It is easy to see why Britain is stuck in the EU, against its own interests. The pitiful level of many of the responses to my last two postings shows that two groups of people simply refuse to think about the subject. The first group are the ones who have been brainwashed into thinking that ‘Europe’ is automatically good, and that any doubts about the EU are caused by nostalgia or stupidity.
They do not actually know or understand the case for the EU (which certainly exists) because they have never heard it made. But they have heard, from teachers , broadcasters etc., the jibes of ‘Little Englander’ and ‘Do you want to go back to the Groat, then?’ which the pro-EU lobby have encouraged. How the heart sinks, at the level of this sort of thing. Where does one begin? Aren’t people ashamed of engaging in a major national debate at this kindergarten level?
They have encouraged these childish jeers because they know that very few people would be attracted by their utopian vision of a continent in which all nation states have ceased to exist, and in which the destinies of the continent’s people are controlled from the centre by an unaccountable elite which thinks itself to be benevolent.
The second group are those who continue against all evidence to believe that the Conservative Party is in fact conservative. In many cases, they believe this out of habit, and increasingly out of a fear (which they seek to suppress) that it is not true. For if it is not true, they might have to think and act – and anything is preferable to that.
These are two typical barriers to thinking. One, a received opinion held out of laziness and fashion, not deeply rooted in knowledge or reason, which lashes out at dissent with crude mockery. The other, a tribal clinging to a forlorn hope, held in place by fear of discovering that the truth is much less comforting than the illusion.
In both cases, the mind shuts down when it gets anywhere near the truth. In both cases, it is noticeable that the person involved does not deploy facts or reason himself.
After all, what did I actually argue? Most importantly that David Cameron was garnering praise from people who ought to have seen through him. Why? Because he was not in fact doing anything particularly exceptional or dramatic, and he was certainly not defying the real power in the EU - namely the Franco-German axis. That axis is quite happy to proceed on a country-by-country basis rather than though the cumbersome treaty process. It is true that the actual Brussels apparatus, whose spokesman is Mr Barroso, would like a formal treaty as it would give that apparatus more power. But France and christmas flowers germany I thought it rather strengthened my case that I was able to quote John Lichfield, an unimpeachable Paris correspondent for a pro-EU newspaper, and John Rentoul, an enjoyably frank Blairite, in support of my case. Mr Lichfield didn’t write his account of the French attitude to please me. He just wrote it because it was true and he rightly regarded it as significant. Mr Rentoul greatly enjoys teasing the non-Blairite wing of the Labour Party, but he’s interested in recent history and he recognises that David Cameron is and always has been serious about his Blairism. Mr Rentoul (among other things the author of a biography of Mr Blair) should be able to tell.
I would add here, for those interested, that my argument also has interesting support from my own side. Some recent, relevant postings from EU expert and opponent Richard North(co-author of ‘The Great Deception’) can be found here
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/walter-mitty-territory.html
and here
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/huge-coup-de-theatre.html
and here
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/story-so-far.html
In response to this, do I get any kind of thoughtful response from my opponents and critics? Judge for yourself. From ‘Tarquin’ comes this gem ‘All I know is that whatever Cameron had done, it would've been wrong’. Does ‘Tarquin’ actually ‘know’ this in any way? Can he point to any evidence that I have a personal hostility to David Cameron which overrides reason? If not, then his contribution is no better than graffiti scribbled on a wall, intellectually vacuous and wholly unresponsive. It is unlikely that I will support any step taken by Mr Cameron, but that is because I disagree with his politics, for reasons I have set out (for instance) in several books. But it is not unimaginable that Mr Cameron will do or say something which I am prepared to endorse and, as I have said here before, I have no personal animus towards him, have enjoyed his company on the rare occasions when I have met him and do not doubt his intelligence.
The single most wretched contribution comes from a Roy Robinson, who sneers: ‘So the whole thing was a conspiracy between Cameron and Clegg ,I thought as much ! .I will have to go on to David Icke’s site to see how it is all linked in to the New World Global Order.’
Mr Robinson ( I assume this is his real name) might have been wiser to hide this tripe behind a pseudonym. He hasn’t read what I have written, and he does not respond to what I have written. I doubt very much if we will see him back here. But why can’t people recognise that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed seriously?
