By The Short And Curly

Posted in Australia, Globalism, United States on July 26th, 2009 by Jacob

26 July, 2009

I must confess, I got it wrong, it seemed a good idea at the time, but it turned out like all other ideologies, WRONG!!! I am talking about the ideology of free trade, the philosophy that says that it generate wealth to all that practice it. As it turned out it does not!

The principle of free trade is simple, if I can grow tomatoes better (more efficiently, as economists say) then my next door farmer, who in turn can grow cucumbers better then I do, then we are both better off by I growing all the tomatoes and my next door neighbour growing all the cucumbers and we trade tomatoes for cucumbers between us. In this way we each get better products all around.

In real life, more efficient usually means cheaper, we all agree that if we produce widgets here for say, $4.00 a piece and the Chinese produce them for 10 cents each, it is a prima facie evidence that, the Chinese are more efficient in producing widgets thus we should stop making them, buy all our widgets from the Chinese and concentrate on producing something that we are more efficient at, say gismos, sell them to China and we would all be better off for it, or would we?

Let us pause and look at the “efficiency” again, suppose our workers produce 10 widgets per hour and a Chinese worker can manage only 2 widgets per hour, wouldn’t you say that our workers are more efficient then the Chinese? On this example, of course they are! So you can see that “cheaper” is not always synonym with more efficient, here is why;

If our widget wage costs (actual wage paid to workers and on-costs) amounts to $40.00 per hour whiles a Chinese worker equivalent cost is only $2.00 per 10 hours day,  the vast gap in wage costs completely obscures our advantage in terms of efficiency.

Therefore, we get rid of our workers and produce all our widgets in China albeit it would take five times the number of Chinese workers to produce the same number of widgets.

And in order to further obfuscate the treachery to our more workers we use the euphemism outsourcing. Hey man, you are not sucked, you are just outsourced. (How strange, you never hear of outsourcing the CEO’s of large corporation, do you?)

Further, in order to ensure that outsourcing is REALLY successful, the free traders call on our governments to remove all import duty our forefathers put in place for the very reason of protecting jobs. They even go as far as demonise the word “protection” as a dirty word, something to be avoided at all costs. No politician OF EITHER SIDES, wish to be called “protectionist”, oh no! As if protecting our jobs is the wrong thing to do.

Whose side these people are on?

And so we are handing over our manufacturing expertise to under-developed nations, lock stock and barrel, some of whom don’t even like us. We are quickly reaching the point that whole sections of manufacturing industries are disappearing from our local landscape. What is going to replace lost employment in apparel, steel mills and food canneries that disappeared in recent years?

The economic rationale of free trade implies that everybody has some comparative advantage whereas we may not be as good as say the Chinese at making widgets but are really good in making gizmos, so we let the Chinese make all the widgets and we make all the gizmos … but wait, it has not worked like that at all. What in fact has happened is that, China is making BOTH widgets and gizmos.

Slowly and not so slowly we see that the emerging economies, (a euphemism for China and India) China in particular, are taking over sector after sector of our manufacturing industries, it is like slicing a salami- every day a small slice of our manufacturing industry is carved away without any impact until we wake up one day and realise that the salami  has gone.

Few of us ask where does this jobs destruction lead us get the standard spin is that we do not need manufacturing industry to prosper, we can still prosper by being a service economy .  It make no sense whatsoever we cannot produce wealth by producing nothing.

Serving each other drinks and making each others’ beds is not an economy!

One day we shall wake up, not only with no factories and with no manufacturing expertise, then what?

The Chinese will have us by the sort and curly and they will pull, have no doubt about it!

* * * * *

All ideologies, euphemisms and spins do not change one fact and that is that CHINA IS A TOTALITARIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRY. All the Western democracies would be better advised to take this fact into account when dealing with China before we hand over our manufacturing industry.

Whilst we all pontificating on the merits or otherwise of free trade China is forging forward, not by reciprocating our free trade but by practicing protectionism – the Chinese current import duty tariffs may not be high but don’t let it fools you, the Chinese government has achieved protectionism by other means, not the least their by tight control over EXCHANGE RATES, foreign currency restrictions and other administrative and bureaucratic limitations and control, all aim at supporting their emerging economy not ours.

Since 1984, the Renminbi (China’s people’s currency) has been devalued by 200%. This is as “good” as having across the board tariff of 200% increase on all imports at the time when our tariffs are for Chinese products coming down.

Further the Renminbi is not a readily convertible currency. Traditionally Chinese citizen could not receive allocation of foreign currency for imports, unless they had earned foreign exchange in previous exports. (These restrictions have somewhat relaxed in recent times due to large foreign currency reserves accumulated in recent years.)

As you can see, China’s current wealths is a combine result of sever protectionism on their side and the free trade ideology on our side.

In fact China approach is not unique, all historical economic empires were built on the foundation of protectionism, or mercantilism as it was known years ago. England’s Navigation Act of 1651 reserved all English trade, including to, from and between its colonies to be carried only by English ships (or ships owned by English nationals). The Corn Laws of 1815 that prohibited importing grain into England at a price less than 80 shillings per quarter (28 pounds) are some of such examples of protectionism going back to the 19th century.

Britain before 1846 (when the Corn Laws were repealed), the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan of after WWII and Australia till the 1970’s all developed their economies on a foundation of protectionism.

If free trade is best for nations, how is it that every modern state that rose to prominent and power …. Was protectionist?

Asks Pat Buchanan rhetorically in his book Day Of Reckoning and continues to cite that

All four presidents on Mount Rushmore – Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt – were economic nationalists.

[- pp 195]

The apparent discrepancy in the benefits of free trade is simple to explain, free trade is beneficial to both parties ONLY when it is practised between nations of similar standard of living.

There are many examples that prove this hypothesis, not the least the free trades among the states in the USA, Australia, and the EU, as well as our free trade with New Zealand albeit we are competitors on many products when it comes to international trade.

A recent survey done in Australia, has shown that about 80% of shopper SAYING that they prefer Australian products over overseas’ even if it costs more BUT when it comes to action, only about 20%  of shoppers actually put their money where their mouth is.

I suspect that the situation in America and other western democracies is similar. Come on people, put you money where your mouth is, use it or loose it!

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009

Tags: , , ,

Stimulate Me, Gi’me A Drink and Make My Bed

Posted in Australia, Europe, Social Engineering, United States on February 12th, 2009 by Jacob

12 February, 2009.

When I wrote the original Thank God There Is A Global Economic Crisis about two and a half months ago, I did not expect my cynicism to materialise, or at leat not so soon.

It was a mere two weeks after another self-proclaimed fiscal conservative Barack Obama joined the host of fiscal conservatives world leaders, including our own hollow man, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Fiscal policy is about government active involvement (or not) in the economy through government revenues (taxes) and expenditures (services such as the law and order, security, social security etc.), fiscal conservativism is keeping the government books balanced.

The collapse of the American Sub-Prime market had little direct affect on Australia, thank to the pervious conservative government who had paid off all of its successive Labor governments debts and left office with nice cushion of budget surpluses, shovel ready for new socialist government to put to waste.

Despite its love affair with globalism, The Howard government ensured that Australian banks were regulated sufficiently to shield them from the effect of the collapse sub-prime market as act of prudence, long before the ugly sub-prime raised its head.

This is not to say that we have not been affected by the economic downturn that followed the financial meltdown on Wall Street, but to spell out that our state of affairs is a lot different from that of the US and Europe by a country mile.

* * * * *

However, being in a better situation does not suit our illustrious hollow man Kevin 747 who wants to be like the big boys on world stage so he can play with them. He wants to appear doing something BIG, anything, thus stimulus out of all proportion to our size is the way to go.

We are going to get it, whether we need it or not, just because Kevin 747 wants to grand stand on world stage as if he is a decisive statesman.

The new buzz word is stimulus. It is a code word that describe how YOUR MONEY and mine is wasted by our governments without any accountability on social agendas, supposedly to create economic activity.

The idea is that a dollar that is spent by our government on building a bridge, as an example, may circulate a number of times and create economic momentum through what economists call the multiplier.

Say, the government build a bridge. They hire workers, buy cement, steel and other components and put it together. To have cement, there must be a cement factories that convert mined limestone, soda ash and other chemical and energy into cement.

To have still, we must have steel mills that need iron ore, coal, scrap and other trace metals and energy to make steel and they also all need ships trains and trucks to move raw materials and bridge components.

