re narrow-minded. But the effect it had on me was really just to leave me feeling accused; as though I’m just a closet or undiscovered racist, who should just keep quiet and accept the status quo. I just have to keep my mouth shut, or be shouted down (or shut down). Now, even kids at school can get a record for a playground slur. How is that fair treatment of the native population, particularly from such a young age? I’m glad I never got caught out of all that. Well my reaction to that is to say that it’s fine for the political elite to endorse such campaigns; they don’t have to live in these ‘diverse’ and ‘progressive’ communities. They live on another plane and seem to be largely unaware of what ‘diversity’ means on the ground. Having a school with 30 languages under its roof is not an achievement. What good is it if you can’t learn our history, or grasp advanced mathematics because you’re distracted by having to learn how to say ‘hello’ in Urdu?

Actually, I just remembered that, in the late 1990s, possibly around 2000, there was a TV advertising campaign about milk. It featured a very British backing tune and ended with a shot of a pint of milk and the slogan: “The white stuff. Are you made of it?”. There were also billboard advertisements to the same effect. I thought, and still do, that this was some kind of tester to see if anyone would cry foul. To my knowledge, no-one did. Admittedly, I’m not sure what ultimately became of that campaign. But I don’t think any of the indigenous population rose to the occasion and I’m wondering if this was taken, by the establishment, to be a vote of confidence for immigration. But it was probably a bit too subtle for anyone to see it as some sort of call to arms.

So now what situation do we have? There is a large section of disconnected and ignored indigenous Britons who don’t feel any political party speaks for them, particularly since it was the Labour party who opened the door so wide and that the Conservatives have basically copied them because they’re still so in awe of Labour’s 1997 victory after moving from left to centre. So we have two virtually identical mainstream parties. Since nature abhors a vacuum, that leaves the prospect of a new party forming and occupying the space that has been vacated. The left looks pretty crowded right now, with elements of Labour, SNP, Greens and elements (or remains) of the LibDems. The centre is occupied by elements of Labour and most of the Conservatives. So who is on the right? It seems UKIP is about all there is to go for. They won’t get in (or indeed secure many seats), but they’ll get a good share of the vote.

This will leave us with a problem. With so much share of the vote and so few seats to show for it, thanks to our First Past The Post voting system, some may start to feel there isn’t any real representation for their views. And soon, without representation, we could end up seeing a radicalised movement of indigenous Britons, seeking to address the unanswered mandate from Westminster. You see, those who care about immigration don’t want the problem sorted out in five years’ time, they want it sorted out now and Westminster is playing a dangerous game, highlighting the contempt they have for our democratic right to representation.

What I’m communicating is a viewpoint and that viewpoint has just as much right to be heard as the Green party’s right to spell out the top 5 methods for hugging a tree. With all the bloat we hear from a party as left as the Greens about how they champion “tolerance” and their beloved “diversity”, I don’t see much tolerance for my views. It’s the left that shuts people like me down, as much as they claim to be “inclusive”. I wonder who the hypocrites are. Furthermore, with an Australian leader, the Greens curiously don’t have much time to discuss the possibility of an Australian-style points based immigration system in the UK. I think this is what’s known as irony. Oh, and hypocrisy.

So now I’ve had my say. And, while I suspect most people will silently agree with me on many of the points I’ve raised, there will be some; and there are always some; who will call me all manner of names for having an opinion. These insecure types don’t like people to hold opinions; they’d rather I simply be quiet and obedient. But I will not. I will continue to raise issues, as I believe it is my right to do so. So if you want to call me a racist, go right ahead, because it does not shut down the debate. It simply emboldens me to continue. And it’s very politically incorrect to call me a racist, because the correct term is “ethnically concerned”.

Posted in Democracy, Diversity, election, EU, Europe, Great Britain, Immigration, Libertarianism, Politicians, Politics, Progressive Politics, Racism, social, Tolerance, uk, uk government | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

My definition of a modern tax system

Salary-planning2These days, not a week goes by without hearing something about how we pay too much in taxes or how too much of what we do pay is spent on X. Occasionally, we hear someone say that they’re happy to pay their dues, as long as none of it goes towards Y. I’m quite self-determined. I believe that what I earn should be mine to keep. But I also see the merits of paying my taxes. I never truly understood why until I attended a lecture by Will Hutton in the early 2010s on our place within the system and how it interacts with us.

I wasn’t expecting any major revelations on this particular evening. However, he did say something that more or less crystallised my view of paying tax. I can’t quote him word for word, but it more or less went as follows: “In this room there are 300 people. 100 of you will get cancer. But we don’t know which 100. So, everyone puts money into a pot and, when the 100 of you, who are destined to get cancer, get it, there is money available to treat you.”

At the time I liked this. But later it occurred to me that the argument only holds water if the thing you’re putting money into a pot for is a just cause and is agreed upon by everyone paying into it. If he’d said: “In this room there are 300 people. 100 of you will die from an enemy strike. So, everyone puts money in a pot and, when 100 of you die, we’ll have enough money to chuck a nuclear warhead back,” some may not have been so content.

But we live in a technologically advanced age. We don’t (necessarily) need politicians deciding how to spend our money. We could say so ourselves. Here is my proposal.

Let’s say we all pay a constant rate of tax. This is just to make writing it down easy. Let’s say 30% of anything earned over GBP 10,000. This ensures everyone pays an amount, assuming they’re earning enough. Forget about special considerations and sources of income for a moment – those are fine details and not the thrust of what I’m about to get at.

hi-tax-reform-852-is5407438Now give everyone online access to their account at the tax office and let them see how much of their individual tax contribution goes towards the various categories of public spending. This shouldn’t be too hard, given that we already do internet banking and are getting comfortable with online security. Next, present slider controls, like you see on, so each taxpayer can adjust their taxation spending preferences according to their beliefs. This shouldn’t be too hard either, given that price comparison websites have been doing it for years.

Do you want more money to be put into education? Push that slider up to 70%. Don’t like war? Push the military slider down to 5%.

The government can calculate how much money is available in each spending category after aggregating across all the accounts. Again – not hard. A simple database query can take care of that.

Of course, not everyone will be engaged enough with such an idea to ever bother logging on. For these accounts, let the politicians haggle between each other as they’ve always done. But, for the taxpayers who want to have a say, their slider control preferences can’t be overridden by the treasury.

powerfist_355900You want more power to the people? Surely this idea has got to be a step in the right direction.

Whether such an idea ever becomes reality is another matter. So far, I’ve not seen a great track record when it comes to governments and IT. “They” will most likely see this idea as threatening. Or think we’re too stupid to think for ourselves. But every journey has to start with a first step. Any takers?

Posted in Democracy, Libertarianism, Politicians, Politics, social, uk, uk government | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The religion of peace

I’ve just about had it with being told that Islam is a religion of peace. This rhetoric has been going on for far too long now and has been used too many times as a means to keep us from asking why it happens to be a strange coincidence that those who fly planes into buildings, blow up British and Spanish trains and buses, decapitate our soldiers in public and open fire on cartoonists all happen to be muslim. Even after all these acts, society’s reaction is still to accept this religion as part of our culture, embracing it, welcoming it and celebrating it as a great example of diversity.

Don’t tell me Christians went on crusades. We got over that in medieval times. There’s a reason the word “medieval” has the connotations it has. This is the 21st century. So I want to know why Islam hasn’t grown up in the same way. If it’s really so peaceful, don’t tell me. Prove it.

Call me what you like for saying this. If you want to say I’m being Islamophobic, go right ahead. I feel the same way when I walk past people with dangerous dogs. “Oh, but he’s really nice”, they’ll say. That doesn’t stop me being nervous. The reputation they have for mauling people is what lies at the root of that. And so it is with Islam. If Islamophobia is a fear of Islam, then damn right I have a fear of it. The reputation it’s built up since it put downtown Manhattan on the map, in its purest expression of peace and love of course, is what gives me the knowledge that this is something to be wary of.

So I do wish that the media and politicians would kindly stop telling me that Islam is a religion of peace. I’m intelligent enough to know that the media, at least the mainstream media, only really tell us the party line. And politicians are hardly well-respected enough to be listened to about anything even reasonably important. In short, I don’t consider either to be reliable source of information. To convince me, I need to see hard evidence – not hear words from a civil servant or their proxy.

