Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The People’s Pledge - a campaign for an In/Out EU Referendum

We’ve been here before. In 1997, to be precise. EU Referendum fever swept the land just before the general election, infecting between 1,000-2,500 in each constituency. Sir James Goldsmith introduced the virus, which was virtually eradicated by the offer of an hypothetical referendum on the euro, to which all parties are now committed.

Today, a cross-party referendum campaign is re-launched. The 'People's Pledge' asks everyone to sign up to pledge:
“I will only vote at the next election for a candidate who publicly promises to support a binding referendum on our EU membership and to vote for it in the House of Commons”
The website is useful as well: when you sign up, you are navigated straight to a page of information about your local MP, detailing how they have voted on various European issues in the Commons.

His Grace was invited to the launch, but, having no corporeal presence, was obliged to decline. But there is reason to believe that this initiative may succeed where Sir James did not, not least because, although the Prime Minister has ruled it out altogether, Labour is open-minded about an In/Out referendum. Once their front benchers realise they are no longer in government, the logic of supporting such a poll, and positioning themselves on the right side of public opinion, might be overwhelming.

The campaign has attracted many Labour figures, as well as Greens and trade unionists. Some of these wholly support the UK’s continuing membership of the EU, but not without democratic legitimacy.

There is also the sheer state of public opinion: polls consistently find that a majority (around 60 per cent) of the country want this referendum. Indeed, more than twice as many people want an In/Out referendum on the EU as want a referendum on AV. The People's Pledge is a practical way of forcing an in/out referendum onto the agenda.

Of course, the initiative has its detractors. But Dr North is long in the tooth and takes an awful lot of convincing. He is right to ask ‘And then what?’, but politics has become a nudging game, with incremental gains – sometime micro-movements – towards a pre-ordained end, because the people have been conditioned to believe that revolution inspired by philosophical purity, doctrine or dogma is a form of terrorism.

And so one proceeds one step at a time. While the Prime Minister has embedded his feet firmly in the concrete, at least this group has a degree of momentum on the most important political issue of the age. It may not succeed; it may be half-baked and lacking intellectual credibility; they may not have given one iota of thought to how they would actually win a referendum against the might of the BBC and the rest of the Brussels-adoring media and Establishment. But it’s all we’ve got. And there’s nothing to lose. So, why not make the pledge?

One reason: Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party was pledged to govern to enact just one law: an EU Referendum Bill. Once on the statute books and the referendum held, the party was pledged to dissolve itself and call a general election in order that tribal politics may proceed as usual. Whatever the outcome, a sovereign people would have spoken and either voted to restore their sovereignty or surrender it.

With the People’s Pledge, you are committing to voting for whichever candidate from whichever party has sworn to support an In/Out Referendum. Will Tories vote for a Labour candidate, with no assurance at all that this initiative will succeed? Will Socialists vote Tory? Will anyone vote LibDem? There is no doubt that UKIP and BNP candidates will be bending over backwards to portray themselves as the true defenders of democracy: in constituencies where the only candidate supporting the initiative is the BNP, the People’s Pledge asks voters to commit to voting for them.

Perhaps Dr North is right: it lacks an intellectual base.

But it’s all we’ve got.


Blogger Timothy Belmont said...

Oh how one longs for the days of Sir James (Jimmy) Goldsmith and Alan Clark.

I've been reading Clark's Last Diaries and he was pally with Sir James, to the extent that he was invited to hols at Cuixmala, the Goldsmith Mexican estate.

15 March 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Has there been any (neutral) polling of late on public attitudes towards Europe? I have absolutely no idea how the masses would respond to the question “should we leave the EU or stay in”.

15 March 2011 at 11:29  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

I share Dr North's cynicism. Politics is a nasty business with some very dishonest people, and I just don't like people that I can't trust. We've seen how easily they make promises, because talk is cheap. Unfortunately, although I'd like to be proven wrong, my inclination is to feel that Dr North is correct.

15 March 2011 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A referendum should not be needed.
It is a tool of the weak.
A Party should campaign with a clear policy and,once elected, enact that policy.
It's not as though this has become a prominent issue only AFTER the General Election , is it now?

Britain was conned into membership of the EEC by the most left-wing Tory PM ever.
Cross-party or not,undue influence will be brought to bear to get the "right" result.
Ask the Irish about such things.

And so what if a politician promises something?

Still,it's all irrelevant : the country,like all of the EU nations,is ruled by communitarian political powers.Britain will , sadly , do as it is jolly well ordered.

