Blog powered by Typepad

« Your Monday Funnies: 21.8.15 | Main | TOP SECRET: File under 'Haven't a clue!' »

Monday, 31 August 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I see that there is going to be an EU summit in two weeks time. Time for another 100,000 to land. I suppose they couldn't meet any quicker because the French are on holiday.

Also, of course, Pres. Hollande might be busy with a few more birds to visit 'incognito' on his motor-bike!

"However, my admiration withers when parents attempt such dangers with their children. These people are not paupers because the traffickers no doubt charge top rates for their, er, 'services'. In other words, many of them are lower or middle middle-class people with some education and they know, or should know, the risks they face."

What trollop. The middle class are running precisely because being middle class doesn't help save you from ISIS, any more than it helped save Jews from the Nazis, or, err, the middle class from Lenin and Stalin. What a huge misjudgement of motivation and morality you've made there, imho.

In case you hadn't noticed we could do with some more middle class folks in Blighty to bring down the costs of doctors, nurses, engineers, and, dare I say it, IT people, to even out the balance with the chavs and give the lower middle class a chance of affording a good education, private healthcare, lower information costs, etc.

And at the same time we need to encourage the handful of Sunni and Shia nutters left in out midst to get on EasyJet and go to Syria and Iraq, as you cheerfully elucidated in your earlier post.

And that's problem solved, QED, end of.

And yet even the more free-thinking politicians have fossilized into the mainstream on this issue: Look at Boris Johnson's emo-piffle today: -

This illustrates the most important reason why we should stay in the EU: The utter rubbish quality of our domestic politicians.

Why are they so utterly useless?

Because they haven't had to do anything for 40 years. Is it 75% of what goes on our statute books comes from the EU? I'm sure the Kippers can remind me. That's all the serious stuff, human rights, security, single market, and what has that left the national politicos to do? Fox hunting? Basically, a load of other worthless tokenism and populist shit has taken over from real decision making for the local supremoes to content with, but notice, no cut in their numbers or pay for the fact that they only do 25% of what they did 40 years ago.

So let's remind ourselves of what a shambles Britain was 40 years ago when our national politicians were experienced and running 100% of the show. Then imagine what Britain would be like if we left the EU and gave the utter bottom feeders of today the same task.

It is simply too horrific to imagine.

The only hard-nosed, principled, realpolitik coming out of Europe is from the Jerries and Brussels. They don't buckle. They don't pander to crassness and populism - Christ, they don't care about populism, can't we see it! And the European people, like the Greeks, judge their domestic politicians to be far inferior to the Jerries and Brussels; they are able to see above the populist corruption of their local shits and fucktards.

Now I used to think that Britian might still have a better grade of politician than the Jerries and Brussels, albeit an ugly parade, the least worst then.

But as I re-evaluate, as per the above, I'm really not so sure. I'm really not so sure that Britain can ever recover a polity that works alone.

I may be converting to think we need that Teutonic tough-Love, and the 40 year void space that was once "perfidious Albion" filled with Juncker the Drunker and his ilk - fighting our cause with all their conceit, deceit, and dark powers.

Stick that in your silver lining and smoke it!!


I take it that it's raining wherever you live Lawrence?

Yes of course, BOE, but had the best day out money can buy at a UK attraction on Saturday, imho. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but in my 50 years I had never been to see HMS Victory and the naval museums in Portsmouth, but that travesty was remedied this bank holiday.

Unbelievable value: You get HMS Warrior, HMS Victory, the Mary Rose, the Submarine Museum, the Explosions museum, the Naval history museum, various boat yards and other venues (including the Marines museum; every silver lining has a cloud, I s'pose), and a water taxi to carry you around the harbour to all of them.

It simply isn't possible to do this all in one day, so get this, the ticket is valid for a year, so you can come back whenever you want! Price? £32.

I felt so moved by the absence of our dear friends, the Portsmouth Bad Boys, I felt minded to send them a selfie, with Allah finger raised, from their old home town aboard HMS Warrior, and a little message (if they've had enough of their 72 virgins yet to pay attention): -


"Fuck you, and good riddance; Pompey is far better off without you."

It just stopped raining.


Just testing to see if iframes work in Typepad: -


Obviously not.


SoD, you came through quite well in One Drive. Nicely done.

So tell me, Oh Wise One (er, that's you, SoD, in case you're wondering) if we throw wide open the doors to middle east immigrants which do you think will occur first - a murderous civil war between immigrants and the indigent population, or, the installation of an Islamic State?

Jest askin'!

"These people are not paupers because the traffickers no doubt charge top rates for their, er, 'services'."

And btw, you give People traffickers a bad name.

You weren't decrying this "people trafficker" and his "services" a few months ago: -

Anyone who brings top quality middle class folks and their kids to the West and spares their lives deserves a bloody medal, like that fella.

And anyone who sends top quality Islamists to Syria and Iraq should be equally congratulated, thanked, and rewarded.

Viva People Traffickers, I say!


The big question for Mrs Merkel is what does she do next year? 800,000 assorted brain surgeons this year - how many next year?

She is not a mug. She gives them German nationality then they can move to Britain etc. Time to leave the EU.

"... a murderous civil war between immigrants and the indigent population, or, the installation of an Islamic State?"

The indigenous population see the NHS and "public services" would collapse if there weren't plenty of immigrants to do the real jobs. And the indigenous would be forced to quit their £40k per annum desk jobs puffing and blowing hot air and email at each other in exchange for £14k per annum wiping old people's bottoms and cleaning floors. If the Jerries can take 800,000, as BOE pointed out, without a civil war, I'm sure we won't be entering civil war territory any time soon.

As for the "Caliphate al Britani", the nutters needed to establish and run such a thing are all headed in the opposite direction, towards the IS in Syria and Iraq (so long as we have the good sense not to impair their travel, and even better sense to positively encourage them). So not much chance of that, either.


It might be an idea to realise that the indiginous population of Britain is passe.
You are being replaced.
Your tolerance is really weakness. Your infertility is doom.
The 'powers that be' want power and now they don't need you.

Lawrence. I have been saying for a while that we should encourage the fuzzies to leave. Remove their passports and wish them good luck as we wave them goodbye. AND no return for them. And we should get out of the EU yesterday.

What I was trying to point out is that the big hearted Germans may take 800,000 migrants this year, only to find 1.6 million turning up next year. By the way, the minimun residence for a German passport is six years.

I'm having some trouble with just what SoD is 'on' recently.

OK, politicians. Are ours useless, mercenary vote-whores? Yes, probably in the majority (is there any other kind?), but the assumption that those in Brussels are 'better' has to be a 'SoD, your medication is wearing off' indicator. Have you noticed the cronyism, the corruption, the marxist/socialist dogma, and that 'all' the worst legislation people (including you) complain about has come, not from wastemonster but Brussels? The EU 'Parliament' is a toothless paper tiger, the real power has always, and will always, lie with the unelected, faceless marxist bureaucrats of The Commission. So blame Westminster for being ineffectual, incompetent, unrepresentative, powerless and then insists hey should be made more so?!?

As to 'immigrants'. You are aware that they are not some homogeneous group, aren't you? Here in rural-northern-city we have three main groups – those from the EU (mostly poorer southern Europe, Portugal in the main), 'Eastern European', and 'The Others' (mostly North-African, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Iranian, Iraqi and from The Levant – 'lumped' together due to their commonality of cultures and … well, I’ll let you guess).

The only group which fits your description of hard-working immigrants is … The Eastern Europeans (Poles and Ukrainians mostly here at least). They are usually young, educated/skilled, single, retain a work ethic and, crucially, have less access to welfare (and integrate almost seamlessly, well except for the burgeoning new 'comfort/home' food suppliers). (The same can be said of the Thais, Vietnamese and Filipinos, but in much smaller numbers).

The EU immigrants do 'come' for jobs (employers going to recruit hundreds in Portugal) but within weeks leaving to claim their 'free' housing and benefits (the employers retaining perhaps one or two, just go and repeat the process). Why these specific employers (the two remaining major factory employers in the area) have trouble recruiting locally is that they pay such a pittance, offer variable hours (at 'their' convenience) and employ mostly on an 'agency/temp' basis (it's very easy to criticise 'the locals' for not working at a job that is insufficient to support even the most basic lifestyle – care to try it yourself, I have). And why 'can' they do this? Because of EU regulations (both companies make huge profits annually, so they 'could' pay a better wage without increasing costs but … they don't have to, do they?).

The 'Others' arrive en mass 'only' for the freebies.


Care to check the demographics of those 'immigrants' in Calais? They aren't families, middle-class, budding professionals or even hard-working as portrayed by all and sundry. They are (in the overwhelmingly) vast majority, young, single, unmarried males (often, nonsensically, listed as 'children' being under 26). They are the second/third sons, the uneducated, the unemployed and unemployable, without 'personal' status/wealth/skills and as such 'unmarriagable' (until they get in and have a house and benefits when all of a sudden they have three wives and a hundreds of in-laws), the useless (the typical cannon-fodder of yore).

They are funded by the 'wider family' (partly to get rid of them but partly on the off-chance they succeed and can be used to aid the family access).

