GL-W's WEBlog

The views, reprints & thoughts of Greg Lance-Watkins

Archive for April, 2014

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/04/2014

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

with the upcoming EU elections on 22-May-2014 I felt it was apposite to revisit the question on the minds of the majority of Brits which tends to stretch from the simple and in my opinion sensible Leave-The-EU option which in the long term would I believe serve our peoples, our Country and our planet best and the unworkable and dishonest idiocy of re-negotiated terms with the EU as put forward by Tories who quite clearly are either hideously ill informed as to how the EU functions or just obscenely dishonest in pretending they can change the EU and get unanimous support amongst the other vassal states – the precondition for any major change!

Revisiting an article of Christopher Bookers from last summer little or nothing has changed – UKIP still haven’t a clue and have absolutely no exit and survival strategy just a clique squabbling like ferrets in a sack to stay on the gravy train, with the aim to get more MEPs elected but with zero vision and less hope of changing ANYTHING having abjectly failed to do so to date, hence their continued failure in domestic politics!

The Torieas were shocked into a debate in The House of Commons by the Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire who gathered well over 200,000 signatures and forced the debate to occur, a debate in which David Cameron’s Government was confronted with his largest ever rebellion and was thus forced to make an undertaking to hold a referendum, allbeit he hedged his bets as ever.

 

To carry on the fight for a referendum Nikki Sinclaire formed the ‘We demand A Referendum Now Party’ and is standing for the cause in The West Midlands as an MEP – we can but hope this hard working and refreshingly honest and open MEP is re-elected to continue her patriotic defence of Britain and her constituents.

 

Sadly UKIP having done absolutely zero to support the cause now see this as an apposite band wagon to jump on to get more income by getting more MEPs! However let us not forget thaty UKIP has no ethical leadership, lacks transparency and has such a poor selection rigging process that already candidates are falling by the wayside, exposed as racists, anti homosexual, Islamaphobic and corrupt.

 

Let us not forget that of the 19 MEPs UKIP has had elected their titular leader has subsumed almost all power to himself, controls incomes and appoints his wife and mistresses to the staff! Little wonder that of the 19 elected he has fallen out with at least half and the balance are as much use as a soup sandwich having achieved absolutely nothing of note in their period on the gracy train!

Even Ukip has no idea how to get us out of the EU trap

Our politicians are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to EU rules. There is only one way we can renegotiate our position with Europe to our advantage

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating 'consensus’ position with Europe

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating ‘consensus’ position with Europe Photo: Alamy
 

There is virtually no political issue that generates more ill-informed nonsense than whether or not Britain should stay in the EU. We have those 304 MPs voting for David Cameron’s wish to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and put the results to a referendum no later than 2017. We have Theresa May announcing that she is going to demand a British opt-out from 133 EU regulations on law and order, but then apply to opt in again on 35 of them. We have John Cridland, head of the CBI, repeating yet again the old canard that it would be disastrous for us to think of emulating Norway and Switzerland, the two richest countries in Europe, because although they trade freely with the EU’s single market, they have no say in shaping its rules. On and on goes such grandstanding, not touching reality at any point.

The essence of the problem is that, while the British like some aspects of the EU, other aspects make them deeply resentful, without them ever really understanding the rules or how it works. Thus, for many years, as the EU surges towards “ever closer union”, Britain has, in the words of the late Roy Jenkins, become an ever more “foot-dragging and complaining member”. On one hand, the pollsters report that up to half or more of British voters want us to leave. On the other, we have an establishment “consensus” between most of our politicians, media and big business, claiming that, although the EU in its present form is unsatisfactory and needs drastic “reform”, we must stay in for all the benefits we gain from trading with it, and because it gives us “influence”.

It is this “consensus” position that is so riddled with contradictions that it amounts to no more than multiple wishful thinking. There is no way Mr Cameron could obtain the kind of “à la carte” relationship he hints at, let alone that he could do so if re-elected, in time for a referendum in 2017. First, the rules would necessitate a new treaty, requiring procedures so lengthy that it could not possibly be completed by 2017. Second, the return of powers he claims to want would breach that most sacred principle of EU law, that national powers once surrendered can never be given back.

So, legally and practically, it is impossible that Mr Cameron could get anything of what all those MPs voted for the other day. The only semblance of a realistic understanding of all the issues involved comes from a research paper recently published by the House of Commons Library on what would be involved in a British withdrawal from the EU. This explains, with an authority no MP could muster, that the only way Britain could continue to trade freely within the single market without having to accept so much of the rest of the EU’s political baggage, would be to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this, of course, can only be done by a country giving notice that it wishes to leave the EU. This alone can compel its fellow-members to negotiate with it the kind of new relationship Mr Cameron says he wants. And this he could not rule out more emphatically, as again in a recent interview with El Pais, where he said there was no way he could support a vote for Britain to leave.

Regardless of Mr Cameron’s views, however, the Commons researchers then go on to explain how Britain could continue to enjoy full access to the single market by joining Norway and Switzerland as members of the European Free Trade Area (Efta), or, like Norway, as also a member of the European Economic Area. This is precisely the option Europhiles such as Mr Cridland are so desperate to misrepresent, by falsely claiming that Norway has no influence over the single market’s trading rules. Anyone who argues this has no grasp of how the system works. Not only are Efta members fully consulted in the shaping of single market legislation, but much of it now derives from global organisations above the EU, in which Norway has a voice in its own right, exercising more influence than Britain, which too often has to allow the EU to speak for it.

But it is this argument – playing on the fear that unless we remain in the EU we will be without influence and even excluded from trading with it – that would be made the centrepiece of the campaign in any referendum on Britain’s continued membership. So relentlessly would it be put over by supporters of the “consensus”, given full voice by the BBC, Open Europe and others, that it is almost a foregone conclusion that the stay-in vote would win the day.

What has so far been almost wholly lacking from the debate on all this is any properly worked-out alternative vision of what Britain’s future in the world could be if we were to regain our independence by leaving. Equally lacking, although it is again explored in the Commons research paper, is any recognition of just how incredibly complicated a British withdrawal from the EU would be, because we are enmeshed with it by such a mountain of laws and other legal obligations. To disentangle all this would present a challenge so immense that it could only be brought off by a government fully committed to the task and fired up by a vision of how well Britain could thrive outside the EU. This would require a degree of political will which so far simply doesn’t exist.

One of the odd features of this debate is that the only party committed to a British exit from the EU, Ukip, appears to have little understanding of how this could, in practice, be achieved – let alone a positive vision of how well Britain could fare outside it, to counterbalance the relentless defeatism and negativity with which the “consensus” establishment would seek to terrify us into staying in. Too many Ukip supporters take equal refuge from reality by pretending that we could simply wave a magic wand by repealing the European Communities Act. With one mighty bound we would be free. Sorted. These are children.

I confess that when I read that Commons research paper, although it did not say anything new, I did end up depressed. Its calm, common-sense reviewing of the real issues once again brings home just how inane most of the public debate over Britain’s membership of the EU has become. Without the vision and the will to work for a positive alternative, it seems we are doomed just to limp helplessly on as a “foot-dragging and complaining member” of the “European project”, as it itself staggers helplessly on into a drably visionless and ever more uncertain future. So saying, I am off for a few days to Italy to look at 15th-century paintings, from the time when Europe was still in that frenzy of creativity and intellectual engagement that was to make its civilisation the glory of the world.

To view the original CLICK HERE

One thing that has changed since Christopher wrote this article is that a wave of optimism did sweep through the informed as the IEA announced the BrExit prize offering £100K to the winner who came up with the very best and most workable exit strategy to follow the day Britain was announced it would Leave-The-EU.

