Did Brown deliberately bankrupt Britain?

Yesterday's speech in Boston came over to me as a strong mea culpa to the accusation in this posting's headline. This blog has been chronicling the destruction of Britain's economy on an almost daily basis for some five years or so, as two posts quoted during the past week have made clear. We can also through the blog archives, trace the development of such a plan through the early terminology of the conspiracists to the arrival at yesterday's heavily coded and loaded references to a 'progressive' governance and the 'global civil society' The Laeken Declaration which set up the Convention on an EU Constitution for greater openness, then strayed far from its brief which was to democratise the European Community. The best analysis of this in my mind remains Anthony Coughlan's from Dublin, posted in full on Ironies in October 2004, linked here and here. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, having opted for elitist rule along strictly Platonic lines, had to disguise his intent and he first settled on the term "pluralism" which I also referenced here. I summed up the basic anti-democratic nature of the chosen EU path in a post in April 2004, linked here, which warned of the abandonment of democratic values by the influential Economist magazine, a conversion now completed! The constitutional document is fatally flawed, it reverses the whole concept of law and understandings between the ruled and their governors in this nation as established over centuries. Principally that what is not forbidden or declared as illegal is by definition permissable and allowed! No amount of redrafting of the present document can ever alter that fact! The constitutional document is supremely anti-democratic and sets in concrete a profound Tyranny almost exactly meeting the text book defintion described by Karl Popper in his book 'The Open Society and its Enemies' (Published by Routledge, London and New York ISBN 0-415-23731-9). Except for one 'motherhood' sentence at its opening there is no recognition of democracy anywhere within the proposed constitution. No amount of redrafting of the present document can ever alter that fact either! Some years back 'The Economist' published its own proposed constitution for the European Union, I did not agree with it all, but it might have formed a potential starting point for debate. I will try and retrieve my old copy and return to it later. Meantime beware! 'The Economist', is a hugely influential leader of opinion in the English speaking world. The fact that it is now adopting an openly anti-democratic line, rather than its long-term tendency towards Platonist elitism, is more than worrying - it's really rather scary! How the very nature of democracy has come to be blurred by such carefully crafted newspeak has been demonstrated by EU Commission President Barroso in Dublin this week when he stated: "When I was growing up in Portugal under dictatorship, what is now the European Union represented many of the things that the young aspire to: peace, freedom, economic and social progress, and the idea that working together across borders is possible." The EU delivered none of the first four items mentioned with the possible exception of "social progress" but the howling deception is " the idea that working together across borders" somehow negates dictatorship. Such was never a prerequisite for democracy, indeed it has nothing whatever to do with democracy, which requires the electorate to have the periodic right to bloodlessly remove their rulers at its heart! In destroying that basic concept, EU funding has been the tool for subversion. Thanks to years of devoted research by Brian Gerrish the facts about Common Purpose are now widely available on the internet and in a sign of that organisation's own triumphalism under Brown is that now it is even possible to access the list of that organisation's donors, linked here. I first addressed the implications for democracy of the Global Civil Society on 5th February,2004, linked here and returned to the topic in August 2004, this quote from my February post is key: Global Civil Society is a militant ethic. It is unrelenting in its quest to secure freedom and equality and solidarity through non-governmental links that spread to all four corners of the planet. So it is all there in the archives of my blogs. Brown knew what he was about, he imposed the removal of House Prices from the inflation indices on appointing Mervyn King, as the new Bank of England Governor, who not having the power of incumbency, could only mildly protest to the press at this "moving of the goal posts" (but with what intent?). Brown clearly knew the consequences as he apparently did not attempt to profit from the ensuing mad price escalation of property prices, unlike his more naive supposed boss next door. Global Civil Society requires the destruction of the nation state and parliamentary democracy, as detailed by Professor Keane in his book. Brown as PM, stating this as his aim in Boston yesterday, appears to accept that destruction of the economy might also have been a necessity to speed the process, we cannot judge his motives merely his actions. Certainly an amendment of the treason legislation must have been a necessary precondition or at least a sensible precaution in the event of failure, which today unhappily appears unlikely. Readers must make their own minds up, if they decide that Brown's actions have indeed been questionable they must then decide how to proceed! I suggest watching this video clip of the celebrations of the EU's leaders in triumphing their agreement on the unread and unreadable EU Reform Treaty, signed later in Lisbon, which if ratified will end the supremacy of 27 national parliaments and finish Popperian democracy across the EU. The objectives of fascists and tyrants down the centuries achieved at a stroke.

Celebrating the death of Democracy and the end of parliamentary supremacy.

Only the Irish, it seems, can save us now unless Brown is replaced!