Press conference for the BNP campaign in the London Elections - manifesto launch
As an operator of an opinion-polling direct democracy politics website, the looming London elections pose something of a dilemma for me.
On what criteria should I base my vote on and recommend my members to vote? As a Londoner? A British citizen? A political strategist? As someone hoping to attract attention to her politics website (whose purpose is to demonstrate the practicability of direct democracy and government by referenda, because we now have the technology, even if not the political will)?
Should I just vote for the party or candidate I know will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse?
BORIS OR KEN?
In that case it will be Ken for being a ruthless political operator well-armed with low cunning, and who seems to have a crystal ball that tells him which way the wind is blowing. After all, he knew not to invade Iraq, unlike Boris who voted for the war but now disingenuously claims he was misled and that a Conservative government would have dealt with everything a lot better. Ken was right about the IRA, wasn’t he? The fact that he got away with calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi in these rigorously PC times makes me warm to him. That he is a serial seducer with numberless illegitimate children does not put me off him either.)
VOTE FOR THE BEST MANIFESTO?
Or should I vote for the candidate or the party with the best manifesto? Of course, I have been around for long enough now to know that governments do not strictly adhere to what they promise to do in their manifestoes and have many reasons and excuses why they cannot or will not do as they have stated they would. The Lisbon Treaty, previously called the EU Constitution, comes to mind.
Even if it is all lies, it is still gratifying to be given promises we want to hear, however transient the pleasure and hollow the result.
A CARLSBERG MANIFESTO
By this criterion at any rate, the BNP manifesto refreshes the parts others cannot reach.
MOSQUES AND MUSLIMS
While it is true they have a problem with mosques and Muslims, and would prevent more mosques from being built, I imagine there are probably enough mosques around to serve Muslim Londoners. An indefinite (and by implication temporary) prohibition would not unduly inconvenience or aggrieve Muslims too much, I hope.
COLOUR BAR
While it is true that I have a problem with the BNP’s racist membership policy, I like to think of myself as open-minded and tolerant about others’ foibles. The BNP continue to deny that their colour bar is racist and claim that the existence of other organisations based on race, eg the Black Police Officers Association, justifies the position they have taken: they simply want to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous and proletarian Briton, because the Labour Party no longer does.
It would probably be a good thing for them if they made up their mind what they want to be: a political party or an all-white club. The former could in theory wield power, the latter merely keep out unwanted members.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Not being allowed to join a party or a club is the converse of freedom of association and I gladly acknowledge that they have every right to exclude whoever they like, for real freedom of association can only logically mean the freedom to include oneself, provided that the group of people you want to join do not wish to exclude you.
Friendly persuasion is the only honourable course left for those who do not wish to remain excluded, not threats of lawsuits and coercion.
MUST BRITISH NATIONALS OR BRITISH NATIONALIST ALWAYS BE WHITE?
It is their implication that a non-Caucasian British citizen could never be a British national or a British nationalist that I find somewhat divisive and disturbing, but they should nevertheless be entitled to their opinion.
BOTH WHITES AND NON-WHITES DISCOURAGED FROM COMPLAINING ABOUT IMMIGRATION
Uncontrolled immigration concerns British citizens of all races, and there has long been a conspiracy of silence being operated by the media and the ruling classes. White Britons are immediately branded racist or fascist for daring to complain. Non-white Britons who complain would be invited to ask to go look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they can legitimately complain about the entry of others to this country looking like them, when they themselves are immigrants too. Would they like to join the BNP, who wouldn’t have them anyway? – is frequently added for good measure.
EASTERN EUROPEAN CATALYST
Eastern Europeans coming in to take the bread out of British mouths was the long-awaited catalyst in the immigration debate, for they are white but are just as resented or welcomed by indigenous and non-indigenous Britons depending on their economic status. If you are a hirer of labour you would be delighted by the increased supply of cheaper and more willing labour. If you are a member of the labour force and a competing claimant of the welfare state, then naturally you would not be quite so pleased at the new competition.
BROTHERS UNDER THE SKIN
We are all brothers under the skin, it has been said. But let us not forget that Cain murdered Abel when he perceived that his interests were being threatened. If we all had a doppel-ganger who would have access to all the love, sex, money, housing, welfare benefits that was previously exclusively ours, I have no doubt that we would take very firm steps to deal with this terrible twin.
The BNP gives voters the opportunity to give political expression to this understandable human reaction.
I fear however that I will get into terrible trouble for doing the equivalent of saying the emperor has no clothes, or that the earth is round and moves around the sun.