For a little more detail CLICK HERE
Sadly it transpired that it would seem to have been rigged to suit, it would seem, just one judge who presented a paper immediately before the closing date and would seem to have had a hand in ensuring the apparently pre advised competitors who upheld his unworkable and ill informed paper passed to the final round.
The eventual winner chosen, it would seem by preselection, put forward a particularly ill informed paper which offerd a clearly unworkable solution which was backed by very little refertencing and researching apparent.
To be fair to the IEA they were clearly embarrassed by the exposure of Roger Bootle’s apparent dishonesty and corruption of the process that they withdrew his voting rights as a judge, however the lacked the ethics to denounce him and ensure those who seem to have, either unwittingly or deliberately, cheated were debarred.
I would hazard a guess that there was a pre scan of the 17 finalists and it was suggested that the judges should only bother reading the efforts of the predetermined submissions.
Perhaps I am being a little too harsh, but I did read every submission published and they were weak and unworkable and ill informed thus astonishingly lightweight for  matter of such gravitas.
You may by all means track down the chosen ones via The IEA’s web site and judge for yourself but when compared with the submission I believe to have been the best I would contend there was no competition and even Roger Bootle’s effort was lame in the extreme.
Judge for yourself CLICK HERE
Dr. Richard North’s submission CLICK HERE
It would seem the prize itself has sunk without trace as when you make a Google Search of the issue the media have largely ignored it, no doubt having reached the same conclusion I have here proffered. Further The IEA themselves seem embarrassed by their own apparent dishonesty and have seemingly, having been caught out, dropped the matter like a hot potato in the hope their apparent corruption is overlooked and will not damage their income stream from gullible donors!
IF my conclusion is in some way flawed then perhaps The IEA would care to explain why they, having squandered £100K of donor’s money on their lightweight and unworkable winner have failed to take the matter forward!

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 –
number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, Christopher BOOKER;, IEA, QUOTES; Reagan; Thatcher; R.J. Wiedemann; Margaret THATCHER; COLLIER; Geoffrey COLLIER;, REFERENDUM, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr., Roger Bootle, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/04/2014

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM

Posted by Greg Lance-Watkins on 08/04/2013

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda – IN MEMORIAM
Born: Roberts 13-Oct-1925 – Died 08-Apr-2013 Aged 87
A Personal In Memoriam!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

IN MEMORIAM

THATCHER, Baroness Margaret Hilda

nee: Roberts

Born:13-Oct-1925 – Died 08-Apr-2013

Aged 87

Thatcher hailed for changing political landscape of the world

World leaders remember Margaret Thatcher

as woman of indisputable resolve & patriotism

Mon, Apr 8 2013
Member of the European Parliament, Nikki Sinclair, places a floral tribute outside the home of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher after her death was announced in London April 8, 2013. REUTERS-Suzanne Plunkett
An Admirer of Maggie Thatcher
Places a floral tribute at Baroness Thatcher’sLoved or loathed in death as in life, Margaret Thatcher left no one indifferent, finding some of her most ardent admirers among her political opponents.

Very few leaders get to change not only the political landscape of their country but of the world. Margaret was such a leader,” said the odious and self serving Tony Blair, the centre-left Labour leader who brought his own party back to power not least by heeding the lessons of “Thatcherism“.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader whom she famously declared she could “do business with”, said their mutual understanding “contributed to a change in the atmosphere between our country and the West and to the end of the Cold War“.

Thatcher’s warm relations with Gorbachev’s direct adversary, U.S. president Ronald Reagan, and their shared espousal of the free market and individual liberty, along with her readiness to provide a base for U.S. nuclear missiles, gave Britain greater influence in Washington than it has normally enjoyed.

“The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend,” said U.S. President Barack Obama.

Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history – we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will.

Pope Francis recalled, with appreciation, “the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and to the promotion of freedom among the family of nations“.

At home, Conservatives mourned the leader who set a free-market agenda in Britain and Europe and famously announced “there is no such thing as society” as she put individual enterprise and self-reliance before the state and the social safety net.

David Cameron, the prime minister who led the Conservatives back to power but without the absolute majority Thatcher enjoyed throughout her premiership, said: “We’ve lost a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Briton.

As our first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds, and the real thing about Margaret Thatcher is that she didn’t just lead our country, she saved our country. And I believe she’ll go down as the greatest British peacetime prime minister.

THATCHER AND THE EU

Thatcher is remembered in Britain for resisting the idea that the European Union should move ever closer to political union, but, at a time when Britain is once again agonising over its role in Europe, EU leaders much keener on closer integration had warm words for her.

The unelected European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said “she would be remembered both for her contributions and her reserves to our common project“:

She signed the Single European Act and she helped bring about the single market. She was a leading player also in bringing into the European family the central and eastern European countries which were formerly behind the Iron Curtain.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a fellow conservative who grew up in communist East Germany and went on like Thatcher to become the first woman to head her country’s government, said:

The freedom of the individual was at the core of her convictions; in that sense Margaret Thatcher recognised the strength of the movements for freedom of eastern Europe early on and stood up for them.

“Margaret Thatcher was not a women’s politician – but by asserting herself as a woman in the highest democratic office at a time when this was not yet a given, she was an example to many.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thatcher was “a pragmatic, tough and consistent person” and that these qualities had enabled her to help pull Britain out of economic crisis, for which people should be grateful despite the criticism she faced.

Putin, who once called the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century“, said Russiawill always be thankful” for the contribution Thatcher made to British-Soviet and British-Russian ties.

It was left to Vaclav Klaus, former Czech prime minister and president and a self-proclaimed “Thatcherite”, to set her vision against Europe’s current crisis. He said the European Union’s ailing economic and social model was “exactly what she, as the first woman in the post of British prime minister, fought against since the end of the 1970s“.

Her voice is also missing in today’s discussion on European integration,” Klaus added. “Many of us will never forget her famous speech in Bruges, where she clearly said that the suppression of nation states and concentration of power in Brussels will destroy Europe.

LINGERING RESENTMENT

But there were plenty of voices in Britain ready to express the resentment that still lingers against a woman who broke the power and self serving scams of the trade unions, ran down or privatised many subsidised and heavily loss making state-run utilities and institutions and eroded the excesses of post-war welfare state.

Margaret thatcher halted the downward slide of Britain into a quasi Communist and anarchic control by Union blackmail & Labour’s economic illiteracy and missrule. Sadly it was largely little more than a delay as so often happens a stron leader can break a party by failure to consider the future leaving weak and incompetent leadership and structures behind them.

Betrayed by the personal ambitions of low grade rivals incompetent to take on the leadership role like Hesseltine, Major and the like we suffered the open door for 13 unlucky years of dishonest, corrupt, economic incompetent self serving New Labour ambitions and lies, war crimes and betrayal.

Margaret Thatcher, an enlarger of British freedom

By Sir Harold Evans
Sir Harold Evans

Sir Harold Evans is editor-at-large at Reuters. He was the editor of The Sunday Times for fourteen years, and is the author of two best-selling American histories, as well as two memoirs about his experience in the media business.
Original article published at CLICK HERE
April 8, 2013

My immediate and lasting  memory of Mrs. Thatcher — Maggie as we called her — is sitting next to her in the late sixties at a dinner table as she scorched a bunch of City of London financial types. I was astonished. She wasn’t yet the Iron Lady. She wasn’t  in government. Labour was in power. She was  an obscure back bench Conservative MP, elected only in 1959, noticed in those sexist days (has much changed?) as much for her hats and aggressive hair style as for  her passionate defence of grammar schools under threat of closure from Labour.

What she did with the City of London men  was later characterised as a  “hand-bagging.” A black Asprey bag she always carried was metaphorically wielded against people she saw as standing in the way of the greatness of Britain as Boudica, the leader of a British tribe, wielded a lance against the Roman occupiers. I suppose that as a new national editor (of The Sunday Times), and with normal male presumption , I had expected to lead the questioning of the ten or so big names and the table. I didn’t stand a chance. Maggie pounded and pummeled them all by herself for an hour. I can’t pretend this is verbatim but it went something like this: “All you people are interested in is moving paper around, making money not things. What are you doing for British industry? When are you going to help business stand up to  the unions?”  They murmured, they shuffled, they were outclassed. British elections — six weeks to  a vote and no paid television ads — have never been as corrupted by money as much as American, so she was not turning off a potential source of funding as an American candidate would fear to do. Still these were  men — all men of course  — who were influential and articulate and used to reverence not rebuke.

Maggie could be seductive in private conversation one on one, more so as she matured,  the strident voice of the public halls giving way to a softer, more seductive style, hand on an arm, intent eye to eye in persuasion. She was afraid of nobody, respecter of no convention she considered archaic. The British custom at dinner parties was always for the host to murmur “coffee?” which was signal for “the ladies” to leave for the powder room while the men, over cigars and port, got down to serious business. It was  a small sensation — regarded in some circles as a grave breach of etiquette — when at a dinner party I attended thrown by her egregious confidante Woodrow Wyatt, Maggie stayed in her seat unabashed, uninvited,  and unfazed by the  arguments over the cigars (in this case by a couple of captains of industry who wanted to be part of Europe and she defiantly raised the Union Jack).

The trade unions at the time were busy wreaking havoc on industry. The far left had infiltrated Labour constituencies; Labour candidates were as scared of the militants then as primary Republicans of the Tea Party candidates today.  Local union chiefs called wildcat strikes, disrupted production.  The union movement, with some Labour ministers in support, threatened a closed shop in the press which would have curtailed free speech. I’d spoken out against it as had the  then editor of The Guardian, Alastair Hetherington. At another of those endless London dinners where Maggie  was the speaker and still not in government,  she referred to me as “one of us.” I wasn’t. I was just expressing a view on an issue. We had many things in common, both from the north, both educated in state schools, both brought up in a grocer’s shop, in my case one my mother started, in hers one her father ran. I admired her.  I was one of the millions of voters in the 1979  general election  which put her into power as the first woman prime minister. The country  was in dreadful shape, fearful and anxious during a winter of discontent in which trade union militants blocked cancer patients getting treatment and garbage piled up in  the center of London.

She saved Britain from anarchy and immediately restored a sense of purpose. She could be rough. As Prime Minister,  she had a limited tolerance for dissent and an infinite regard for personal loyalty. If you were not with on her everything, she  regarded you as disloyal, as unreliable, lacking conviction.  I suppose it was the reverse mirror of her indomitable courage. How valiant she was when the IRA terrorists blew up her conference hotel; they tried to murder her and almost succeeded.  She was often vindicated. She was impatient with excuses for inertia and woolliness — vividly represented  in Meryl Streep’s representation of her cutting off a Cabinet member in mid speech.  I disappointed her by giving space in The Times  to critics, especially one of them, Edward Heath,  whom she’d ousted as Prime Minister. The imperatives of news meant we published  news stories she didn’t like: she’d  sunk in the polls and recession deepened. Relations became a little chillier. As an editor, I’d never sought to cosy up  to political leaders,  but I now understand more of what she was up against – the Tory snobs in the counties,  the plotters in the party who eventually betrayed her, the “wets” and the “wimps”  who would yield on a principle she considered vital.

When she became Prime Minister I was editor of The Times. We backed her a hundred per cent on trade union reforms, on holding the line on pay, especially in the public sector and  on advocating more competition in the banking industry, on free trade, on resisting terrorism in Northern Ireland. I told her I  thought she moved too slowly against trade union anarchy, but she bided her time and planned well.   She won a famous victory against the coal miners, badly led by a firebrand who took money from Gaddafi, and it was thanks to her stalwart support  of Rupert Murdoch, whom she admired as a free-booting entrepreneur , that he was able to win the battle of Wapping which ended the guerilla warfare of the print unions.

Margaret Thatcher, whatever the missteps, will  take her place in the pantheon of heros – sorry, heroines – who enlarged British freedom.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 08/04/2014

Brexit & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

The Brexit Prize & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute as it seems to have not bothered reading entries that were not by their predetermined inside track planned winners – issuing misleading statements to ensure serious writers were put at a disadvantage to ensure their chosen candidates became the winners!

The pompous arrogance and the utter hubris of the organisation and its pre-determined winners just make a farce of the prize – whoever they had chosen to win!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

Brexit: the IEA chairman speaks

Richard North, 08/04/2014
I spent most of yesterday corresponding with Philip Booth of the IEA, trying to ascertain from him why the Brexit prize competitors were given a set of very explicit instructions, while their submissions appear to have been judged on very different and hitherto undeclared criteria.

I tested my correspondence out on a few friends, just as a check, to make sure I wans’t being too hard. Although it was evident I am angry, the tone was described as “measured”. Amongst other things, I had wanted to know why the rules had also been changed so that a new short-list of six had been created, after the submission deadline.

The particular interest for the competitors not shortlisted (and there are a number of us thus concerned), is that the IEA is making a public statement that there are at least six better submissions than ours. For me – I would not presume to speak for the others – I regard that as “professionally damaging”. And it was not something any of us signed up for.

Anyhow, as the exchanges multiplied through the day, it was evident that I was getting nowhere. Eventually, in the early evening, I brought the exchange to a halt, without having achieved anything at all, not the slightest concession, nor scintilla of understanding.

The thing about these exchanges, though, is while you are getting the polite brush-off, you rarely get an inkling of what they are really thinking. But, while Booth had asked for a private exchange, he was in fact copying in colleagues and sundry others. At his end, the exchange was anything but private – it was being broadcast throughout the IEA. They might just as well have put it on the Tannoy.

Then I received yet another e-mail, one with the same header used for the Booth correspondence, but from a different address, one [then] unknown to me. The writer, incidentally, had copied his reply to two others (text published below).

The e-mail, it turns out, was from professor emeritus David Myddelton of Cranfield University, educated at Eton and Harvard Business School. His cv (top) says he has been chairman of the IEA since 2001. Although he is a reasonably frequent speaker on the “eurosceptic” circuit, he is obviously no great fan of yours truly, although I cannot think of anything specific I’ve done to offend him.

Nevertheless, thanking Booth for sending our correspondence to him, he grandly declared that: “Richard North’s attitude is disappointing”. Then says the professor emeritus, a man who obviously must know about such things: “He has written on this and similar topics so much that I cannot believe he spent a huge amount of time on his entry”.

So, this is the first stage of the standard denigration technique: “North” can’t have spent much time on his submission so [implied] it was probably crap anyway.

Then the boot goes in. My “measured” tone reminds the revered professor “of my ten-year-old grand-daughter – who likes to boast that she did very well on an exam, before the results indicate that she scored, say, 10/40!” Does this run in the family? One can only wonder.

But, from his careful and measured study of the evidence, there comes the learned professor’s considered view of the entire issue: “It is not North’s failure to be judged to have finished in the top six entries that might hurt his ‘professional reputation'”, declares the great professor, “but his petulant and bad-tempered response to the result”. He should have bent over and taken his punishment, is the sub-text.

Then the knife goes in, making it clear they are not actually going to address any of the points “North” makes. Oh no! Says Myddelton: “I hope you and Mark [Littlewood, IEA director general], and indeed anyone else connected with the Brexit Prize, will manage to avoid a public spat with Richard North”.

“There would seem to be nothing to be gained”, Myddleton adds, “and potentially quite a bit to be lost”. We would not, after all, want to concede that he might have a point, so let’s not give him any opportunities, is the sub-text here. We couldn’t possibly have him be seen to be right.

A little time later, though, I got another e-mail, from the same professor Myddelton:
Dear Richard,

I copied you in by mistake on my recent e-mail to Philip Booth and Mark Littlewood about the Brexit Prize. Sorry about that.

I should perhaps add that my role as Chairman of the IEA Trustees is non-executive, and I’ve had no part in the organisation of the Brexit prize.

All the best,

David
Well, cheers Dave! I actually spent over 700 hours on researching and writing the submission, with personal visits to both Norway and Iceland, where I interviewed senior politicians, trade representatives and others, to give first-hand information to go into the report.

But, Dave, you are also dismissing a huge amount of time put forward by EU Referendum readers, and the huge help given by The Boiling Frog and others, who were also just as keen to have a fair competition, those whom you have now so casually insulted. But that doesn’t matter – they’re only plebs who didn’t go to Eton.

Despite that, I then wrote to him about the submission of which he had been so dismissive: “You will not have read it of course”, I ventured. These very clever people never do … they have the wonderful gift of divining the quality of such things without needing to read them. Thus, I observed: “You are undoubtedly far too clever and grand and could not be expected to soil your magnificent brain with such material”. And we couldn’t have him actually learning anything.

