Votes for felons

Sound and staged fury signifying nothing. So, irrefutably, says Mary Ellen Synon in the Mail about the hoo-ha in the Commons over votes for convicted felons.

All parliament has to do if it really does want to stop the powers of this 'court' is just vote to pull out of the Council of Europe, ECHR and all. Then this absurdity of votes for prisoners, and every other ECHR so-called 'human rights' absurdity, goes away. Or at least - and this is what Cameron is hiding in this debate - until Brussels reminds the United Kingdom that by signing up to Lisbon Treaty and the rest, powers across the Channel can go on imposing these 'human rights' on Britain whether the UK tries to derogate from the ECHR decisions or leaves the Council of Europe altogether.

Which is why the noise in the Commons over this is just noise. Either parliament is sovereign or its not, and until the MPs vote to take Britain out of the EU, it's not: the 'legal personality' called the 'European Union' is sovereign.

That last paragraph says it all, and trumps the thoughtful argument in favour of derogating from the EHCR set out by ASI. The political and economic establishment has too much invested in the project ever to permit a free vote on whether or not Britain secedes from the EU. If even the Irish, with their long history of rebellion, cannot summon up the necessary rage to overthrow their hopelessly corrupt rulers and to regain their independence, there is no chance at all that the dispirited British will do so.

As with climate catastrophism, the true believers will not be moved by - hell, they are incapable of even recognizing - any evidence that contradicts their faith, the politicians and bureaucrats are doing very nicely out of it, and the big money likes things just the way they are.

As far as these things can be proved, they have been. It does seem futile to continue to belabour the point. Those reading this blog are likely to be possessed of sufficient intellectual curiosity and independence of mind to have already reached any conclusions I may draw - so what's the point?

To answer that rhetorical question, I would be ashamed to abandon blogging after a mere twelve months, when for decades honest men like Richard North and Christopher Booker have been fighting and losing round after round against the squalid mediocrities who govern us, but who have not given up the good fight.

History is not altered by the jetsam that goes with the tide. One must hope that, thanks to the democratization of means of communication, eventually a sufficient number of people will realize that the ideological emperors strutting among them are stark naked - and destroy the shameless posers with vengeful laughter.