The workers on the bridge, the cement factories, the still mills, the ships, trains and trucks get paid and buy food, clothing, cars and plasma TV which in turn need more factories, shops and transport.

In other words, a dollar spent on, say, building a bridge, is spent a number of times through the economy depending on the multiplier of building bridges. This is the theory anyway.

This theory was developed by an English mathematician, turned economist and INVESTOR, John Maynard Keynes and what later became known as Keynesian Economics. Keynes believed that government should make the most of its economic powers and use it to achieve socio-economic goals.

On the other side of the scale is Milton Friedman was an economists who believes in the exact opposites, in free market with minimal government interference in the economy, also known as Friedmanism.

Whilst there is no decisive evidence that Keynes himself was communist or a communist sympathiser, nevertheless, Keynes is the darling of communism, socialism, liberalism and all other social engineering isms. Keynes has given them the left side of politics “scientific” all the excuses to interfere with the economy they need and, as we see, they use.

Here we have two diametrically opposing theories that beg the question “which is the correct one?” The simple answer is: none!. There are many conceptual contradictions and “cherry picking” of “facts” in both theories.

Economics is not a science, it is a set of theories based on empirical studies using (selective) quantitative and non-quantitative observations. Unlike science, economic theories are not results of proven hypotheses, they are just that, theories!

Some say that economics is the science that explains why its last prediction did not maderised.

Some goes as far as describing the economy as a power station and the people in charge of it as engineers who open and close valves, turn dials, switch pumps on and off, whereas the valves, dials and pumps are interest rates, taxation rates, government spending, surplus or deficit and so on – absolute crap!!!

In many case one cannot predict with certainty the outcome of a particular economic measure. Increase in official interest rate may be inflationary or deflationary, there are recent historical example to both. The same goes for other deliberate measures.

Just before Christmas Kevin747 use a stimulus of $ 14 billons and paid Australian age and disable pensioners a one off bonus. The idea was that because government pensioners are one of the poorest people in the land their propensity to spend is high thus most that money will be spent.

Wrong, whilst I had no objection to the bonus as such, stimulus it was not.

As it turned out , although there was improvement is Christmas retail sales, it was a oncer. Much of the money that was spent on Christmas presents ended up in China where it was only a drop in the ocean in tern of stimulating anything but Kevin’s standing in the opinion polls.

* * * * *

I cannot recall so much identical rhetorical hard sell of policies in so many countries, although the circumstances in each vary dramatically. Do you really believe that there is the one, and only the one, medicine that cures all economic ailments? Come-on!

Stimulus will “kick-start” your country’s economy, create employment, unfreeze credit, eliminate toxic assets, get rid of inflation, improve your country’s terms of trades, balance of payments etc. etc. etc. If you believe in it, I have bridge across Sydney Harbour and a fancy looking opera house to sell you.

Although Keynesian economics was dead and buried for many years in many countries, its flame kept burning in the corridors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), after all John Keynes was one of its founding father. Together with global socialism, which is now in control the governments of most developed nations, they all got this dead theory out of its grave, polished it, resuscitated it so it can be reused and push the socialist agenda once more.

Indeed the IMF has been used as a fig leaf for the socialisation of the western democracies . The IMF, the bastion of globalisation, an organisations with no electoral accountability or allegiance to anyone but itself, is cited by our politicians as the economic authority for enslave us, our children and grandchildren in gigantic debt.

Just look at the proposed “stimulus” of your country and you will quickly realise that it is no more then a badge social engineering agenda. Most, if not all, of the proposed expenditures covers IDENTICAL ITEMS of socialist agendas and common budgetary expenditure that belong in a regular budgetary process. Much like it all came from one place, well it has, the IMF.

Repairs to infrastructure, particularly bridges, “investments” in schools, Internet infrastructure, buildings insulation, alternative energy are no doubt familiar to you from debates about the so-called stimulus in your own country. BUT you may not realise that the actual items that make the stimuli in all countries (that have one) are identical.

So is the rhetoric about the “urgency” to adopt the stimulus measures. Our very basis of democracy, the parliament is being portray as obstruction, that may bring a “catastrophe” upon us, only because it wants to do what houses of parliaments do in democracy. Cesar does not like it when the senate asks question.

Incidentally, if you listen carefully, you will quickly notice the similarity between the scare mongering of the stimulus and that of global warming. The connection is self evident, both are spins of a socialist agenda.

Would you buy a car when the salesman pushes you to hurry up and sign on the dotted line, not ask too many question because you would loose this unique, one in hundred years, opportunity?

Remember these are the very people who want you to live in a dark and have cold showers to save the planet from a looming global warming.

By and large the global financial crisis and the subsequent global economic downturn is a direct consequence of globalism. It is the free market that enabled the toxic assets to freely move across borders among countries as contagious disease would spread across an hospital without an isolation ward.

Now that we have nearly all the hospital’s patients and staff infected, the cure, we are told, is to give them all the same medicine BUT NOT isolate them because they must all get well together, or not at all. This is what globalism is all about.

* * * * *

One of the few idea that made any sense to me in the American stimulus proposal was that stimulus money must be spent on American made goods. After all the idea is that the steel and cement used to construct a bridge should come from home production and generate employment.

The idea that American money (I use America as an example, the same is true to any contry), borrowed by the American people, which the American taxpayer would need to repay back is used to create American Jobs by using it to purchase American goods horrified the globalists who opened a scare campaign about “trade wars”.

Suppose that you may fall on hard times and may consider to severely curtail this year’s Christmas presents for your kids, but the government tells you: “Oh no! don’t even think about as much as symbolic cut in the level of presents you have been giving to your neighbours kids, if you do we’ll call you protectionist or, God forbid, isolationist” – this is in fact what the IMF saying to every country these days. We don’t care what you do to your own people but you must continue and protect other people.

In a recent speech to the governors of the South East Asian Central Banks (SEACEN) the Managing Director of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Khan said (inter-alia):

Some countries are trying to make government support of banks conditional on their giving priority to domestic borrowers, to the detriment of financing across borders. This will hurt emerging economies, whose growth depends on access to foreign bank financing. It is protectionism in the financial markets, and its consequences could be as damaging and dangerous as the trade protectionism of the 1930s.

Bull dust!

What got America out of the great depression of the 1930’s was not globalism, but the American manufacturing industry production efforts for the war AND the fact that by the end of WWII American industry was the only one standing. Beside, traditionally America always knew how to protect its own interest.

For years American aid was contingent on the fact that the recipients of such aid must use it, as much as practicable, to purchase American goods. For years, at least 50% of American aid MUST be carried on American flags ships, although freight on American flag ships were twice as dear as other flags – those were the rules.

Anyone who tell you that you can stimulate your economy and remain globalist at the same time is a liar, a fool or both. Throughout history you will not find a single instant of economy developing into world class without actively pursuing protection.

Britain of the industrial revolution until 1846 when they repealed the Corn Act, the USA from 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan, Korea, and India of after WWII and of course China of today all pursue protectionists policies. As a matter of interests all four American presidents carved out in Mount Rushmore, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were protectionists.

In the face of “cheap” imports from the USA and Continental Europe, even the darling of the stimuluphiles, John Keynes, advocated tariffs barriers in 1930 to protect British industry.

As you see, stimulus is not about kick-starting the economy, it is not about job creation and protection, it is all about IDEOLOGY.

* * * * *

Yet we the people can only watch in horror how our elected representives allow our governments condemn us and our descendants to generations of economic turmoil of debt, high interest, high taxation and inflation. Is this the planet we suppose to save from global warming?

When all those obscene amounts of money be wasted, nothing much will change except we each have national debt of colossal proportion. The so-called stimulus will not work because it cannot work. If you want to rebuild our economy, rebuild our own productive capacity first.

We cannot have economy without a strong manufacturing, construction and agricultural industries. Serving each others’ drinks and making each others’ bed is not an economy.

Tags: , , , ,

The United State Of The Pacific

Posted in Australia, Europe, Social Engineering on June 14th, 2008 by Jacob
14 June, 2008

You have to give it to Irish, they saw right through the bullshit of the country’s major political parties’ heavy campaign for a “yes” vote in the ONLY referendum in the EU on their reconditioned constitution, cleverly named “The Lisbon Treaty” to circumvent further referenda in EU member states. Ireland voted “no” for the second time! Those Europhiles don’t give up, do they?

