Stolen from another blog. I agree with all except the last bit about revolution.. The contingencies act still looms.
Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, the newly elected (note: elected, in free, fair and democratic elections) as representatives to the European Parliament, are to be dangled like carrion at the gates of Strasbourg to ward off any other upstart party that dares to encroach on Labour's core vote.
Under new guidelines drafted in Whitehall and in the Foreign Office following the June elections to the European parliament, the two BNP leaders will be kept at arm's length from the kind of routine contacts and socialising that take place between British civil servants and MEPs in Brussels and Strasbourg.
This is setting a dangerous - though appealing on several levels, new precedent. It seems that the majority party can now instruct the (impartial) civil service to ostracise a minority party. That will be highly amusing when Labour become, as they inevitably will, a micro minority party at the next election.
I shall resist the temptation to insert here the standard clause when discussing the BNP - hateful people, disgraceful, thugs etc. The truth is that although I have been told, ad nauseum, that this is so, I have only read their election manifesto and am thus not privy to the privileged 'background' information that others claim to have. I am thus in the same position as the vast majority of voters. I judge each party on their manifesto - you wouldn't want me to be put off voting for a party by listening to scurrilous rumours of Peter Mandelson's antics in Morocco, or tales of Jeremy Thorpe's dark deeds on Dartmoor, would you?
Apparently the heinous crime of having convinced 1,000,000 million people to vote for policies, policies that were helpfully promoted at every opportunity by Nu-Labour, of sending recent arrivals to these overcrowded shores back whence they came, was 'racist', and racist is bad, don't you know.
Quite how anybody is supposed to have a discussion regarding the advisability of allowing hundreds of thousands of new 'would-be' citizens into the UK without being racist is beyond me. The race that inhabits the United Kingdom is the British race, if the people who wished to come and live in the UK were British, there would be no discussion, they would merely be 'returning home' and not applying for citizenship. Those who are queueing up for citizenship are by definition of another race, and therefore any comment regarding disallowing them to do so is by definition racist.
I am aware that 'racism' is colloquially held to be solely in respect of discrimination of those with coloured skin. I have seen nothing to support the view that the BNP wish to see an end to, say, Sudanese people, arriving here, as opposed to Chinese people. They have said loud and clear that they wish to see an end to immigration. 1,000,000 people agreed with them. 1,000,000 people who probably have most to fear regarding losing their low paid and unskilled jobs to people who come from countries where £100 a week sounds like a fortune, and who have not yet acquired the habits and aspirations that cost more than that to support. Chinese cockle pickers are quite content to live 10 to a room and have enough to eat at the end of the day, thank-you, and that drives down the wages below which the average British cockle picker is used to living and working at.
I doubt very much that any out of work British cockle picker gives a monkey's fig what colour person he is losing his job to, and would have voted BNP even if the Nu-Labour government had managed to find an army of albino cockle pickers to come in and take his job. It just so happens that all of the incomers, arriving from economically poor countries, are not white. That doesn't make the BNP racist in a colour prejudiced manner, it makes them racist in an anti immigration manner.
If we remove the tag 'racist' from the Nu-Labour arsenal of anti-BNP slurs, then we have a situation whereby a minority party, elected on a platform of policies that the incumbent party disagrees with, is to be ostracised and 'any requests for policy briefings from Griffin or Brons would be treated differently and on a discretionary basis' by the (impartial) civil service.
We already have the situation where a future government is intended to be bound, by threat of judicial review, to meet targets set (and not met by) this Nu-Labour government (the Child Poverty Bill), we have the Human Rights Act, which has hobbled both our legislature and our judiciary, irrevocably, from passing or amending laws which conflict with a piece of Labour legislation, now we are told that minority representatives are to be legally prevented from representing their constituents in the same manner as other MEPs - purely because Nu-Labour disagree with their policies.
Nu-Labour are making sure that even when they are not in power, they will still be controlling the levers of power. Any future government that wishes to repeal that control - in respect of the HRA for instance, will be told that they are in favour of Torture; if they attempt to repeal the Child Poverty Bill, then they will face accusations of being in favour of child poverty; and God forbid that they should attempt to repeal these new guidelines restricting access to information afforded to minority MEPs. Racist obviously.
We have a de facto Dictatorship, (given their fondness for dubious statistics, perhaps that should be de tracto) one that will continue to blight our lives long after its architects have disappeared into the shadows.
An election will do us no good, we need a revolution. We need to be disobedient. We need to remove our consent to be governed in this manner.
Hat Tip: OH
0 comments:
Post a Comment