And, I know this may be a shock but, they are typically from the very sections of culture/society that is 'causing' the destruction in their own countries rather than the true 'victims, assuming there are any (you really think the poor, minority, dispossessed and attacked can both afford the trip and have the 'contacts'?). See many Christians, Copts, Kurds or Yazidis in Calais do you? (Apocryphal I know , but typical I suspect, many years ago I and my colleagues were 'browbeaten into contributing money towards a Rwandan colleague during the genocide. Inconveniently, for the narrative, it not only turned out she was Hutu, but her family were leading Akazu (the group arranging and organising the genocide). We checked and 'not one' Tutsi had been allowed out/into the country!).

As to the 'benefits' of immigration, I suggest (since 'purely coincidentally' no-one has bothered to do the cost-benefit research here or in Europe) reading a study examining the benefits of mass migrations in The US (California). Result, the costs, demands and increases in services dwarfs the minuscule contribution provided. They are (with the Poles, Ukrainians, and Vietnamese/Filipinos as the only exceptions) 'always' a net drain (and a massive one at that). (As an example, local hospital here is a 500 bedded unit. It employs 17 foreign nationals and has had cost over-runs and had to expand services [funded by whom?] because of the ever increasing [47347 over ten years in a base population of 250000 in its coverage area] numbers, not of old British people, but young foreigners. Ditto schools, housing, council infrastructure, etc.

Putting words in others mouths, I, I'd suggest DD and even most other are 'not' against immigration per se. In fact most will cheerfully admit the benefits to all of 'limited' 'legal' (and even 'selective') immigration, and welcome it. The point is both the numbers involved and 'the type' we are currently, and have been for some time, experiencing.

Your 'arguments' against the current debate are to an extent straw-men – and I suspect you know it. (Oh and comparing the gentleman cited and the criminal gangs [with money, power, governmental influence, not to mention a complete lack of morals] is .. well, beneath you).

By Jove, well said, Jerven, and you are hereby appointed Deputy Editor of D&N!

When 'SoD' and I argue it usually ends with me losing my temper and ordering him to go to his bedroom which, given his middle-age doesn't quite work these days but, hey, old habits die hard!

OK, politicians and legislation first ...

"Have you noticed the cronyism, the corruption, the marxist/socialist dogma, and that 'all' the worst legislation people (including you) complain about has come, not from wastemonster, but Brussels"

If the EU is Marxist/socialist, then how come all the Marxists and socialists call it neo-liberal? And they decry Brussels' neo-liberal austerity strategy? The reforms forced upon Greece, for example, are exactly the sort of reforms Thatcher imposed during the 1980's of which I am totally in favour: Breaking up the "cronyism, corruption and wastemongering", your words, and patronage, clientalism, and nepotism, a few extras from me, of the nation state, and turning it over to a competitive market.

Who is right: Marxists/socialists types who call the EU neo-Liberal, or Kipper national/socialist types who call the EU Marxist/socialist?

The one thing I can say for certain is that by upsetting both parties the EU must be doing something right.

The one thing I'm developing towards, but by no means certain about, is that the Germanic influence on Brussels makes the EU as a whole more likely to contain the state in Britain than the British political elite itself.

And since I care only about me, and my freedom from the state, I'll go with whoever offers me the best chance of getting it. I won't be sitting there saying "What has the EU ever done for us?" when my own voice pipes up with a list of things the EU has the principal, and will, to do that I want, that "Wastemonger" will not.

And what legislation on our statute books annoys you any more than the utter garbage our home grown mob would have put there? The obligation to keep a balanced budget? The obligation to a single market? The obligation for freedom of movement that brings those hard-working, easily integrated Eastern Europeans you admire? A bit of health and safety? Straight bananas? Which of these is worse than a ban on fox hunting? Not even straight bananas. And how many of these neo-Liberal weypoints would our home grown politicos have managed to put on the statute books, bearing in mind how they'd fared by the time it was taken out of their hands in 1973?



“The obligation to keep a balanced budget? “

Hmm, I think you and I are viewing very different EU's. You are aware that the EU has not even submitted a budget (in decades), let alone had it audited to show it as 'balanced' aren't you?

“The obligation for freedom of movement that brings those hard-working, easily integrated Eastern Europeans you admire?”

Er, so 'Non-EU' peoples get to travel due to the single market do they? I wonder how all those Poles and Ukrainians who have resided here for decades (since WW2) got here then. And 'who exactly' decrees that 'all' must be treated/have access to the same level of service/benefits as the 'home grown, been paying tax for decades'? (The fact that 'we' aren't part of Schengen I'll let pass, shall I?).