THE MOST POWERFUL PROTEST VOTE YOU HAVE
The incredulity and outrage of my detractors will soar to stratospheric heights when they discover that I, who am not and could not be a member of the BNP under its current membership rules, am recommending that Londoners and disgruntled voters of whatever colour, use the BNP mayoral candidate as a repository of their protest vote.
THE OLYMPICS IN ATHENS, FOREVER!
For their manifesto alone they deserve our vote, if we are voting according to whose promises we prefer to hear. It is stuffed full of ideas that will have Londoners nodding their head in agreement. Their proposal to invite Athens to host the 2012 Olympics instead of London, and thereafter to PERMANENTLY host them is delightful and delicious to the Londoner to who does not care who runs fastest or jumps highest and would rather not pay for the inconvenience of hosting it.
MOTORING
Their motoring policy is perfectly sensible, consisting of removing bus lanes, widening roads, eliminating bottlenecks, building the new Thames Gateway Bridge in East London, making the first hour of parking free and residents’ parking permits free. Their irresistibly populist proposal to remove unnecessary road humps and scrap the Congestion Charge must have most motorists cheering, surely?
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
For public transport, they would scrap the bendy bus and restore the Routemaster, reintroduce conductors on all double deckers, extend the tube’s operation until 2am, and introduce patrolling guards.
ESTUARY AIRPORT EAST OF LONDON
On air travel, building a new airport in the Thames Estuary seems a proposal of symmetrical commonsense, unlike the unbalanced scheme to build yet another runway at Heathrow.
BANNING THE VEIL
Banning the veil from public buildings and transport is another excellent idea, now that we are aware that male criminals use burqas as a disguise. It would even be good for Muslim women too, for they must know how differently they are treated when they wear the veil and when they do not, and how much fear and loathing is aroused by the sight of “black crows” walking amongst us. Perhaps some of them do so in order to annoy us, like those who like to go about with body piercings and tattoos that almost defiantly invite dislike. The right of people who feel they need to express their identity through going around looking odd or outlandish should be submerged in the pursuit of public safety and the prevention and discouragement of crime and terrorism.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CORRECTED
In addition, a BNP mayor would get the police to “direct their energies at catching real criminals and would scrap all Ken Livingstone’s politically correct directives to the Met, and with them, the plethora of irritating ‘ethnic liaison officers’ and ‘gender outreach workers’ and the like. Police officers must be allowed to get on with their job unhindered, without fear or favour, and of operating colour-blind policing.”
APPRENTICESHIPS INSTEAD OF WORTHLESS QUALIFICATIONS
On the question of economic development and education, “London’s businesses need a well-educated labour force, particularly with high quality vocational skills rather than worthless (supposedly academic) qualifications. To this end, a BNP mayor would encourage apprenticeships as an alternative to university education" where appropriate.
There are no grounds on which any reasonable person could possibly object to these proposals. That they emanate from the BNP should give all thoughtful Londoners pause for thought and ask themselves how they are going to sensibly and effectively exercise their woefully limited political options on 1 May 2008.
ALARMING OUR RULING CLASSES
Londoners could vote for any other protest party (and dilute their protest in this way) but it would not quite have the same satisfying sensation of having alarmed our ruling classes, who seem to think they can treat us like fools and children forever.
UKIP AS AN ALTERNATIVE PROTEST VOTE FOR THE EUROSCEPTIC LONDONER?
An alternative receptacle of your protest vote is UKIP of course, if you fear and loathe the BNP and also happen to be a bit of Eurosceptic. Unfortunately, Gerard Batten’s manifesto is rather thin and unimaginative. The non-racist credentials of the UKIP may be found reassuring to some, but it has to be remembered that UKIP’s main paymasters are in fact the EU, for they have 9 MEPs. (Work out the total salary and allowances an MEP might receive, multiply by 9, ie €84,000 a year salary, €185,952 worth of parliamentary assistance allowance per MEP, plus travel and other allowances, and you will have a rough calculation of the extent to which UKIP is in the pocket of the EU.) UKIP now support the principle of subsidiarity – which means that a Member State agrees that the EU have a power to return to the Member State the control of what was formerly theirs to control. By acknowledging that the EU has this right, UKIP implicitly admit that they have given up this right.
UKIP might as well now be calling themselves “EUKIP”.
On what criteria should I base my vote on and recommend my members to vote? As a Londoner? A British citizen? A political strategist? As someone hoping to attract attention to her politics website (whose purpose is to demonstrate the practicability of direct democracy and government by referenda, because we now have the technology, even if not the political will)?
Should I just vote for the party or candidate I know will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse?
