Remembrance

"They died in vain", says Dr North today. A similar point is made in a few papers, including The Telegraph. As much as today we want to be able to forget about such things as the EU Constitution, and focus solely on remembrance, how can we?

Don't forget that it's in their name that this is being done. For decades, politicians across Europe have used the scale of death in both of the wars that devastated the continent as an excuse to destroy the nations for which they fought. They have perverted our memory of the fallen.

Because the young men who went out to fight and die in 1914 and 1939 did not do so for some faceless, bureaucratic supranational construct, nor for abstract nonsense like human rights or 'tolerance'. They did it to defend their country and their way of life.

And right now, both are under siege.

Juvenile Incapacity

A terrific post by The Heresiarch on continuing calls to lower the voting age to 16 (via DK):

... in other ways, at sixteen many youngsters are much less "adult" than they were even a generation ago.

That's certainly the message that is coming from the government. New restrictions on the freedom and capacity of teenagers have been brought in continually under New Labour. The age at which it is legal to purchase cigarettes, knives or fireworks has been raised from 16 to 18, as has the age at which one can obtain a licence for such firearms as are still legal for anyone. The age for purchasing alcohol is still 18, but there's a growing campaign in some quarters for Britain to follow the repugnant American policy of raising it to 21 - and, in any case, the severity with which the law is now being enforced has effectively raised it, in practice if not in theory.

And this legal extension of juvenile incapacity in many areas has gone along with an ever more protracted adolescence. By the time they reached the voting age of 21, many people in the past would have experienced several years effective social adulthood. Leaving school at fifteen or sixteen, they would have been working, paying taxes, and, in many cases, marrying and starting a family (and, provided it was done in that order, with less disquiet about teen pregnancy than would be caused today). Many died for their country before reaching the age at which they could vote for its government. Today, it is expected that young people remain financially dependent at least until they finish university at 22 or thereabouts. The government that is contemplating a reduction in the voting age is also in the process of raising the school leaving age to eighteen. So whereas in the past many 16 year-olds had no say over the politicians who were deciding their tax rates, in the future they may have a say, but have much less moral claim to it than their predecessors. A paradox indeed. But is a quinquennial ballot really much compensation for the loss of the independence and trust they once enjoyed? Or, to put it another way, if adolescents can be trusted with a vote, why should they not be trusted with a penknife?

Platoist-like

BBC News: The government is set to produce guidelines to ensure the independence of its scientific advisers, Science Minister Lord Drayson has said.

... A statement from the academics was sent to government officials and ministers, and calls for them to back their academic freedom and independence and to properly consider their advice.

In a statement to MPs, Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the reason for sacking Prof Nutt was not the work of the council, but because of "his failure to recognise that... his role is to advise rather than criticise".

Can't help but agree with Johnson here. If we let academics have their way, then we will be moving dangerously close to a Platoist-like rule of 'experts'.

As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) Nutt offered advice, HMG didn't take it, Nutt threw toys out of pram. Not by publishing figures which showed (I leave methodology etc out of it*) that cannabis was less dangerous than alcohol/fags, something which is quite possible, but by explicitly saying the decision was wrong. At which point you can see why Alan Johnson lost patience with him. How can you ask someone for advice if the deal is that you HAVE to accept it or the adviser will go public on his disgreements ? At that point you may as well hand over policy to the adviser and democracy goes out of the window.

Let's be clear here about the nature of the debate. Some are trying to turn this into an issue of freedom of speech. That, it ain't. If I had an employee who was going out and slagging off the way I ran the business, I'd be having words.

A Bit Slow

The papers have been reporting that Cameron is hoping his new plans will "head off" a party rebellion over his abandoning of any plans for a Lisbon Treaty referendum. For some, it ain't worked.

But for others it has. They've been taken in by it. Which is a shame, because it's such a poor attempt at a con. One is Louise Bagshawe over at CentreRight:

A Sovereignty Act making British law supreme is vital. A commitment to ignore the ratchet clause and subject every new power grab to a referendum is wonderful. Renegotiation of the various areas where Lisbon has gone too far is very important.

The European Communities Act was signed into law in 1972. I understand some people are a bit slow, but all these years on, some just haven't quite got it yet: British sovereignty is no more. You even have a court ruling that proved it.

Not good enough? Try it in a context with another country, the Van Gend en Loos case, in which the ECJ itself stated, "...the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights." Such a concept should be abhorrent to us. It is completely against the traditional doctrine that the Crown-in-Parliament is the supreme legislative power. But if people like Louise keep living in ignorance, we have no chance. And with eurosceptics like this, who needs europhiles?

Of course, this is not the end:

... I remember asking my European Law professor whether there was any way of overturning the decision, or otherwise reasserting the sovereignty of Westminster. "Oh, yes", he replied breezily. "All you have to do is repeal the 1972 European Communities Act".

David Cameron is desperate to push this issue to one side. These proposals are the equivalent of jingling your keys to distract a small child. We cannot let him take away from us an issue of such importance for us and our country.

P.S., Actually had a modest tour of the Houses of Parliament yesterday. Felt quite sad knowing that despite all the work that had been put in to constructing and decorating such a wonderful building, it now means absolutely nothing.

Happy Guy Fawkes Night

Doubtless some blogs will be linking to that clip from V for Vendetta, saying that it's a day for freedom, etc. Well, yes ... but not that kind of freedom. Guido Fawkes was no freedom fighter, but a Catholic mercenary hired by a group of noblemen to destroy the ruling class of England, install a puppet, Catholic government, and restore papal supremacy. Victory over Catesby and co., was a victory for the British monarchy and the independence of the nation.

How ironic, in light of recent events ...

One has to wonder, on the day we commemmorate deliverance from a seditious continental terrorist plot and the treacherous subversion of Rome, that the continental powers have achieved the subjugation of England, her Monarch and her Parliament, and the Treaty of Rome has triumphed. The wheel is come full circle.

The Way We Live Now

Apparently, one of the receptionists at my college was told by an elderly visitor the other day that on the bus to the college, not one of the college students gave up their seats for him. The receptionist made the point that, as bad as it was, the college could do nothing about it.

This elderly gent thought this was bad. Imagine what the poor citizens of Orpington feel (via Laban) ...

Dozens of college pupils were involved in violent clashes with police yesterday afternoon (November 3), forcing the closure of Orpington High Street. The trouble flared at around 5.25pm when more than 40 Orpington College students waited for a bus outside Boots in the high street. Around 15 of them boarded a route 51 before the driver shut his doors and a patrolling PCSO told the remaining teenagers they would have to wait for the next bus. But instead the youths on the pavement tried to force their way onto the bus, kicking the front and back doors. The violence quickly escalated and a 25-year-old PCSO sustained a cut above his left eye. He was taken to a south London hospital by ambulance. Two other police officers were also struck during the incident. The high street was shut for around an hour while police fought running battles with the teenagers.

The locals comment ...

As a paper informing the public, you need to get your facts straight!! I was on that bus! there wernt 40 pupils at the bus stop, more like 100 (and about 60 police officers) behaving like animals because they have to wait to get on. The police officer didnt get a slash to the face, he got stabbed. Every monday and tuesday this stupid behaviour happens usually resulting in the bus driver turning off the engine. the school kids in the morning have their own bus, 1 needs to be provided at 5PM for the college lot then they can do what they want to each other( which is usually fighting upstairs!) instead of making the public who actually want to get home from work wait 2 hours!!!!!! When the kids who were upstairs causing trouble had to wait to be searched as they got off the bus, the police officers were saying sorry for the inconvinience to THEM!! what about the passengers that had to wait????? Passengers who used their last money on their oyster cards had no other way of getting home, and the police wernt bothered!

One of the comments repeats the oft-repeated message:

Are these students paid £30 to attend, I wonder? When this country was still sane, only the clever kids stayed on at school and went to college. Now, because the government wants to fiddle the unemployment figures, all the riff-raff are staying on and spoiling it for the students who actually want to learn.

Positive Action

There's been a lot of journalists in recent days that have jumped upon Cameron's ditching of his promise of a Lisbon Treaty referendum to proclaim that the 'eurosceptic' movement is moreorless dead, that after the 'victory' over the single currency it shut up shop, its best left for other causes, and now it is stuck on 'repeat'. No vision, no ideas.

And you have to say - given the relative ease with which they've managed to repackage the Constitution and tell the people of Europe it's ice cream - it's probably true.

Personally, I think the argument against British membership of the EU is always going to be a negative one, because more than anything it is a restriction on our ability to govern ourselves. What we do once we've left is fairly irrelevant. That's up to the political parties. The argument against EU membership is nothing if not one of patriotic principle.

But, Dr Lee Rotherham has written a book which wonders what this country would be like in ten years time if we left the EU now. What's more, if you're quick enough, you can get a free copy!

Fair play to Dr Rotherham for this positive move.

The Real Betrayal

We learn from Dr North that he has learned from "diverse sources" that "the Luftwaffe is to join the RAF in a fly-past over London next year to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain".

It's a strange thing, bizarre, actually. There could be a number of things going on. The organisers may have invited the German airforce as part of a symbol of, as North puts it, "reapproachment". But this is the anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Surely, the Germans aren't going to celebrate the deaths of their countrymen at the hands of British airmen, nor are they going to celebrate Britain's crucial victory.

Either way, "reapproachment" is a political message. Using an occassion that should be a tribute to the feats of the RAF pilots and ground crew, to the survival of Britain as a nation, to promote a modern political mood of 'unity' is just as cynical, just as sinister, and just as much of an insult as the desecration of the poppy posters by the anti-war mob.

This is a betrayal of those that fought and died in those crucial months in 1940. But as North notes, it's symbolic of another, grander, more evil betrayal: the betrayal of all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country by the politicians who took over in the aftermath.

British soldiers in the Second World War found the strength to fight in sometimes unbearable situations, to risk their lives for the good of their home. Our politicians can't even find the strength of character to continue running the country by themselves.

The Wrong Way

We read that a "historic" event is taking place in the Commons today. The 300 members of the UK Youth Parliament are holding a "series of debates", apparently the "first time any body of people other than MPs had debated in the chamber". Stopped for comment, Harriet Harman agreed with the speaker of the Youth Parliament, that "We need to do everything we can to increase the involvement of young people in politics."

Is there much point? If Harman and co., have their way, our Parliament will have as much power as the youth one that sits in the Commons today. And now that the unlikely defender in Prague has seemingly given up, the way is cleared.

I would have thought Harriet Harman would have been a bit more concerned with increasing the involvement of voters in politics. A good deal of them just don't see the point in turning up. Another good deal of them are sending their vote in what Harman would call the "wrong way".

Disrespectful

Telegraph: A Royal British Legion poster urging the public to support this year's Poppy Appeal has been defaced to attack former prime minister Tony Blair.

The original wording on the poster, featuring war widow Hester Wright, 22, and her six-year-old son Josh clutching a portrait of her dead soldier husband, should read: For their sake, wear a poppy. But objectors to Mr Blair's war record altered one version of it outside Gillingham railway station, Kent, to read: "For their sake, prosecute Blair."

There are some very evil people in this country.

More Revelations

As Jack Straw moves to deny that Labour deliberately opened the door to immigration to spite the Right, we receive more revelations about their farcical immigration policy:

Possible links between mass immigration and some crimes were censored from a keynote government report, the Standard can reveal.

This report, Migration, A Social and Economic Analysis, happened to have been published in a general election year, 2001. It wasn't just links between immigration and crime that were cut, however. The report also attacked Britain's "positively shameful" record towards the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, and claimed racism towards black racism has come "not just from extremists or working class communities, but from politicians and policy-makers at the highest level".

But it's the cynicism of cutting the paragraphs on the negatives of Government policy that arguably rightly receive the most attention.

The missing section warned: "Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime." However, it said migrants were not more likely to be criminals, despite foreign nationals forming a higher proportion of the prison population than of the general population. The disparity, it stressed, was almost entirely caused by foreign visitors held for drugs smuggling at ports and airports, and nothing to do with settled migrants.

It reported: "There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging."

Who's Nostalgic?

Miliband is the sort of person you'd expect to abandon Britain's independent foreign policy. He just looks spineless, gutless, like a stiff breeze would blow him over.

Britain would lose out internationally if it tried to oppose the EU foreign policy on the grounds of ''hubris, nostalgia or xenophobia'', Mr Miliband said.

''It is very strongly in the British national interest for the European Union to develop a strong foreign policy ... Either we are a crucial partner when it comes to responding to crises, a flexible worldwide operation able to deploy a range of tools to support stabilisation and uphold the rule of law; or we are a paper tiger, our influence and ability shorn by internal fracture, our promises and protestations proven empty by a lack of capacity and will."

Superb europhile logic: the way to protect the interests of the nation is by ending it. A member of a Government that has had no qualms about sending British forces into Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, now decides that we "lack" the "capacity" to "deploy a range of tools".

It's an old argument, though. Pro-Europeans since time immemorial have argued that a pan-European state is the only way to make sure the nations of Europe have a say in the world. Fatalists in past decades have looked at the EU as a substitute for the Empire many of them grew up with.

It's nonsense. Longing for Britain to be able to have some great influence upon the affairs of far-away continents, in whatever manner, is in itself "nostalgic". Even if we had the "capacity", is it our duty to police the world anymore? Is it right to do so? What's wrong with minding our own business? Quite a few other countries do it, you know. If our economy were strong enough and our armed forces able enough, one would have thought we would always have influence.

Now, Miliband isn't entirely stupid, is he? He must understand that his argument is complete and utter nonsense. So what is his motive?

Oh, yeah ...

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is the subject of growing talk in Brussels, Paris, Berlin and Scandinavia that he is in line to become Europe's first foreign minister.