Three years ago France and Holland rejected the European Constitution in another rounds of referenda. It was then widely believed at the time that had the question put before voters in other EU states, they too would have rejected it. I suspect that, despite the rhetoric, this time the situation is similar, had the question been put in a referenda to other countries in addition to Ireland the result would have been a resounding “NO” of global warming proportion.

It goes to show that if all the major political parties are in agreement, you better watch out, they are protecting their own interest, not yours – good on you Ireland!

The pundits will no doubt try and explain the “no” vote in Ireland as a “yes” vote except that middle class, middle age, middle blond women voter or whatever spoiled it for the rest of the country – well, maybe so but the result is still no.

Why should I care about the EU? I care because since Britain joined the EU we Aussies, Kiwis and other member of the Commonwealth have to queue up in the Aliens line in Heathrow, shock horror! Isn’t that a good enough reason? 🙂

No it is not, BUT, seeing that our illustrious hollow Prime Minister, Mr. Kevin Rudd (aka Kevin07) is running around Asia proposing a “union” of Asia and the Pacific similar to the EU, I thought that I better take a look at what Kev has for us.

I realise that this is just another of Kevin’s stunts, after all the man could not arrange an orgy in a whore house, let alone deal with our problems at home, such as inflation, petrol prices, food prices to name a few. Thus he packs up his loyal journos in his VIP plane and over prawns (shrimps) with Champaign hands them their next reports that portray himself as a great statesman, grandstanding on the world stage fighting climate change and arranging a union of …. Listen to that … according to The Australian of 5 June Mr Rudd said that:

“We need to have a vision for an Asia-Pacific community, a vision that embraces a regional institution, which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region – including the United States, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and the other states of the region,” said the Prime Minister.

Who are those “other states of the region“? Apparently the Prime Minister is talking about adding India to the 21-mambers states of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation states (APEC). According to APEC Internet site, they are (in alphabetical order):

Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People’s Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.

Did you see what I did? Is he serious? The United States and the Russian Federation together in a union a-la EU? With Canada and Mexico in it too what about the NAU? Actually why not? After all Russian is only 92 Km (58 Miles) from the USA.

This is turning more and more into the bizarre world of George Orwell’s 1984 which is divided to four super states, albeit arranged differently than Kevin Rudd’s has in mind but just as bizarre, he continued:

[The body would be] “able to engage in the full spectrum of dialogue, co-operation and action in economic and political matters and future challenges related to security”.

“The purpose is to encourage the development of a genuine and comprehensive sense of community whose habitual operating principle is co-operation,”

(What does it mean?)

And a bit of alarmism borrowed from the climate change rhetoric:

“The danger of not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict within our region may somehow be inevitable.”

[Brackets and emphasis provided]

Well, according to local media here in Australia, at least one of the US presidential hopeful, Mr. McCain, is “greatly in support“; Greatly? had John McCain actually seen the full proposal before he welcomed it or did he smoke something that day?

When further queried by The Australian, John McCain said that:

“I believe the more closely that the countries in the region work together for free and open trade and the more agreements with the United States, I’m greatly in support of.”

Frankly I regard Kevin Rudd’s stunt proposal, as a pie in the sky, at least in the way it presented. This is not to say that there no powers to be who support globalisation by creation of super states. Although, thanks to rejections by the people of Holland, France and now Ireland, the EU is not, as yet, a supers state, leave it to the politicians and the Eurocrats it will turn into one tomorrow.

The history of the EU is going back to the humble European Coal And Steel Community (ECSC) that was founded in 1951 by the Paris Treaty signed by the “original six”: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Nederlands and Luxemburg. It was later turned the European Economic Community (EEC), commonly known as the “Common Market” and since the Maastricht Treaty of 1993, The European Union (EU).

The object (in 1951) was to create a framework of cooperation on steel and coal production and to promote lasting peace in Europe. The selection of these two commodities was not accidental, they are both with paramount strategic importance at times of war. Little is known that USA actively supported and encouraged the idea of a European union . America was weary of fighting wars in Europe and saw such arrangement as serving its own interests, beside they all had a new threat to worry about, Stalin and Communism, a good reason to unite irrespective of other reasons.

Britain was excluded from the original plan and its first attempt to join in 1963 was vetoed by France’s General De Gaulle who regarded Britain as a “Trojan Horse” for USA influence.

American influence on France? God forbid, Has mon général objected to the “American influence” on the invasion of Normandy? In any event France’s objection ended with the end of De Gaulle’s presidency and Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 under the stewardship of (the Conservative ) Prime Minister Edward Heath.

I note that when it comes to European Globalism the socialists do not have monopoly. Even half American, like Winston Churchill supported some form of united Europe although he was not clear on whether Britain should be part of such union.

In the meantime (in 1960) seven non EEC European countries formed the European Free Trade Agreement zone (EFTA), these included Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, they were later joined by Finland (1961 as associate and full member in 1986), Iceland (1970) and Liechtenstein (1991). Today only Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland remained in EFTA whilst the rest have all left and joined the EEC/EU.

Today the EU includes 27 member states, 23 official languages, a European Parliaments with two locations, 785 Member of the European Parliament (MEP) roughly allocated pro rata to members’ population. The European Commission, a sort of executive branch that comprises of one appointed commissioner for each member state, the European Council which is an assembly of the 27 heads of the EU member states. The Presidency of the Council is rotated on a six monthly basis. The “European Council” is not to be confused with the “Council of the European Union” that is a council of ministers. Confused? (I told you not to be! 🙂 So am I.

Only 15 of the EU members adopted the Euro as their currency, this group is also known as the “Euro zone”, who are (in alphabetical order) Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Malta, Nederlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. Notable in their absence are Britain, Sweden and Denmark who elected to retain their own currencies in or out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM)

The original European Treaty (Rome 1957) obligated member states to strive for:

” … an ever closer union among the people of Europe …”

This wording mandates the Europhiles to go the whole hog for a “United State Of Europe” no matter how they spin it. We often hear that the EU is an assembly of countries with “shared sovereignty” which sounds a lot better than “Surrendered sovereignty” , I must confess, that to my mind the former is a misleading term – if you have the right to enter my house at any time and do as you pleased in it without my permission, I surrendered my sovereignty and we share nothing! Because I don’t have the same right.

In his book, Not Quite The Diplomat, Chris Patten, a former (Conservative) minister in Margaret Thatcher’s and John Major’s governments, the last (British) Governor of Hong Kong a former EU Commissioner and (naturally) an avid Europhile describes the salami tactics employed by the Eurocrats in conquering sovereignty from member states. In his book Mr. Patten quotes the then Prime Minister of Luxemburg, Jean-Claude Juncker in an interview to “The Economist” magazine, he said:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because people don’t know what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

[Emphasis provided]

I call this modus operandi “a conspiracy”

Another EU plot was to rename its constitution a “Treaty”. The reason being that many of the member states governments have the power to ratify treaties with or without their national parliaments approval, but such powers do not extended to constitution that in all cases require referenda.

This is a trickery aimed at avoiding facing the people!

There is little doubt that given the opportunity, the people of other European countries would have reject the “Lisbon Treaty as did the Irish people. As this so-called “treaty” can come into effect only with ratification by ALL members, the Lisbon Treaty is now dead! Any further ratifications by government are futile exercise if public relations and declines of further (but unlikely) referenda would merely kill a dead horse but would further embarrass and weaken the case of the Europhiles.

Mind you, this trickery is not the sole domain of the Europhiles, the Globalists of the UN often use the “treaty” tricks to circumvent national constitutions.

Chris Patten’s comments on the 2005 France and Nederlands rejection stands today in light of the Irish “no”:

“…. [the people of Europe] dislike the feeling that Europe is made over their heads … [and] … there is clearly a sense that the European project has gone too far, too fast for many of Europe‘s citizens …”

Frankly I have no objection that the people of Europe establish the “United States of Europe” (USE) if they so wish, the problem is that they clearly do not want to, yet our Prime Minster jumps in half cocked with a similar suggestion for us. Well, take heed America, this is what you will get if vote in a hollow man.

In a different context, I already said that I don’t want to be ruled from Beijing this is still the case now, by the way where would we pout the Pacific parliament? Washington, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Canberra or should it be a travelling road show as the European Parliament.

I find it hilarious that approximately once a month, the European Parliament, packs up, lock stock and barrel, down to the last filing cabinet and moves from Brussels to Strasburg (France) and back again.

Where can I sign up to become a Parliament removalist?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008
Tags: , ,