BORIS OR KEN?
In that case it will be Ken for being a ruthless political operator well-armed with low cunning, and who seems to have a crystal ball that tells him which way the wind is blowing. After all, he knew not to invade Iraq, unlike Boris who voted for the war but now disingenuously claims he was misled and that a Conservative government would have dealt with everything a lot better. Ken was right about the IRA, wasn’t he? The fact that he got away with calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi in these rigorously PC times makes me warm to him. That he is a serial seducer with numberless illegitimate children does not put me off him either.)
VOTE FOR THE BEST MANIFESTO?
Or should I vote for the candidate or the party with the best manifesto? Of course, I have been around for long enough now to know that governments do not strictly adhere to what they promise to do in their manifestoes and have many reasons and excuses why they cannot or will not do as they have stated they would. The Lisbon Treaty, previously called the EU Constitution, comes to mind.
Even if it is all lies, it is still gratifying to be given promises we want to hear, however transient the pleasure and hollow the result.
A CARLSBERG MANIFESTO
By this criterion at any rate, the BNP manifesto refreshes the parts others cannot reach.
MOSQUES AND MUSLIMS
While it is true they have a problem with mosques and Muslims, and would prevent more mosques from being built, I imagine there are probably enough mosques around to serve Muslim Londoners. An indefinite (and by implication temporary) prohibition would not unduly inconvenience or aggrieve Muslims too much, I hope.
COLOUR BAR
While it is true that I have a problem with the BNP’s racist membership policy, I like to think of myself as open-minded and tolerant about others’ foibles. The BNP continue to deny that their colour bar is racist and claim that the existence of other organisations based on race, eg the Black Police Officers Association, justifies the position they have taken: they simply want to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous and proletarian Briton, because the Labour Party no longer does.
It would probably be a good thing for them if they made up their mind what they want to be: a political party or an all-white club. The former could in theory wield power, the latter merely keep out unwanted members.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Not being allowed to join a party or a club is the converse of freedom of association and I gladly acknowledge that they have every right to exclude whoever they like, for real freedom of association can only logically mean the freedom to include oneself, provided that the group of people you want to join do not wish to exclude you.
Friendly persuasion is the only honourable course left for those who do not wish to remain excluded, not threats of lawsuits and coercion.
MUST BRITISH NATIONALS OR BRITISH NATIONALIST ALWAYS BE WHITE?
It is their implication that a non-Caucasian British citizen could never be a British national or a British nationalist that I find somewhat divisive and disturbing, but they should nevertheless be entitled to their opinion.
BOTH WHITES AND NON-WHITES DISCOURAGED FROM COMPLAINING ABOUT IMMIGRATION
Uncontrolled immigration concerns British citizens of all races, and there has long been a conspiracy of silence being operated by the media and the ruling classes. White Britons are immediately branded racist or fascist for daring to complain. Non-white Britons who complain would be invited to ask to go look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they can legitimately complain about the entry of others to this country looking like them, when they themselves are immigrants too. Would they like to join the BNP, who wouldn’t have them anyway? – is frequently added for good measure.
EASTERN EUROPEAN CATALYST
Eastern Europeans coming in to take the bread out of British mouths was the long-awaited catalyst in the immigration debate, for they are white but are just as resented or welcomed by indigenous and non-indigenous Britons depending on their economic status. If you are a hirer of labour you would be delighted by the increased supply of cheaper and more willing labour. If you are a member of the labour force and a competing claimant of the welfare state, then naturally you would not be quite so pleased at the new competition.
BROTHERS UNDER THE SKIN
We are all brothers under the skin, it has been said. But let us not forget that Cain murdered Abel when he perceived that his interests were being threatened. If we all had a doppel-ganger who would have access to all the love, sex, money, housing, welfare benefits that was previously exclusively ours, I have no doubt that we would take very firm steps to deal with this terrible twin.
The BNP gives voters the opportunity to give political expression to this understandable human reaction.
I fear however that I will get into terrible trouble for doing the equivalent of saying the emperor has no clothes, or that the earth is round and moves around the sun.
THE MOST POWERFUL PROTEST VOTE YOU HAVE
The incredulity and outrage of my detractors will soar to stratospheric heights when they discover that I, who am not and could not be a member of the BNP under its current membership rules, am recommending that Londoners and disgruntled voters of whatever colour, use the BNP mayoral candidate as a repository of their protest vote.
THE OLYMPICS IN ATHENS, FOREVER!
