Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Reactionary

Less than a fortnight after returning to the Conservative front bench as Shadow Business Secretary, Kenneth Clarke is back in the news for having 'warned' the party to which he belongs 'against taking a "right-wing nationalist" stance on Europe'.
That the portfolio of Shadow Business Secretary is held by 'one of the most Europhile Tory MPs' at the same time as the Cabinet post of Business Secretary is held by one of the most fanatical of all globalists, a former European Commissioner, seems to have passed without comment in the mainstream media. That both are also political fossils of long standing, not 'big beasts' but dinosaurs from the bygone and increasingly discredited age that was the 1990's, also seems to have escaped their attention. Different parties, same positions, no new ideas. You'd almost think there was an agenda at work.
Clarke, a long standing recipient of British taxpayers' largesse, should explain that if he is not a 'right-wing nationalist', then what is he? He cannot be a right-wing internationalist - such a position is not just theoretically inconsistent, but also inconsistent with the demands of political reality. He cannot be a left-wing nationalist, for identical reasons. If he is not a right-wing nationalist, the he must be considered to be a left-wing internationalist by default. Like all left-wing internationalists, he certainly seems purblind to reason, at least as far as the European Union's been concerned.
His career, which you and I have funded on the basis that we presume he works for us, has been spent promoting the 'benefits' accruing to the United Kingdom from its integration into wider political European union. Over time, these have changed from benefits which will accrue, to those which are accruing to those which will accrue. Perhaps the tense in which they will finally appear is yet to be invented, for the evidence of their existence at any point has been nil. One suspects that it always will be nil. That's the way the evidence is swinging. To give him the limited credit which is his due, he is at least consistent. With Ken Clarke, it's Europe then, Europe now, Europe forever.
If states have no friends, only interests, then at some time the interests of an integrated Europe must clash with those of the United Kingdom. This has happened time and time again. Integrated Europe's political culture has been shown to be that of the petty tyrant Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a very much more oppressive, authoritarian one than Clarke's own native one. Yet he seems attracted to that foreign culture like a moth to a candle. It is a compulsion for him, an addiction from which he suffers as surely as an alcoholic is addicted to alcohol. He is not just a Europhile - he is a Eurojunkie.
The European Union will fail. It is a utopia; all utopias crumble. Their very name means they cannot exist in the real world. Those who continue to push it are not visionaries, but reactionaries. They cling like limpets to the idea that power should be concentrated in the hands of a self-selecting elite as surely as did De Maistre.
The European Union does not exist to advance the interests of those who pay Ken Clarke's wages - it exists to support a cosmopolitan international business class whose interests are often diametrically opposed to those who do pay Ken Clarke's wages, and who have paid them loyally through thick and thin. Ken Clarke works for you and me; he has never had any business meeting with businessmen in dark corners away from public scrutiny. For as long as he has taken my money and your money, he has had no right to do so; yet he has one so again and again.
Why has he done this?
Why has the mainstream media never taken him to task for this?
Who does this man, who when all is said is done is your employee and my employee, think he is to have behaved in this way for so long? Who has given the mandate to do so? Not me, for sure; and probably not you, either.
The European Union and the people who run it have consistently shown themselves to the be the enemies of British liberty and British independence. By and large, they have shown themselves to have the mindsets of early 19th Century authoritarian continental creeps. As Orwell wrote, "If you want an image of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". That's the European Union through and through, and still it's been pushed on us. But Orwell was wrong in one major respect. In Britain's case, the foot doing the stamping hasn't worn a boot, but a Hush Puppy.
It must be considered the smallest of mercies that Ken Clarke came to prominence in the '80's and not the '30's. One would have to wonder what attitude he would have taken to appeasement.


Blogger David Lindsay said...

The Tories are the party of the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty, eighteen consecutive annual votes to approve the Common Agricultural Policy (with only the tiniest handful of rebels, towards the very hand), eighteen consecutive annual votes to approve the Common Fisheries Policy (likewise), the withdrawal of the whip from an infinitesimal number of MPs who had merely abstained on increased British funding of the EU, the deselection of a Maastricht rebel and of no other MP ever on the European issue, the fake call for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty rather than for its simple rejection by Parliament, and the refusal to promise to campaign for a No vote in the extremely unlikely event of any such referendum.

Even the vague promise to revisit the CFP, an old Major hand like Michael Howard’s nod to Euroscepticism, has been ditched by Cameron, Michael Heseltine’s mini-me. The Tories have not left the European People’s Party, and they never will.

Meanwhile, this is a golden opportunity to amend the Standing Orders of both Houses so as to require that Ministers appear to answer questions in either House as required, rather than only in that of which they are members.

The Tories could embarrass the Government (and do the right thing) by putting down such an amendment. What is stopping them?

22 January, 2009 14:56  
Blogger Martin said...

The ££££££ signs tattooed on the inside of their eyelids?

23 January, 2009 05:38  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home