Instead, I find it’s very difficult to find a real debate about this. The whole discussion seems to be shut down, as though Islam is the elephant in the room. After the twin towers fell, I honestly (perhaps naively) thought that Islam would come under scrutiny. But what I see is that it is given something of a free ride. To subject it to criticism is tantamount to blasphemy. Given the recent history, I find this unacceptable. Protecting these ideas is kind of repugnant.

My respect for politicians will skyrocket if someone prominent can go on record saying what I, and I suspect many others, am secretly thinking; that Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Posted in Libertarianism, perpetual war, Politicians, Politics, social, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, uk, uk government | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Are we all terrorists these days?

It seems not a week goes by without a story about some new legislation to monitor our communications to some degree. I used to think this was a Labour preserve (remember ID cards) – to scrutinise us as much as unnecessary. But it seems the Tories are up to the same game (snoopers’ charter). I guess this lends weight my theory that voting powers into the hands of someone you like will eventually lead to a situation where those powers will end up in the hands of someone you don’t like.

Apparently we’re trying to catch terrorists. Okay. For starters, I don’t buy into this idea that we really are after terrorists. I think this is about gaining control over the population. The problem is that so many people buy into it. Talk to anyone under about 30, and you’ll hear such passion (excuse the word) about how it’s for our own good, how it’s necessary to catch t*****ists (arggh!) and how they have nothing to hide (ARGGH!!!). Are we really so content to be watched? I still don’t understand how privacy somehow leads to an assumption that a person is up to no good.

Of course, the Jews had nothing to hide either. Before the Nazis rounded them up, Jews were quite happily living alongside everyone else and no-one really thought twice about it. Then the Nazis gained power because they were voted in. At some point later they defined several groups of people they didn’t like and went about labelling, controlling and eliminating them. By this point it was too late to vote them out or do much else about it. Too much power had already been given away and the population was too scared to confront it. Yes, that’s right; German citizens were afraid of their own authorities.

Today we have a situation where an elected government is telling us that vast civilian surveillance and control is necessary to catch terrorists. The problem I see with this is that we don’t know what a terrorist is considered to be. Who makes the definition? You can be quite sure it’s not the person who cast the vote. And so there is no way of telling whether today’s free man is tomorrow’s terrorist until someone is charged with the offence of being one. You need to hope you’re on the party line all the time. People, these days, are becoming afraid of those in power.

I’m seeing a pattern emerging.

This is surely unhealthy. If we go about our lives day to day, thinking those in power are to be feared, I can imagine how this might lead to feelings of guilt and how that might lead to a sense that we really are doing something wrong. This is supposition I admit, but I don’t think it’s far-fetched. I know people younger than 30, to whom I alluded to above, who believe we need to be watched, and, whom I’ve mentioned in a previous post, have no concept of privacy (so they don’t mind it).

It may be too late to have this debate. But it hopefully isn’t too late to start bearing in mind how we can start clawing some basic privacy and human dignity back from those who really shouldn’t have taken it in the first place.

Posted in Democracy, Europe, Huxley, Kafka, Libertarianism, Orwell, perpetual war, Politicians, Politics, Surveillance, Terrorism, Totalitarianism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

We have a pill for that!

over-prescription of drugsIt occurs to me that roughly half the people I know are taking a pill for something these days. Even in my own family, most of them are pretty settled, but many of them are on mood-augmenting drugs of some kind. When I’ve asked, it’s always started with a visit to a GP, during which they mentioned they were feeling kind of down, or that things hadn’t been going their way for a while – somehow their ducks were not all in a row.

Last time I checked, this was quite normal. What’s more, given that we are only just emerging from the deepest recession in living memory, it’s also quite understandable. People are feeling strung out. What I don’t understand is why we can’t be left alone to overcome our difficulties in time, on our own, through our own self-determination and hard-work.

In the meantime, I was catching numerous media highlights, most notably on the talkback radio station LBC, about vast proportions of our school-age population being on ritalin for the crime of none other than being a bit noisy in class. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for discipline in the classroom, but surely (to a point), kids clown around a bit and this should be expected, right?