For their manifesto alone they deserve our vote, if we are voting according to whose promises we prefer to hear. It is stuffed full of ideas that will have Londoners nodding their head in agreement. Their proposal to invite Athens to host the 2012 Olympics instead of London, and thereafter to PERMANENTLY host them is delightful and delicious to the Londoner to who does not care who runs fastest or jumps highest and would rather not pay for the inconvenience of hosting it.
MOTORING
Their motoring policy is perfectly sensible, consisting of removing bus lanes, widening roads, eliminating bottlenecks, building the new Thames Gateway Bridge in East London, making the first hour of parking free and residents’ parking permits free. Their irresistibly populist proposal to remove unnecessary road humps and scrap the Congestion Charge must have most motorists cheering, surely?
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
For public transport, they would scrap the bendy bus and restore the Routemaster, reintroduce conductors on all double deckers, extend the tube’s operation until 2am, and introduce patrolling guards.
ESTUARY AIRPORT EAST OF LONDON
On air travel, building a new airport in the Thames Estuary seems a proposal of symmetrical commonsense, unlike the unbalanced scheme to build yet another runway at Heathrow.
BANNING THE VEIL
Banning the veil from public buildings and transport is another excellent idea, now that we are aware that male criminals use burqas as a disguise. It would even be good for Muslim women too, for they must know how differently they are treated when they wear the veil and when they do not, and how much fear and loathing is aroused by the sight of “black crows” walking amongst us. Perhaps some of them do so in order to annoy us, like those who like to go about with body piercings and tattoos that almost defiantly invite dislike. The right of people who feel they need to express their identity through going around looking odd or outlandish should be submerged in the pursuit of public safety and the prevention and discouragement of crime and terrorism.
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CORRECTED
In addition, a BNP mayor would get the police to “direct their energies at catching real criminals and would scrap all Ken Livingstone’s politically correct directives to the Met, and with them, the plethora of irritating ‘ethnic liaison officers’ and ‘gender outreach workers’ and the like. Police officers must be allowed to get on with their job unhindered, without fear or favour, and of operating colour-blind policing.”
APPRENTICESHIPS INSTEAD OF WORTHLESS QUALIFICATIONS
On the question of economic development and education, “London’s businesses need a well-educated labour force, particularly with high quality vocational skills rather than worthless (supposedly academic) qualifications. To this end, a BNP mayor would encourage apprenticeships as an alternative to university education" where appropriate.
There are no grounds on which any reasonable person could possibly object to these proposals. That they emanate from the BNP should give all thoughtful Londoners pause for thought and ask themselves how they are going to sensibly and effectively exercise their woefully limited political options on 1 May 2008.
ALARMING OUR RULING CLASSES
Londoners could vote for any other protest party (and dilute their protest in this way) but it would not quite have the same satisfying sensation of having alarmed our ruling classes, who seem to think they can treat us like fools and children forever.
UKIP AS AN ALTERNATIVE PROTEST VOTE FOR THE EUROSCEPTIC LONDONER?
An alternative receptacle of your protest vote is UKIP of course, if you fear and loathe the BNP and also happen to be a bit of Eurosceptic. Unfortunately, Gerard Batten’s manifesto is rather thin and unimaginative. The non-racist credentials of the UKIP may be found reassuring to some, but it has to be remembered that UKIP’s main paymasters are in fact the EU, for they have 9 MEPs. (Work out the total salary and allowances an MEP might receive, multiply by 9, ie €84,000 a year salary, €185,952 worth of parliamentary assistance allowance per MEP, plus travel and other allowances, and you will have a rough calculation of the extent to which UKIP is in the pocket of the EU.) UKIP now support the principle of subsidiarity – which means that a Member State agrees that the EU have a power to return to the Member State the control of what was formerly theirs to control. By acknowledging that the EU has this right, UKIP implicitly admit that they have given up this right.
UKIP might as well now be calling themselves “EUKIP”.
It seems the BNP are thinking of going the same way in order to obtain funding and make contacts, but I warn against this, for they will dissipate their energies in just the same way as UKIP are doing, and should instead take a leaf out of the Sinn Fein handbook: of not conceding anything in principle that would detract from their ultimate goal - it is for this reason that they will not and cannot swear allegiance to the Queen.
Operating in this country, the analogy of fish in ponds comes to mind. Daunting but not utterly hopeless.
Operating within the EU as MEPs, the analogy of being a mere teeth on a cog in an EU factory comes to mind.
Britain needs to travel light in the short to medium term, to be able to easily change gear in different terrains as well as slow down and speed up whenever necessary. Being part of a European Superstate means the equivalent of being on a supertanker that takes too long to change course, in shallow water and stormy weather. Not only is it a waste of time and energy, it could well be deadly.
TURKEY VOTING FOR XMAS?
The final and most interesting question for me is this:
Being a member of an ethnic minority, am I a turkey voting for Christmas when I recommend all Londoners of all races to consider voting BNP, were they minded to vote for a protest party?
Perhaps, but since it is only a mayoral election, and it is not within the remit of a London mayor to repatriate anyone as they would like to. (The BNP propose to pay £50,000 per repatriatee to "go home", and this may well be tempting enough to make some dishonest whites black up in order to claim this sum, before emigrating to their place in the sun.)
On balance, it seems quite safe on this occasion to use the BNP as a means of showing our displeasure with our ruling classes and the liberal elite.
A VOTER EQUIVALENT OF SUICIDE BOMBING?
I suppose it is the voter equivalent of "suicide bombing" or cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Muslim readers should bear in mind that the BNP were present at the anti-war march in Hyde Park, 2003. Had there been a BNP government, it would not have invaded Iraq.
The BNP would presumably have no interest in propping up Israel or supporting the US policy of doing so or doing Uncle Sam's bidding at whatever cost, because its stance is isolationist and nationalist.
This being so, Al Qaeda would have particular reason to want to bomb the UK .
This being so, there would be no "War Against Terrorism".
That being so, there would be no excuse for the government to continue to take away our liberties using the "War" Against Terrorism as an excuse.
THE NON SEQUITUR THAT IS "THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM"
We should all know that war is only properly war when declared against another sovereign country with a borders and an army in a fixed location.
The war against terrorism is a metaphor, a demon conjured out of the shambles that is British foreign policy and what passes for British diplomacy these days. The idea of a shifting battleground that is both nowhere and everywhere will only encourage the paranoia that would make its fear self-fulfilling.
The weighing of relative evils is indeed a difficult process, but I believe I have done the groundwork on the balance of safety. I am undecided on whether to vote Ken as my first choice, and Richard Barnbrook as my second. Or vice versa, depending on how reckless I am feeling on 1 May.
The final and most interesting question for me is this:
Being a member of an ethnic minority, am I a turkey voting for Christmas when I recommend all Londoners of all races to consider voting BNP, were they minded to vote for a protest party?
Perhaps, but since it is only a mayoral election, and it is not within the remit of a London mayor to repatriate anyone as they would like to. (The BNP propose to pay £50,000 per repatriatee to "go home", and this may well be tempting enough to make some dishonest whites black up in order to claim this sum, before emigrating to their place in the sun.)
On balance, it seems quite safe on this occasion to use the BNP as a means of showing our displeasure with our ruling classes and the liberal elite.
A VOTER EQUIVALENT OF SUICIDE BOMBING?
I suppose it is the voter equivalent of "suicide bombing" or cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Muslim readers should bear in mind that the BNP were present at the anti-war march in Hyde Park, 2003. Had there been a BNP government, it would not have invaded Iraq.
The BNP would presumably have no interest in propping up Israel or supporting the US policy of doing so or doing Uncle Sam's bidding at whatever cost, because its stance is isolationist and nationalist.
This being so, Al Qaeda would have particular reason to want to bomb the UK .
This being so, there would be no "War Against Terrorism".
That being so, there would be no excuse for the government to continue to take away our liberties using the "War" Against Terrorism as an excuse.
THE NON SEQUITUR THAT IS "THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM"
We should all know that war is only properly war when declared against another sovereign country with a borders and an army in a fixed location.
The war against terrorism is a metaphor, a demon conjured out of the shambles that is British foreign policy and what passes for British diplomacy these days. The idea of a shifting battleground that is both nowhere and everywhere will only encourage the paranoia that would make its fear self-fulfilling.
The weighing of relative evils is indeed a difficult process, but I believe I have done the groundwork on the balance of safety. I am undecided on whether to vote Ken as my first choice, and Richard Barnbrook as my second. Or vice versa, depending on how reckless I am feeling on 1 May.
12 comments:
I believe it is you who are being reckless in your writing. Acknowledging that the BNP raises questions that need to be answered is not the same as approving their answers. Just because the main stream parties think the centre ground is all that counts, it doesn't make the fringe views any more palatable.
What your writing also fails to take into account is that 75% of EU law is implemented at the local and regional level in Britain. The treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam conferred ten policy areas to the EU to decide:
1) economic and social cohesion
2) trans-European networks in the field of transport, energy and telecommunications
3) public health
4) education and youth
5) culture
6) employment
7) social policy
8) environment
9) vocational training
10) transport
These are areas many of the Mayoral candidates have policy points on. But none are qualified by the condition "...subject to EU law". In fact, it would be interesting to see all the manifestos recast so voters could see the few policies NOT answerable to EU law, if only as a public education initiative. Perhaps that is something your blog could provide to its readers in the interest of public service.