I think you're (deliberately?) misunderstanding how politics here has been 'skewed' by membership of the EU. All those single-issue-pressure-groups, all that jobs-worth H&S legislation, all that Uman Rights legislation … you really think that without the open, blatant support from Brussels (and that’s not even addressing the under-the-table support and funding of these single issue useful idiots) they'd have had a felines chance in Hades? (You might want to check just where the 'motivation' and funding for all those anti-fox-hunting, anti-smoking/fat/salt, pro-immigration, …., 'movements' came/comes from. Not to mention most of the farcical legislation is already de facto in place before any 'vote' here because it was decided in Brussels already and is thus only a pretence at democracy).

“If the EU is Marxist/socialist, then how come all the Marxists and socialists call it neo-liberal?”

Just 'who' calls it neo-liberal? 'Only' those who are subjected/sanctioned to/by its 'Statist' controls, and only because with its Big-State, Big-Government emphasis it's 'not being socialist enough'.

You, question and reinterpret the 'terminology' I used. Fair enough, but you might like to re-examine the definitions/differences between Communism and Fascism (Hint: They're the same, socialists both. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck … it’s a Duck! Just because a couple of extremist ganders call it a Swan because they got told to paddle in sync with 'the collective' doesn't mean it is one). The “patronage, clientalism, and nepotism” are 'greater' in a socialist modelled society (are you forgetting all those dachas for the politburo and relatives whilst the proletariat live on beet-soup, if they're lucky. The great houses of the German, party only, industrialists and apparatchiks? The Blairs multimillion pound estates? Consider that the lowest paid member of The EU 'earns' more than most in Britain, even The PM. Capitalism, naked and raw, at least allows for 'the best' rather than 'the best connected' to profit).

Please explain to me how the EU has in any way ever supported, or even allowed, that never implemented anywhere, 'free market capitalism'? Where exactly is this 'mythical' “competitive market”? (Yes, you are allowed to buy from our choice, of our product, produced by our people, at a price decided by us. Hmm Competitive (open), “I don't think that word means what you think it means!”)

The 'real' point? Our “home grown garbage” can be 'voted out on their posteriors' (although at this point I favour either 'a bitumen product and bird plumage' or 'musical instrument wire and street-lighting constructs') – please say the same (with a straight face and no crossed fingers) for the politburo in Brussels! They are (or at least could be if the LIV's ever stop watching 'Get me out of dancing with nobodies' and off their iPhones long enough to notice) 'accountable'. But accountability, choices by the electorate, … are all impossible with Brussels in power, pretending otherwise is simply either naiveté, stupidity or complicity.

You do raise an important point, how imbecilic the political 'management' of this country was up till 1973. The point? That imbecilic mismanagement was by? Socialists, and so you advocate and applaud … handing over the reins to … more socialists?

I'll be honest and admit I nearly choked when you compared The EU's Greece diktats with Lady Thatchers reforms. If you seriously believe they have any commonality then I'd really like a pint of what you're having!

Oh, another thing I (incipient Alzheimers?) I 'forgot'.

“The one thing I'm developing towards, but by no means certain about, is that the Germanic influence on Brussels makes the EU as a whole more likely to contain the state in Britain than the British political elite itself.”

That's …. interesting!

You will be aware of the trite, but quite accurate, statement regarding the differences between Germanic and Anglo approaches to 'laws'. The Anglo “That which is not expressly forbidden, is allowed” as opposed to the Germanic “That which is not expressly allowed, is forbidden”?

That 'The European' legal system has no equivalent to the centuries development of consensus known as 'The Common Law'?

You are therefore arguing for a rigid, top-down, imposed legal framework – the very thing that almost everybody (including you) have complained bitterly about.

The 'funniest' thing? That you believe that Brussels in its magnanity 'may' enforce/allow freedoms 'better' than Westminster (or more rightly, the EU Court better than our own House of Lords).

You are aware that most of the freedoms whose removal you (like all the rest of us) lament were ... removed at the EU's diktat? That any pretence of Europe 'allowing freedoms' is equivalent to 'Dad' (The EU) telling 'Mum' (Parliament) to inform the kids (us) that they can't do something, and then Dad 'allowing' some minor 'compromise'? The EU, deliberately and intentionally 'requires' national governments to 'be the bad guy', deliver the stick, so that 'good old EU' can 'ride to the rescue' and offer the carrot. Hint: They 'really' aren't the 'good guys' here you know.

If by 'limiting the State' you also mean 'limiting the expansion of the organs of State' then I think you should check out who exactly 'requires' 'diversity' departments, the expansion of H&S, etc., etc., etc.

The EU is the perfect exemplar of Pournelles Iron law, fact!

For those, like me, who have never heard of Pournelle or his 'Law', this is the Wiki summary:

"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

Sounds about right to me, and Mr. Pournelle sounds like an interesting man.

You are aware that the major reason why the EU has not managed to submit a set of accounts without criticism by the auditors is due to the incompetence and corruption of the nation states, who spend and account for 80% of the budget? And that Blighty is one of the leading incompetents and fiddlers?: -

You are aware that the Common Law has been paved over by statute so that virtually none of it remains, and will never be resurrected, and least of all by our home grown politicos?

"Just 'who' calls it neo-liberal? 'Only' those who are subjected/sanctioned to/by its 'Statist' controls, and only because with its Big-State, Big-Government emphasis it's 'not being socialist enough'.

... Contd...

Your quoted paragraph lastly in my previous comment is incoherent. Let me repeat: Under Jerry influence, the EU is more Thatcherite than Thatcher herself, and an order of magnitude more Thatcherite than any party in the UK.

If you want reform, balanced budgets, competitive market industries, a "Mittelstadt" to challenge the monopoly corporates, you've got to let the Jerries share their tough-Love with us via the EU.

If you leave it to some nostalgic BS about common law and the great British parliament, you'll get no where but back to 1973.


Ah Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. To quote a Southern lady of my acquaintance, “Well, aren't you sweet!”. (Yes, it means something).

(I'll gloss over the fact you seem to have avoided most of my 'points' and resorted to the normal 'lefty' response of 'if you can't argue the facts, target the message, or the messenger')

You seem to operating under some strange delusion that 'all' the 'good' politicians and bureaucrats gravitate to the EU whilst all the nasty, greedy, incompetent ones stay in the “Nation States”. How does 'that' work then, osmosis, diffusion, some form of filtration?

The 'official' auditors response in 2013? That out of a budget of 117bn, 109bn was “affected by material error”. That's (purely) EU money, administered (purely) by The EU, and that now makes two 'decades' they have yet to 'once' provide books 'their own tame auditors' would even sign off on! Now 'that's' competence, honest, integrity and ability isn't it? Two decades? So how much of that was 'misspent'? How much to PC fads (eco and SJW projects), how much to cronies (not just industry but media and tame politicians)? How much just ...'pocketed' (bonuses)? No one knows … because of the (rampant) corruption!

You 'are' aware that 'we' contribute twice what we receive? That 'we' must constantly fight off ever increasing 'contributions' because 'our economy has been doing better than the rest of Europe'? (so keep 'harping' on about 1973 if you wish)

Yes, The Common law has been “paved over” but you fail to acknowledge at whose instruction, and to what purpose. That would be … the EU, and to 'bring us in line with the rest of Europe' (can you say 'European Arrest Warrant' and the suspension of habeas corpus?).

So to the crux of the question, 'Who do you wish to be governed by'? You have already succinctly stated that you wish to be governed by Brussels. Do you believe in democracy? Do you wish to have 'some' say in the laws under which you live? If so, then isn't that (even to you) incompatible? (Or do you see national parliaments as little more than 'local councils' – if you do then maybe you should start examining the 'true seats of power' and blaming the 'people in charge' for a change).

You berate the British Parliament but in being part of The EU we have little to no 'say' in such laws. And who makes those laws? Is it the EU Parliament? No it is the faceless bureaucrats of The Commission (and its 'directives', using broad, poorly defined 'Treaties' as an excuse). If you(we) wish to change a law (which The EU deems in its own bailiwick) eg. Immigration, we simply are not 'allowed' to (Oh yes, we can attempt to change the minds of 27 other countries [all with their own, very different priorities, and all desperately ensuring 'someone else' gets to pay for it]. But even then, the decision rests, not with the elected EU Parliament, but with the unelected Commission. The alternative? Leave, no other alternative exists, and if you try a la Ireland you get 're-educated').

The recent(ish) 'funding changes'? Were they decided, or even debated, by national parliaments? By The EU parliament? No, they sprung 'fully formed' from the minds of The Commission (so much so even the Chancellor hadn't a clue they were coming).

Whither the democracy?

The Common Market was a laudable and achievable aim (although I suspect we lost more in trade with the Commonwealth than we gained) but The EU is not the 'voluntary/spontaneous' joining of a common and homogeneous peoples (eg, The US). No, it is a top-down, enforced joining of many diverse and disparate peoples and cultures into a 'super-state' – like the Soviet Union, and like The USSR it is displaying the same authoritarian, centralised, undemocratic and corrupt tendencies.

The comments to this entry are closed.