I’d say it’s right, but this normality has been politicised into a disorder. Now, the slightest disturbance in the classroom earns you a prescription. I wouldn’t mind if we were talking about the 1% who kick the shit out of the other kids, but we’re not. We’re talking about anyone who dares to answer a question without raising their hand first. No, that’s not a case of human error or forgetting the rules for a moment. It’s a learning disability and it can be cured with a pill.

over-prescription of antidepressantsThe first time this all really hit home was a few years ago. I’d just been dumped and went to my GP for something fairly routine. I was asked how I was. So I explained I wasn’t feeling too good and said why. Before I could say much more, I was being handed a prescription for an anti-depressant. Actually I must confess I started taking them. After about 2 or 3 months of this I realised I was actually feeling worse than when I started. My perceptions were becoming clouded and I was losing focus. I also noted that my calf muscles were hurting in much the same way as one gets shin splits. But my GP insisted I persevere and even warned me about the dangers of giving up suddenly. Furthermore, I began to notice that even easier than getting the initial prescription was getting the repeat prescription! I barely needed to identify myself at the pharmacy. Something wasn’t adding up. I didn’t remember actually being ill in the first place but I was in a position where I stood to become addicted to medication. Another month went by and I decided to risk giving up.

I felt like I’d been released from a smoky room. Fortunately I’d not been taking them long enough to have formed an addiction. But it did make me wonder if the whole point of the exercise was to take me at my most vulnerable and make me form a state-sponsored addiction.

Now don’t get me wrong. I fully sympathise with the individuals who actually need to be on these drugs, but I would like to put a few question marks over how easy it is to get hold of them. Let’s be clear about this. Things like anti-depressants and other mood-altering drugs affect the brain chemistry. That’s right – their primary aim is to get inside your brain and faff around with the way electrical impulses get passed around up there. Is it just me or does that sound blatantly dangerous and only to be attempted when other courses of action have failed?

I realise there has been research into the safety of these drugs and that I might be treading the dividing line of scaremongering, but still, even if these things are safe, do we really want to be handing them out so readily?

Let’s just nip back to the classroom for a moment. Could it just be possible that that kid who doesn’t quite follow the party line isn’t some kind of threat, but merely someone who thinks outside the box? In a way I feel lucky I went through the education system at the time I did. Although I was often sidelined for having a different thought process to most of my peers, I wasn’t sectioned for it. Were I going through now, it sounds like the thought police would get me.

To me this sounds like you really need to think right (from the state’s point of view) and that what you do at school is the screening process. So keep a closer eye on what you and your loved ones are being prescribed. Don’t be afraid to challenge this sort of thing.

If you can get enough people paying for a regular prescription for a drug they don’t really need, it starts to look like a real moneyspinner. There are 60 million people in this country. If you can get even a tenth of them paying a monthly prescription charge, you have a meal ticket for life. And if you can get kids on the bandwagon by convincing the parents they’ll be neglecting their own kids if they don’t, it starts to look even more lucrative. And don’t get me started on privatising the NHS either, because then it really will be about profit.

Is our health really being looked after? Or is it just another cash cow? Or maybe it’s oppression? I’m having trouble telling the difference these days.

Posted in Huxley, Kafka, Medical, Orwell, Politicians, Politics, Prescription, social, Surveillance, Totalitarianism, uk, uk government | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The 4th party

ukip is libertarian rightAs I write this, we are just a few days out of the European and local elections. The results are not quite in yet, although they might be by the time I finish this. However, it’s becoming quite clear what’s happened. A lot of people getting profoundly frustrated with the traditional main parties is what has happened.

Let’s be clear about this. I voted for UKIP. Why?

Do I consider myself to be a racist? Well, no. Not wanting to sound trite, but I can only wheel out the somewhat immature argument that I have some black friends. I don’t go out of my way to make sure 50% of my social circle is. I just make friends with the people I get on with. Most of them are white. Some of them are black.

Do I consider myself to be a homophobe? No again. Out comes the same schoolboy argument that I have gay friends. But I don’t count them or present them as trophies of acceptance. I’m not that insecure. I just make friends with the people I get on with. Most of them are straight. Some of them are gay.

Do I consider myself insulted for regularly being called racist and homophobic because the members of the traditional parties like to throw these labels around like spit? Damn right. That’s the first reason.

The second reason is to do with the state of the economy. Don’t get me wrong, I actually think the coalition are doing a reasonably good job at things like re-balancing the national debt. I accept they’re clearing up the mess left by the previous government, but this isn’t really what the economy is to me. It’s not my job to be concerned about that. On a day to day basis, “the economy”, to me, is nothing more than having a decent job and a decent wage. I can’t easily achieve that if there are too many people coming in, willing to do my job for less money than my reasonably modest salary expectations. So does that mean I’m anti-immigration? Well, not as such. What I do object to is unchecked immigration that takes us to a point where my own wages (and therefore my living standards) have to suffer, because the influx of immigrants has created a climate where my salary expectations have become unreasonable. Seriously. I do not appreciate having to put my life plans on hold because I can’t make enough money to make them a reality.

Don’t tell me to be more competitive. I work as hard as I can. I always have and always will. But note that I said I work as hard as I can. That means I can’t do any better. I’m already doing my best. I have a good degree from a good university and I’ve always done my level best at whatever I do. But I don’t think it’s right to have put in all this effort, only to have my market value undermined by a government (that I voted against) opening the floodgates as wide as possible and saturating the job market with too much labour supply. They didn’t listen to peoples’ concerns at the time. We were patient. They still didn’t listen. So we gave them a bloody nose at the ballot box.

The result? We still hear senior members of the main parties patronising us with comments along the lines of “maybe the public are feeling deeply resentful”. Cameron? Miliband? Listen up. I don’t need you telling me how to think. I don’t need you telling me how to feel. I know these things already, which leads me nicely to my third reason for voting UKIP. I want you all to back off and stop being so insidiously intrusive, so I can get on with the business of being me.

Posted in Democracy, EEC, election, EU, Europe, Libertarianism, Politicians, Politics, Surveillance, uk | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Did we read the small print?

uk joins eecBack in 1973, we joined the EEC. That was the European Economic Community. The point of it was to relax the trade barriers between the members so that we basically had guaranteed trading partners – so we’d all help each other out.

What’s often forgotten is that this was actually our third application to join. We had previously tried to apply in 1963 and 1967. I realise we were not exactly an economic powerhouse in those years, but we were hardly a burden either. So we applied three times to join the EEC and were third time lucky.

Not very easy to join, then.

At some point during my school years, the name seemed to change to the EC. I hardly noticed, since it was right in the middle of my exams and it was the ‘Economic’ word that got dropped anyway. This seemed cleaner. ‘European Community’ was less of a mouthful. It seemed more efficient this way. From what I could tell, the European Community was doing all the same things as the European Economic Community anyway. The only thing that seemed a bit different was that a geography teacher I had, suddenly started getting sarcastic about the overproduction of food (grain mountains). I learned that we had massive food reserves sitting around that weren’t going anywhere other than ‘off’, while other people were going hungry.

A red flag should have gone up at this point. When the word ‘Economic’ was dropped from the EEC, I should have realised that our agreement wasn’t about economics any more.

eec becomes ec and then euThen, the ‘C’ changed to a ‘U’ and we became the ‘EU’. Our ‘community’ became a ‘union’. At least a community still had a marketplace feel to it. By becoming a union, there was something a bit more strongarm about it. Then it hit me. The ‘EU’ was a legal construct. But I wasn’t in a position to do anything about it. I had a degree to finish and blogs hadn’t been invented.

Around this time, other countries started to sign up. And they were allowed in pretty easily.

But the deed had been done. The EEC – a trading agreement – had become the EU – a sort of government over the member states. This is not what we signed up for. Was it written in the small print of our original membership agreement that the EEC reserved the right to completely change its purpose and form an overarching government at some point in the future?

At this time of writing, the supreme law in this land is EU law – not our own. That doesn’t sound like a trading agreement to me. That sounds like the beginnings of a dictatorship.

No wonder all those late-joiners were able to join so easily! I’m sure Brussels was thrilled to have a wider locus of control.

Bottom line? We signed up to a trading bloc. It has become a government. That’s something completely different. We need to have a debate, a referendum, anything. Too great a change has been effected without consulting the people as to their wishes.



Posted in Democracy, EEC, election, EU, Europe, Kafka, Orwell, Politicians, Totalitarianism, voting | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment