Friday, 29 January 2016

Our MP's - selfish, ignorant bastards.

It had to be said... because it is true and the evidence has just been laid before us...

Just the other day our MPs were merrily creating new laws/punishments/restrictions to lord over us - in this instance banning 'legal highs' - when all of a sudden, one of them piped up the he enjoyed one particular 'legal high' so asked for it to be excluded from the ban...

The other MP's, recognising one of their own being inconvenienced (and realising it could be them next time) agreed this was very serious and needed addressing - so it has been marked for review.

Did any MP ask the public what legal highs they like/want? -- here is a clue... look at the sales. If the item sells, then it is popular and many people like/want it, if there are no sales then the item is unpopular and doesn't need banning as no one uses it anyway...

But they are MP's and we are plebs - we are here for them to abuse, and they will do so as long as it doesn't inconvenience them...

Does this sound like a baseless rant from some kind of anarchist? Well you might get away with such a dismissal if that were all - but what do we read to day?
Sharia law may stop MPs drinking: Bars will be banned if politicians move to Department of Health - because of secret deal to finance Islamic bond scheme.

MP's were to be moved on a temporary basis while the Palace of Westminster (House of Commons) was being renovated - but it transpires the building they were to move to has a clause in its lease that bans alcohol on the premises.

It is no big news to any of we plebs that a place of work allows no alcohol. But to MP's this is unthinkable - a workplace without a bar to drink at! If you wrote to you MP complaining about a lack of alcohol at work (let alone lack of tax subsidised alcohol) what kind of reply do you think you would receive?

How do MP's imagine the current occupants of this government building get by without alcohol on the premises? Are the MPs outraged? What do you think? I bet they don't give it a thought at all - and if they did would *back* the ban on others having access to alcohol!

But what is worse is that in this particular case it is a government policy that caused the legal ban (rather than just an employment policy based ban) on alcohol... to back a government 'sharia bond' scheme the Department of Health building was leased back on sharia terms... this entire situation is of our MPs making - and when they created this situation do you think they considered for one second the impact it might have on mere plebs? No, plebs do not matter to MP's, they treat and subject us to things that they would not knowingly/willing impose on themselves in a million years.

Our MP's - selfish, ignorant bastards.

Monday, 11 January 2016

What is #BRExit going to look like? - Part 2 - Vote.Leave/For Britain

The bulk of the vote.leave campaign originally started out waiting to see what reforms David Cameron would get before deciding if it would support in/out (remain/leave). However, it abandoned this wait and see policy and decide to back Leave.

Looking at its website and policies, it still seems to have substantial designs on reform of the EU as opposed to an exit. For instance on trade it says that the EU should allow non-Eurozone members to negotiate their own trade agreements. Once UK leaves the EU, it is none of our business what the EU allows or denies to its members, Eurozone or not.

Similar traces of reform think (as opposed to leave) are spread across the vote.leave site, calling into question how committed they actually are to leaving rather than reforming the EU.

Personally I did quite a bit of work on the Yes2AV campaign - and although I now believe it was a no-hoper from day one, I was very aware that the lead campaign for 'Yes' did not actually support AV - driven by the Electoral Refrom Society and others they supported STV (single transferable vote) and had attacked AV in the past - an issue that the No campaign highlighted.

I am 100% sure that any lead 'Leave' campaign must be 100% committed to leave - and (in the very worst case) support Leave even if it means working with the EU on 'World Trade Organisation' (WTO) Rules.

WTO option is the very worst case (and not so bad with tariffs limited to a few %) and the UK can certainly do better - but until we have voted out, and started negotiations it is impossible to say exactly how much better, or in what way.

The campaigns Leave.EU and Vote.Leave will only have any mandate for getting an out vote, not for what out looks like - so it seems to me they must be prepared to sell 'leave' on the (potentially) worst terms of WTO. If they wouldn't accept WTO they are not really committed to Leave - just as Yes2AV weren't committed to AV!

What is #BRExit going to look like? - Part 1 - Leave.EU/Flexit

There is disquiet among many anti-EU campaigners - especially UKIP supporters.

The Leave.EU campaign (initially launched by UKIP financial backer Aaron Banks) has appointed Dr Richard North as a consultant on what UK's exit from the EU should look like.

Dr North has long promoted an idea of his own devising referred to as Felxcit (or Flexit) and he has acquired a bit of a following over the years as he had promoted the idea - details are available on-line, but broadly it is the 'Norway' option.

Unfortunately he and his supporters have a long track record of criticising and attacking UKIP, its supporters and Nigel Farage.

The contentious issues really boil down to three points:-
1) Payment of EU membership fees
2) Free-movement/Open-borders
3) The supremacy of EU law over UK law.

Flexit/Norway pay the EU fees (approx half of what full membership would entail), they have free-movement/open-borders, and they apply a lot of EU law (about 25% of it).

Looking at Leave.EU's own website they have a poll that lists these as the top issues for supporters of Leave! So the Flexit/Norway option fails to meet the top three aims of the people who want to leave(!)

- Half fees is an improvement
Assuming the EU don't just double the fees before applying the discount!

- Continued free-movement is a complete failure
Especially after the attacks in Germany over New Year - many of the perpetrators will get German passports and be free to move to the UK

- Cutting out 75% of EU law looks significant
Until you consider that just 100 EU Laws cost the UK economy £33bn a year, its not about %ages its about which laws!

So overall Flexit/Norway doesn't address the concerns of the majority of people who have said they want to leave the EU!

Flexit just doesn't look like 'out' at all - is this really support to Leave the EU ?

Monday, 4 January 2016

'Money' a proxy for communication - now redundant. Money is dead, so is tax, so is big government.

The future is nearly here... And big government is not a part of it.

Why do we have 'money'?

Because otherwise a man with honey wanting nails has to find a nail maker who wants honey... Or find someone who will take honey for something the nail maker wants and do a three way trade etc... and that just isn't practical! Is it?

Oh... this here internet... honey for nails? honey for widgets, for gidgets, for zidgets for nails? No problem... Whatever you have, whatever you want - the internet is the great, global swap-shop.

Gold standard ? Pah! Better than that... Asset Standard. Nothing to be underwritten, your stuff *is* your stuff.

So money is substantially redundant - what else does that mean? Well it means the state monopoly on money issuing is dead... and with it goes governments primary tool to tax us and steal our assets for their own use... they can't print money and so steal from everyone of us. If they want stuff from us they have to come to our doors and steal it in person (as per the original tax collectors).

The money-changers that are the central banks can be thrown out of our temple of liberty.

Free trade? as a concept it is virtually meaningless. You have cars, I have steel - I will trade you steel for cars. No worries about me buying cars for 'money' and then you refusing to let me sell my steel to get the 'money' - you take what I have or there is no deal. Don't take what I have and you have no customer.

The future is nearly here... And big government is not part of it.