Lorry delivers popcorn to Nowhere Towers

This is getting interesting.

I really don't care whether Mr Papandreou is a visionary leader, infused to his very core with the principles of demoracy, or a weak and vacillating coward who is looking for an opportunity to hold an election and retire from the fray. Both viewpoints are on offer depending on where you look.

No, what I like is that the Eurozone leaders are shocked by his decision (now backed by his cabinet) to hold a referendum on the EU bailout proposal. Shocked, I tell you.

Stock markets recorded big drops amid shocked reactions in eurozone capitals to the referendum announcement.

All because one national leader clearly hasn't read the script.

On Tuesday President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said Mr Papandreou's decision "surprised all of Europe".

That's the understatement of the week. Even his own finance minister wasn't forewarned. And, we are told, even David Cameron learned of the referendum from the television news. Gasp.

The French and German governments said they wanted "full implementation" of the agreement "in the quickest time-frame".

Well, of course they do. Every day that the agreement is delayed is another chance for it to unravel. And that isn't in the script.

The delicious part of all of this is that a crisis has been created because one national leader thought it a good idea to ask his people for their opinion before taking a major decision affecting the country's future.

Yet more evidence that the EU is not about what the people want, it's about what the elite have planned for us. And when someone questions that, they don't like it one little bit.

Whatever Papandreou's motives, his actions have exposed one thing very clearly: in the EU, asking the people their opinion is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Ask Cameron.

Cradle of Democracy?

It seems the Greeks are to be offered a referendum on the EU bailout offer and the austerity measures they are having imposed on them.

Greece will hold a referendum on a new European Union aid package intended to resolve the country's debt crisis, Prime Minister George Papandreou says.

Last week eurozone leaders agreed on a 100bn-euro loan (£86bn; $140bn) to Athens and a 50% debt write-off, in a effort to tackle the euro crisis.

But there have been large-scale protests in Greece against austerity measures demanded by the EU.

Don't get me wrong here: the Greeks have a debt crisis and someone has to do something about it. The Germans are rightly getting pissed off about paying gazillions into the EU so that the Southern nations can continue their siesta lifestyle, and it all had to come to an end. There is a debt to be paid, and whether it is paid in cash or in lost confidence is something that will have to be decided. But it seems that Mr Papandreou feels that the decision must be made by the Greek people.

Mr Papandreou told a meeting of his governing Socialist party that Greek people would have the final say on the package, which is designed to reduce Greek debt by about 100bn euros.

"The command of the Greek people will bind us", he was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

Nice that at least one Euopean leader feels that the people are the best judge of their own situation.

And in other news, the second e-petition for a British referendum on the EU has reached 11,783 signatures.

Which will also be ignored.

Lib Dems Two-Faced? Surely Not ...

H/t Old Holborn

Head/Brick Wall Interface

I wasn't quick enough and Daniel Hutchinson beat me to it. I had an idea that if no-one else did, I would set up another e-petition asking the same question as the last one. After all, if the EU can keep asking people referendum questions until it gets the answer it desires, why can't we do the same? But it has been done already, so I have merely had to sign someone else's handiwork.

Referendum on the European Union

Responsible department: Foreign and Commonwealth Office

We, the people of the United Kingdom, are dissatisfied with the result of the EU Referendum Debate on 24 October 2011 and would like the House of Commons to reconsider its decision in light of this petition and grant us an opportunity through a referendum to express our desire on the relationship with the EU.

2784 at time of writing. There have been almost a hundred signatures since I started writing this post.

The e-petition is here. Do your duty. And tell your friends. If five people read this and sign, and then each tells five more ...

UPDATE: 10:51 26/10/2011 - reached 5000 signatures.

UPDATE 2: 15:16 26/10/2011 - 6075 signatures.

Why I No Longer Read The Guardian

I was brought up with the Manchester Guardian, and it was my daily read for a long time. Generally, it was well put-together, well-informed and had enough humour to leaven the more earnest parts of its content. And in Araucaria, Rufus, Bunthorne and Shed it had the most imaginative and intriguing crossword setters of any newspaper. The crozzy alone was worth the purchase price. That was in the days when I still thought of myself as left-of-centre, before the centre moved sharply leftwards and I remained on my little island of well-meaning fluffiness and kindness to animals. I stopped reading it when I realised that the tone of the whole paper had become hectoring, sneering and intolerant - you must agree with this, you must think that - and that it had long changed from the days of C P Scott, when it was Liberal in the sense of, well, proper liberal rather than left-liberal. It is worth remembering that the paper hated Aneurin Bevan, called for Attlee's Labour government to be voted out, and opposed the creation of the NHS because, it argued, universal healthcare would lead to a blunting of natural selection and an increase in the number of deformed and feckless people. Hmmm. The paper also notably blamed the protestors for the massacre on Bloody Sunday - something unthinkable for the Guardian today.

I read The Times for a while - not bad, less dull than I remembered - and occasionally the Telegraph - still dull - but then I pretty much stopped reading newspapers altogether. I now get my news from the TV and a reading of a huge variety of online sources, including both left and right and non-aligned, and I feel I am vastly better informed and much more discriminating than before.

I was reminded of why I stopped reading it when I saw this article in the online edition. Not the article itself, which seems fair and informative, but the comments that follow. The article concerns a poll, which found that 70% of people support a referendum on our membership of the EU, and 49% of them favour a withdrawal, compared to 40% who would vote to stay.

Conservative rebels pushing for an in-or-out referendum on Europe are riding the tide of public opinion, according to a Guardian/ICM poll.

Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain's EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would vote for UK withdrawal.

Forty-nine per cent would vote to get Britain out of Europe, against just 40% who prefer to stay in.

Good journalism - factual, informative and balanced. But the comments - sheesh! All the nasty, arrogant, sneering shits in Islington must have been drafted in to write them. Here's a sample:

Mr Lumpy: God help us all if the unwashed get a vote on something important!

Needs no comment: if you disagree with me you are uneducated - no, unwashed - and therefore your opinion can be discounted. I thought it was only the toffs who sneered about the 'unwashed'. Perhaps left-wing toffs still do.

Baggieofko: Will all those who wish us to leave explain what pieces of legislation they will have to introduce to replace the European legislation they profess to hate? And explain precisely how trading with Europe on Europe's terms is made better when you're not even at the table to decide what those terms are.

Interesting thought, that if we leave Europe we will have to dream up new legislation to replace the old. No question that we could, like, just not replace it at all? And how Soviet to equate trading in a market with 'terms' and agreements - as if no-one will buy anything from anyone else unless the 'terms' have been agreed in an office somewhere.

Finite187: And thank god, that's why we have representative democracy.

Like the lower case 'g' - very edgy and non-conformist. Translation: we vote in MPs to make decisions for us because we are too stupid to think for ourselves. If it weren't for MPs, people might actually vote for doing things the way they want, and that wouldn't do, not at all.

Doswillrule agrees: The reason we elect politicians is that most people don't know what's best for them. Referendums fulfil a lovely ideal but are completely and utterly illogical.

An explanation as to why referenda are illogical would have helped here, as it isn't immediately obvious from the context, but of course that would have required some thinking.

Organicprankster: I wonder how many among that 49% could accurately describe the mechanisms and institutions of the EU.

I wonder how many among the 40% who want to stay in could do that. Probably very few. No-one understands the mechanisms of the EU. That's the whole point, and the EU works very hard to keep it so.

Strummered: EU referendum: poll shows 49% would vote for UK withdrawal. Another unofficial poll also suggests these same people have difficulties tying their shoelaces.

Pointless ad hominem insult, and not even funny.

dv420uk: So that means that the other 51% would vote for remaining in the EU.

Hasn't read beyond the headline.

Strummered, again: I despair, these same people egged on by jingoist tabloid nonsense and Tory Eurosceptic buffoons will have no idea of the abject repercussions.

People who disagree with me just blindly follow the papers and don't understand the real issues. I, and people who agree with me, are enlightened and can see the whole thing clearly. It's a good job we are in charge.

Theunknowing: Fools.

Succinct. And revealing.

It was the feeling of grubbiness at being in the same company as these self-righteous twats that made me stop reading the paper. But there's some common sense as well, though:

Koolio: I suspect a lot of people are rightly expressing anger and frustration over Europe and it's this that needs to be tackled. Note this is valid across Europe, even in France and Germany many voters are exasperated by policies implemented over which they have had almost no say. Widespread reform of the EU can be pro-European, it is not the exclusive property of skeptics.

Thank goodness someone has mentioned that many of the French and Germans are getting very disillusioned with the EU, although perhaps not as publicly (yet) as the UK.

KaiserCelente: Direct democracy - let the people vote. If we did this more often would we have bailed out the banks? Would we have gone to war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya? All i know is had the people have been given the vote on all these important issues, in my opinion this country would be in far far better shape than the Sh*t hole it is right now.

I think there is enough collective intellect in the population to always provide a better indication of the best thing to do through a vote than a handful of spoilt toffs in governemnt who are bought and paid for by banks and corporations.

Can't disagree with that.

As a coda, I have to mention a cartoon I saw in the paper many years ago. I've tried hard to find it online without success, so you will have to make do with a verbal description. It sums up the Guardian mindset superbly.

A man is running down the street, money falling out of his pockets, pursued by an attacker wielding a knife. Two men are watching it happen. One says to the other:

"Of course, to the enlightened observer, they are both crying for help."

People's Pledge

I have signed the People's Pledge. They ask all signatories to pass on the following message, which I do gladly, as it saves writing a whole post explaining something that I think most people 'get' anyway.

I have just signed up to the People's Pledge, a new campaign that will force MPs to give us a referendum on our relationship with the EU.

The People's Pledge is supported by people with a wide range of views on the EU: those who are enthusiastic about British membership, those who are sceptical and those who actively seek to leave the EU. The campaign is cross party too, with supporters from all the main political parties.

Please add your name to theirs.

Go to http://www.peoplespledge.org/ and sign up to add your name to others in your constituency who want their MP to support a referendum on our EU membership. You will also be able to see whether your MP has yet pledged their support for a referendum, along with details of how they voted on every major EU-related issue over the last few years.

Remember, many MPs have majorities of just a few hundred votes, so every person that signs the People's Pledge WILL make a difference.

I urge you to go and sign. Whether you are pro or anti the EU, I feel that the issue will never be resolved unless and until the British people are asked their opinion and can express it, one way or the other. What we have is not what I and many others voted for in 1975, and anyone under the age of 54 has not been asked their opinion at all. This is possibly the biggest issue of our times, as it relates not to one style of government or another, but whether we govern ourselves or are governed by an unelected and self-selected elite in another country. It's beyond party politics and goes to the very nature of who we are.

If a change to the minor detail of our voting system is worth a referendum, then surely we cannot be denied our voice on this.

When I Want Your Opinion I Will Give It To You

It is as well to remember that the Parliamentary debate on Monday is not over whether we should be in or out of the EU. It is about whether the British people should be asked their opinion on the matter.

According to Cameron, Hague and the rest we should not be asked - presumably because there is a danger that we might give the wrong answer.

This tells you all you need to know.

EU Referendum vote

Having reached the required 100,000 signatures, the idea of giving a referendum on our continued EU membership is going to be debated in Parliament. Thanks to OOL, I now learn that the vote, originally scheduled for 27 October, will now be held next Monday, 24 October. Ostensibly this is to allow David Cameron and William Hague, who will be in Australia on the 27th, to participate in the debate, but in reality I suspect it is a ploy to prevent the pro-referendum campaign from building up a head of steam.

Be that as it may, I saw on Snowolf's blog a letter he has written to his MP on the subject. It is so good that I asked him for permission to use it myself. He's fine with that, and with anyone else who cares to use it. I have made some slight alterations to the text - firstly because I am old enough to have voted in the 1975 referendum and Wolfers' letter was from someone who was too young to do that, and secondly because hundreds of identical letters landing on MPs' inboxes smacks of astroturfing, and risks being taken less seriously because of that. Here's my version, sent to Stephen Crabb MP earlier this evening.

Dear Stephen

This is possibly the most important letter I will ever write to my MP. I would be grateful if you would give it your most serious attention.

I note that the members of the Backbench Business Committee have scheduled a debate on the question of a motion proposing a referendum on our EU membership for October 27th.

As a constituent, I am writing to you to ask how you intend to vote following this debate, and to put forward my argument as to why a referendum must be given.

I could write about how I was given the opportunity to vote, in 1975, on our continued membership of the European Economic Community, which was primarily a trading arrangement, and how I felt reassured by the insistence of both Harold Wilson and Edward Heath that membership of the EEC would not involve any loss of sovereignty to the UK. Of course, the progress from the EEC to the EC and then the EU has involved a massive transfer of sovereignty away from Westminster to Brussels, and Edward Heath later admitted that he was aware all along that this was the intention of those promoting a 'yes' vote at the time. I could add that millions of people who were born after 1957 - anyone under the age of 54 - have never had the
opportunity to express an opinion on our membership, and how the Prime Minister’s statement that we have already had a say is therefore disingenuous.

I could point out the fact that the EU has failed to have its accounts signed off for almost two decades now, how whilst the nation states of Europe are reduced to penury, the EU votes itself ever larger budgets, about how the pattern of abuse of the expenses system by some MEPs is well documented, how their fiscal projects have put a number of nations into bankruptcy, crippled with debt repayments unprecedented in history, that this has been done against their own laws and has almost dragged us down with them.

I could state that their behaviour and duplicity when the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty was being steamrollered through (you must keep voting until you give the right answer) is anti-democratic at best and the actions of a Stalinist Soviet at worst.

I could draw attention to the practices of adhering to the regulations as set out by the EU makes life very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses – the life blood of our economy - and in many cases financially impossible.

I could highlight the costs of our membership, both in terms of taxation taken from the public and the expense of complying with ever more intrusive and complex edicts and directives from the EU.

Whilst I believe all these points are important, I think the matter comes down to a basic and vital question; Are we sovereign?

Ever closer union has only one logical outcome – a complete political union where the nation states are reduced to the level of federal states. It is all very well for Messrs Cameron, Hague and Duncan-Smith to talk about re-negotiations, saying no or not allowing any further steps, but they are trying to negotiate a rebate on the lunch money the playground bully has taken from them, and I am not convinced that what is said at conference is said in Brussels.

Mr. Crabb, the question of the UK’s continued existence as an independent and sovereign nation is at stake here, and the citizens of the UK must be allowed to deliver a binding verdict on the subject. It cannot be signed away on the strength of the cabinet at the time knowing ‘what is best’, and that verdict must be allowed to be delivered without fear of retribution or sanction from the EU if Parliament or the electorate return the ‘wrong’ decision in the eyes of the EU.

You will no doubt not be surprised to read that in any such referendum I would vote for our withdrawal, favouring as I do a pure free trade model as espoused by Lord Tebbit. However, those who hold a contrary view to mine simply must be able to express it to get this issue sorted once and for all.

I understand from the BBC today that David Cameron is against holding such a referendum, and that the Government is likely to enforce a whip to ensure that the Government MPs vote the 'correct' way. I would urge you to resist any such tactics and vote according to the interests and wishes of your constituents. I voted Conservative in 1979 and have done so ever since at all elections, in the belief that the party was the best choice for protecting British interests and prosperity, and being the most Euro-sceptic of the big three. However, recent events - including my bitter disappointment at Mr Cameron's failure to honour his 'cast-iron' commitment to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - have made me re-evaluate my decision. In the next election, whenever it is held, I will be voting for a party that will support withdrawal from the EU or, at the very least, vote to allow the people of this country a genuine say in whether we remain members or not. If that means that the Conservative Party loses my support and another party gains it, so be it. For me, this is an issue bigger than any other, including the debt crisis itself.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

I would urge all people who care about the future of our country to contact their MP by whatever means necessary and express their opinion. Although, sadly, the exercise will probably be utterly futile, it is an opportunity we cannot afford to let slip by.

If anyone wishes to use my version of the letter (above) as a template for their own, they are more than welcome.