Jens Winton comment suggests that the solutions proposed in the BNP manifesto is unpalatable. However, what I have in fact been saying, having read their manifesto, is that they are very palatable indeed. A friend (who has a rainbow nation of girlfriends and is not a racist by any stretch of the imagination) who has just received his BNP poster rather liked the solutions proposed.
Jens Winton also says I fail to take into account that 75% of EU law is implemented at the local and regional level in Britain. Quite why I should take that into account in a post about who to vote for in the London elections is a mystery to me. I am already aware of the strangulation by regulation that the UK is subject to under EU law and am therefore in favour of withdrawal. However, I doubt the commitment of UKIP MEPs, who are now part of the Eurosceptic industry and indeed actually in the pay of the EU. Their commitment to withdrawal can only be insincere, since they would be out of a job if UK withdrawal does in fact take place. Although there is some suggestion that the BNP might like to get on this particular gravy train and field their own MEPs, in my opinion it is a poisoned chalice they would be better off leaving well alone.
Perhaps UKIP should take a leaf out of Sinn Fein's book. Sinn Fein know that to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen would be to inconsistent with their goal of a united Ireland, and they have stuck to this position with tenacious consistency. It is too bad that most UKIP members seem unable to see the logic of the position taken by Sinn Fein and how it might apply to them vis-a-vis the EU.
Interestingly, most UKIP members are blissfully unaware of the question or indeed the very concept of subsidiarity, and of how their leadership have now accepted it as a condition of remaining on the EU gravy train.
I asked Lord Wiloughby de Broke at a meeting once what UKIP's position was on subsidiarity and his answer was that it was never applied (to his knowledge) and therefore did not exist. If it did not exist in practice, then it is pointless to worry about it, was the gist of his rather disingenuous answer.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1845227.ece
"Leader of UKIP accused of selling out" 27 May 2007
In case anyone is interested, "accepting the principle of subsidiarity means accepting the authority of the EU to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government".
In plain English, if you accept that someone has a right to give you something that was really yours before, then you have in fact given up your claim to it. This means you are no longer owner of this right, but the client of the body whose largesse you now depend on, to give you this thing you formerly had.
Now that we are in the throes of a credit crunch, the following analogy would be even more illuminating and topical. It is like selling the house you own, and then living in it as a tenant.
It's an impressive article and I can't see anything much to disagree with (only a spelling mistake in piercings, in case you're interested).
Jens Winton describes BNP views as 'unpalatable' but he is careful not to say exactly why he thinks this. So it's difficult to argue with him about it, other than by assuming you know already what he means.
His point though about a large number of the manifesto proposals - not only the BNP's, but those of all the other parties too - being blocked at the outset by the intercession of EU law seems a pretty good one to me. And it certainly does not seem 'a mystery' why he should have raised this point.
Since your support for the BNP appears to be based on what you have found in its manifesto, IF much of this manifesto is deemed unachieveable at the very outset (because of the workings of EU law) then there really isn't a great deal of point in voting for the BNP ON THIS BASIS. Or rather, if you want to vote BNP in order to make a strong protest against the liberal elite, then you are free to do so, of course - even if, for example, the BNP is promoting compulsory repatriation (which, of course, it isn't).
This is because it won't actually make the slightest difference what they propose - whether commonsensical or unutterably extreme - if they will in fact be legally unable to carry out most of their ideas.
Yes, it would perhaps be better for the BNP if they chose not to climb aboard the EU gravy train.
Perhaps you would care to predict whether they'll decide to do so or not (since I couldn't possibly comment). That is, always assuming we are not by then witnessing the amazing recrudescence of the United Kingdom Independence Party - galvanised and rejuvenated by the prospect of yet more gravy.
I thank Jeff Marshall for his explanation of Jens Winston's reason for mentioning the EU. Although I have already known this for some time, I see that many are only now just coming upon this as a revelation. Since the BNP are also the other Eurosceptic Party, voting BNP is not inconsistent with being a Eurosceptic.
My vote BNP recommendation is explained by this reason alone: IT IS THE CHOICE THAT WOULD MOST UPSET OUR RULING CLASSES!
Voting now is mostly an exercise in futility. What is the point of voting for the least untrustworthy politician in the least untrustworthy party when they are mostly fools, knaves and no-hopers? Why do you think people no longer bother voting?