Marcus Foxall

15 March 2011 at 11:39  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Thank you for putting this here, and with the link to Dr North, who links to the campaign team. This is another dilemma of our time, and waverers may be swayed by what they know, or don't, about the campaign team: like parliamentary elections, in the end voting is usually (or often) "ad hominem" in a vacuum enclosed by uncertainties. Unlike the worthies of the campaign team, cynical politicos know this and play to it. Possibly under the way it works in this country, the discontent is milder than it would otherwise be?

And thank you for reminding us of the unequivocal merit of Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, viz, it "was pledged to govern to enact just one law: an EU Referendum Bill."

15 March 2011 at 11:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dont like to put a dampener on this but its NEVER going to happen is it.
The EU would never allow it and as all 3 main parties in the UK are EU stooges what chance of success.

15 March 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

‘[T]hey may not have given one iota of thought to how they would actually win a referendum against the might of the BBC and the rest of the Brussels-adoring media and Establishment’.

We Judaeo-Christians are at our best when our numbers are small; our backs against the wall: outgunned and outnumbered.

Did not 300 Spartans oppose the might of Persia?

‘Go! Tell the Spartans, thou who passest by,
That here obedient to their laws we lie’.

Simonides (556-468 BC)

Did not Gideon’s 300 defeat the Midianites?

‘But the Lord said to Gideon, "There are still too many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them for you there. If I say, 'This one shall go with you, he shall go; but if I say, this one shall not go with you, he shall not go." So Gideon took the men down to the water. There the Lord told him, "Separate those who lap the water with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink." Three hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got down on their knees to drink. The Lord said to Gideon, "With the 300 men that lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place’.

Did not Henry V, heavily outnumbered, defeat the French forces at Agincourt?

Henry V:

‘… This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;…’

Did not my Lord Cromwell instruct his men: ‘It is not numbers that count, but speed and surprise.’?

‘Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.’

Churchill (1874-1965)

Rally men! Rally to the Cause!

15 March 2011 at 12:26  
Blogger Will said...

"With the People’s Pledge, you are committing to voting for whichever candidate from whichever party has sworn to support an In/Out Referendum."

Not so. You are committing to only voting for a candidate who supports a referendum. The commitment does not, however, rule out abstaining in the event that none of the candidates otherwise acceptable to you have refused to support a referendum.

15 March 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Mr D Singh said 15 March 2011 12:26

My fine fellow, you know how fond of you Ernst is BUT..

If this was happening in May 2011 and was part of the immediate election process, Ernst would be besides himself with joy.

It appears His Grace and others have forgotten this is a five year term of Coalition government, Not based on the EU Referendum argument and nothing will happen, as the threat is to not vote for an MP in a future General Election, who refuses to acknowledge this desire.

You have all woofed down the vague morsel offered by Lab/Libdem/Cons etc to try and placate the majority.

Dave Cameron let slip the other day that HE wants us in the EU, whereas we have an vote on AV going ahead, not on a promised referendum that Cameron debunked Labour for reneging on in 2005???


The delusion continues...Ernst refuses to be B%**@-$&&£D, by anyone.

Ernst 'The Realist' Blofeld

15 March 2011 at 12:43  
OpenID hightory.com said...

There already is an identical campaign! See here: http://www.eureferendumcampaign.com

No one has explained why this second organisation has been set up. It's aims and methods are exactly the same as the first. It all seems rather odd.


15 March 2011 at 13:23  
Anonymous DAvid said...

Your Grace is, ofcourse, correct: it is all we have, and, it has no intellectual base.
Actually, it is all we have because the Eurosceptic movement has no intellectual base today.
Any movement must describe the beauty of the future it offers but, having been largely distracted by eurosceptic parties with no ability nor desire to describe a Europe without the EU, we are in the rare position of a political movement with no idea of what it is we wish to achieve.
We used to be a movement which warned of an unpleasant future. But now that has become today's reality - the EU is the regime under which we live. The EU is the state.
But the British eurosceptic movement has not understood this and does not describe change. It cannot come to terms with being revolutionary but wishes to remain conservative.
Until we find the moral courage and the intelectual base to do this we need capers like campaigning for a referendum.

15 March 2011 at 13:28  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

North's objection is not based on cynicism, though I think he justifiably has his fair share of that. He maintains that there is a strong chance of such a referendum going the wrong way, and if that happens we are sunk for a generation. In effect, all is lost. It is a terrible risk, into which we should not enter unless we can be absolutely sure of winning.

