The UK's leaders are destroying our countries faith in itself

It was depressing to hear the lame excuses advanced for not awarding the London Cross Link train construction contract to Bombardier, a Canadian company that employs thousands of skilled British workers in Derby. P Hammond, millionaire and transport minister trotted out the usual excuse, it was the last government that set the rules for awarding this contract so there is nothing I can do, not that Mr Hammond needs an excuse to do nothing that is his normal operating mode.

Bombardier said it all this morning. "It could not have happened in France or Germany where large public contracts are awarded to companies with manufacturing facilities in these countries. Who was it said British jobs for British workers?  Both G Brown and IDS said it! Obviously a comment not meant to be taken seriously.

Contrast this with the behaviour of the ECB following S&P categorisation of Greek bonds as in default following the latest Franco Prussian CDO 'solution'. Central bank rules debars defaulted Greek collateral being used in ECB repo refinacing operations for Eurozone banks. So what did JC Trichet do Mr Hammond? He simply changed the rules to say the ECB will use the best credit rating for Greek bonds they can find. So if S&P, Moody's or Fitch Lovell are giving the wrong answer I have no doubt the lately established Merkel Sarky agency will give a suitable one so French and German banks can continue to refinance themselves using Greek paper. Those banks have done very well out of usury in Greece and intend to go on doing so.

I read Richard North's blog with some interest yesterday on the great state visit to Canada, click on link to read it for yourself. Richard was writing on the picture the BBC tried to show as little as possible of protesters in Quebec carrying a banner saying, 'Royal Parasites go Home'. I reproduce Richard's comments below:

"What you will see circulating amongst a sub-set of the eurosceptic fraternity, however, is a series of impassioned pleas to "her majesty", couched in diverse terms of asking her to save us from the machinations of our venal politicians, and rescue us from the encroachments of the European Union.

Not once throughout her reign, however, has the queen stepped in to reduce or modify in any way the instruments which have ceded greater power to the construct in Brussels. Yet these have effectively neutered her role as head of state, by transferring authority to a new supreme government.

Now, since we have a sovereign who is no longer sovereign in her own land, one might perhaps stop to reflect whether the banner-holders in Quebec are more accurate than we would care to admit. If the queen no longer fulfils her role as head of state, defender of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, what is royalty for?"

I remember being booed for saying the roughly same thing in response to roughly the question at a UKIP meeting from one who believes in our all powerful Queen. On a wet day in a hotel I found the Andrew Morton book on Diana, 'Her Story', on the bookshelf and for want of anything better I glanced through it. One chapter mentioned how once at tea a Royal shooting party at Sandringham Diana tried to raise the topic of UK sovereignty and what was the Queen's position vis a vis the EU president in head of state terms. It obviously went down like a lead balloon with the Queen, Betty von Battenburg is I suppose her EU name, and she  switched the topic of conversation immediately to who shot the last bird of the day!

Richard poses the question, 'What is royalty for' The answers in the comments section are illuminating. You can read them on the link I posted above but the comment below gives a flavour of these comments:

Post subject: Re: What is royalty for? Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:24 pm

Our sovereign Queen has reneged on her Coronation oath in allowing a foreign potentate power to pass legislation in this land directly affecting the people. Was she made an offer she could not refuse - or is she 'master' of all. Either way, the people have been dismissed as unimportant enough to be considered. Our head of state is seen through nostalgic eyes by the majority, but as a traitor by an increasing number, and there is nothing the people can, or will do about it - nothing effective that is, bar call upon the empowerment of Magna Carta and the Constitution through the Barons. And what then? A subservient land to the EU, or a renegade to be attacked? And with what do we defend ourselves?

Richard is a historian and today he returns to the Royal spin machine, long before Tony Blair was even born, and how it worked during the war to keep the masses happy. I recommend reading it. It is as relevant today as it was in the war years. Of course spin used to portray the Royals as demi gods but that is a mere bagatelle compared to the political masters it now serves. Richard answers his own question better than me.

' "What is royalty for?" Well, part of the answer was evident way back in 1940. Then as now, they are part of the propaganda machine that keeps the proles happy and under control.

Just don't run away with the idea that "them up there" have any concern at all for your well being. What matters with any policy is "... to keep people quiet, to give them confidence in the measures taken ...". Nothing ever changes.'


One thing the Queen felt very deeply recently was the defeat of her horse Carlton House in the Derby. A huge disappointment to her and her many adorers. Well what do you expect her to do? Defend our sovereignty from the Eurocrats?