“However”, I added, “I must really thank you for such an illustrative example of what the other half think of us plebs. I am sure my readers are going hugely to enjoy your perceptive analysis”.

I will upload the correspondence with Booth, and post a link tomorrow, for those of you who want to read the earlier exchange. But isn’t it refreshing when the mask slips and you find out what they really think about you, and what they are really saying! For all their airs and graces and their fine words, the truth will out. But how sad, the message is always the same: “know thine place, pleb!”

Whatever did we do before the internet, and learned professors who press the wrong buttons? But whatever made me think I was ever going to get a fair deal from the IEA?

To view the original of this posting CLICK HERE
Further reading on The BREXIT Prize:
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in BREXIT, BREXIT Prize, NORTH Dr Richard, Richard NORTH, Richard NORTH Dr. | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Martin Luther King – a cowardly killer shot him this day in 1968

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 04/04/2014

Martin Luther King – a cowardly killer shot him this day in 1968.

.

Hi,

please remember for a moment that on this day in 1968 a coward with a firearm shot the political activist Martin Luther King, who led the Civil Rights Movement in America.

Martin Luther King was born on15-Jan-1929 and was a Baptist Minister and a leader of the 1955 protest, started by Rosa Parks, against the segregation of transport on racial grounds. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in in Oct-1964 for his non violent campaigning for equality of race. He is probably one of the greatest orators in America’s history and will for ever be remembered for his Washington DC ‘Ihave A Dream‘ speech of Marc-1963.

Martin Luther King actively campaigned not only for the black peoples of America but for all ethnic groups and also on behalf of the poor.

Martin Luther King was posthumously awarded The Presidential Medal of Honour for his services to Civil Rights and his efforts to civilise America.


Martin Luther King’s murder took place by gun shot outside his room #306 at The Lorrainne Motel in Memphis Tenesee whilst under the scrutiny of The FBI & Law enforcement officers on the evening of April 4, 1968.

Martin Luther King’s civilising activities has brought great liberation to America and now some 50 years later we see a mixed race President in America and ‘claimed; equality of opportunities regardless of colour in America.

America and much of the world has much to thank Martin Luther King for in his brave campaign for the civil rights of all regardless of colour or ethnic origin.

& with a ‘hat tip’ to Kitty (See Comments) for her more extensive details:

Remember Martin Luther King

This video from the USA is called I HAVE A DREAM… MARTIN LUTHER KING – August 23 1963.

By Peter Frost in Britain:

Shadows of a hero’s death

Thursday 04 April 2013

Fifty-five years ago Martin Luther King, widely regarded as the most important leader of the US civil rights movement, was shot dead.

FBI intelligence chief and deputy director William C Sullivan – termed the only liberal ever to have risen to high rank in the FBI – led the investigation into the assassination. He believed there was a conspiracy to murder King.

In his autobiography, published after his death, Sullivan wrote: “I was convinced that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, but I doubt if he acted alone.

“Someone, I feel sure, taught Ray how to get a false Canadian passport, how to get out of the country and how to travel to Europe, because he would never have managed it alone.”

The FBI would have been happy for the assassin to live out his time in Britain. Director J Edgar Hoover had repeatedly clashed with Sullivan over the latter’s concern for violations of civil rights laws in the segregated southern states. Hoover felt the FBI should be worrying about communists, not racists.

But to the bureau’s annoyance the Canadian Mounted Police brought James Earl Ray home to face justice.

Martin Luther King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15 1929. Both his father and grandfather were preachers who had been actively involved in the early civil rights movement.

King graduated in 1948 and entered the baptist ministry. At college he heard a lecture on Mahatma Gandhi and the non-violent civil disobedience campaign that he used successfully against British rule in India.

King studied the ideas of Gandhi and eventually became convinced that the same methods could be employed by blacks in the United States.

In December 1955 Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man. Parks was arrested and King and his comrades helped organise protests against bus segregation.

For 13 months 17,000 black people in Montgomery, Alabama, boycotted public buses. The boycott ended in victory in December 1956.

King told the story of the successful boycott in his book Stride Toward Freedom. The book spelt out his views on non-violence and direct action. It was to have considerable influence on the civil rights movement.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, a small group of black students inspired by King’s book decided to take action themselves.

They sat-in at the segregated restaurant of their local Woolworth’s store. In the days that followed they were joined by other black students until they occupied all the seats in the restaurant.

They were abused and physically assaulted but following King’s inspiration they did not fight back.

King’s non-violent strategy spread to black students all over the deep south. This included the activities of the Freedom Riders in their campaign against segregated transport.

Within six months these sit-ins had ended restaurant and lunch-counter segregation in more than two dozen key southern cities.

Student sit-ins were also successful busting segregation in public parks, swimming pools, theatres, churches, libraries, museums and beaches.

King travelled the country making speeches and inspiring people to become involved in the civil rights movement. As well as advocating non-violent student sit-ins, King also urged economic boycotts.

Not all actions were instantly successful. At lunch counters in Birmingham, Alabama, police turned dogs and fire hoses on the demonstrators. King and large number of his supporters, including schoolchildren, were arrested and jailed.


This music video is called Nina Simone – Mississippi Goddam. The song is about the repression against the civil rights movement.

King always stressed the importance of registering to vote. He argued that once all African Americans had the vote they would become an important political force.

In the deep south considerable pressure was put on blacks not to vote by organisations such as the Ku Klux Klan.

King’s radical ideas convinced Robert Kennedy that he was closely associated with the Communist Party USA and he asked Hoover to get the FBI to dig the dirt on King.

But King was going from strength to strength. He organised the hugely successful march on Washington for jobs and freedom. As the final speaker he made his famous “I have a dream” speech and was cheered to the heavens by a crowd of 400,000.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act made racial discrimination in public places such as theatres, restaurants and hotels illegal.

This video is called Selma – Montgomery March, 1965 – p1.

Part #2 is here.

King now concentrated on achieving a federal voting rights law. In March 1965 he organised a protest march across Alabama from Selma to Montgomery. The marchers were attacked by state troopers with truncheons and tear gas.

Although opposed by racist politicians from the deep south, the Voting Rights Act was passed by huge majority.

On April 3 1967 King made a speech where he outlined the reasons why he was opposed to the Vietnam war.


This video is called Martin Luther King, “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam”.

Many on the left thought that King should challenge Lyndon B Johnson for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. King rejected this idea.

But Hoover sent the wiretaps of King’s private conversations about him becoming a candidate to Johnson. Johnson and Hoover decided something drastic needed to be done.

Hoover believed that “King was an instrument of the Communist Party” and posed “a serious threat to the security of the country.”

In June 1967 Hoover had a meeting to discuss concerns that King might unseat Johnson. Hoover said he thought a final solution was necessary. King must be silenced.

King was in Memphis on April 3 the next year to prepare for a non-violent march as part of an important and long-running industrial dispute. Previous marches had turned violent due to government and FBI provocation.

That night King made his “I’ve been to the mountaintop” speech.

This video is called Martin Luther King’s Last Speech: “I Have Been To The Mountaintop”.

It ended with the following prophetic words: “Well, I don’t know what will happen now – we’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop.”

After the tumultuous meeting King retired to the Lorraine Motel. He stood on the balcony of the motel and a shot rang out. Martin Luther King Jnr was dead. Hoover’s wish had been granted.

Two months later James Earl Ray was arrested in London and extradited to the United States.

He pleaded guilty to King’s murder and was sent to jail for 99 years.

People close to King were convinced that the government was behind the assassination. King’s great comrade Ralph Abernathy claimed that he had been killed “by someone trained or hired by the FBI and acting under orders from J Edgar Hoover.”

But as the famous Ballad of Joe Hill tells us it “takes more than guns to kill a man.”


This music video is called Paul Robeson, “Joe Hill”.

Despite that FBI bullet the memory of Martin Luther King Jnr lives on in the past political victories of black US citizens and his inspiration will ignite new struggles and new achievements for years to come.

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&
To Leave-The-EU
  
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: