We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Newsflash: Dave Cameron still a waste of your vote To the complete and utter surprise of… er… well no one really… Dave Cameron has refused to jump the fence yet again. This worthless Labour-Lite jackanapes will not give Britain a vote on the Lisbon Treaty after all.
Yeah I know he promised we would get a vote. And you believed him? 
Vote UKIP rather than waste your vote on BlueLabour and the principle-free weathervane who leads it… and if the powers that be have destroyed UKIP by election day via the courts, stay the fuck home and do not dignify the worthless Cameron with a vote that will simply be an endorsement of more-of-the-same.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Two related vids:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7-SituQpV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpBIYXsZ5eY
They are all a waste of more than just votes.
Perry, what else does UKIP stand for? As an Australian, I’m looking in at the political scene. Whilst nobody wants Brownie points right now, what would a UKIP Britain look like? Or are they a single-issue party?
From the article: “We want to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but clearly it seems we are getting closer to the point where the treaty is not going to be a treaty but becomes part of European law,”
And the law cannot be changed?
Perhaps someone can remember the details — didn’t the British government hold one or more non-binding referenda on home rule for Scotland? Surely Devious Dave could commit to hold a non-binding UK referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after its passage, to strenghten his negotiating position vis-a-vis the Eurocrats? But that would require Ocameron to think outside the box– which is clearly not his strength.
At least this may help Brits sympathize with the unfortunate US voter of a year ago — given the choice of Obama, Omccain, and a no-hope libertarian.
I loathe David Cameron (advisor-styled “Dave” because “Tony” Blair worked a treat). A weak, charisma-free, principle-free, recognition free, little pr man until he got chosen by people above him to be the front man for the Tories.
Since then, he has done absolutely everything wrong. Everything. He thinks Tories admire stupid men who ride bicycles through Central London in twizzly hats (with a limo behind, but that’s not the point). He has a windmill on his roof of Islington or wherever, and that’s not the point, either. He sacked an honoured military man – Patrick Mercer – over his cellphone, to big himself up. He thinks Tories will cleave to a gender “equality” short-list programme whereby men will be robbed of their equality so that ill-qualified woman can be promoted over them.
Too late for him to disavow it, Blair’s Babe’s have got traction, by this incompetent man, as Cameron’s Cuties.
Think about it: Tony Blair came out of nowhere 12/13 years ago. No one had ever heard of him.
David Cameron, who also no one had ever noticed and was, in any case, fairly new to Parliament, became the Leader of the mighty Conservative Party.
How did that happen?
In both cases? How did that happen?
Neither had a record in Parliament. Neither had a national profile, to say the least. Neither had any special qualifications. Neither had ever been noticed.
And suddenly, Tony Blair was a party Leader. And a few years later, someone called David Cameron, was Tory Leader.
Doesn’t these two individuals coming out of nowhere strike anyone else as ….ODD?
Hey, Barack Obama also came out of nowhere, and had no special qualifications either (actually, he had no qualifications whatsoever). There’s a lot of that going around these days. Must be due to global warming!
Blair emerged from John Smith’s shadow when Smith died. I assume Blair positioned himself to be Smith’s heir a bit later than actually happened but he wasn’t going to miss his opportunity.
Cameron was elected in the same way, and for the same reasons as Heath was almost 50 years ago. When Wilson was elected the conservative party went into one of its periodic panics and decided it needed a clone. Wilson was perceived as a grammar school meritocrat, suited to the zeitgeist. Heath was also a grammar school boy so he must be what they needed. Unfortunately he had less merit even than Wilson, and he had enough belief in the beneficial powers of the state that he could easily have found a home in the Labour party.
Blair was a public school educated, charismatic leader who performed well on TV. Cameron was also public school educated and he had the benefit of a brief period of work experience with a TV company so he was the clone the Conservatives sought. Unfortunately he too supports most of Labour’s key policies.
Alice:
I suppose he could do this, the point is, he won’t. He wants to park the European issue, so we must assume he is happy to be the leader of a European province rather than a self-governing nation state.
EU-Turn if you want to:
http://www.westbournemouthukip.com/content/splash/splash21.jpg
I’m afraid that I am not a bit surprised at Cameron not allowing a vote on the EU, he is a supporter, it’s big and has lots of money for the likes of him. How can being Prime Minister of Great Britain top that? Oh, yes, he tells lies …. a lot, like most of his predecessors.
The E.U. Constitution (i.e. the “Treaty of Lisbon”) was passed by an Act of Parliament and can be repealed by an Act of Parliament.
There is no excuse for Mr Cameron’s action – none whatever.
As for talk (by William Hague and others) of taking back powers from the E.U. – that is absurd under the E.U. Constitution because it gives them the power to do what they like (even to amend the text itself).
A government that will not even hold a vote on the “Treaty of Lisbon” is certainly not going to take back any powers.
Each person should ask their local Conservative party a candidate the following question.
“Are you still in favour of a referendum on the so called Lisbon Treaty and will you support a motion in the House of Commons for such a referendum”.
If the candidate is not prepared to say “yes” (publically and in writing) then there is no point in voting for them.
No point because a “Conservative government” under the E.U. Constitution would not be a “government” at all – it would be a local council, a puppet of the E.U.
No Mr Blair was not anointed by John Smith – this is a myth put about by his supporters. He was know as a fairly effective shadow Home Sec (but nothing more than that).
Actually the man just appeared – just as Verity describes.
Mr Cameron was the same (in fact more so) – although Mr Howard (the previous leader) did go along with the appearance. He made a speech at the Conservative Party Conference in Brighton and suddenly everyone (every single newspaper and magazine and television station and radio station) said he was amasing, a divine angel on Earth and ……..
Actually the speech was nothing special – and all the praise had been written up in advance.
I suppose I would described as “paranoid” if I started to write about the puppet masters and …….
My mistake – it was Blackpool.
Very silly of me – as I was actually there at the time.
Although not officially.