The contribution from ‘Cary’ is a bit more intelligent, though he endorses Mr Robinson’s empty jibe, which doesn’t actually chime with the rest of his contribution. . ‘Cary’ says : ‘Much as it may pain Peter Hitchens to admit it, Cameron did something genuinely EU sceptic this week that has genuinely upset Clegg, Sarkozy and all the other EU fanatics. I doubt he did it because he is a committed EU sceptic himself; his motives were mostly about survival as Tory leader (he’s lost the support of a large part of party loyalists and MPs and there’s a bye-election coming up this week where, if things went badly, the Tories could finish behind UKIP and knives might start to be sharpened).’
Well, I am quite happy to accept that Mr Cameron may have done something ‘EU sceptic’ as I have repeatedly (including in my latest post) derided the word ‘Eurosceptic’ . I regard it as meaning, broadly ‘critical of the EU in opposition, subservient to it in government’. ‘Scepticism’ can also be displayed in government, provided it is meaningless. The EU has always been reasonably happy to allow British governments (see my thoughts on losers in negotiations above) to adopt Churchillian poses, while ceding great slabs of power and wealth to the EU. But how does ‘Cary’ justify his assertion that Mr Cameron has ‘genuinely upset’ M. Sarkozy or Mr Clegg. My whole point is that Mr Cameron’s supposed veto (actually he didn’t veto anything – there was nothing to veto) was pleasing to the French President. As for Mr Clegg, he is so outraged that he has ….stayed in the government, and took two full days to express any reservations about Mr Cameron’s actions.
‘Cary’ then contradicts himself, by pointing out correctly that Mr Cameron’s main motive was to protect his position as Tory leader (a point I made in my article) . If that is so, then how and in what sense is his action ‘genuine’? It’s simply tactical, and wholly cynical.
Then we have ‘William’, who says ‘Peter Hitchens has to take this position though really doesn't he, as do UKIP. Can't let their 'true anti-european' brand be upstaged eh? Rather amusing to see these folks break bread here with the guardianistas.’
What does this mean? I don’t ‘have’ to take any position. Many other EU-critical journalists have praised Mr Cameron for his actions, in my view mistakenly. I belong to no party, and have no line to toe. What’s more, I explain in detail how I came to reach my position. As for ‘Guardianistas’, an expression which I think long ago lost any freshness, as did ‘Call me Dave’, what has that to do with it? The reason I cite articles from ‘The Independent’ is to make it clear that my assessment of *events* is not distorted by dogma. Mr Lichfield understands French politics and knows what is important. Mr Rentoul understands the Blairite position and is well-informed on the Blairite attitude towards the EU.
‘William’ continues ‘Where this argument falls down is that Cameron will now be under pressure to offer a referendum, in the face of the EU acting against our interests, especially now the eurosceptics have tasted blood (even if it is, as you suggest, only in their imaginations).
Better hope that doesn't happen Mr Hitchens eh? May put you out of business.’
Well I hope I have made clear by now that I have no desire for a referendum. As long as there is no major party calling in a united fashion for our exit from the EU, a straight vote on EU membership would probably be won by those who wish us to remain subject to foreign rule. The pitiful lack of understanding of the subject displayed across the media and politics in the last week shows how easy it would be to bamboozle the population, and how poorly prepared the ‘Sceptics’ are for a real battle. In any case, no Parliament could or would be bound by such a referendum even if it did produce a vote to leave.
So no, it wouldn’t ‘put me out of business’ ( always assuming that if we did become an independent country again, there wouldn’t still be plenty of ‘business’ for me to engage in). It’s no use just having independence. You have to use it.
Andrew Williams wrote : ‘I wonder if the Veto may be more important than you suggest...in spite of Cameron's intentions. The back-bench rebellion has proven to be effective in influencing the PM (despite Tory and Blairite commentators deriding it as empty posturing). The reserved reception to Cameron in PMQ suggests EU rebels aren't swooning just yet.’
Well, first of all, what veto? There was no treaty to veto (just as - and I remember breaking the news of this to an astonished newsdesk at another newspaper - there was no IRA bomb in Gibraltar before the SAS shooting of the IRA trio there).
There was no treaty because such things take months to prepare.
The back-bench rebellion is ‘effective’ only in so far as it compels Cameron to do everything he can to avoid a course of action which will lead to a referendum. But that is all he did – avoid a referendum. He didn’t preserve Britain from an EU power-grab. That can and will still happen. Nor did he ‘repatriate’ powers from Brussels(this is a fantasy. No such thing is possible under EU law). Mr Cameron’s only action is a political one, to do with saving his ludicrous, unworkable party from a richly-deserved split and collapse. Why should anyone be grateful for that? It is precisely this artificial preservation, by increasingly desperate measures, of a dead party, that stands in the way of Britain’s long-needed departure from the EU. And there seesm to metohave been a great deal of fawning over Mr cameron by suppsoed 'sceptics' notably at the famous Chequers dinner on Friday night. I gather the whips called for a restrained response after Mr Cameron's statement on Monday, as by then the supposed wrath of the Liberal Democrats, which had finally awoken all those days later, had to be soothed.
I think the assertion by ‘Neil P’ that Britain would benefit from the collapse of the City of London is absurd. I doubt if Mr ‘P’ has much idea what would happen to him, and our national economy as a whole, if such a thing happened.
Germany’s superior schools, transport etc are indeed laudable, and I am a Germanophile who thinks we should emulate many of christmas flowers germany blog domestic policies. But they are nothing to do with our national independence.
Once again, I am asked why it takes so long for comments to be posted. It is not because I need to ‘approve’ them. In most cases I don’t see them before they are published, though a few are referred to me. It is because this site is part of a major newspaper group which takes the laws of defamation seriously, and because there are a limited number of people available to check contributions before they are posted.
Mr ‘Dreyfus’ is perfectly correct in pointing out that Norway and Switzerland have handled their economies better than we have. Perhaps that is partly because we have been in the EU since 1972, and because our governments – rather than confronting this country’s need to modernise its economy and reform its education(for example) have hopes that in some magical way EU membership will save us. One very good reason for returning to independence is that we would have to rely on ourselves again, and could make our own plans and efforts to do so. While we have declined greatly, as who has said more than I, all is not yet lost. We still have a base from which we could recover. Not paying our vast contribution to the EU would help.
Various people have cast doubt on claims made by contributors that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, warned of war. Well, on 26th October in a speech to the Bundestag, she said as follows: “No one should think that a further half century of peace and prosperity is assured. If the euro fails, Europe will fail.”
A note on cannabis farming
When I heard that there had been a revolting massacre in the Belgian city of Liege, ending with the self-slaughter of the culprit, I immediately wondered what drugs the killer would turn out to have been taking. And lo, (though none of the BBC radio or TV reports that I have so far heard or seen have mentioned this, though of course they do stress his ownership of guns) , the killer –Nordine Amrani – had earlier been convicted of cannabis farming.
When he was arrested in 2008, police found he had grown 2,800 cannabis plants in a warehouse. While I doubt if he could have consumed all his products himself, it seems reasonable to assume that he sampled his own goods, probably quite extensively. All that we know of his last days is that he apparently thought he was being ‘picked on’ by the police. The idea that you are being picked on is, I am told, quite common among heavy users of cannabis. It is also demonstrable that various types of mental illness are associated with heavy cannabis use.
I gather that gun law in Belgium is quite strict, or has been since 2006. Amrani was prosecuted under it, though somehow he seems to have been allowed to keep or acquire a substantial arsenal (I am not sure if this illustrates the feebleness of the law itself in practice, or the usual near-total failure of gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, or both. Amrani had been in trouble with the police since his teens, and would probably have been banned from legal gun-ownership in most states in the USA, certainly since what is described as ‘a vice conviction’ in 2003).
But it seems to me that you don’t start shooting and throwing hand grenades (surely these are illegal anywhere?) around in the middle of a crowded Christmas market unless you are in some way mentally ill .
Mental illness among individuals is (or was until the recent prevalence of legal and illegal mind-altering drugs) remarkably rare.
I mention these connections because I live in hope that sooner or later someone in government may act on them, and launch the necessary research to see if there is a link. I know that the connection between cannabis and mental illness flies in the face of the vast and costly PR campaign that has been waged on behalf of this drug for the last half-century, claiming that it is ‘soft’ and harmless and herbal. But does a wise person then reject the possibility that the correlation might actually be causation?
No comments:
Post a Comment