People clamouring for an in/out referendum in the hope the majority will vote OUT, are whistling in the dark.

1. There is no evidence that the majority would vote OUT.
2. The last referendum (on the EEC) was fiddled so the Pro side couldn't lose
3. Even people and organisations campaigning for a referendum would subsequently campaign for the IN side. The Daily Mail, for instance, is in favour of a referendum, but against withdrawal. The Daily Mail, for goodness' sake!

North argues that people need a clear vision of what to be for, rather than against. What vision of a post-EU Britain would prompt people to support withdrawal?

15 March 2011 at 13:28  
Anonymous Hospitable Scots Bachelor said...

I have a horrible feeling that because none of the movers and shakers in the three main parties want to leave Europe, this initiative will be strangled at birth!

15 March 2011 at 13:29  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

All very well for Mr D Singh to trot out his usual stuff about the Spartans and other minorities. The fact is, however, that in a referendum the minority is the loser.

15 March 2011 at 13:30  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Looks like my MP, Eric Ollerenshaw, is a rabid Europhile. I wonder if he's going to risk his 333 (drastically reduced) vote "majority" when he finally recognises that the EU isn't in the least bit palatable to the people he's supposed to be representing.

I didn't vote for him last May and, given his dire track record when it comes to rolling belly up for the Colleagues, he isn't ever going to get my vote.

15 March 2011 at 13:31  
Blogger Will said...

I'll try again, this time with correct logic:

"With the People’s Pledge, you are committing to voting for whichever candidate from whichever party has sworn to support an In/Out Referendum."

Not so. While the pledge does commit you to only voting for a candidate who supports a referendum, it does not rule out abstaining in the event that none of the candidates otherwise acceptable to you supports one.

15 March 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

High Tory said 15 March 2011 13:23

In your Article you state;

"Of course this is still purely hypothetical. It may be that Labour’s pro-EU leadership decide against something which could hand the Eurosceptics a victory on a plate, although, in the short term, and especially in the next General Election, it could win them crucial votes and comfortably return them to power."

This would be plausable IF Blair in 2005 had not already promised this to destroy Tory aspirations at the time, thereby winning the election and Brown completed the double cross shortly thereafter.

The delusion continues...Ernst refuses to be B%**@-$&&£D, by anyone.

E S Blofeld

15 March 2011 at 13:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Anabaptist

When did I say anything about fighting a referendum?

How would you like it if we made you an 'Honorary Lieutenant'?

15 March 2011 at 13:54  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

No thanks, Mr S. I'm not going to have anything to do with it. The entire proposal should be strangled at birth. The risk of failure is too great -- the cost immeasurable. That's not cowardice; it's realism.

15 March 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Will,

Your logic is no logic.

In fact, if that is the campaign, then it is even more lacking in intellectual credibility than His Grace thought.

The objective is to apply pressure upon parliamentary candidates to support a referendum. The threat is only credible if the voter pledges (= "solemn undertaking") to place his or her vote with the candidate promising to support the referendum. You appear to be saying that (say) a Tory voter who threatens to vote Labour (because only the Labour candidate supports the Referendum objective) may not ultimately vote Labour, because to do so would be unacceptable to them. That is, they may ultimately vote Tory regardless. That is no credible campaign because it is no threat because there is no pressure.

And it is certainly no kind of 'pledge'.

15 March 2011 at 14:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of bare faced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles. The spirit of Munich is a sickness of the will of successful people. It is the daily condition of those who have given themselves up to the thirst after prosperity at any price, to material well-being as the chief goal of earthly existence. Such people-and there are many in today's world-elect passivity and retreat, just so as their accustomed life might drag on a bit longer, just so not as to step over the threshold of hardship today-and tomorrow, you'll see it will be all right. (But it will never be all right! The price of cowardice today will only be evil; we shall reap courage and victory only when we dare to make sacrifices.)

Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Literature Prize lecture (1970)

15 March 2011 at 14:24  
Blogger Will said...

On the contrary, Your Grace, my logic is sound. I fear you are still neglecting the abstain option, since you argue that the pledge will morally bind someone to vote for the BNP if theirs is the only pro-referendum candidate. But abstaining is perfectly consistent with pledging to only vote for a pro-referendum candidate, since one is not also pledging to vote.

This may seem like a convenient get-out clause, but actually it is crucial to being able to make the pledge in good conscience. Moreover, it still possesses political power, since in a marginal seat a candidate can't afford abstentions - even if they are only half as bad as votes for one's opponent.

15 March 2011 at 14:41  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Quite so, Anabaptist: Dr North's warning reads as coming from a justified sceptic (who is inclined to rumble the cynicism of politicos).

15 March 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Will,

With respect, you are ignoring the precise wording of the pledge. It is a solemn undertaking to vote for...

It is not a not-so-solemn undertaking to vote for a candidate if they support a referendum AND accord with a particular worldview.

His Grace takes his pledges very seriously, for they amount to a promise akin to an oath.

15 March 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Will (14:41)—If the only pro-referendum candidate in a constituency represents the BNP, and electors who favour a referendum abstain rather than vote for him, one of the anti-referendum candidates is bound to win. The merest whiff of abstention and the pressure is off the anti-referendum mob.

15 March 2011 at 14:53  
Blogger Will said...

Your Grace, with respect, you are misquoting the pledge. This is what the website says:

"I will only vote at the next election for a candidate who publicly promises to support a binding referendum on our EU membership and to vote for it in the House of Commons."

I'm afraid I do not interpret that to mean that I am also pledging to vote.

15 March 2011 at 14:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspect that the majority will vote to stay in the EU. And who should say that they are wrong?
We have an untrustworthy political class, a very undemocratic voting system in which we may only vote for party nominees who once voted in may well be there for life. We have a constitution made of political rubber which can be manipulated to any means required by the establishment and which the people have been bamboozled into believing is holy writ. In any case,as Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule". Surely, after the recent bye-election where Labour won an increased majority after thirteen ruinous years we can accept Thomas Jeffersons view as correct.
So as Clint Eastwood might have said to us,"What you gotta decide, punk, is do ya choose the Brit Pols, or the EU Pols", but either way the Pols win.

15 March 2011 at 16:42  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Writing exclusively for The Sun
Published: 28 Aug 2007

"I’VE got a couple of simple questions for Gordon Brown.
What makes you think you can break your promises to the British people?

And what makes you think you can change the way our country is governed without asking the British people first?

There’s a simple answer to both questions: Arrogance.

And when it comes to Europe, arrogance is what we’ve seen from Labour time and time again.

It’s the arrogance that says: “We, the powerful elites, know best.”

It’s the arrogance that puts more and more decisions in the hands of bureaucrats that no one’s ever heard of and no one can ever get rid of if they do a bad job.

And it’s the arrogance that Gordon Brown displays when he says we don’t need a referendum on the European constitution.

Labour’s last Election manifesto could not have been clearer on the EU constitution.

It said: “We will put it to the British people in a referendum, and campaign wholeheartedly for a Yes vote.”

And just two months ago, Gordon Brown said: “The manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto.

“That is an issue of trust with me and the electorate.”

Now he’s done a massive EU-turn.

I think this kind of shameless arrogance is the big cancer eating away at trust in politics.

Who can be surprised that people have less faith in politicians if they break their promises so casually?

Why should anyone bother to vote if the real decisions that affect our lives are made somewhere else?

This is the 21st Century. People are demanding ? and getting ? more and more control over their lives.

Many decisions that once used to be made by the “powers that be” are now in your hands ? and that’s a great thing.

These days, no one should have to take what they’re given any more.

That’s why I believe so strongly that we should have a referendum on the European constitution.

Because it would transfer power from our elected Parliament to the EU’s unelected bureaucrats, I would campaign for a resounding No vote.

And because it includes the power to transfer even more power from Westminster to Brussels, without even the need for a new treaty, this could be our last chance to stop the EU juggernaut.

Gordon Brown should be in no doubt: If he’s got the courage to hold an early election, as he should, our referendum pledge will be right there in our manifesto, giving the British people a clear choice.

But we shouldn’t have to wait for a General Election to get the referendum we need.

Today we are launching a new campaign, “Don’t Let Brown Let EU Down” to keep the pressure up.

Labour MPs in Parliament today were elected on a manifesto promise that their Government would hold a referendum on the European constitution. So let’s hold them to it.

By going to our website ? conservatives.**** ? Sun readers can see if their local MP is Labour, then send them a letter asking them to tell Gordon Brown to keep Labour’s manifesto promise.

When Parliament returns in the autumn, we will hold a vote demanding the Government gives Britain a referendum on the European constitution.

Sun readers will then be able to judge whether Labour MPs and Gordon Brown can be trusted.

When he took over as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown told us he would be “humble” and that he would listen to the people.

Well, if he breaks his referendum promise now, everyone will know that was just the same old spin from a Labour Party that hasn’t changed."

A question, Dave. What Happened.


15 March 2011 at 16:59  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It's old news now, Mr Blofeld. Everyone who is not tribally bound to the Conservative Party knows that Cameron is a slimy liar and hypocrite, and would not think of supporting him in another election.

The argument (not your argument, Ernst, old chap) that it's Cameron or the only alternative is Miliband is again appealing to tribalism, as there is no material difference between Cameron and Labour. The only differences are managerial, and have hardly any substance. They stand on almost exactly the same ground.

Cameron's weasely excuse for breaking his cast-iron promise (Lisbon had already been ratified, so what's the point of a referendum?) is nothing but cosmetic face saving.

Oops, sorry -- didn't mean insult to any weasels.

15 March 2011 at 17:08  
Blogger Nigel Sedgwick said...


Best regards

15 March 2011 at 18:08  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace adds some powerful sentences to an emotive issue. You are right in that we havent really had much of vote in somthing that affects our lives. Any vote will require a correct understanding of why in this particular journey the bon amie has turned a little sour on the British public.
It is a little difficult to determine wether the EU now realises its error ,and is faced with reformation. The rot as we have seen has a lot to do with economics and the form of brussels politics that has led to fraud , unsigned accounts and unelected people making fifedoms with lobbyists not entirely transparent or cost effective . Its socialist leanings have clearly as David Cameron said have caused "over reach" .
I often wonder if in 1972 , how we would feel about it in 2011 if it had remained a common market , a slim but effective business arrangement , seeking to improve the laws of individual states , but leaving there sovereingty and democracies intact (providing they ran accountable democracies). From club of the developed democracies to tyranical socialist party , with disciplinary and powers of punative punishments, is perhaps the journey we are so unhappy about.

So the next question may be , how much could it change into somthing less dissagreable? 5% of contributions 10 , 20 or 50% of contributions. Given we are perhaps at a point of understanding nation economies it may be possible to have frameworks for individual countries.

It is quite a relief to be able to see the beauty of St Petersburgh on a straightforward booked holiday. some countries that were the very worst communist dictatorships, perhaps havent evolved quite as we would like , I think we do not question our abilty to be a tourist in Europe or do some legally bound trade .It is the idea beyond this that has fallen apart as it has imposed some things that upset the national identity and the abilty to keep out what may cause harm .

Niether is the anger just in the UK so one can conclude it is the actions of the EU that have lead to the feeling we have, that somthing deliberate has been found to be a monumental error of flawed one boiler suite for all ideaology.

The right to reject this imposed rule and carry it through is what we see as the only remedy , to return to sovereign votes being of meaning , although even then how politics would work is not easy to show , if the emphasis reverts back to trade/tourism and not non trade imposed laws .

So there is centre right case for reform , coperative and repairing the worst of communism with a ideal of national improvement for those states that do need some better institutions and functions, and perhaps no euro currency. However this doesnt quite remedy the socialist damage and corruption which is causing the swing to more extreme positions.

If out of the EU gives the tools for destiny back to the people in there nation , it can only be a force of nature against the flawed ideaology that has taken place ,which was ill concieved, corruptly constrewed and enacted.

The rest is a matter of time in the face of corrupt spending/ruining of too much of other peoples wealth.

15 March 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Anabaptist 17:08


As for an EU Referendum, I fear it will never happen and if it does it will be rigged. We keep voting for Lib Lab Con and so we deserve what we get.

15 March 2011 at 19:19  
Anonymous IanCad said...

We are meant to have a representative form of government. Referenda should have no place in it. Most conservatives are ashamed of the transfer to Brussels of our sovereignty and our cash. Believe me, if this goes ahead it will fail. Then what?? Wait for the next European war? It will come. The closer economic and governmental ties are between nations the greater the chances of conflict become.
We need a strongly led conservative party to lead us out of this mess. It's OK to dream a little.

15 March 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous Sage said...

We need a referendum on the EU and need to bring British membership to an end. British sovereignty should lie in Britain not some other place in mainland Europe.

15 March 2011 at 22:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you watched treasures of the bible this evening ! poor David , didnt unite kingdoms , liar, murderer and it was someonelese who was unifer and whole book of David was written with bias , as explained by showing a map from 1927 .

please get Ben his gotcha ready !

15 March 2011 at 22:28  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

This is a bad idea.

For what if the vote was lost?

Do you seriously believe we would ever be allowed to vote on the issue ever gain, however bad our relationship with the EU gets?

On the other hand.

If the vote is won, then we will be given another and yet another until it is eventually lost.

IMO there is no possible chance that we will ever break free from the chains of European Hegemony until ALL or most of the peoples of Europe wish themselves as well as us to do so.

Therefore, for this to happen, certain uncontrolled events would have to happen, while the EU still remains morally illegitimate.

In other words, while the EU is still founded on little more then dishonest crookery, there is still remaining a small degree of hope. Once a referendum is eventually passed, all hope is instantly extinguished.


I for one do not trust our current system of voting.

An EU referendum must be paper ballot only, with no postal voting whatsoever, counted by local people only and the result immediately published in the local press and town hall, before going anywhere near any establishment controlled operation or body.

15 March 2011 at 22:33  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Anabaptist said 15 March 2011 17:08

My dear boy, this is my argument exactly. All liars and scoundrels!

'The People’s Pledge - a campaign for an In/Out EU Referendum '

As Churchill wisely said, "The pudding has no theme."

Maturecheese said 15 March 2011 19:19

Could not agree more.
Tiddles says Hi..She perked up when she saw your photo..I wonder why?

Anonymous deliriously blurted 15 March 2011 22:28

My dear boy, you must not believe everything that the BBC puts out, just to feed your disdain of the Holy Bible..They have an agenda that does not rely on accurately conveying historical facts.

Conclusions from your comment;

1.A fool is too easily pleased with himself (see your above comment)
2.“A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind” (Proverbs 18:2); “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (12:15).

Yet Proverbs 26:5 reminds us that what the fool really needs is for someone to stand up to him and kindly expose his folly for what it is.

Hope that helps.


There is a small village somewhere that I.s being D.eprI.ved O.f your T.alents.

15 March 2011 at 23:50  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Speaking as a non believer in God, I must say that there is present on this sight more common sense and objective reasoning then most of the rest put together; our gracious host being the most notable aspect of this most welcome situation.

There is little not to like about Cameron as a person, however he is very much sprung from the same stock, as Brown and Blair. In other words skillful liars, and deceivers. OK, Brown was not even very good at these things, but you have to admit he tried his best to be, but was found wanting in more ways then one.

Please be so kind as to allow me to explain my opening statement.

IMO, he, who is a believer, has DOUBT. Whereas, he who KNOWS God, has none.

Thus ends your thought for the day.

16 March 2011 at 00:00  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Atlas shrugged said 16 March 2011 00:00

Nice to see from your comment that you have given up drinking at this ungodly hour and have returned to normality (IMO, he, who is a believer, has DOUBT. Whereas, he who KNOWS God, has none.'..well, for you, that is), after last night's little escapade.

Ernst was seriously thinking of getting The Samaritans to give you a call, just to be on the safe side.

Fondest regards, my lad.


16 March 2011 at 00:10  
Anonymous Oswin said...

''...after last night's little escapade'' - Ernst, master of understatement!

16 March 2011 at 00:28  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

Oswin said 16 March 2011 00:28

Oswin, my dear chap, Ernst could not believe what he saw produced from the tapping fingers of Atlas Shrugged last night and literally reloaded comments pages a couple of times to prove that 'seeing really is believing'. Too much conspiracy theory does your noggin in.

It seems like the argumentative boy has returned back to his old self..Is that a good thing?



16 March 2011 at 00:34  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous @ 22:28 :

Yes, very interesting indeed; but I would advise caution until the dark, atheistic soul of media-junkie, Dr.Francesca Stavrakopoulou, has bared more of its self. A career in TV beckons, and there's a pretty girl ready and waiting to kick through the leaves ...

16 March 2011 at 00:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hurrah! (from one of your cousins across the pond) Haven't seen any mentions of this in the British press, when I read a few of them online, earlier today. Please, I beg you, get the word out in your respective communities. Get a real grassroots effort to push for signature gathering. You can do this, don't let anyone convince you otherwise.

16 March 2011 at 01:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't be supporting the campaign, though I do think the madness from Europe must be stopped.

I was child of the cold war and I distinctly remember my Mum telling me that communism was absolutely fine in principle, but practically it was a disaster. At its heart Communism was all about people being equal, but in reality people are anything but.

I am beginning to get the feeling that Europe is being run on similarly dogmatic and "anti-pragmatic" way and I cannot see anything good coming out of it.

16 March 2011 at 01:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Rule Britannia and bugger to the the rest!

16 March 2011 at 02:42  
Anonymous not a machine said...

yes last nights post was a little unusual (could it be the first instance of variance from atlas shrugged is she finally comming over to God)

16 March 2011 at 02:45  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Hope that helps."

I've copyrighted that Mr Blofeld. :P

16 March 2011 at 06:22  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

My dear boy, is this the height of your intellectual property. A bit meagre?

"Hope that helps ©." Is how you should be writing your comments, my irksome lad or Ernst will help himself to whatever he likes.

To be fair to you, my boy, you do give the odd golden nugget of memorable phrase but as my old latin teacher always said, whilst spraying our faces with his bucked tooth pronounciations 'Melius Potuit'.

Amans Ad Ernst Stavro Blofeld ©


Trust you like the photo, Ernst showing he was one of the Great Panto Dames. ;-p

16 March 2011 at 09:08  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

My Mate Not a Machine said 16 March 2011 02:45


Ernst is horrified..Thought Atlas Shrugged was a geezer..Arghh.

Should be AtLASS shrugged, Shirley..oops , Surely.

Old Ernsty

Mind you, I cannot talk, if you get a butchers of my photo.

A contrite Ernst

16 March 2011 at 09:14  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

"...my old latin teacher always said, whilst spraying our faces with his bucked tooth pronounciations 'Melius Potuit'." LOL!

I also thought Atlas Shrugged was a man! However, finding out it is a woman does explain why she uses a hundred words when ten would do just as well (No offence intended there Atlas Shrugged, men can tend to be more taciturn), and it had been puzzling me for some time.

16 March 2011 at 12:30  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

LobotomySpoon82 made Ernst chuckle 16 March 2011 12:30

You are a man after my own heart..I hope thats a good thing?

Egregie dictum, puer optimae (Well said, my fine lad).

Ernst's latin tutor would be pleased his efforts were not all in vain but would still be disappopinted at Ernst's use of it for mischief. sigh!


16 March 2011 at 13:10  
Anonymous Martin Marprelate said...

Being a member of UKIP I have no problem as I will be voting for that party. Under FPTP if it holds on after the Referendum on May 5th then that is it. If not then of course I have a bit more leeway. First Preference for UKIP of course but then I can see how lies the land as regards the voting record of my current MP compared to the stated opinions of his most likely to win opponent and act accordingly. To be absolutely frank as a single man in my late 50s with no family and a fairly average income I would be no worse off I am very sad to say with Labour in Office than I am with Cameron's Conservatives. The Moral and Social policies which is what I judge a political party upon, (and NOT its Economic ones), are as bad under Cameron as they were under Blair and Brown, one cannot get a fag paper between them, and the Lib-Dems to me are beyond the pale anyway. So I would say the answer to the question is Yes, I will vote for the Candidate, irrespective of Party Label. who promises an In/Out Referendum on UK membership of the EU.

17 March 2011 at 00:24  
Anonymous non mouse said...

At the best of times I loathe that eu rag - seeing the Union flag beside it makes me feel physically sick.

17 March 2011 at 09:08  
Anonymous Oswin said...

non mouse : bravo!

In the future eventuality of Boots the Chemist selling 'home-cloning' kits, I may request a small swab of your DNA; there's just not enough people like you! :o)

17 March 2011 at 21:05  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld and Tiddles said...

"The People’s Pledge - a campaign for an In/Out EU Referendum "

Sounds more like the Hokey Cokey (Cokey means Crazy in Canada, how apt) to me. or Ja, das Hokey Cokey.

You put your AV in.

or Your AV out.

In out in out

They'll shake your votes about.

They'll do some Hocus Pocus

and they'll turn you all around

That's what it's all about.

All together now..

Ernst Blofeld

18 March 2011 at 02:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is another way out of Europe nobody seems to be aware of, as Germany increases its stranglehold on the EU the chances of us being asked to leave or getting kicked out have increased dramatically.
We as a people have made no secret of the fact we dont want a European superstate , we drag our heels holding things up at every opportunity.
Germany will soon be in a strong enough position to demand our removal.

19 March 2011 at 07:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older