By rights, if we were living in a true democracy, we would be voting for policies, laws, on whether or not to go war. If they do not trust us, then we do not trust them!
I am aware that the BNP are not promoting compulsory repatriation, but find their stated intention of paying £50,000 for every non-white Briton to "go home" equally (and fiscally) alarming.
As it is just a local election and the issues are to do with local government, I think it is quite safe to cast that protest vote now. It is a shot across the bows by disgruntled voters!
One of the reasons why UKIP are not getting comparable donations to the BNP is because there is a perception that they are insincere in their declaration that they want out of the EU because, with 9 MEPs, they have "gone native", are wasting their time and ours by splitting the Eurosceptic vote.
The BNP are equally guilty of splitting the Eurosceptic vote by refusing to abandon repatriation and the colour bar. To do so would fundamentally modernise the party and confer on it the respectability it needs to win hearts and minds, with a greater margin and in a shorter space of time.
Because it is my perception that those who join are braver in facing ostracisation and villification, more principled and ultimately more open-minded than those who join the monolithic mainstream (because they fear the charge of racism), I hope that the BNP will address these issues, for its own sake and the nation it claims to represent. Things can happen very quickly indeed if the right things are done at the right time.
UKIP's position on subsidiarity (which they have now accepted) is the equivalent of Sinn Fein declaring their allegiance to the Queen. That Sinn Fein have not done so is because they at least know that to do so would be inconsistent with their aim of a united Ireland. UKIP is still hoping no one will notice or care that they have gone native!
If we are talking hearts and minds, staying local and national is the only way of winning them, by talking and listening to the people HERE.
Declaiming to them from EU-situated ivory towers does not quite have the same effect.
For the sake of the people the BNP represents, who have no other party to look after them, I hope the BNP will avoid this mistake. You do not need to attend EU institutions to see the consequences of UK vassal state status. All you have to do is read the papers!
You do not need to become a courtier of a tyrant (and be his servant in his palace) to know that he is oppressing you!
The BNP is in favour of voluntary repatriation of non-white Britons. That is racist and abhorrent. Why should you ask someone to leave their home? Have they not the same right to not be asked as anyone else? And why do you think money can always buy people off? What if these Britons decline to take up this offer? Would a BNP Cabinet fume over their rejection of cash (£50k is it?) to leave these shores, and start making sounds of having the policy mandatory? After all, the BNP makes no bones about deporting over 2 million people: Can you imagine the logistics and hysteria of doing that within a five year Westminster administration? As I said before, by all means, ask the question of when is enough enough. But the BNP answer is to Nazify Britain. And that is disgusting.
With 75% of EU law being implemented at the local level, it is hard to see what any Mayoral candidate can realistically achieve of value outside of this in the remaining 25%. I just happen to think the public at large are being let down by the media and those that seek public office who fail to mention the grip of the EU in this way.
The BNP would dearly love to be in the EU Parliament. It does offer parties a platform and provides a resource of networking, information, and yes, funding, that would otherwise be out of reach for parties not represented. In our case, it makes our criticisms of the EU valid because we can observe from the very centre. There is no more hypocrisy in being part of the EU Parliament than in a Westminster MP remaining in office while most laws he is supposed to make are being passed in Brussels.
Sinn Fein is a senior part of the ruling Northern Ireland Assembly. It seems to me that if they wanted to show they want no part of any British institution, not being part of this system would be a better way than deciding against reciting a pledge of allegiance.
Subsidiarity is something that has caused a good amount of discussion within UKIP. It resembled the old ones we used to have over whether we should field candidates for the EU parliament elections. Were we not actually agreeing with the idea of the EU by standing for office? We resolved that by saying our efforts for the long-haul would be better served by working from the inside out and doing our best to show the side of the EU they would prefer not seen and doing whatever we could to derail the entire process. The vote taken on subsidiarity was one as part of the Ind/Dem group of which UKIP is part of. There are other European parties that belong this group. All agree on the following:
1 -It opposes the introduction of the EU Constitution - whatever it is called.
2 - It opposes the introduction of the Euro.
3 - It campaigns for transparency and an end to the institutional corruption of the EU.
Some of the Ind/Dem parties, like UKIP want out of the EU, some others wish to reform only. Some, like our Dutch colleagues, want a common asylum policy, we don't. That doesn't stop us from working together and if we can recruit more like-minded parties to Ind/Dem then so be it. It doesn't in any water-down our committment to be out of the EU by saying we prefer certain things to not be run by the EU. We take our gains where ever we can. Remember, this is a marathon, not a sprint. And we're in for the long haul.
I do not think deporting illegal immigrants or bribing people to go "home" is exactly Nazi policy.
The Nazi started off wanting to deport the Jews to Madagascar, it is true, and then found themselves working them to death in the extermination camps in pursuit of their war effort.
When the British and Free French forces took over Madagascar from Vichy forces in 1942, this effectively ended all talk of the Plan.
The failure of the Madagascar Plan, and the eventual logistical problems of deportation in general, would ultimately lead to the conception of the Holocaust as the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."
The NF one of compulsory repatriation is of course reminiscent of a pogrom, but let us not forget that it was not just the Nazis who practised this. The Russians did so, as I well remember from FIDDLER ON A ROOF. Nor should we forget that turfing people out and moving people on whom you wish would go elsewhere is practised widely by all races and cultures. Let us not forget that it was Idi Amin who expelled Asians from Uganda.
It is perfectly possible that, were there to be a BNP Chancellor he might start suggesting that it would be better if people were made to depart gratis rather than being paid £50K each to go.
However, I would not like things to get so much worse that we would end up with a BNP government in a position to propose this.
There are many things proposed by the mainstream parties every other day that that I find abhorrent.
British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is abhorrent to me and many of the Left and Right, BNP and Muslim. To mess up other people's countries, and then pretend it was not a mistake and for their own good is far more dishonourable and disgraceful than saying you want people you don't want here to go.
If a significant section of the British working classes are feeling swamped and overwhelmed, who am I to say they are evil racists to feel threatened and marginalised and say they must not defend their interests by voting BNP?
But that is my trouble, you see, I am not a politician trained to doublethink and pretend that black is not black nor white white.
The BNP is racist for even considering asking non-Whites to leave Britain, whether for free or a payment. The examples you cite about Madagascar, Idi Amin, Russia etc are totally irrelevant to the discussion. As does your views on Iraq and Afghanistan. We're talking about whether the BNP is fit and proper to be worthy of support.
The question is simply this: Is it right to give electoral support to a party that wishes to create untold misery for millions by saying to them that they are not worthy to remain in this country on account of their skin colour and `pedigree'? And just in case you think the BNP are horrible to propose this, here's £50k to soothe their feelings. From what deficit of humanity does this awful policy spring from? I submit to you that it is the same one that Hitler et al supped from.
Of course the BNP is racist. I would be a fool to pretend otherwise.
But what is racism exactly?
To feel that one is superior and others inferior because of race?
Or just disliking other races? Or not even other races, just any foreign horde of any foreign race from any foreign country?
Should there be a law against people disliking each other?
As far as I am concerned, they are entitled to their opinion and to dislike anyone they want to dislike, as I hope we all are.
I am not even offended any more. In fact, I am quite open to being bribed to the tune of £50,000 and rather wish they would make me an offer, now that the country is going down the plughole, so I can buy myself a farm somewhere in the sun or bribe a farmer to marry me, as I am well past my prime.
Let us hope that they will not be overwhelmed by claims of racial discrimination by aggrieved whites, also anxious to claim £50,000 because they want to leave the country and start a new life too!
Racism is discriminating against someone on the basis of their race. It's not about whether you think any race is inferior or superior but that you think someone should be treated differently on account of their race. It is justifiable to have laws against racism as it breeds inequality and unfairness, and also is the basis of hate crimes.
You may flippantly wish someone to pay you £50,000 to leave this country - which sounds like you are making out that the BNP's prime policy seem a bit of a lark, something to have as a laugh. I can assure you there are many fellow Britons who would not be so cheerful about it, and your closing comments say nothing useful to those of us who wish to remain in the UK and make it a better place.
How many of you have actually visited the BNP Website, All you Know about their Policies is what you have been told by the Govt and the Press, What if some of what you have read is not actually true, ever think of that.
They are one of the few Parties arguing that Gurkas having shown their loyalty to Britain and our way of life should be allowed residence here.
I wont post the link to their website it will only be censored.
If you want to Know what the EU is about visit www,eutruth.org.uk.
It is simply a Vast EU Empire, mass Immigration is simply to eradicate the Nation states and National Identities.
Typical soviet Ploy.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
You Lefties arguing semantics when all the while you, along with the rest of us are being ethnically cleansed, what was it Former British Communist party member Jack Straw said....oh yes I remember now, 'the British are not worth saving as a race'
Totally agree with British Patriot - every malenky slovo.
(Whoops, some Soviet influence in there.)
By the way, I don't think the link to the BNP website would be censored on this freedom-loving blog.
Post a Comment