The sale of Cadbury last week to US 'plastic cheese-making' conglomerate Kraft has

resonated an astounding level of emotion (and news coverage) amongst the proud
chocolate-loving peoples of Great Britain. And rightly so. Cadbury is a national
treasure, a shining and very British beacon for responsible, philanthropic
entrepreneurial capitalism. In a way I suppose we hoped it might never happen.
That this proud company, founded by those good Quaker types in 1824 would limp on
through the recession and recover its strength on the other side. It's been
through worse, right? One hundred and eighty-four more years!

Sadly, it was not to be. Comparable perhaps to the grief of a family who have just
lost one of their own to a new life in the colonies, we have had to accept that
Cadbury is now essentially an American company. Goodbye, old bean. You are now to
Kraft what Rowntree Mackintosh is to Swiss giant Nestlé. But hang on a minute...
We still have Kit Kats don't we? You can still buy tins of Quality Streets with
the famous Mackintosh toffee penny, right? What are we so hung up about?

Well, there are two primary concerns I believe may explain why Kraft's bid has
been so unpopular not least with Cadbury itself. One is that Kraft was seen as
being unlikely to respect the ethos of the company and would meddle in its working
practices, perhaps laying off workers in the process. Another is that the much-
loved Cadbury recipe would be tampered with, perhaps into the fatty, sugary mulch
that so excites the over stimulated American taste-bud; turning it into a cheaper,
lower quality product. What do those Yanks care about our chocolate anyway?
They're only concerned with balance-sheets right? I too have had such a worry.
After all, I was only three years old when Nestlé bought Rowntree Mackintosh, but
I swear Yorkies didn't taste so much of sugar and lard when I was a nipper.

There is another dimension to this matter however, a concern I happened to catch

broadcast on BBC News following confirmation of the sale. This concern quite
rightly revolves around the concerns of Cadbury's staff, who - with the changeover
- are fearing for their jobs and the working practices they have become accustomed
to. But we've covered this already. The angle the BBC put on the matter was that,
with so many British firms now in foreign hands, the country is losing control of
its economic levers. Their claim is that British workers would be vulnerable to
Kraft laying off foreign rather than domestic workers - that, in a way we would be
relinquishing our ability to control our employment statistics and even the
welfare of our own people.

Oh dear. This smells suspiciously like 'British jobs for British workers' again.
The foul stench of that national socialism the BNP have made so much their own of
late. That populist drivel the Prime Minister was so keen to associate himself
with in 2007, then drop like a lead balloon following the fascists' endorsement.
But this is beside the point. What really stings me is the gross hypocrisy of this
position. Why is it that the BBC are so happy to present the sale of Cadbury to an
American company in terms of a loss of control over the economy to foreigners - an
issue of sovereignty if ever there was one - yet fail to report how busily engaged
we are relinquishing far more important economic, financial, even democratic
controls to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? To report one at the expense of the
other is simply madness.

Madness perhaps, or ulterior motive. Is the BBC's position really about

sovereignty? Is it really about job losses when the EU is threatening our ability
to control inflation and interest rates? Depriving us of the right to self-
regulate the lynchpin of our international economy? Or is that they do not report
our loss of sovereignty to Brussels because, like Labour, they have resigned
themselves to discarding democracy in order to stealthily impose their shared
agenda onto the British people? As Roy Hattersley explained in 1992; 'Labour has
converted to Europe because Europe has converted to socialism'. Perhaps what he
meant was that Labour has sold its soul because Europe has converted to socialism.

How has this country got to such a point? Only last week the press also saw it fit
to publicise the views of a surgeon so lacking in respect and understanding of the
basic foundations of liberal democracy that, with an entirely straight face, he
called for the banning of butter. What madness is this? What fever hangs over the
minds of our broadcasters? I was initially rendered speechless, yet even now find
it difficult in mustering the words to counter such an insane argument. The
totalitarians among us must be absolutely elated.

It's a sad irony indeed that the liberalism of the 1960s which so raged against
the 'ban this filth' Mary Whitehouses of this world should have bred such a
socially intolerant and reactionary political class today. The unholy alliance of
the far left and extremist muslims is an acute example of this. What has happened
to liberty? To democracy? To 'trust the people'? Are these just fusty old
eighteenth century ideas? I tell you, if the Conservatives cannot in government
invigorate our democracy, reclaim it from Brussels and reverse this totalitarian
nanny culture at home then I am afraid to say they have very little use to us at
all.

"Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad."