Sunday Paper Review: 8th November 2009

Well, well, well. While we do not support the BNP, it seems they were right all along. Barely a fortnight has passed since we learned that Labour deliberately planned to open the doors to immigrants in a bid to force the nation to become multicultural. Today, the Sunday Times - hardly a right-wing rag - has a dossier revealing how Labour told immigration officials to - metaphorically - open the flood gates and to take risks. So, we British folk have had our civil liberties curtailed by these freedom hating b*st*rds. Sorry about the word, but it is the only appropriate word. And yet, lo and behold, we find it has been Labour policy to let anybody and everybody in, no matter how dangerous. This is a story well worth reading, and if you feel like voting for the BNP as a result, you could hardly be blamed for your response.

It gets worse. Apparently, Labour tried covering up the documents that proved what they had been up to. Read it. It is in the Sunday Times.

Meanwhile, Gormless isn't going to be able to claim he's capable of saving the world on financial matters. Not only is Britain first in and last out of recession (we're still in it), but now Gormless has been humiliated after the IMF, the US and Canada have told him to naff off with his plans to tax financial transactions to raise money for bank bailouts. The Sunday Telegraph has the low-down.

The Sunday Telegraph also has an editorial summing up Labour's attacks on British democracy which this blogger thinks hits several marks spot on the head. Anybody connected with the Labour Party ought to read it and hang their heads in shame when they reach the concluding paragraph.

Onto telling us something we don't know, a new league table reveals that in the 200 constituencies with the largest percentage of benefit claimants, 189 return a Labour MP. It leaves the Mail on Sunday to declare that 'Labour depends on the votes of Welfare Britain'. You don't say! From the data, it seems that one in seven in Liverpool Walton are claiming incapacity benefit. Goodness grief. And I go to work because..? That really is outrageous. If you're claiming incapacity benefit and really know you shouldn't be, such action is almost as shameful and socially unacceptable as voting Labour. Please stop the latter as an urgent priority.

Meanwhile, over in the Conservative ranks, it appears - if the Independent on Sunday is to be believed - that a large number of senior and backbench Tory politicians have threatened "all out war" if the British people do not get a referendum on Europe within eighteen months. While Cameron's "EU turn if you want to" moment has made him look p*ss-weak, we hope that this story is correct and urge any Conservative politician or activist to put pressure on Conservative central HQ to insist that we repatriate national sovereignty - referendum or no flipping referendum. You're conservatives, so damn well conserve something... Britain and the British way of life, for example. We applaud and praise every Tory who stands up for Britain and our sovereignty.

The Sunday Express foreshadows a paper from the Bruges Group which is highly critical of Cameron's 'EU turn'. The "eurosceptic" "think tank" (labels which sounds so much more sinister than, say, 'Common Purpose', huh?) accuses Cameron of further damaging the relationship between the political class and the public with his move. Gerry Frost is quoted saying: "In rejecting a referendum, Mr Cameron is perpetuating a style of politics which effectively disenfranchises the British people on EU and related issues. This will have effect of increasing the deep mood of public cynicism with politics generally." We'll go along with that...

Labour and the Communist takeover of Britain

Can't plagiarise this one. But if you thought our once democratic freedom-loving nation had been turned into a communist hell-hole after just twelve years of the British-hating, European Empire loving Labour Party... have a read of this story in the Daily Mail. Labour, Trade Unions and the Kremlin, anyone?

Sounds about right.

Dave loves Boris

David Cameron gives an exclusive interview to London's Evening Standard today - which already seems to be all over every other newspaper's websites.

In it, he sounds like the ghost of the last democratically elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair - remember him and remember democracy? Yes, it does feel like a very long time ago. Why's he sound like Blair? Well, there's a fair bit of the interview dedicated to God bothering.

But that kind of worship is not what interested us most about the interview. It's David Cameron's apparent worship of Boris Johnson that we found worthwhile.

Cameron says of Boris: "Would I rather have some faceless bureaucrat running London who could not pull a crowd at the Tory conference? Or would I rather have a swashbuckling, charismatic, irresistible character who will, yes, occasionally put his size ten feet in it? In the end, I would rather have the latter."

Which is very interesting.

Ask the British electorate something similar...

Would you rather have some faceless EU bureaucrat running Britain who is about as exciting as a bag of Brussel Sprouts? Or would you rather have a swashbuckling, charismatic, irresistible British character who will, yes, occasionally put his size ten feet in it - but who would be proud to run his own country?

In the end, I would rather have the latter. How about you, fellow patriot and voter?

Not that this worries Cameron - according to what he says, anyway.

Cameron says of talk that Boris could be a popular choice for PM: "Great! Good! ...People who say 'what's next for Boris, I say the sky's the limit".

So, a nice safe seat for Boris and the keys to Downing Street it is, then.

We'd vote for him.

In the meantime Dave, EU turn if EU want to...

Review: BBC Question Time, 5th November 2009

Nick Herbert (Conservative), whilst accusing Labour and the Lib Dems of betrayal over the Lisbon Treaty, kept on saying that the treaty has 'gone' - a point that sounded very weak, despite the passion with which he tried making his point. Promoted the view that "premature" withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a mistake. Claimed a majority of Afghan people want our troops to stay. Said the level of immigration risks social cohesion, even if you support multi-culturalism as - he said - he does. Spoke of the pressure of immigration on public services.
Our Rating: Alas, a bit of a non-entity in our view. Not offensive, not inspiring - just a bit of background noise as far as we were concerned. 4/12

Peter Hain (ZaNuLiebour) said that Cameron's new promises on Europe were things that he knew he could not deliver and that he was misleading people. Made claims about the threat to Britain from terrorism originating from Afghanistan - "orchestrated from", he claimed. Kilroy-Silk called him out on this and asked him to name one instance. The question went unanswered. Admitted that the political class had discredited themselves over the expenses scandal. When asked about immigration, he started to attack the Tories - until Dumblebee pulled him up and made him speak about his own party's position and decisions. Categorically stated that if Britain's population were to reach 70million, it would be too much. Was ridiculed by Dumblebee for - as was pointed out - having a boycott against the programme that lasted all of two weeks.
Our Rating: Not the worst of the ZaNuLiebour party by any measure, but when the Government of the day has nothing more to say than to attack their opponents, then they surely must be put to pasture. 3/12

Robert Kilroy-Silk (broadcaster and former MP) said Cameron's new position on Europe is "a deceit". Called for an "in or out" referendum on our relationship with Europe. Said he is not sure why we are in Afghanistan. Was strongly critical of the Afghan regime and said he did not want our troops dying for such a set-up. Criticised the Government for not having met the returning bodies of our brave, fallen British troops. Critical of MPs over the expenses scandal, he said that MPs have to be paid enough to prevent them becoming corrupt. Pointed out that when other people had spoken about immigration on the same terms as Home Secretary Alan Johnson, they had been accused of racism.
Our Rating: Game, set and match frankly. Agreed with much of what he had to say and liked the no holds barred approach he took to saying it. While he may not have appeared to excessively thrilled the studio audience, one suspects that there were a lot of British people sat at home who felt he was speaking for them. 11/12

Natalie Haynes (comedian) - no, we've never heard of her either. Said there are better things to spend money on than a referendum.
Our Rating: How can anybody be less politically insightful than Will Young? If you want to know, watch a repeat of this episode on BBC I-Player. 0/12

Sir Ian Blair (ex-Met Commissioner) wants to "spend the rest of [his] life" in Europe and is a pro-European. Said we were wrong to go into Afghanistan in the first place, but it would be wrong to withdraw now. Claimed the training of 'terrorists' was centred on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Made a few quips that played on anti-American stereotypes before saying that he could not believe some of our politicians had not been subject to criminal investigation. Claimed the multi-cultural changes to Britain should be celebrated - and the Polish had produced great plumbers. A young member of the studio audience criticised him for attempting to shut down any views opposed to his own by labelling them as having a "sub-text".
Our Rating: Why do we have to celebrate multiculturalism at the instruction of someone who thinks it okay to typify Americans as thick as two short planks? Aren't such jokes racist? Or to characterise the people of Poland as being plumbers? This blogger does not understand why it is okay to make 'jokes' characterising the people of America and Poland as one thing or another when the person making such 'quips' claims there is a "sub-text" to discussion about uncontrolled immigration. Wonder how he would characterise all people from, say, Brazil? 0/12

* A member of the studio audience pointed out the Americans through the CIA had financed Al-Qaeda. As he made his point, there was a cut away to the panel where Peter Hain was seen nodding along as the point was made.

Quote of the Day

"We are installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen. But the British people don't want vague promises. They want the family silver back in good order. I can neither justify nor support our new EU policy."

- Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, who joins patriotic hero Dan Hannan in resigning from his frontbench post in Brusselstag in protest at Conservative party policy on EU.

Heroic patriot Dan Hannan resigns in Tory protest

Dan Hannan, the Conservative front-bench MEP, has resigned from his role in the European Empire's chambers in protest at the latest developments in Conservative party policy.

Dan - a man much liked by this blogger - explains his reasons in a blog post on the Daily Telegraph.

We admire Dan Hannan immensely for his stance and we will support him to the hilt.

Now, who else in the Conservative Party wants to form a pact with Dan Hannan?

Are you reading this, Boris Johnson? Bill Cash?

Our country needs you!

What an interesting Guy Fawkes anniversary this could turn out to be....

Meanwhile, Politics.co.uk is reporting that David Miliband has accepted the EU Foreign Minister role.

If true, it would appear that treachery has it's rewards.

Hague's TV untruth shows need for British national constitution truth to out

Amidst all of the focus on David Cameron yesterday afternoon and evening, you may have missed William Hague being interviewed later on the BBC.

One of the things that William Hague mentioned was that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.

Now, William Hague is an intelligent man. He knows that is not the case. We KNOW he knows that is not that case, because it was through listening to him standing at the despatch box in the House of Commons saying the exact opposite that led us to seriously start looking at our constitution.

However, if there is any doubt...

In the House of Commons library, he can look up Standard Note SN/PC/0293 dated 5th October 2009.

Those without access to the House of Commons library can download the pdf file of the document by clicking HERE.

Now, lets explore some of the points in this document.

"The 1689 Bill of Rights does not constitute what is generally understood as a modern “bill of rights”, if by that term one means a document which defines and guarantees the basic human rights of individual citizens. Nor is it, on its own, the equivalent of a written constitution, although it can be viewed as a watershed in the development of the British constitution and especially with regard to the role of parliament. It is one of the four great historic documents which regulate the relations between the Crown and the people, the others being: the Magna Carta (as confirmed by Edward I, 1297), the Petition of Right (1627) and the Act of Settlement (1700). To this list of fundamental constitutional documents should be added the recent Human Rights Act 1998.

The Bill of Rights was an historic statute that emerged from the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688-89, which culminated in the exile of King James II and the accession to the throne of William of Orange and Mary. Its intentions were: to depose James II for misgovernment; to determine the succession to the Throne; to curb future arbitrary behaviour of the monarch; and to guarantee parliament’s powers vis a vis the Crown, thereby establishing a constitutional monarchy."

So, you can see the constitutional basis of this one document of the four named.

The House of Commons library brief continues:

"After the flight of James II, all those who had been members of the Parliaments of Charles II, together with the Court of Aldermen and members of the Common Council of the City of London, assembled on 26 December 1688 in the presence of Prince William. The assembly requested of William that he take charge of the administration of government and that he summon a Convention Parliament, which met on 21 January 1688 (or 1689), was therefore irregularly convened. The Commons resolved -
"That King James II having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between the King and people and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom; has abdicated the government; and that the throne is thereby vacant."

On 12 February a declaration was drawn up affirming the rights and liberties of the people and conferring the crown upon William and Mary, then Mary's children, and failing any heirs Princess Anne and her heirs; and failing also that, William’s heirs. Once the declaration had been accepted by William and Mary, it was published as a proclamation."

Now, that declaration came about as the result of an assembly involving the three estates of the land - monarch, lords and people. As such, the declaration resulting from it takes supremacy over any act of Statute. Now, whether you could make that stick in a court of law is another matter - but morally, we can bank that one.

On we go with the article...

"The declaration was subsequently enacted with some additions in the form of the Bill of Rights 1688, and the Acts of the Convention Parliament were subsequently ratified and confirmed by the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 which also acknowledged the King and Queen. In this way the Bill of Rights was confirmed by a Parliament summoned in a constitutional manner and thereby acquired the force of a legal statute and appears as such on the statute book."

With us so far?

The Bill of Rights is a statutory document setting out what was agreed between the three estates in the declaration of rights.

Now this is where it gets really interesting and this is where we will show you beyond any doubt that this country DOES have a written constitution. Remember where this is coming from - a House of Commons library document:

"4 The Constitutional Status of the Bill of Rights
Because there is no single document comprising the rules of constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, it is sometimes said that the UK has an “unwritten” constitution. In fact, in the UK the fundamental rules of constitutional practice are enshrined in many individual documents: in various acts of parliament, in the common law, in judicial decisions, in parliamentary law and customs and in constitutional conventions. It is therefore more correct to say that the constitution is “uncodified”, rather than “unwritten”. One implication of the absence of a single codified constitutional document is that there are no unambiguously constitutional “higher” laws. With a written constitution it is generally easier to distinguish constitutional laws from the rest of the law, while in the UK there is no strict distinction. However, there are certain laws which are generally regarded as being “core” constitutional laws that deserve and receive particular respect and special consideration, and the 1689 Bill of Rights falls into this category. For example, the courts would generally be unwilling to accept that the provisions of such legislation have been overridden by later statutes except in very clear language."

Got it? We do have a written constitution - it's just written across numerous different places.

Now, the Bill of Rights - the statute based on the declaration - contains the following text:

"All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this realme forever"

- in other words, that this cannot be repealed.

As a statute, 'they' argue that this is not the case.

Back to the House of Commons library document:

"... it is sometimes mistakenly believed that the Bill of Rights cannot be amended. This is not the case. It is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no parliament can bind its successors and that any statute can be repealed"

The key word here is statute. There is a difference between a statute and what is a common law. This blogger is not going to go down that alley too far but look up TPUC.org if you want to research that.

However, as far as the Bill of Rights goes, we have a debate on our hands.

The Bill of Rights clearly states that what Gordon Brown and David Miliband did in signing the Lisbon Treaty is illegal.

There is a link to the Bill of Rights in our sidebar. Read it for yourself.

There are numerous other laws that say Brown and Miliband had no authority to sign the Lisbon Treaty. But we won't digress down that path.

Under the Bill of Rights, the Lisbon Treaty is not valid here.

Now, 'they' might argue that it "is a fundamental principle of British constitutional law that no parliament can bind its successors".

Is that so?

So, Gordon Brown and David Miliband cannot bind their successors - potentially David Cameron and William Hague - when it comes to the Lisbon Treaty, then. Get it?

And if that is not that case and some things are irreversible, then we have our Bill of Rights 1689 as our constitutional document.

If they are saying that document is meaningless and null and void, then we have a major problem as Her Majesty The Queen is only The Queen because of that document. The same goes for every British monarch for the last 320 years!

And if 'they' try playing with words on that little lot, then there is the common law supremacy of the Declaration of Rights (the assembly agreement which was made into a statute a year later) to fall back on to argue 'our' case.

Certainly, we were granted certain rights and freedoms in 1688/89 and at no point have we, the people, agreed or consented to those rights and freedoms being curtailed. And, we would contend, no-one has the right to strip us of those rights and freedoms without our say so.

Call that a referendum, if you like.

And one of those rights is that we do not have to accept a foreign power's legitimacy in this land of ours.

So, bog off Brussels.

To sum up:

- We do have a written constitution
- William Hague knows that
- We are constantly brainwashed into thinking that we do not have a national written constitution, yet we do
- We the people have certain rights enshrined in our constitutional documents
- There is a debate about what our forefathers said when they passed a statute saying that the Bill of Rights was valid for all time and could not be changed.
- If no Parliament can bind a successor - as 'they' argue - Gordon Brown and David Miliband and the whole Labour shebang cannot hold any future Government to anything concerning the Lisbon Treaty.

For the final word, back to the House of Commons library document:

"The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK Parliament can enact any law whatsoever on any subject whatsoever, (although there are now considerations of compatibility with European Union law, and it is arguable that the European Communities Act of 1972 is “semi-entrenched”. For as long as the UK remains a member of European Union that Act cannot be repealed.)"

Well, you know what we are going to say to that latter part, huh?

So, there we go. We do have a written constitution. Now we just need a politician who understands history and who cares a damn about this country, a politician not scared to tell anyone to get stuffed, who will step forward and become the British national hero by winning us our country's sovereignty back.

Meanwhile, dear Mr. William Hague, please do not go on the BBC saying we do not have a written constitution. You know full well that we do.

Gormless tells 72,000 of us to naff off

At the last General Election, just 24,278 people in the Kikcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency voted for Gormless Clown to be their MP. That he was to then become Prime Minister without a mandate on such a small number of people's votes is incredible.

Today, the Prime Minister's office responded to a petition which called on the unelected Prime Minister to resign.

72,234 signed the petition asking Gormless to resign - almost exactly three times as many as sent him to Parliament in the first place.

The curt response reads: "The Prime Minister is completely focussed on restoring the economy, getting people back to work and improving standards in public services. As the Prime Minister has consistently said, he is determined to build a stronger, fairer, better Britain for all."

Fairer? Better? Improving? Restoring the economy?

How much Orwellian double-speak is there in that euphemism for the words 'naff off'..?

'Never again' is not good enough

Poor David Cameron. We have to feel sorry for him, in a way.

After Labour and the Lib Dems betrayed the nation by shanghaiing the people into the federal and undemocratic European Empire superstate, it is David Cameron who today had to feel the pressure.

We, the people, must not forget that it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Miliband and the entire Labour Party who are mostly guilty of the treachery that has been inflicted upon us.

They have been aided and abetted by the complicity and support of the Lib Dems - who must similarly not escape the people's condemnation at the ballot box.

Yet today, it was David Cameron in the spotlight.

What did we learn? That he is planning on introducing a 'referendum lock' if elected, meaning that anything else that transfers sovereignty will be subject to a referendum.

Will such a 'referendum lock' be any more effective than... say, Camden Lock to do anything about dictated commands from Brusselstag?

Cameron talked lots about 'any new treaties' - but the Lisbon Treaty is self-amending. The European Empire doesn't need any new treaties.

Cameron talked about trying to get powers back. But as he even admitted, this requires all 27 members states to agree. Not going to happen.

Poor bloke. Caught between a rock and a hard place. He can't say anything that will please everybody. The mess he finds himself - and the Conservative Party find themselves in - is purely one of Labour and the Lib Dems' making.

Labour and the Lib Dems are the traitors.

Problem for Cameron is that very little of what he has proposed will get us back the sovereignty that the Labour Party had no democratic mandate from the people to give away.

Only by returning to us our sovereignty - the people's sovereignty - will the boil of Europe ever be lanced.

And it seems that there is only one viable party that consistently promises to achieve what we're looking for.

That party is UKIP - the only party to credibly and consistently fight for an independent nation state.

Let us be under no illusions, either. People across Europe feel exactly the same about the fait accompli that has been imposed upon us.

The people of Europe (except those in Ireland who let us all down) can unite in solidarity, can unite in the love of our nationhood and our shared friendships...

...and encourage each other as we turn to those national parties who vow to return democracy to us in our own nations, to repatriate self-determination.

As for Cameron - 'never again' is not good enough. The European Empire and Brusselstag has too much already. We want our country back now.

Britain Conquered - Dave's Date with Destiny

As Czech President Vaclav Klaus finally crumbled and signed the Lisbon Treaty, our once proud nation has now been totally conquered by the undemocratic invaders from the European Empire.

Our nation - a standard bearer for democracy - has now lost her sovereignty to the European Empire.

Those of us labelled 'eurosceptics' will mentally vow to ignore the Lisbon Treaty and to remind people that we contend that it is incompatible and not valid under the terms of our own nation's Constitutional documents.

The people that all patriots should look to blame for this can be found sitting in both Houses of Parliament - mainly on the benches of Labour and the Lib Dems.

How treacherous and how contemptuous their ranks look, it is hard to place into words.

So, it is unfortunate that David Cameron and the Conservatives are about to be hit with a lot of flak... though they will be. Flak they will attract though their own actions.

Already today, William Hague has declared that there will be no retrospective referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - something that will become a huge row.

The question for all Conservatives is whether they place their own power ambitions above the interests of the nation state. Whether they fight their party leader for what they believe in, or whether they keep quiet in the hope of not rocking a boat that had previous looked to be sailing through tranquil waters into the friendly harbour of Downing Street.

Having broken their "cast-iron guarantee" of a referendum, David Cameron and his Conservatives will come under microscopic inspection - caught in the eye of a storm that they could have charted a course to avoid.

Tomorrow at 4pm, David Cameron will outline what his party plans to do about the European question now that the betrayal and treachery is complete.

Those opposed to the European Empire - both within and outside his party - will be listening in closely.

If he does not promise something strong enough, he could heap disaster of a mythological scale on his hopes of collecting the keys to Number Ten.

If he gets it wrong, the spectre of civil war from within his own party looms large. Wavering voters may well flock to UKIP, but it may well be his own backbenchers who subject him to gunpowder, treason and plot.

Tomorrow at 4pm is Dave's date with destiny.

How apt that it should fall on the eve of bonfire night. Should Dave get it wrong, effigies of Guido Fawkes may well bear a unexpected mask this 5th November.

Let the backlash on spineless Cameron commence!

And already, they're off and rolling. The backlash against David Cameron over the apparent back-pedalling on the "cast-iron guarantee" of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty seems to have started.

Having been betrayed by Labour and the Lib Dems on the issue, those of us who value our national identity and sovereignty - while not necessarily Conservative supporters - had hoped that the Conservatives would at least give us our say via a referendum... not, we still contend, that a referendum is required anyway.

However, as seemed to have emerged yesterday, Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee" was of the same value as Labour's referendum promise and that of the Liberal Democrats. Worth absolutely f*** all.

This country's political class seems to be over-run by the spineless, the meaningless, the corrupt and the out-and-out treacherous. Very few amongst them would know the truth if it poked them in the eye.

Bill Cash MP - the Conservative patriot who is labelled as "eurosceptic" in the media - has already insisted that David Cameron must stick to the referendum promise already made. "No if or buts," he says in The Guardian.

The newspaper also quotes the Bruges Group, who are apparently on record as saying: "What is the point in David Cameron upending one pledge on Europe, but promising he'll offer us yet more European promises in his general election manifesto? Why will they be any more credible than the 'cast-iron guarantee' he has just broken? David Cameron's future European policy is now incoherent, disingenuous and utterly unconvincing. This is a dark day for the Tory party, but a worse one for Britain."

Open Europe are quick to point out exactly how Labour have betrayed us on the EU, digging out Gormless Clown's promises to the electorate of a referendum.

And, as those of us who were paying attention will know, Labour were only able to betray the people and deny us a referendum with the complicity in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords of the Lib Dems.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage strongly criticises all three of the established establishment parties. He says: "We can now see how gutless and dishonest the Conservative Party has been about their intentions on a referendum. First we had the Labour Party withdrawing their promise of a referendum, then the Lib Dems and now we have the Tories showing they are not to be trusted either. UKIP is the only party to be trusted on this issue and will continue to fight for this crucial referendum that all the other parties promised but will never deliver."

Fantastic Nigel. But why do we need a referendum anyway? The referendum issue is a con. We don't need one. We have a perfectly good constitutional document that has served us perfectly well for 321 years and that document says the Lisbon Treaty is not valid here - nor is the sway of any foreign power.

So, in the words of the Grange Hill Cast, 'Just Say No'. Or, to coin a phrase from the words of Boris Johnson, just tell the EU to get stuffed.

Quiz Question of the Day

Whose father was born 'Adolphe' in Brussels in 1924?

This leading Marxist theorist illegally entered the United Kingdom on forged papers whereupon they changed their name to Ralph...

See the 'labels' under this post for the answer.

Quote of the Day

"Communism took power away from the people, eroding democracy with the promise that the system would improve their quality of life in exchange. It failed dismally. Remember [...] all the idiots – some now running this country – who supported communism in their youth. Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling – how will you be celebrating the Fall of the Wall?"

- Boris Johnson on the approaching anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall

Banks to take another £40 BILLION of our money

The Guardian is reporting that in order to provide liquidity so that they can be 'carved up' into smaller businesses, the banks here in Britain are going to require an injection of yet another £40 BILLION.

Now, that number - £40 billion. Easy enough to say. Almost impossible to imagine in context. Below, you'll see that we've worked it out as being some £1,500 for every man, woman and child in Britain.

So here we go - having already taken billions upon billions of our money (£1.3 TRILLION, actually), they are going to take billions upon billions more in order to, allegedly, provide us with more competition on the High Street.

If all of the banks had collapsed and we had not bailed them out, how many people would be any worse off had they lost all of their savings?

While we may not get a statement that shows how much debt we're in, every man, woman and child is slowly and stealthily being placed into debt that they will scarcely conceive of by this constant handing over of our money to the banking sector.

The average saver in Britain - when you ignore those with disproportionately high wealth - might have a couple of hundred or maybe even a couple of grand saved away for a rainy day.

And how much per head have the banks taken off us in these 'bail outs'..?

These aren't 'bail outs' or loans or liquidity matters.

It's daylight robbery and we're all being taken for fools.

Oh, and is that a letter telling you that they're charging you £40 for going overdrawn by a tenner?

We ought to have a mass 'write to the banks with our invoice' campaign.

--

We had a look at this a bit closer and called up the official statistics from the Bank of England. Our mathematical skills are only of a basic standard, so do not trust the reliability of this. However, we estimate from the BoE's stats that, if the UK population is 60million:

The average sterling deposited by UK account holders is £37,000 per head.

The average debt owing is £24,500 per head.

The net difference of the two is £12,500 per head.

Multiply that by 60 million and, if a 'billion' is a thousand million, then once the Government gifts the banks £750 billion, it would have been just as cost effective to let the entire lot collapse.

Now this is where it gets complicated, but we want to write this in terms that normal people can understand.

On a population of 60 million, an additional bail out of £40 billion equates to us all chipping in yet another £1,333 each.

Using figures collated by The Guardian, the total we have bailed the banks out amounts to £1.32 TRILLION.

This equates to £22,025 that every man, woman and child has contributed to the banks per head (on a pop. of 60 million)

If we take that sum of £22,025 and subtract the net balance of savings against debts as explored above, the Government could have happily allowed the entire British banking system to collapse and given every man, woman and child in Britain £9,525 each and we would not have been any worse off.

We could be completely wrong or out by a little. We've written this as we have so that you can explore the figures for yourself. Any mathematicians fancy looking at our analysis and confirming or adjusting?

They're not even pretending - democracy is a sham

Patriotic politician Dan Hannan notes that the European Commission is now sitting illegally. Their terms have expired - all bar one of them anyway - and yet they continue to occupy their posts! They just aren't even pretending to have anything to do with democracy any more.

Don't hope that the Conservatives will give us a chance to vote our own national sovereignty back into our hands though. Not that we should have to. David Miliband, on the analysis of many scholars and commentators, had no right under our constitution to sign this country up to the Lisbon Treaty.

Anyway, Conservative Home is reporting that the Conservatives will not be offering us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but, instead, a "manifesto mandate" to renegotiate in some areas.

Now, isn't that exactly what Ken Clarke said would happen many months ago?

Wishy-washy, meaningless piffle.

So... David Cameron. We definitely don't trust him.

Yet somehow - if this is true - we do not expect this to be the end of the story. The backlash against the Conservatives by the public and by their own supporters will happen if those of us who do not want to be part of a European Empire are promised no democratic option.

The huge haemorrhaging of support to UKIP steps boldly forward as a real possibility with every passing day.

Meanwhile, the rest of the political class ought to ask themselves why more and more members of the British public hold them in utter contempt.

A democratic vacuum, the expenses scandal, the curtailing of civil liberties, the breaking of our constitutional laws - that's without even considering the acts of treason and sedition.

It's all outrageous. Really.