“Project Fear” by “Cameron & the Remainians” Part 3
Parts 1 and 2 got a bit too big…
Part 1 can be found HERE
Part 2 can be found HERE
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
23rd March
The Rt. Hon. Andrew Wigmore, a diplomat attached to the Belizean High Commission in London, writing in Breitbart, on 21st March 2016:
When Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, urged voters in Britain considering Brexit to visit war cemeteries; as if allowing Brussels to mandate the power of vacuum cleaners is the only thing keeping Britain and Belgium from going to war with each other; most people with any sense of history were appalled.
Leave aside the decidedly questionable results of recent EU foreign policy adventures in the Balkans and Ukraine; any Briton walking among the neat rows of Commonwealth War Graves Commission headstones planted around the world would not be reminded of Brussels’ non-existent role in winning peace in Europe, but of the role played by old friends in far-flung lands in preserving us from European tyranny.
“I often wonder what has come over us”, asked Field Marshal Montgomery, who won our first great victories over that tyranny in the North African desert, “that we want to tie ourselves in with the nations of Continental Europe and chuck the Commonwealth overboard.”
Have we honoured the men of the Burma Regiment and the King’s African Rifles who lie in President Juncker’s cemeteries by submitting to the forty-year disgrace that is the European Union Common Agricultural Policy, which has ruined hundreds of thousands of farmers in Commonwealth countries and artificially deprived them of tens of billions in lost trade, all while driving up prices for consumers here in Britain?
Does the European Union’s tariff regime and insular, protectionist trade policy honour the tradition of openness and internationalism which made us a leading actor on the world stage, and provided the foundation for our present wealth?
Who can doubt that our commercial links to the rapidly growing economies of the Commonwealth would not be far stronger had we not lost our power to strike bilateral trade deals and pursue an independent position at the World Trade Organisation to Brussels?
The EU has managed to conclude free trade agreements with just 18 out of more than 50 Commonwealth nations since 1973.
The ink would have been dry on lucrative deals with our old partners in countries like Australia, Canada and India decades ago if it had been up to us.
When we talk about Brexit being a an opportunity to deepen our historic ties with this uniquely special network, however, we often found ourselves being subjected to the sneering derision of the Euro-snobs, who accuse us harking back to a lost golden age of imperial power.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Commonwealth, while rooted in a shared history, strengthened by the English language and deepened by a common culture, is more vibrant than ever in the modern day, despite the limitations which EU membership places on our engagement with it.
The Commonwealth Secretariat supports a huge range of initiatives to support peace-making and democracy-building, the rule of law, economic development, human development, public sector development and sustainable development.
The Association of Commonwealth Universities, linking 535 higher education institutions around the world, has produced a steady stream of world-leading scientists, heads of government and even a certain Canadian governor of the Bank of England through its horizon-expanding Commonwealth Scholarships programme.
The Commonwealth Business Council seeks to enhance the dense web of commercial and family links shared between Commonwealth members, who are estimated to trade with each other up to 50 per cent more with one another than they typically do with non-members, despite the roadblocks bodies like the EU often place between them in terms of concluding formal trade agreements.
One of the Commonwealth’s most impressive new initiatives is the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, a huge network of forest conservation initiatives spread throughout all 53 nations of the Commonwealth which will be supported by the multi-national team of scientists, foresters and policy-makers who make up the Commonwealth Forestry Association.
Based on voluntary collaboration and developing best practice for the common good, the Commonwealth way of doing things is a million miles from the way things work in the EU, which attempts to meet its objectives through binding regulations and financial penalties.
Member States with wholly different goals, caucus against one another in the European Council; while an unelected and high-handed European Commission does all in its power to bend recalcitrant states to its will.
Truthfully, it is the Brussels model, based on the ‘rule of the strong’ and built upon an economic model which seeks to keep developing countries from advancing beyond their role as providers of raw materials, which harks back to the days of empire.
It is the seemingly old-fashioned Commonwealth, as a truly diverse, non-coercive forum where equal partners can come together to work to their mutual advantage, which points the way to the future, and on June 23rd we should seize the opportunity to embrace it.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Simon Heffer in the Telegraph;
“It is time Downing Street stopped lying about how it threatens others about what might happen unless they crush dissent; but it is at least consistent with the dictatorial nature of the club to which they wish us to remain a member, which reminds me more and more of the old Soviet Union.”
That, Simon, is why I call it the EUSSR. It is not just reminiscent of the USSR; it’s a clone of it; just as the European Commission is a clone of the old Soviet Politburo.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
John Bolton, a former US Ambassador to the United Nations, wrote:
President Barack Obama unabashedly supports continued construction of a European superstate.
Obama’s fascination with Brussels, however, reflects his own statist inclinations.
His lack of international leadership perfectly mirrors the EU’s timid, ineffective defence of its own interests and values.
Of course Obama loves the EU.
America is partially at fault for the EU mirage because NATO, largely a US creation, has been so successful.
For decades, sheltering under Washington’s military umbrella, Europe, including Britain, has recklessly shrivelled defence budgets and increased social-welfare expenditures. The results are not pretty.
The EU has not only retreated from the world stage, it is becoming incompetent in ensuring security within its own “borders”.
Europe’s loss of defence capabilities, as well as will and resolve, are deeply inimical to defending the West against today’s increasing global threats.
Radical Islamists, following their perverse ideology, have struck across Europe and America, and our collective response has been pathetically inadequate.
Even Obama’s own intelligence officials have testified before Congress that the global terrorist threat from Islamic State, al Qaeda, and others is today greater than before 9/11.
North Africa and the Middle East are descending into chaos, state structures are collapsing, post-First World War borders are disappearing, and large swathes of territory are slipping under terrorist control.
If advocates of Britain remaining in the EU haven’t noticed, America’s international commitments are under attack from several populist directions in our ongoing presidential campaign.
Britain’s escape from the EU Titanic, combined with America emerging from eight years of folly this November, could revitalise the West as a whole, including the recumbent nations currently content to remain within the EU.
The United States needs strong European allies, of which Britain has been and should remain the most important.
We enjoy independence; you should resume yours.
It works.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Labour grandee Peter Mandelson today insisted he had never unconditionally supported joining the euro.
Amid claims from Boris Johnson and others that those who support British membership of the EU had been wrong on the single currency a decade ago and were wrong now, Lord Mandelson insisted he only ever backed “keeping the options open.”
It must be his age; but poor old Mandy’s memory is failing him…
Because on many occasions in the past 16 years, Lord Mandelson is on record making a strident defence of the euro and warning Britain faced disaster by staying out.
In May 2003, Lord Mandelson said: “Staying out of the Euro would prove a disaster… The price we would pay in lost investment and trade and jobs would be incalculable.”
In January of the same year, he said: “Euro membership offers the opportunity to transform UK productivity, because of the benefits of being part of an integrated single market.”
He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Cosmetics giant Avon yesterday defied the doom-mongers over the EU referendum by revealing it will move its global headquarters to the UK.
Remainians have insisted Britain will see a jobs exodus if voters opt to leave the Brussels club on 23rd June.
But Avon, known worldwide for selling make-up door-to-door, plans to move from New York to the UK.
The company’s shares immediately rose in after-hours trading in New York.
Sheri McCoy, Avon’s chief executive, said the move would, “drive efficiencies, improve operational effectiveness and deliver significant cost savings.”
Employment Minister Priti Patel was ‘delighted’ by the announcement, adding: “We are the fifth largest economy in the world but it’s vital we take back control of key decisions that affect our economy so we can secure our prosperity.”
Liz Bilney, of the Leave.EU campaign, said: “The more David Cameron says that Brexit will trigger some sort of economic Armageddon, the more developments in the business world fly in his face.”
Avon employs 28,300 worldwide — with hundreds of new British jobs now expected.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Boris Johnson dismissed claims of job losses and higher prices on his LBC radio show, saying they were, “a load of old cobblers and … a kind of Millennium Bug-style scare story frankly.” Mr Johnson said: “It does remind me very much — do you remember everybody running around and saying that at the millennium, planes will fall out of the sky, bank accounts will get wiped? It’s all wildly, wildly over-done.”
Governments across the world spent millions on warnings about the risks that on January 1, 2000 computers would switch the date to 1900 — causing untold problems. In fact, little went wrong.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
George Osborne has claimed that the independent Office for Budget Responsibility had warned against a ‘Leave’ vote;
No, George it didn’t.
The OBR clearly stated that it is, “Not for us to judge at this stage what the impact of “Brexit” might be on the economy and the public finances.”
One thing the OBR did make clear was that the Government has no chance of coming anywhere near hitting its target of getting net migration down to the tens of thousands if we stay in the EU.
It is also worth remembering that a leading OBR economist, said last year that the curbs to migrant benefits contained in “Dave’s Dismal Deal,” would make, “not much” difference to the number of people coming here from the EU.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Boeing will be based in London regardless of the outcome of the in-out vote in June proving that membership of Europe is not as crucial to business as stay campaigners claim.
A spokesman for the company said the UK market is critical for Boeing.
Sir Michael Arthur, the president of Boeing UK & Ireland, added: “The prosperous partnership between our country and our company goes from strength to strength. The whole Boeing team is committed to the UK, our customers and our partners for the long-term.”
Jill Seymour MEP, the UKIP transport spokesperson, said: “This is a massive vote of confidence in the UK, and shows that the referendum result will have no bearing on our importance in the world’s economy in the eyes of our biggest investors. “Why would the company pledge its future so confidently to Britain if there was any truth in the claims that a Brexit will wreck our economy?”
Peter Whittle, UKIP’s London Mayoral candidate added: “This is fantastic news and a great boost for London, a real vote of confidence in our great city. London truly is open for business and I am glad that Boeing will be making London its base for its entire European operation.”
A spokesperson from Boeing said: “Today’s announcement is about streamlining our corporate presence and the growth of the business across Europe. Boeing has a long-standing relationship with the UK and it is a critical market for the company.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
How dirty will the campaign to stop the British Exit from the EU (Brexit) vote get?
The pro-European Union politicians and their Big Banking, Big Business, Big Labour, Big Media allies appear ready to do just about anything to scare British voters into staying in the EU.
Will they open up the French side of the Channel Tunnel and allow thousands of Middle Eastern/African/Afghani Muslims encamped at Calais to flood into England?
That is precisely what is being proposed by one of the most influential globalist think tanks, the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Will students who check out pro-Brexit websites on computers at school be turned in by school political correctness police to the actual police?
Well, that outrage has already happened, as was reported a few weeks back.
Have the EU Commission and Parliament temporarily shelved many new taxes, regulations, laws, and policies until after the Brexit vote on 23rd June, so as not to anger voters and thereby aid the movement to leave the EU?
Do they plan to introduce these controversial, intrusive, and oppressive measures if the Brexit fails?
Are the protections in the “reform” agreement that Prime Minister Cameron secured from the EU a sham with no binding legal force?
Yes, yes and again yes.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
This country is the world leader in risk management; ahead of America and light years ahead of the vacuous, clueless leaders and bureaucrats of the EU.
If they knew the basics, they wouldn’t be repeatedly making disastrous mistakes like, the Euro, debt mountains, stalling competitiveness, and runaway migration which impacts on the most vulnerable in society.
Risk, including the likelihood of occurrence and severity of undesirable consequences, can be managed very successfully.
Otherwise electricity would be too dangerous to use, air travel wouldn’t get off the ground, money couldn’t be invested and major projects, such as Crossrail’s tunnelling under London, would peter out unfinished.
There is no ‘leap into the dark’ by leaving the centralised bureaucratic corporatist EU, just a leap into a far less risky, better performing and democratic situation.
Every example of Project Fear only reinforces the impression that our EU-loving ruling establishment cannot manage risk effectively in its various forms.
We, as an independent country, can do much better and achieve vastly improved overall results.
Messrs Cameron and Corbyn and your distant EU-overlords, Mr Juncker and (and his boss) Mrs Merkel, please explain honestly to us why we can’t?
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The geopolitical sharks are moving in for the kill.
It is now apparent to all but the most gormless that the EUSSR; never having economically bounced back from the euro crisis, or mastered its refugee crisis; is dead in the water.
The logical follow-on from such a realisation is for the world’s stronger powers to first mock the EUSSR’s pretensions, and then to ruthlessly take advantage of its chronic weaknesses.
And this is exactly what we’ve seen from Turkey in recent months.
The simple reason that no one in elite foreign policy circles wants to talk about the embarrassing transformation of the Turkish government of Putin mini-me President Recep Tayyip Erdogan from close ally into something very different is that there is so little that can be done about it.
For it is certainly true that Ankara is now almost entirely off the reservation, in terms of serving in its old Cold War function as a broadly reliable and important Western ally.
Turkey has become a “Frenemy of the West,” the wonderful new phrase correctly denoting a country that is seemingly friendly despite possessing a fundamental dislike of the West.
With the passing of the Cold War, essentially a two-player game of checkers, has come the multi-polar era, a time of chess, where simple categories like “ally” and “enemy” no longer explain the world we live in.
This shift is revealed by the headline decision in Ankara to “support” the West in terms of the refugee crisis.
Chancellor Merkel’s hapless, entirely unplanned, open welcoming of Syrian refugees has led to around 2.1m displaced people entering Germany in this past calendar year alone.
Suffice it to say, the useless German Chancellor was not bargaining for this when she made her initial generous announcement.
But Turkey has seized upon this chaotic situation, quickly understanding that, if the EUSSR is to master this sudden existential threat to its old governing order, with the survival of the Schengen Plan itself in question, Ankara is central to its efforts.
And Erdogan is willing to help… for a price.
First, in the run-up to the decisive 1st November 2015 parliamentary election; where Erdogan’s AKP party again emerged as the decisive force in the country, buttressing his dream of establishing a strong presidential system in Turkey (with himself in the critical role); the Turkish President put an end to Europe’s tut-tutting about his authoritarian instincts.
Erdogan revelled in humiliating the German Chancellor, who was forced to come to him in the days before the election, cap in hand, asking for help with the refugee crisis, lending his electoral cause vital legitimacy at exactly the moment when overall support for the divisive President had been waning.
The EUSSR has gone eloquently silent about Erdogan’s ongoing muzzling of the press, hauling his many rivals through the courts, and his increasing disregard for the rule of law.
He has glaringly illustrated that previous European concerns about Turkish domestic political rights amount to nothing, now that Europe has tremendous need of the place.
Merkel’s improvised and highly-amateurish refugee policy amounts to this: externally to bribe Turkey to keep as many refugees away from Europe as possible, while internally hectoring other European states to take a greater share of the overall influx, all in an effort to head off the first real dissension to her rule in a decade.
Turkey has been promised an initial payment of €3bn to serve as the EU’s night-watchman (with at least €3bn more to come) as well as increasingly visa-free travel in Europe for its own people, and renewed discussions about Turkey joining the club itself.
These are all concrete takeaways the “Sultan” can cite domestically as triumphs of the new, independent Turkish foreign policy.
Given the country’s significant turn for the worse economically, the money is especially handy.
The visa programme is a tangible concession that Erdogan can point to as one in which average Turks can all share.
And while no one I know thinks Turkey will ever join the EU, in Erdogan forcing the club to go through the motions of enhancing talks, he is showing the world in propaganda terms that it is Turkey, and not the EU, which presently is calling the tune in their complicated relationship.
Everyone can now see what has been obvious to a few of us for a long time: the EU is dead.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
With Britons set to go to the polls in June, there are increasing signs the UK’s referendum is paving the way for other European countries to question their own relationship with Brussels.
It comes after calls for Germany to have their own EUSSR-membership referendum in the aftermath of the migrant crisis; following release of stats that show that over 2 million migrants responded positively to Frau Merkel’s open invitation and arrived in Germany in 2015.
Now, in a contemptuous volley of Gallic expectoration on the toes of the EUSSR, 53% of the French have voted in favour of holding an In/Out referendum on the country’s membership.
Such a response from the two founding members of the original European Coal & Steel Community; the diseased acorn from which the EUSSR erupted, will undoubtedly ruffle feathers in Brussels.
Front National (FN) leader Marine Le Pen welcomed the poll results in a recent blog post, saying French demands for a referendum were “extremely encouraging”.
A quarter (25 per cent) of French people also want to see an end of free movement throughout Europe after the doomed Schengen zone was panned, following the Paris attacks.
A struggling economy and a faltering government has fuelled a rising Eurosceptic sentiment in France, as well as an escalating migrant crisis and a surge in popularity for the far-right FN.
And with France’s neighbours across the Channel heading for Brexit, many French voters are asking their government why they can’t do the same.
In a University of Edinburgh survey of 8,000 voters in Germany, France, Poland, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, France was the only country where a majority said they would back holding a referendum.
But France is not the first European country where voters are demanding their own chance to leave the EUSSR, with both the Netherlands and the Czech Republic saying they want to follow Britain in holding an in-out referendum.
In a Dutch poll, 53 per cent supported an in-out vote, while the Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka warned a “Czexit” could follow if Britons choose to leave in June.
Anand Menon, a professor of European politics at King’s College, said: “The British referendum is a laboratory for other referendums in Europe.”
While a central member of the EUSSR, France, like Britain, has always been traditionally hostile to further European integration.
In 2005 French voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed European Constitution, sending political reverberations throughout the EUSSR.
A third (33 per cent) of French people surveyed would back a so-called Frexit, while 45 per cent would vote to remain and 22 per cent are undecided, according to the University of Edinburgh poll.
While France leaving the EUSSR seems unlikely, the “surprising” result from a country “at the heart of the EU” shows other European nations holding referendums after the UK is a real possibility, according to Dr David Lees, a Teaching Fellow in French Studies at the University of Warwick.
Dr Lees said: “A referendum in France is an absolute possibility. Certainly, if Britain votes to leave the EU in June, I think France will be under increasing pressure to have a referendum; especially because a Brexit would change the entire nature of the EU. It’s a logical thing to do to keep everything afloat in the EU.”
Dr Lees added: “After Britain’s negotiations with the EU, it is only natural for France to look to the UK and say: ‘We contribute more to Europe than the UK does, so why can’t we negotiate?’ I think the French will have to hold a referendum, there’s no other way of looking at it. You have to give into that kind of popular demand.”
An increasing Eurosceptic sentiment in France is linked to the country’s long-term economic turmoil after the Eurozone crisis and the ongoing migrant crisis in Calais, with many people pinning France’s troubles on the EUSSR.
Dr Lees said: “France is facing a significant crisis, a crisis of migration. There is also a massive dissatisfaction with François Hollande who remains the least popular president of the Fifth Republic. The French government doesn’t seem to have any sense of improving things economically and I think this explains the dissatisfaction and why some people may be looking to blame the situation on the EU.”
Ms Le Pen’s FN has capitalised on this widespread dissatisfaction in France, with the Paris attacks and Europe’s migrant crisis fuelling a rise of the far-right in France.
Ms Le Pen, who has long campaigned for France to leave the EUSSR, has vowed to hold a referendum if her party wins the presidential elections in 2017.
The FN leader has been highly critical of Angela Merkel’s contribution to the EUSSR, accusing François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy of “blindly following” the German Chancellor who has been “a disaster for the EU”.
Ms Le Pen recently said during an interview on French television: “Germany is doing whatever it likes regarding the economy and immigration. When Merkel opened wide her arms to migrants, they then came to France.”
In February the far-right leader declared the UK’s negotiations with the EU were “the beginning of the end” for the union.
While an “out” campaign in France does not have the political backing from respected politicians, Dr Lees said the continuing migrant crisis could “lead people to taking more extreme views”.
If a right-wing government headed by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy is elected in next year’s presidential elections, France is likely to seek to follow Britain’s example in renegotiating its relationship with the EU, according to Mr Lees.
Welcoming the news of a potential Frexit, Ms Le Pen said French demands for a EU referendum “confirm what I have increasingly felt while travelling: the French have started a rebellion against the EU. The French are thirsty for liberty and sovereignty.”
The FN leader added: “Returning to an expression which amused and intrigued the English press last year, ‘Call me Madame Frexit!’ That name suits me more than ever.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Angela Merkel is once again taking charge of the refugee crisis.
And once again, it’s to disastrous effect.
Last year, after a summer of stories about refugees dying in the Mediterranean or abused by smugglers, the German chancellor stepped up and said her country would welcome one million refugees.
They got them; well, they actually got 2 million, but have only just learnt that.
Since then, terrorists have used the migratory flow as cover to move about Europe and kill well over a hundred people in Paris.
Cologne and other capitals have had high-profile, mob-like incidents of mass sexual assault in public.
And the reign of Merkel; Time Magazine’s “Chancellor of the Free World” (LOL), popularly called “Mutti” or Mother; has come under challenge from both all sides in Germany.
Whenever the European Union has faced a crisis caused by the rickety, undemocratic structure of the European Union itself, the political class offers one solution: “More Europe;” more integration, more coordination, more control.
Now Merkel, in trying to save herself and her party, perhaps even the Schengen plan itself, has made a deal with Turkey.
Thus perhaps solving one crisis of mass Muslim migration into Europe by promising another similar crisis later
The deal provides a mechanism for returning smuggled refugees that have arrived in Greece to Turkey.
EU countries will take in 72,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey this year, a steep descent from the more than one million Angela Merkel invited into Germany alone in the past year.
The EU will also help Greece staff and process refugees who have landed there by boat.
The agreement also includes a massive €6 billion payout to the Turkish government, which will go to provide for Syrian refugees staying in Turkey.
On the surface, the deal aims to improve the life of refugees that have arrived in Greece.
But it would also begin to close the migratory trail that leads from Greece to Germany, and confine most future refugees to Turkey.
Human rights activists consider the €6 billion a kind of blood money.
And the deal includes “re-energized” talks on an envisioned entrance of Turkey into the European Union.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has played the refugee crisis for all it is worth in his dealings with Europe.
“Erdogan keeps locking and unlocking the door as it pleases him,” said Marta Dassu, a foreign Italian deputy foreign minister.
Finally, Europe squealed and desperately revived the idea of membership.
Imagine that, a Europe that includes cities like Gaizentep, less than 100 kilometres from Aleppo, before it includes Montenegro.
And a Europe that borders Iraq, Syria and Iran…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The average UK citizen could be $30,000 (£17,500) better off by 2020 than they are today if Britain voted to leave the EU, research by New World Wealth (NWW) has claimed.
In a note out today, the wealth intelligence group estimates that the average wealth per person would rise from $147,000 (£77,900) to $180,000 (£95,400) by 2020 if a Brexit went ahead.
However, its expects this figure to drop to around $140,000 (£74,200) if Britain decided to stay.
NWW’s founder and head of research Andrew Amolis argues that the UK, like Australia, would have a hard border and therefore it would be able to restrict immigration.
He explains: “High immigration levels bring down average wages due to demand and supply dynamic, which in turn brings down average wealth per person. Uncontrolled immigration can also put pressure on healthcare and social security systems.”
Amolis adds that a Brexit would also allow the UK to bring taxes down and free it from EU regulations, which restrict growth of its financial services, hi-tech and manufacturing sectors.
“Over the longer term, a Brexit will result in greater ties with former English speaking colonies such as Canada, USA, Australia, India and New Zealand, all of which have much stronger economies than EU countries. The UK is the only English speaking country in the region, which is a major advantage when dealing with these countries,” he said.
Australia has adopted a restrictive immigration policy over the past 15 to 20 years, keeping its population relatively small and only admitting skilled migrants, based on a points system, NWW explains.
As a result, Australia’s average wealth per person has gone up by 250 per cent from $59,000 in 2000 to $204,000 in 2015. Over the same period, the average UK person’s wealth has gone up by only 58 per cent from $93,000 (£48,300) in 2000 to $147,000 (£77,900) in 2015.
“It is our view that a Brexit will benefit individual wealth creation in the UK,” Amolis said.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Piers Morgan asks:
How many more?
That’s the question most of us were asking as news broke of yet another Daesh attack, this time in Brussels.
How many more innocent men, women and children are going to be blown to pieces by these murderous bastards?
How many more airports, train stations, sports stadiums, restaurants or concert halls will be obliterated in a hail of suicide bombs and bullets?
How many more world leaders will wring their hands on national television afterwards, and spout pointless platitudes about the ‘poor brave victims’ and ‘heroic emergency services’?
And of course calls warning against Islamophobia; against blaming Muslims; reminding us that Islam is “The Religion of Peace”
How many taunting, gleeful claims of responsibility will the despicable Islamic perpetrators of these evil crimes be able to issue?
I’m sick of feeling sick about such endless, senseless barbarism, in the name of a religion, aren’t you?
The worst thing about it is that there appears to be no world leader prepared to make it end.
The inherent problem behind it; chaotic age-old sectarian strife in the Middle East, is getting worse, not better; just as the financial and military resource of the enemy is growing greater, not reducing.
Yet just as the world is crying out for strong decisive leadership, there is none.
America has a demob happy President Obama eeking out his last few months in office. A man whose infamous ‘leading from behind’ philosophy to foreign policy has been partly responsible for the war in Syria raging uncontrollably for five years — allowing fundamentalism to ferment.
Obama has zero interest in doing anything tangible to really deal with Daesh.
This is now parked in the tray marked ‘next president’s problem.’
Europe, meanwhile, is splintering at the seams, ravaged by an unprecedented migration crisis that nobody seems to have a clue how to handle.
German chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let two million migrants into the country is now obviously an utter disaster.
France, reeling from the two attacks in Paris, is understandably highly fearful of yet more terror coming its way.
Belgium officials effectively conceded today that they have no real way to protect themselves against the Daesh threat.
A fact surely borne out by the fact that today’s onslaught in Brussels happened exactly when the city should have most expected it, following the capture of Paris attacks suspect Saleh Abdeslam three days ago.
The UK, surely a target anytime soon, is on red alert but its warring politicians are too distracted by the upcoming EU referendum in June to pay anything more than lame lip service to terrorism.
Nobody in the West seems to be doing anything concrete to stop Daesh, or even suggesting a new way to do so, considering the spectacular lack of success so far.
Well almost nobody.
There is one man who definitely has a plan to deal with Daesh; several plans in fact.
The problem is that people don’t like him or his plans.
Well, a lot of people don’t anyway.
Trump, current front-runner for the Republican nomination, wants to hit Daesh “so hard they never recover.”
As he has said: “You’ve got to take them out and you’ve got to take them out harshly and you’ve got to take them out fast.”
He also wants a short-term ban on Muslims entering the U.S. until, as he puts it, “we figure out what the hell is going on”
And he wants to torture suspects like Abdeslam with techniques like water-boarding to try and extract information about future attacks.
Oh, and he wants to build a giant wall to stop illegal immigrants pouring over the Mexican border into America.
As Trump speaks in more detail about his plans to combat Daesh, there is a tendency to find yourself nodding more than you expect.
Trump says that countries must tighten their borders in light of these terror attacks, especially to anyone related to a Daesh fighter in Syria.
Is he so wrong?
He says that he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived.
Is he so wrong?
He says America must make it far harder for illegal immigrants to enter the U.S. and thinks European countries should follow suit.
Is he so wrong?
He says that he believes there are now areas of many major European cities which have become poisonous breeding grounds for radicalised Islamic terror.
Is he so wrong?
That doesn’t sound like a lunatic, as many seem to view Trump.
This is a non-politician unfettered by PC language restraints, who is genuinely furious at the devastation which Daesh is wreaking, and seriously concerned for the security of his fellow Americans and indeed, Europeans.
His plans for tackling this extraordinarily dangerous threat to the world have been widely condemned as ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’.
He is someone who has spent his life responding to metaphorical punches on his nose by punching even harder back.
And right now, he firmly believes that Daesh will murder countless more Americans and Europeans if somebody somewhere doesn’t stand up and punch them hard in the face.
Someone prepared to stop spewing politically-correct niceties after these attacks, hoping nobody gets offended, and actually DO something.
Let’s be honest with ourselves, right now Daesh may not be winning the war in Syria & Iraq; but will anyway continue committing utter carnage on our streets on an ever graver and more barbaric scale until they are stopped.
And we don’t hear any good ideas on how to do that, coming from any world leaders at the moment; and it’s their highly paid jobs to work it out.
Instead, we see a global paralysis driven by fear, confusion and woeful lack of leadership.
And it will only get worse.
Hate Donald Trump all you like, but at least he seems to recognise the magnitude of the threat and at least he has firm proposals for how to try to defeat it.
They may not win him the Politically Correct Pontificator of the Year award. But how many more scenes like this morning’s appalling images from Brussels are we going to tolerate before we try a non-PC option to beat these disgusting excuses for human beings?
Donald Trump has a message to the large majority of non-violent, decent Muslims who are as disgusted by these attacks as the rest of us:
“I have great respect for Muslims. I have many friends that are Muslims. I’m just saying that there is something with a radicalised portion that is very, very bad and very dangerous. I would say this, to the Muslims, when they see trouble, they have to report it. They’re not reporting it, they’re absolutely not reporting it and that’s a big problem.”
Is he so wrong?
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Re Brussels attacks, 22nd March; UKIP defence spokesman Mike Hookem said: “I am appalled at the loss of life and injuries. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those killed and injured. This horrific act of terrorism shows that freedom of movement and lax border controls are a threat to our security.”
UKIP leader Nigel Farage also hinted that the EU’s open-borders agreement was to blame as he tweeted: “I’m very upset by events in Brussels and even more depressed for the future.”
But Prime Minister David Cameron hit back, saying it was “not appropriate” to be drawing a link between the Islamic State attacks and immigration on “such a day.”
How many days do we have to wait, Dave, before it is “appropriate”?
On Twitter, Katie Hopkins, as ever hunting controversy, has found it.
Hopkins — “Next time you hear someone say we are safer IN the EU — remember Brussels. Seen as the heart of Europe; it is now Jihadi central.”
Reply — “You do NOT get to speak for our city. Refugees are welcome, you are welcome to stay out;”
Hopkins — “Every one of you who said refugees are welcome, if you said ‘let them in’. You are responsible for Brussels. And you still can’t see.”
Reply — “Please don’t turn this tragedy into a political debate. Show some respect.”
Hopkins — “How can you separate the human from the political? Merkel — and her ilk — blew up Brussels.”
Reply — “Christ even for you that’s a bit heavy and hysterical;”
Hopkins — “How about we cut from pics of dead bodies on the Metro — to more boats, happily crossing the Med. Liberal left — s**t at joining the dots.”
“People here are absolutely appalled by the loss of life,” Irish journalist Hermann Kelly said from inside the European Parliament in Brussels. “This horrific act of terrorism sadly shows that Schengen free movement, and lax border control across the EU, now presents itself as a huge threat to our security. David Cameron said we must stay in the EU for our security. Well, I’m sitting here in the middle of the European Parliament. A bomb has just gone off half a mile away. People have been killed. And believe me, it doesn’t feel too safe here today.”
“How can they be allowed to just swan around and act as they like? It’s just incredible,” said Kelly.
Yes, it is unbelievable; the head of Europol has said that there are “…up to 5,000 jihadists at large in the European Union, having slipped in with the refugees from Syria.”
There are also, we have been told; “94 returned jihadists from Syria,” living in the same small area that gave Paris massacre suspect Salah Abdeslam refuge for four months.
What is so incredible is that these people are allowed to come back, after fighting for Daesh;
Allowed to murder people in Syria and come back;
To live and walk around as if nothing happened; in the centre of Brussels; supposedly the heart of the EUSSR
This whole idea of free movement across borders, within the EUSSR, has allowed these murderers to travel wherever they wish.
It has allowed them to move their guns, and their explosives, as they like, without let or hindrance.
And we see, now, the consequences of this ridiculous, this incredibly stupid EUSSR policy.
Free movement means free movement for fighters, for guns and for explosives; so that they can carry out their atrocities at will.
The argument, advanced by Remainians like David Cameron; that keeping the UK inside the EUSSR enhances our security is so bloody ridiculous, it’s beyond belief.
Because of EUSSR policy, Schengen, open borders etc, terrorists can, with their weapons & explosives, travel across Europe at will, and shoot and bomb people as, when or wherever they like.
The terror attacks so close to the European Parliament are not only barbaric, but also symbolic acts, which blow this whole “Safer in Europe” baloney clear out of the water.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The Alawite (Shīʿite) regime in Damascus has used the latest massacre in a European capital to call for “international efforts to confront the danger of terrorism.”
A source at Syria’s foreign ministry claimed the attacks were the consequence of some countries “describing terrorist groups as moderate.”
The comments, coming from a country facing a rebellion led by extremist Islamist groups including Daesh and al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra, are not far off the truth.
Lebanese Shīʿite militant group Hezbollah also responded to the attacks in Belgium by saying Europe was being burnt by “fire” from Syria and the Middle East which showed the growing threat posed by ultra-radical groups.
The group said in a statement: “The fire that Europe in particular and the world in general is being burnt by, is the same one that some regimes ignited in Syria and other states in the region.”
The “some regimes” referred to are the Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Turkey.
In Turkey, both Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and the spokesman of President Tayyip Erdogan strongly condemned the attacks, which came three days after a suspected Daesh member blew himself up in Istanbul, killing four tourists.
This is Turkey, whose entry into the EUSSR, our government strongly supports;
The same Turkey, that has been supporting Daesh since its inception; supplying arms to them, allowing easy movement of their new recruits into Syria, buying stolen oil from them and carrying out air-strikes on Kurdish forces opposed to them.
The secretary general of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Abdullatif al-Zayani, said that the GCC offered its support to Belgium. The bloc comprises Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Just in case you’ve forgotten; Saudi Arabia & Qatar, with Turkey, have been financing and supplying Daesh since the beginning.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
“Safer in Europe,” Dave?
The prime responsibility of our government; any government; before Health, Education, Welfare or anything else, is the Security and Safety of the country and its inhabitants.
Usually one of the advantages of being in an alliance is increased security; not so with membership of the EUSSR.
The free movement of the citizens of EUSSR countries throughout the EUSSR, combined with the free movement of literally anybody within the Schengen zone has left the UK’s border security in tatters.
All are well aware of the flood of refugees and/or economical migrants, many apparently Syrians, currently flowing into what Churchill once called the, “Soft under-belly of Europe”
The incredible incoherence and ineptitude of the EUSSR’s response to the crisis is proving to be a “Gift Horse” for Daʿesh.
Or rather, a “Trojan Horse;” given the way it is exploiting the catastrophic human tsunami.
The result is that Daʿesh has been able to use the migrant routes to disperse who-knows-how-many fighters throughout Europe, with instructions, and sufficient training, to carry out attacks similar to those in Paris last year.
As we know, at least three of the Daʿesh attackers in Paris were accepted into Greece, the Schengen border, as refugees with Syrian passports. From there they travelled to Paris completely unchecked and unrecorded.
Similarly the “al-Qaeda-in-the-Arabian-Peninsular” fighters who carried out the Charlie Hebdo murders, travelled through Europe freely.
It could be said that the EUSSR, far from protecting France from those attacks, actually facilitated them.
There is nothing about the Home-grown terrorist that is affected either way by our membership of the EUSSR; except perhaps our ability, or inability to deport them.
But Daʿesh is currently taking advantage of the EUSSR’s well-known, wide-spread incompetence; exploiting the unprecedented migrant/refugee crisis to infiltrate European civilisation; bringing their own brand of Wahhabi-Salafist Sunni mayhem with them
It cannot be known how many are in Europe already; the Paris attackers were proof that some are. Even if the figure is as little as .01% of that 1.5 million; that’s 150;
It only took eight or so to bring mass murder to the Bataclan Theatre…
The latest Europol reports estimate that there are “…up to 5,000 Islamic Jihadis” already in continental Europe
Add to that the numbers of the, majority Sunni, refugees/migrants who variously sympathise with or actively support Daʿesh, and you have some idea of the nightmare scenario facing British intelligence officials, and other security organisations, trying to distinguish potential terrorists from genuine asylum seekers, and you also have an idea of the threat facing us, members of the EUSSR, right now…
We now know that Syrian passport offices in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour once possessed large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them.
For nearly two years those two cities, along with those “large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them,” have been in Daʿesh hands.
According to a recent report from US Homeland Security, “…it is possible that individuals from Syria with passports ‘issued’ in these ISIS (Daʿesh) controlled cities or who had passport blanks, may have travelled to the U.S.,”
“Possible”?
“May have”?
Highly likely, even certain; I’d have thought.
And not just “…individuals from Syria;” either; really from just about anywhere in North Africa and the Middle East; and having those passports; once inside the Schengen zone they can travel anywhere…
The ease with which Daʿesh is managing to infiltrate the migrant smuggling routes helps to explain a recent alarming Europol report, which stated that Daʿesh has already set up secret training camps across Europe to prepare terrorists to carry out “special forces-style” attacks against the UK and other EUSSR countries.
“There is every reason to expect that IS (Daʿesh) or other religiously inspired terrorist groups will undertake terrorist attacks somewhere in Europe again, intended to cause mass casualties among the civilian population.”
Frans Timmermans, the European Politburo’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said; “Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.”
Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have large & active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.
On continental Europe, the Schengen Plan allows for the unchecked, unrecorded, passport-free movement of anyone, from Greece or Italy, to Sweden, France or Spain.
Of course, that includes their luggage; and weapons; and explosives…
Terrorists, just like multi-national corporations, don’t respect national borders, don’t play fair and do use the EUSSR to their own advantage.
In time, most of those refugees/migrants/terrorists will be issued with EUSSR passports;
If the UK is still a member of that rotten, corrupt, dictatorial organisation when that happens, we will not be able to stop them coming here.
After I’d posted that on FB on 22nd March, before the news of the Brussels attacks, some buffoon accused me of using Bull-shit to support my anti-EU agenda; so I repeated some of it; just the salient points…
Yes, I’ll admit to an anti-EU agenda; but;
At least 3 of those that attacked the Bataclan Theatre etc were in possession of false/forged Syrian passports… that is not Bullshit
The “Europol estimate of “…up to 5,000 Islamic Jihadis” already in continental Europe,” is not Bullshit
That, “We now know that Syrian passport offices in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour once possessed large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them.” Is not Bullshit
For nearly two years those two cities, along with those “large quantities of blank passports and the machines needed to print in them,” have been in Daʿesh hands” is not Bullshit
“According to a recent report from US Homeland Security, “…it is possible that individuals from Syria with passports ‘issued’ in these ISIS (Daʿesh) controlled cities or who had passport blanks, may have travelled to the U.S.,” is not Bullshit.
“Frans Timmermans, the European Politburo’s First Vice-President, in an interview with the Dutch Broadcast Foundation said; “Sixty per cent of the masses of people now coming to Europe come from North African countries where you can assume they have no reason whatsoever to ask for refugee status.” Is not Bullshit
The fact that, “Both al-Qaeda & Daʿesh have large & active recruitment & training programmes in North Africa.” Is not Bullshit
The statement, “In time, most of those refugees/migrants/terrorists will be issued with EUSSR passports;” is not Bullshit
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a set of subsidies to farmers within the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (EUSSR).
It gives the lion’s share of its budget to Italy, Germany and France.
Our EUSSR membership gives us no choice but to accept this corrupt, inefficient and wasteful policy and all the over-regulation that comes with it.
Just some of these determine:
How many farm inspections there have to be in any given year;
What proportion of those inspections has to be random;
How much the fine will be if a farmer makes a mistake;
How much he should be fined if he makes the same mistake twice;
The precise dimensions of the EUSSR billboards and plaques, announcing “Funded by the EUSSR,” that farmers are forced to put up by law;
The maximum permitted width of a gateway;
The minimum permitted width of a hedge;
The maximum permitted width of a hedge;
What type of crop must be grown in the field beyond that hedge;
Whether a cabbage and a cauliflower are different crops or should be deemed the same crop.
The list interminably spewing-out from Brussels goes on & on…
The corporatist and counter-productive policies of the CAP prevent the UK from exploring cheaper options on the world market, keeping food prices artificially high for British consumers, while simultaneously giving handouts to inefficient farmers in continental Europe. Thus the average British family loses hundreds of pounds every year in higher food prices.
Research by the Taxpayer’s Alliance says the average cost per household is close to £400 a year;
Following Brexit, without artificial prices plonked onto EUSSR goods, food would be a lot cheaper for consumers.
Funded by the budget contributions of all 28 EU Member States, around 40% of the EUSSR budget (£103 billion per annum) is spent on the CAP.
The UK receives a paltry 9% of the CAP budget; and a lot of that goes to land-owners, rather than the actual farmers..
Throughout the EUSSR, agriculture only contributes 1.6% to EUSSR profits; no more than 5% work in farming; yet CAP gobbles-up 40% of the budget.
It is simply a protectionist racket, intended to make sure agricultural industries in continental Europe stay in profit.
This is where the EUSSR propaganda machine comes into play.
By playing on the fears of British farmers about losing their subsidies, the Remainians are misleading the public regarding where the money comes from.
Groups like “Britain Stronger in Europe” (BSE — LOL!) suggest the EUSSR is the sole guardian of keeping struggling British farmers afloat.
It is not!
It should be emphasised that these subsidies aren’t EUSSR money; they come from all the Member States’ contributions to the EUSSR budget. (That’s the budget which hasn’t passed an audit for 20 years!)
Those that receive this “EUSSR Funding” are often unaware the money comes from their own pockets.
We are simply contributing to our own country’s welfare.
The EUSSR is actually giving us nothing.
When the EUSSR spends money on any project, it makes a big thing of the fact that it is the EUSSR that funded the project, with frequent displays of the blue flag, bedecked with yellow stars.
But it is simply taking British taxpayers’ money, placing EUSSR branding on it, and returning it via “benevolent Brussels” with instructions on how it must be spent.
The UK will be contributing £14.5 billion to the EUSSR during this financial year.
We will only receive £4.1 billion back.
I repeat; the money given to farmers and landowners in the form of the CAP subsidies is not EUSSR money, it comes from British taxpayers.
It is ridiculous and arrogant EUSSR self promotion that forces farmers to put billboards on their land, advertising that they are ‘receiving’ funding from the EUSSR.
Subsidies for British farmers could be far better implemented by our own government, with the money going directly to where it is needed.
We could easily replace the CAP with free trade agreements in agriculture, which would be good for British consumers and farmers alike.
Contrary to false EUSSR-funded reports, all Brexit proposals outline plans to match EUSSR spending for our farmers and fishermen for a minimum of five years at the same level as current “EUSSR subsidies”.
The money the UK currently sends over the channel is spent by the EUSSR Politburo to subsidise the UK’s competitors.
When the UK stops funding the powerful farming lobbies in Europe, there is no reason to believe British farmers would not thrive post-Brexit.
All this comes at a time when our food trade gap is continuing to widen and the UK is importing more and more food. EUSSR red tape is hindering & hurting our small farmers.
The bureaucratic limbo which plagues the CAP has resulted in ‘lakes of wine’ hidden away in France and ‘mountains of bread’ thrown away in Germany.
Such waste always occurs when bureaucrats having no contact with workers on the ground, dictate from their ivory towers.
This has been the EUSSR’s approach for decades; so why should British taxpayers continue to fund such a damaging and wasteful policy?
This is why our own politicians must acknowledge the growing democratic deficit of Brussels’ rule. British consumers and farmers must be put first. When we get our chance to vote in the referendum, this is why we must vote to get the UK out of the EUSSR.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
21st March
This is the full text of a speech delivered by David Davis on 4th February 2016; before the arrival of “Dave’s Dismal Deal”
It has been over 43 years since Britain joined the European Economic Community. For all that time there have been calls for Europe to reform; for Europe to be more democratic, more competitive, more functional; and for Britain to lead that reform.
The result?
If anything Europe has become less democratic, less competitive and more dysfunctional.
And Britain has become more side-lined.
The EU has been in decline for some time now. There is no change of course in sight. The risks involved in staying are clear for all to see — low growth, high unemployment, and waning influence.
In 1975 the EU was the bright future, a vision of a better world. Now it is a crumbling relic from a gloomy past. We must raise our eyes to the wider world.
The UK has been a persistent advocate of reforming and modernising the EU.
Even a decade ago there was hope of radical reform, as the EU expanded from 15 nations to 28.
Some thought the new members, only recently independent themselves, would shift the EU away from its centralising, statist destination, and towards a more democratic, more trade-focussed direction.
The hope was that Europe would become ‘wider, not deeper’. With hindsight, this hope now looks ridiculous. (Yes, with hindsight, those former Soviet Bloc countries were accustomed to centralist, statist control)
The siren calls for ‘more Europe’ have only increased.
The UK also proselytised for a ‘two-tier’ or ‘two speed’ Europe, with a loose decentralised group around a more centralised Franco-German core. With the Eurozone, we now have a de facto two-tier Europe, but one that works to the detriment of the non-Eurozone countries.
Centred on Germany, the EU’s largest and most powerful nation and the paymaster of Europe, the Eurozone constitutes a dominant majority.
This is downright dangerous.
The core Eurozone countries will not accept any curtailment of the decisions they need to make to save the Euro.
At the same time, the non-Eurozone countries cannot accept decisions that are against their interests, imposed on them by the Eurozone core. (But they have to accept them)
It will only lead to conflict, conflict that can only be prevented by veto procedures that would be unacceptable to either side.
Economic growth on the continent has ground to a halt.
Since the turn of the century, the EU has grown at a third of the rate of the global average, and the Eurozone has grown even more slowly than that.
Europe’s share of global GDP is falling, as is its share of global trade. This trend is expected to continue.
When we last voted on our membership in 1975, trade with Europe was the vast majority of our total trade.
This has fallen since then, and in 2008 the UK started to trade more with the rest of the world than with Europe.
The fact is that Europe is becoming less and less important.
The Euro has become a destroyer of jobs.
Unemployment across the continent is running at almost 10 per cent, with youth unemployment double that at 20 per cent.
For individual countries, these figures are even worse.
Greece and Spain are suffering from youth unemployment rates of nearly 50 per cent, and Italy almost 40 per cent.
Unemployment is destroying the prospects of a whole generation of young Europeans.
The Euro is an experiment that has failed.
In its short life it is already responsible for sovereign debt crises in several European countries, high unemployment, and dramatic trade imbalances across the Eurozone.
But then the European project has been a litany of failures.
From economic catastrophe, the collapsing single currency experiment, a poor record on increasing trade, the damage done by merging home affairs, to the undoubted foreign policy failures.
Then there is the Schengen Zone.
The passport-less travel area once held up as the pinnacle of European integration is crumbling before our very eyes. The migration crisis that has brought more than a million refugees to Europe’s shores, with many more expected to come, is a stake in the heart of a borderless Europe.
The strength of any policy can only be judged by how it copes with crisis.
Schengen, just like the Euro, is failing under the pressure.
Even with justice, the EU causes conflict.
From the faulty European Arrest Warrant, that has led to innocent Brits being detained for months overseas in terrible conditions without trial, to the slow steady creep of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we are increasingly finding that our justice system is incompatible with the one on the continent.
So the problems facing the EU are mounting up; economic stagnation, high debt, high unemployment, high regulation, ineffective foreign policy and failing internal policies.
This is the backdrop to the Government’s renegotiation of our term of membership.
The Government has four strands to its renegotiation:
Economic governance, ensuring that the Union operates for the benefit of all 28 members;
Competitiveness and a target to cut the regulatory burden for business;
Sovereignty and an opt-out for Britain from ‘ever closer union’;
And finally immigration, and the proposed ‘emergency brake’
This renegotiation is a once in a generation opportunity. Unfortunately, the Government has wasted this opportunity on demands that are so unambitious as to be a waste of time.
The concessions outlined by the Prime Minister on Tuesday will have little, if any, impact on the nature of the EU. They will do almost nothing to address the very issues that the Government itself has identified.
Take immigration. 265,000 people migrated to the UK from the EU in the last year; many of them from poorer, Eastern European countries.
Such high levels of migration are to be expected given the enormous wage differentials across Europe.
There are 6 EU members where the average wage is less than a third of the UK’s minimum wage, and a further 8 countries where it is less than half.
Given such incentives, it is surprising that more people are not making the journey.
This has consistently been a top issue for voters for over a decade.
The Government’s answer?
That an ‘emergency brake’ system be put in place, that would allow member states to partly deny in-work benefits to new arrivals for up to four years.
But the big caveat is that it would be necessary to prove that services were under strain, and secure the approval of a majority of other EU states.
It is rumoured that a French negotiator told his British counterpart that they were, “happy to give the British anything they wanted, so long as it was nothing of substance.”
He must have had the emergency brake in mind when he said it.
When you look at the figures, it is clear that even should the measure be introduced, the emergency brake will have no impact whatsoever.
This is for two reasons.
The first is that very few EU arrivals claim in-work benefits in their first four years.
In the first year after arrival, only 10 per cent of EU nationals claim tax credits. This number jumps to around 20 per cent by the fourth year.
This is because 50 per cent of migrants from the continent are single and childless, with a further 25 per cent not single but also childless. This means that 75 per cent of EU migrants will only be eligible for very low levels of in-work benefits, if at all.
By the time the referendum takes place, a single earner without children on the minimum wage will be entitled to less than £10 per month in tax credits.
Not even with a very generous leap of imagination can anyone believe that the loss of this amount would dissuade people from coming to this country.
The other problem with the brake is that the Government’s own policy to dramatically raise the minimum wage in the form of the national living wage will have the effect of abolishing in-work benefits.
By 2020, when the living wage is due to be £9 per hour, and the personal tax allowance has risen further, in-work benefits will be minimal. And the minimum wage in this country will be an even greater multiple of the average wage of the poorest EU members.
The Government has said that ‘no calculation has been done on how much the proposed brake will cut EU immigration’.
This is hardly surprising given the number will be very close to zero.
Then there is the matter of Parliamentary sovereignty.
The primary reason that I believe Britain should vote for Brexit is not economic, it is political.
It is so that the United Kingdom, the first great liberal democracy of the modern era, the fifth largest economy in the world, can recover control of her own destiny.
The renegotiation does not call for any repatriation of powers.
It offers no confirmation of Parliament’s sovereignty.
All the Government has demanded is an exemption from ‘ever closer union’, and the Government’s proposed ‘red card’ system to block unwanted laws.
Given the ‘ratchet’ nature of the European Union, the exemption from ‘ever closer union’ is not worth the paper it is written on.
And the ‘red card’ proposal is worth even less.
The ‘red card’ system only operates on draft laws, only works if there is a ‘subsidiarity’ argument, and needs the agreement 55 per cent of EU Parliaments.
This is the much the same as the old ‘yellow card’ system, that was also unworkable and which William Hague previously claimed is too difficult to satisfy.
Just consider: a blocking minority in the European Council is 35 per cent. If this 35 per cent cannot be reached, then it is inconceivable that there will be simultaneous rebellions in 15 European Parliaments on the same issue.
The red card is not, on any interpretation, a parliamentary veto.
It returns no power to Parliament, does not help us protect our national interests and offers no protection from EU lawmakers.
On the Government’s calls for greater competitiveness, there has not been a single year that has gone by without European council meetings concluding with rallying cries to cut regulation and increase competitiveness.
Yet year after year the regulatory burden increases and Europe’s competitiveness declines. No specific regulations have been identified to be culled. No pro-competitive measures have been unveiled.
There is no reason to think that President Tusk’s almost detail-less commitment to greater competitiveness will be any different to all the other commitments that have gone before.
In summary, the Government’s renegotiation boils down to a few vague measures that either won’t have any effect, or will change so little as to not be worth the effort.
The most common reaction from the press and the public seems to be, “is that it?”
We have squandered our only opportunity to gain any meaningful reform for Europe.
Given the disastrous direction of Europe, its 40 year long inexorable and irreversible trend to more centralisation, and the lack of meaningful change, in my view the safest option for Britain is to leave.
It is not just that exit from Europe is nothing to fear.
For Britain to remain as a member of the European Union would be to bind us to an institution that is creating a slew of unnecessary risks, would be to forgo control of our own destiny, and to give up on real opportunities to improve the lot of our people.
So given that the safe course for Britain is to leave, it is vital to set out how we will leave; and what sort of relationship we can expect once we do.
There are some who are nervous of laying out in detail how we see it playing out.
I am not.
This is the biggest question we will face in a generation.
It is our democratic duty to make the consequences clear.
The options are very good ones.
And you cannot beat something with nothing, even if that something is membership of the creaking edifice that is the EU.
In 2006 Professor Patrick Minford assessed that the net effect of the EU on costs and competitiveness was so detrimental that departure from it was likely to prove beneficial even if all the government managed to negotiate in Brexit was WTO terms of trade — ie the minimum legally possible.
At the time I thought that was an optimistic view of Brexit. However, that was before I took a hard look at the numbers.
The starting point is to ask what benefits we derive from our membership of the EU, namely trade, investment and access to global markets.
It has long been claimed that membership of the EU increases trade, and with it wealth and welfare, among its members.
Well let us just assess how accurate that is.
Now understanding and explaining movements in trade is difficult. They can be affected by bank crises, oil shocks, global disruptions like the collapse of the Soviet empire, new members joining the community, new competitors and so on.
The best way to assess whether we got an advantage from entering Europe is to compare our export performance into Europe against that of a comparable group of similarly developed competitor countries who did not enter.
This exercise has been done by Michael Burrage in an exercise for the Civitas think tank. He took the European export performance of the UK and measured it against the European export performance of a group consisting of America, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Norway, and Switzerland.
In the Single Market period our exports grew if anything slower than our OECD competitors, despite our membership. During the Single Market period, despite all the costs incurred, the treaties signed, the regulations implemented, despite all the controversies of the European project, our performance in selling to Europe was worse than our competitors outside the EU.
Why is this?
There are two possible reasons. One is that the burden of the Single Market bureaucracy handicapped us against our competitors. This is almost certainly true to some extent, but the far bigger reason is that trade tariffs during the 1980’s and 1990’s were far higher than they are today, before they were reduced by the World Trade Organisation and its predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Our success in the 80s and early 90s was the result of being inside a trade protectionist barrier, and little else. That is now largely gone, and with it we are now at a disadvantage to our global competitors.
Another benefit that we have supposedly derived from our membership is increased foreign direct investment in our economy.
It is certainly true that at the beginning of the Common Market period there was a spike in foreign investment in this country.
However, since the barriers have come down we have received far less foreign investment than either Norway or Switzerland, both outside of the EU, even once we have accounted for their oil industry and financial services.
So there seems to have been no discernible benefits to our trade or to foreign direct investment.
The final supposed benefit of our membership is how the EU ‘increases our influence on the world stage’, and increases our ‘clout’, allowing us to secure more favourable trade terms across the world.
Put to one side how our adding our ‘clout’ has not improved the EU’s dreadfully weak foreign policy.
We can test out how well that ‘clout’ has served our interest if we look at the EU’s performance on trade agreements.
When negotiating trade agreements with other countries, the EU has to balance the interests of the 28 different member states. This has had dire consequences for the UK.
To start with trade agreements negotiated by the EU take a very long time to conclude. We still don’t have free trade agreements with China, India or the US. The talks with India have been ongoing for almost a decade.
Our interests are not well represented in trade negotiations. The majority of free trade agreements that have been successfully negotiated by the EU are with North African or South American countries, with far more historical and cultural links to Mediterranean countries than to us.
The only Commonwealth country to enjoy a free trade agreement with the EU so far is South Africa, and that has more to do with Nelson Mandela than the UK’s ‘clout’.
Other than that the first will be Canada, which is just pending.
This is all a function of how marginalised Britain’s interests are within the EU.
It is no surprise that we have been outvoted in the Council more than twice as often as any other country.
The consequence of this is that these trade deals are not tailored to our requirements.
Much has been made of how hard it would be for a single country to negotiate successful trade deals on its own. But if we compare the EU’s trade deals to those that Switzerland have negotiated, with its small population and limited global influence, then we see something interesting.
Switzerland has seen an increase in growth rates in trade as a result of two thirds of their free trade agreements. The UK has only seen an increase in growth rates in trade from one third of the EU’s free trade deals.
So little Switzerland, with its population of 8 million, is able to negotiate better trade deals for itself than the EU does on our behalf.
Does anyone seriously believe that Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world, would not be able to negotiate by itself at least as successfully as Switzerland?
Just as damning is that the majority of these trade agreements do not include services; Services account for over three quarters of all the UK’s economic activity.
They have provided much of our economic growth in recent years, as well as most new employment.
Our creative industries, our financial services and legal services are some of the best in the world. It seems certain that they would be included in any trade deal negotiated by the UK.
So on trade, on investment, and on access to overseas markets the benefits we have supposedly derived from the EU are far less than commonly understood. They may well be negative.
As I said, I was initially doubtful of Professor Minford’s assessment that we would be better off outside of the EU irrespective of the EU’s response. But he is very likely to be right.
Those business groups such as Goldman Sachs and the CBI, who have warned of catastrophe should we leave, are likely to be wrong.
It is not surprising that these business are making the argument to stay in.
At the end of the day these businesses are arguing for their own, very narrow interest.
Indeed, I think we should all raise an eyebrow at the tremendous concern that these companies are showing for our national welfare, given that at least six of Britain’s ten biggest multinationals pay no corporation tax at all.
Nevertheless, we should pay attention to their concerns. They have huge sunk costs in distribution and supply networks, and worry about losing access to existing EU markets. And whilst they are not job creators or particularly good innovators, they still represent an important component of our economy.
These businesses can relax. There is no doubt that such access would continue in the event of British exit.
No-one can reasonably say that the UK would cease to have access to European markets.
The worst case scenario is that the UK would revert to trade on a World Trade Organisation basis, with tariffs imposed on our exports into the EU.
Let us leave aside cars and food for the moment. Everything else has relatively small barriers, and these are almost certainly negotiable down to zero.
If Europe wants to stick to trading on a WTO basis, they are very badly positioned to do so.
Everyone knows that the balance of trade is in Europe’s favour.
We currently import £59 billion more from Europe than we export. After Brexit we would be Europe’s largest export market, worth £289 billion in 2014, larger than China.
To see our importance to Europe, you only need to walk down the street.
More than a quarter of all cars sold in this country are Mercedes, BMWs, Audis or VWs. And those are just some of the German brands.
We are Europe’s second largest, and fastest growing car market.
This negotiation will primarily be about politics, and our European colleagues pre-eminently concerned about their national interest.
We are too valuable a market for Europe to shut off. Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.
And while they are at it they will be demanding that those British companies that they own will have uninterrupted access to Europe. We are talking Mini and Rolls Royce, owned by BMW, and Bentley, owned by Volkswagen. Premium brands with healthy demand across Europe.
And this is not just German cars. The same will happen with Shell and Unilever in the Netherlands, EDF, EADS and the viticultural trade associations in France, Seat in Spain, and Fiat and the fashion designers in Italy.
The pressure from European companies for a free trade deal between the UK and the remaining member of the European Union would be huge.
We have far more to gain than we have to lose, while the opposite is true for the EU. People have spoken, wrongly, about 3.3 million British jobs being ‘linked’ to our membership of the EU. Well there are over 5 million jobs on the continent that are linked to trade with Britain.
Access to our market is more important to Europe than our access to theirs.
To put it bluntly, the most powerful country in Europe needs this negotiation to succeed to the tune of a million jobs, on cars alone. The second most powerful needs it to the tune of half a million jobs, on wine and cheese alone.
The first few months may be hysterical, but the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, Italy Poland and the rest know that the way to lose elections is to destroy your own industries. That is a powerful advantage for us.
And then there are the absolute benefits that Britain would gain. Our food imports would be cheaper outside of the common external tariff. We would be free to reduce our regulatory burden, making our businesses more competitive. We would be able to negotiate our own trade deals, opening up new markets.
And then there is the City.
The prevailing thought seems to be that the City would be damaged should we leave the EU. This is extremely unlikely, and it would be perfectly possible to negotiate proper protection for any significant areas at risk.
Outside the EU, the city would continue to be free continue as before, such as trading in euro-denominated bonds, while ensuring that it is free of all the stifling European legislation.
And any action taken against an independent City would de facto be also against New York and Hong Kong, which would be too stupid for words.
In total, it is easy to see Britain could be better off out, even on such terms. And this is the very worst case scenario.
Some people have suggested that we should look to Norway, or to Switzerland, to see what terms we can expect once we have left.
The idea that we have to fit our future into some Procrustean bed created for far smaller countries is nonsense.
There are other options; the first one, EEA membership, often called the ‘Norway option’, works well for Norway but is not really appropriate for a major power like the UK.
Sometimes pejoratively described as ‘government by fax;’ the balance of power looks to be squarely on the EU side. The disparity is exaggerated — Norway is represented on 200 EU committees, it does not have to accept every ruling, half its financial contributions are voluntary, and many of the EU’s regulations are copied from other international organisations’ requests — organisations on which Norway is represented and we are not.
Nevertheless, as it stands this model would not work for us. To make it viable it would need an arbitration court (not the ECJ), a dispute resolution procedure, and a number of other institutional changes. It would be possible to design and even negotiate such a structure, but it would take much more than 2 years.
The Swiss option, EFTA membership plus a host of bilateral treaties, is the best starting place and is informative in many ways.
It is not perfect for us however. It incorporates ‘free movement of people’ for the moment, although there is a clash coming on that, after a Swiss referendum was carried in favour of applying an emergency brake — a real one this time!
However, understand the comparative negotiating position.
Switzerland is a small country surrounded by the EU. Its trade is absolutely dominated by the EU — over 62 per cent of its exports go to Europe. It runs a large trade surplus, and it is not big enough to be a critical market for any EU nation.
The negotiation between the EU and Switzerland in the 1990s was marked by some hostility after it rejected EU membership, and yet it struck a decent deal.
The optimum aim for us would be similar, but without the free movement of peoples. That would not be on the table. Essentially we would be looking for a full scale free trade agreement. And it has just been done by another country.
If you want a model of how this would look, go on the European Commission website and look at the Canadian Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement that the EU has just struck.
It eliminates all customs duties, which the EU website excitedly describes as worth €470 million a year to EU business. A similar deal with Britain would save it 5 times that on cars alone.
This would be a perfectly good starting point for our discussions with the Commission.
At the same time these negotiations are going on Britain will need to undertake a massive programme of simultaneous negotiations to negotiate free trade agreements with target countries that will be key to a more global approach.
If you read as many assessments of Brexit as I have, you can easily come to the conclusion that each side of the argument tends to get exaggerated. I am certain that the catastrophic predictions of the Europhiles are simply nonsense. That is why Toyota, Nissan, Airbus, even BMW, Opel and Volkswagen have now said that Brexit will not hinder their investments in Britain, sometimes in reversal of previous positions.
On the pro Brexit side, too, there are a range of estimates from modestly to dramatically better off. The difference here depends most upon exactly what we choose to do with the country and its new found freedoms. The greatest improvements will come if we grasp the opportunities for free trade with both hands.
That means immediately seeking Free Trade Agreements with the biggest prospective markets as fast as possible. There is no reason why many of these cannot be achieved within two years. We can pick up the almost complete agreement between the EU and Canada, and if anything liberalise it. We can accelerate our component of the TTIP deal with the USA, and include financial services.
Diverting our current contributions to the EU will help to smooth the transition period following the referendum.
The most effective policy would be to continue, in the short term, all of the EU’s current spending within the UK.
This means continuing to support agriculture, separate from the Common Agricultural Policy, as well as continuing research grants and regional funding.
But this would not come near to accounting for our total contributions — around £18 billion gross and £9 billion net.
We should find a way of improving the global trade performance of our economy. The companies that find it hard to export are the small and medium ones, for obvious reasons. They do not have the huge international sales and transport departments of the biggest companies.
We could afford to fund a new Board of Trade, dedicated to helping British businesses create new links to countries with which we achieve trade deals.
The funding would be available to set up an office in every major commercial centre and capital, completely separate from the Foreign Office, staffed with experts who know the language, the customs and the regulations and are on hand to help British businesses develop links in the country.
Imagine an 0800 number and an email address where a small manufacturer in Lancashire can call Shanghai or Mumbai or Sao Paolo, and find out in English how to negotiate the import regulations, find a freight forwarder, hire a warehouse, translate a brochure, the simple things that stop too many small businesses from operating abroad. They may be small companies, but this is not small beer: I am talking a billion pound project here.
We must see Brexit as a great opportunity to refocus our economy on global, rather the regional, trade. This is an opportunity to renew our strong relationships with Commonwealth and Anglosphere countries.
These parts of the world are growing faster than Europe. We share history, culture and language. We have family ties. We even share similar legal systems. The usual barriers to trade are largely absent.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that we are a trading nation with global horizons. This is undoubtedly true. So it is time we unshackled ourselves, and began to focus policy on trading with the wider world, rather than just within Europe.
We would also have the opportunity to reform our economy, pushing through the changes necessary to create a dynamic, modern economy. Competitive tax rates, a competitive labour market, and effective, rather than burdensome, regulation.
After Brexit we can put all that right without asking Brussels’ permission.
The European Union was a noble vision. It was borne out of Europe’s history; a history of war, conflict, tyranny and destruction.
Two world wars ripped Western Europe apart. It is an entirely understandable, indeed an admirable, response to such horror to want to break down national barriers and increase bonds between peoples and countries.
Spain emerged from Franco’s tyranny; Portugal from Caetano; Greece shook off the rule of the Colonels.
And after the Berlin Wall fell, whole swathes of Eastern Europe rediscovered democracy and liberty.
Faced with such a history it is entirely understandable that the European Union came into being.
It is a profoundly peaceful project, dedicated to protecting democracy across Europe.
But this history is not our history.
Britain has its own proud tradition of fighting tyranny, of protecting liberty and democracy both at home and abroad.
For us, Europe has always been about trade.
For the continent, it is about so much more.
This does not mean either side is wrong.
But the European Project is not right for us.
The Global Project is.
So on 20th March, Cameron appealed to voters to think about their children as they decide how they vote in the referendum. He said: “Think about your children, think about your grandchildren, think about the country and the world you want them to grow up in.”
I will be, Dave; I’ll be thinking of my children, and my grandchildren, when I vote to get out. I want them to grow up in an independent sovereign nation; not a province of the United States of Europe
Mr Cameron said, “It must be a world in which we are trying to cooperate and work together more with other countries. It is worth standing back and thinking here we are, 70 years after the end of the Second World War. This continent which was in conflict for so much of the 20th Century has found a way of peaceful coexistence, and that is something we should want to be part of and want to share in.”
World War Two was when my parents’ generation fought to preserve our freedom, and free the peoples of Europe from the tyranny of draconian rule; many of them gave their lives in the process. They didn’t do that for you to deny us our freedom now, and leave us in subjugation to the EUSSR.
The main reasons Europe has had what peace it has had since then are NATO and our nuclear deterrent. The EUSSR didn’t do anything during all the troubles in the Balkans, and hasn’t helped much in Ukraine, apart from stirring that mess up in the first place.
He also insisted that his “In campaign” was winning the “rational case” on the EUSSR but need a “dose” of patriotic fervour.
Dave, your “In Campaign” has not even begun to make a “rational case”; all the Remainians have done is spread the scare-mongering lies of “Project Fear”; that is understandable as there isn’t any sort of “rational case” for staying in the rotten, corrupt, controlling and inefficient disaster that is the EUSSR.
I think you’ll find plenty of “Patriotic fervour” backing the Brexit campaign, Dave, not just a “dose”.
Cameron apparently said that he was teaching his children Britain was “special” and a country that was supposed to be part of international organisations such as the EUSSR.
The United Kingdom is special, Dave, and there is nothing wrong with being “part of international organisations” such as the UN, or NATO; but we are not just “part” of the EUSSR; they rule us. Their unelected Politburo (commission, to you) tells you what to do, and you meekly pass on their regulations, directives and decrees to us. Your pathetic deal brought no worthwhile reforms at all; because the EUSSR is totally unreformable. “Ever Closer Union” is in its DNA, and that won’t stop until the United States of Europe is a fact.
Cameron then said that Brexit would be like “pressing pause” on the country’s development.
With a Brexit win on 23rd June, the people of the United Kingdom will vote to leave, and we will free ourselves from the excessive rules, regulations and red tape imposed by the EUSSR. We will then rejoin the rest of the world, and take back our freedom to run and operate our own businesses. Britain has a long and proud history trading with the world. We are the 5th biggest economy in the world, we will thrive outside the EUSSR, and yes, they will trade with us, freely; they sell a lot more to us than we sell to them; trade tariffs would hurt them much more than us.
So, Dave, it won’t be like “pressing pause” at all, more like “Fast Forward”
Then in a video released on 21st March Cameron said; “In a hundred days you’ll have your say — whether Britain remains in a reformed Europe enjoying all the benefits that brings, like lower prices in the shops, more jobs and safer streets!”
Bloody hell, Dave, how are going to manage that?
In less than 100 days you’ve got to provide “a reformed Europe” for us all to “enjoy all the benefits that brings;”
Assuming that by “Europe” you actually mean the “European Union;”
How are you going to do that?
All your months of “hard-fought negotiations” could produce was “Dave’s Dismal Deal;” i.e. NO REFORMS AT ALL
Thus proving EUSSR to be utterly unreformable
So where is that “reformed Europe” going the magically appear from?
And, as for the “benefits;”
“Lower prices in the shops” — the Common Agriculture Policy keeps EUSSR food prices artificially high to maintain profits for inefficient continental farmers, while tariffs keep other-world food prices too high as well.
“More jobs” — Brexit will not threaten current jobs linked to our EUSSR membership; they will still want to trade with us, whatever scare-stories you spread. Brexit will also bring many more jobs as we are free to trade with the rest of the world. And then there’s Greece, which has the EUSSR to thank for an unemployment rate of 48% among its young people. Unemployment is destroying the prospects of a whole generation of young Europeans.
“And safer streets!” — what absolute bloody balderdash; think Charlie Hebdo; think Bataclan Theatre; think “…up to 5,000 trained Jihadists already in Europe.”
Sir John Major, supporting Cameron, said he hoped, “Britain’s children and grandchildren would be ‘proud’ of today’s voters when history reflects on the campaign.”
By that, I think he means the children & grandchildren of the UK’s voters; well, Sir John, (OK if I call you that?) if we vote for Brexit, then “when history reflects,” our children & grandchildren will be proud.
If however, the UK votes to remain, our children & grandchildren will be condemned to grow up in a province subjugated by the United States of Europe; without democracy, national sovereignty or independence.
They will then look back at us in shame and anger; as it would mean that we have been cowed by “Project Fear” as the Remainians have no other case…
And he warned: “As a result of a UK exit, the political influence of the EU would be diminished; especially when considered against the power of the United States or China.”
If the “political influence” of the EUSSR is “diminished,” John, (OK if I call you that?) Europe will be a better place; and the developing World will be able to trade unfettered with the nations of Europe.
Then Major said, “Without the UK, Europe — the cradle of modern civilisation — would fall to a lower significance.”
What you actually mean, Johnnie, (OK if I call you that?) is “Without the UK, the cradle of modern civilisation, Europe would fall to a lower significance.” As I said, “Europe will be a better place.”
He added, “Our nation can either decide to be true to our history; and remain outward-looking internationalists on the world stage; or shrink to lower prominence. It will be a fateful choice: Great Britain or Little Britain.”
Now that really is weird, Jack, (OK if I call you that?) “Our nation can either decide to be true to our history; and become outward-looking internationalists on the world stage, once more” is EXACTLY what Brexit is ALL about!
“Shrinking to lower prominence,” is what is happening to the UK now, under EUSSR domination.
The “fateful choice,” is NOT “Great Britain or Little Britain;” nice, dumb sound-bite though that is
The fateful choice is between an independent UK, free to retake its position in the world;
Or a bunch of subservient provinces/regions of the United States of Europe; Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and whatever regions they divide England into…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
British national, Chris Stephenson, a professor of computer sciences at Istanbul’s Bilgi University, has been detained on charges of “making propaganda for a terrorist organisation.”
Stephenson was arrested outside an Istanbul police department where he arrived in support of three Turkish academics arrested the day before. According to Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency, the scholar was detained for, “…spreading terrorist propaganda,” because he was in possession of leaflets that contained “PKK messages and images.”
However, the leaflets in his possession were only invitations to attend the Kurdish Nevruz (New Year) holiday celebrations; printed by the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party.
These were in his bag; he was not even distributing them.
The British Foreign Office confirmed the incident and said it was providing, “assistance to a British national who was arrested in Istanbul on March 15, 2016, and will remain in close contact with the local authorities.”
Stephenson was subsequently released on Wednesday after being questioned by a prosecutor.
According to Stephenson’s lawyer, Kemal Tuncaelli, the prosecutor plans to file a request to the Istanbul Governor’s Office demanding the academic’s deportation.
Chris Stephenson, with his Turkish wife & children, has now been deported.
A few points:
Does this, by no means rare, example define a country we want to be tied to; either militarily in NATO or politically & economically, in the EUSSR? I really don’t think so
If you’re planning to attend Kurdish New Year celebrations in Turkey, (though why you would, I can’t imagine) lose the invitations!
If, heaven forbid, Turkey ever joins the EUSSR, they won’t find deportation that easy again…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Euro-rats plan to speed up Ankara’s application for EUSSR membership in return for “help” in stemming the flow of refugees crossing the Mediterranean.
That Turkey is perfectly capable of turning-off the flow, at any time; just as it turned it on before; is perfectly clear to most of us.
There is no doubt that Turkey is blatantly still blackmailing the EUSSR over the migrant crisis.
Turkey has complete control of the refugee sluice-gates; and will open or close them, just as it suits Turkey.
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the refugees/immigrants/terrorists are living and/or assembling within Turkey
The Turkish authorities know exactly which shops are selling rubber-boats, life-jackets and other “marine-recreation” equipment
The Turkish authorities know exactly who the people smugglers are; some of those authorities need only look in a mirror to spot one.
The Turkish authorities know exactly which bank-accounts have been set-up to accept payments for nefarious boat trips; often those authorities are the account holders
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the boats set off from; Turkey has a long coastline, but small boat launch-and-load sites are limited
This is Turkey:
Turkey, that if Recep Tayyip Erdogan, gets his way will soon be a Sunni Islamic Republic;
Turkey, that has been supporting Daʿesh since its inception; supplying arms to them, allowing easy movement of their new recruits into Syria, buying stolen oil from them and carrying out air-strikes on Kurdish forces opposed to them;
Turkey, that has at best, been a tepid NATO ally, prepared to use NATO but not to back NATO;
Turkey, that has been the facilitator of heroin trafficking to Europe for decades;
Turkey, whose aircraft violated Greek airspace 2,244 times in 2014;
Turkey, that has consistently entered Syrian & Iraqi airspace, to attack Syrian & Iraqi Kurds, and yet shot down a Russian aircraft that was in Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, had already left and was never a threat;
Turkey, that even now, with Saudi Arabia, threatens an invasion of Syria, targeted at the Assad regime; thus supporting Daʿesh and al-Qaeda
Turkey, where hundreds of Journalists are imprisoned for “Insulting the President;” because that’s “Treason”
Turkey, where hundreds more Academics have been arrested for signing a letter protesting the regime’s treatment of Kurds; because that makes them “Accomplices”
It is now clear that, with the agreement of David Cameron and William Hague, Turkey will be fast-tracked into membership of the EUSSR.
Therefore the referendum on 23rd June is now a referendum on whether we wish to be in a political union with Turkey.
Is that what YOU want?
“A vote for Remain is a vote for Turkey.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The Schengen Plan was always a stupid idea that was not thought through.
But it was typical of the EUSSR to pretend that countries could have freedom of movement of people and labour without at the very least having secured the zone’s external borders.
And though it is possible to keep land-borders reasonably secure; not completely,(think GDR;) but reasonably; sea-borders are notoriously porous.
For years there has been a steady trickle of refugees/asylum-seekers/economic-migrants dribbling across the Med into southern Europe.
While North Africa and the Middle-East were relatively stable this remained a trickle.
Then 2011 brought the orchestrated Islamic uprisings; mistakenly dubbed the “Arab Spring” by euphoric Western media; lauded and applauded by the liberal intelligentsia; especially in Europe & the UK.
Sectarian conflict was ignited along the North African coast, and in Syria grew into a serious civil-war; in which, of course the West chose to side with the Sunni Islamist rebels rather than the Shiite (Alawite) Assad regime.
The West’s reasoning being that the rebels were supported by NATO member & “Ally”, Turkey, and “Good friends & Allies”, Saudi Arabia and Qatar; so they must be the “Good-Guys.” That those “Good-Guys” included the al-Nusra Front, a known al-Qaeda affiliate; and al-Qaeda in Iraq, soon to morph into Daesh; seemed to be immaterial.
Bashar al-Assad must be the “Bad Guy” because a) he’s a dictator and b) he’s friends with Iran and Russia; who obviously must always be “Bad-Guys.”
And the refugee trickle became a stream.
As well as hundreds crossing the Med to Spain & Italy; thousands from Syria fled into Lebanon & Jordan and more crossed into Turkey; where initially they stopped.
Then President Erdogan in Turkey saw the minor chaos caused by the flow of refugees over the sea to Italy & Malta; including the many tragedies that crossing caused; and he recognised an opportunity.
He knew he controlled sluice-gates, which were holding back; not just a stream; but a major river-in-spate; a potential tsunami of desperate migrants.
So he opened those sluice gates.
Just then Mrs. Merkel invited the refugees to Germany. Ignoring existing EUSSR agreements, Germany opened its borders and we all saw, and Germans felt the mayhem that followed.
Then panicking under internal political pressures Angular beetled hot-foot to Ankara and unilaterally accepted the Turkish blackmail demand.
Now she is trying to sell it to the rest of the EUSSR.
So, this week, EUSSR leaders will attempt to ratify the deeply-flawed emergency deal with Ankara in the hope of solving the migrant crisis.
As a result of objections from several countries, the deal is already on life support.
Cameron needs to let it die.
He won’t, he is in favour of advancing the date of entry to the EU of 80 million Turks; even with the free movement of people and labour that it brings.
This was the original blackmail/bribery deal made between Chancellor Merkel and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
Cameron supported it without any authorisation from, a debate in, or even a statement to the House of Commons.
Then, when Turkey upped the ante with its next blackmail demand; more money and visa-free access to the Schengen zone, Cameron again raised no objection.
Yet speeded-up EUSSR entry for Turkey has profound implications for the UK.
Even now, few Britons realise that once they’ve lived in any EUSSR country for five years, all the current migrants flooded across Europe, will be free to come into the UK unhindered.
Accelerated Turkish membership on top of this means a staggering increase in potential UK immigration.
Yes, this is a scare story.
But, unlike those of the Remainian Project Fear, THIS is a true one.
It is a simple fact.
Of course Mr Cameron is grateful for the help he has had from Chancellor Merkel in his seriously inadequate renegotiation of Britain’s membership of the EUSSR.
We can’t expect him to betray her now, by actively attempting to kill the Turkey deal.
But he should lift no finger to save it.
In particular he must support the objections of the President of Cyprus; an EUSSR member-state that Turkey doesn’t recognise, and still occupies part of.
If Turkey were still the secular democracy it once nearly was; or if there was a chance it might be again; the UK might want to keep it in NATO.
However it isn’t.
Turkey is sliding into an ugly Islamist despotism; toward being a Sunni Islamic Republic, with all democratic values being eroded or killed off; journalists have been imprisoned on treason charges for “Insulting the President”; and academics arrested en masse for signing a letter of protest about the regime’s treatment of Kurds.
Turkish courts, controlled by Erdogan’s government, recently put the newspaper ‘Zaman,’ one of the last remaining media critics of Erdogan, under state control. A court appointed administrators to run the newspaper. Editor-in-chief Sevgi Akarcesme said that this was effectively the end of media freedom in Turkey.
It is clear that Erdogan’s widening definition of terrorism is followed by the Turkish police and judiciary.
But even this power seems not to be enough for the president; he has also called for legal amendments;
“We should redefine terrorism as soon as possible and include this in the Turkish penal code. This is not an issue of freedom of press or freedom of organization. It is about a more effective way of dealing with the vile assailants who try to harm our people.”
In a recent speech, Erdogan went even further, saying, “Certain segments of our society and in the international arena are at a crossroads. They will either be on our side, or the on terrorists’ side.”
So merely not being on the government’s “side” will get one branded and prosecuted as a terrorist.
Turkey, as a NATO ally has failed.
It could have helped in the fight against Daesh (ISIS), but it hasn’t; on the contrary Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia & Qatar has helped arm & supply both Daesh & al-Nusra…
The proposed Turkey deal is one more demonstration of the EUSSR’s dangerous pro-tem foreign policy; of which the reckless Ukraine accession agreement is a dangerous example, one which risked dragging the EUSSR into war with Russia.
Some diplomats claim that we will lose influence leaving the EUSSR.
How much influence have we got?
How much influence did we have on EUSSR policy to Ukraine?
How much consultation took place with David Cameron when Hollande and Merkel flew to Minsk to negotiate a settlement of the fighting in East Ukraine?
Fighting which hasn’t stopped yet…
Regaining control of our Foreign Policy is a major argument for leaving the EUSSR.
British foreign and security objectives will be far stronger and more coherent if this country no longer has to pay lip service to the misguided EUSSR “common defence” policy that started at Maastricht.
The inevitable failure of the Euro also started then.
Both have created a dysfunctional EUSSR and we must get out while we can.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Euro-rats plan to speed up Ankara’s application for EUSSR membership in return for “help” in stemming the flow of refugees crossing the Mediterranean.
That Turkey is perfectly capable of turning-off the flow, at any time; just as it turned it on before; is perfectly clear to most of us.
There is no doubt that Turkey is blatantly still blackmailing the EUSSR over the migrant crisis.
Turkey has complete control of the refugee sluice-gates; and will open or close them, just as it suits Turkey.
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the refugees/immigrants/terrorists are living and/or assembling within Turkey
The Turkish authorities know exactly which shops are selling rubber-boats, life-jackets and other “marine-recreation” equipment
The Turkish authorities know exactly who the people smugglers are; some of those authorities need only look in a mirror to spot one.
The Turkish authorities know exactly which bank-accounts have been set-up to accept payments for nefarious boat trips; often those authorities are the account holders
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the boats set off from; Turkey has a long coastline, but small boat launch-and-load sites are limited
This new deal will supposedly see Turkey take back migrants apprehended in the Adriatic Sea in exchange for an extra £2billion from the EUSSR. Even though the United Nations has said that it will be illegal;
As our share in that deal, the British taxpayer will have to shell out another £500 million.
£500 million; there are 28 member states of the EUSSR, but we are paying a quarter of the blackmail demand.
With the glaring exception of the EUSSR’s grovelling; initiated by Turkey’s blatant blackmail; Turkey’s foreign relations are none too special, right now;
With Russia, Turkey has been in a state of cold war, prone to hot confrontation, ever since, in a possibly legal; but unnecessary & unjustified action, it downed a Russian jet on 24th November 2015.
With Iraq, relations have been frosty following high-handed Turkish actions against Kurdish positions within Iraq; without Iraqi permission; in fact in the face of Iraqi protests.
With Iran, an erstwhile trading partner, relations have soured, following Turkish actions in Syria against the Assad regime & assisting Daesh
With the United States and other Western allies, relations have plunged into a deep confidence crisis over Turkey’s shelling of Syrian Kurdish forces and its failure to provide support against Daesh.
Within Turkey, in the predominantly Kurdish southeast, Erdogan’s battle against the Kurdistan Workers Party; ongoing since July 2015; rages on in cities and towns with dramatic consequences reminiscent of the destruction and humanitarian disaster in Syria.
As the death toll keeps rising on both sides, fears are rife that the conflict, affecting mostly urban areas at present, will escalate and expand in the spring. No prospect for an end to the bloodshed is currently in sight.
In this menacing atmosphere of stalemate, Erdogan has shown no sign of giving up his dream to install a system of “Executive Presidency,” which would confirm him constitutionally as a virtual dictator.
To overcome internal and external obstacles and advance his goal, he is, as always, trying to generate support from his Sunni-Salafist base, which he sees as loyal backers and admirers.
While Erdogan’s supporters are busy exalting him, the major topics of his Islamist agenda have become more prominent in his speeches lately.
It is now clear that, with the agreement of David Cameron and William Hague, Turkey will be fast-tracked into membership of the EUSSR.
Therefore the referendum on 23rd June is now a referendum on whether we wish to be in a political union with Turkey.
Is that what YOU want?
“A vote for Remain is a vote for Turkey.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
16th March
There were some FB worries recently about a man from the Isle of Bute, being arrested by Police Scotland for what he had posted about Muslim refugees.
Of course there is an outcry re Free Speech etc; and yes, this is worrying, but we don’t know exactly what this bloke actually said in his FB post; it doesn’t need any change in the law for some comments to be criminal.
But, what is considerably more concerning is one sentence in the news article that says:
“The tiny Isle of Bute in the Firth of Clyde, which had a total population of just 6,498 in 2011, is expected to take in around 1,000 Syrian migrants…”
That’s very nearly one-sixth of its population;
Does this indicate that our government considers that the UK, population about 60 million, could reasonably accept 10 million refugees/immigrants?
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
So, HSBC has announced it will continue to be based in Britain following a lengthy review.
HSBC bosses had previously warned they could consider moving elsewhere over “…concerns about stricter regulations.”
HSBC Group chairman Douglas Flint had also cited “economic uncertainty” over Britain’s EUSSR referendum as a reason for looking at other locations to base Britain’s biggest bank.
The bank has now decided to keep its headquarters in London, as Mr Flint claimed keeping HSBC in the capital “…offered the best outcome for our customers and shareholders”.
Every morning, after letting the horses out, we clear-up what they’ve deposited amongst the straw; so I know that stuff.
In the next field there’s a magnificent bull, called Featherstone, I recognise his deposits too.
I recognise Mr Flint’s comments for what they are; all I’m uncertain about is whether they are of the bovine or equine variety…
HSBC is hedging its bets; it’s a bank; that’s what banks do
Brexit campaigners may have “…welcomed the news,” saying it further undermines claims that the UK exiting the EUSSR could, “…trigger an exodus of major firms.”
However, all it means is that HSBC has realised that Cameron won’t get the one “reform” they are interested in, and that is his attempt to stop the EUSSR regulating the City.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign, said that this showed that scaremongering by pro-Europeans was falling apart with even those who had taken part in ‘Project Fear’ were now beginning to back away from their claims.
On the contrary, Matthew, Mr Flint still warned that HSBC could shift employees and much of its work to France in the case of Britain exiting the EUSSR,
That so unlikely, it is pure scaremongering.
And he still called for voters to keep the country’s ties with Brussels, saying, “…. our strong economic view is that Britain is better within a reformed Europe.”
What he means by that is, “HSBC is better off in the EUSSR.”
He doesn’t care one jot about how “reformed” the EUSSR is; or how much better the UK will be, in or out of the worthless United States of Europe.
He cares only about profits and his shareholders;
HSBC is a bank; that’s what banks do
And talking of what banks do…
I think myself fairly well up on the ramifications of the EUSSR;
But, not so much about banking…
Though I’ve gained, in recent years, along with many others, a healthy disrespect for bankers in general;
Since this Referendum battle started, that disrespect, in some cases, has morphed into disgust.
Probably the worst of the despicable bunch is Goldman Sachs.
After years of showing their fanatical love of the EUSSR, they announced in January that they would be financing the BSE campaign to the tune of a “substantial six figure sum”.
UKIP’s Nigel Farage described this as “the unholy alliance of big banks and big politics;”
Though it’s actually more a case of “Big Bank buying Big Politics”
In what was an unfortunate bit of timing, they made this announcement on the same day that we found out Goldman Sachs were announcing a slump in profits, caused by having to pay a $5 billion penalty for sub-prime mortgage mis-selling.
Goldman Sachs is known throughout the business for its culture of bullying;
A former executive director, called the environment “destructive and toxic;”
Goldman Sachs is also synonymous with the greed that epitomised the fat cats of the banking industry before they caused that crash.
So what’s their involvement with the EUSSR?
Goldman Sachs “claims” they spent just €700,000 lobbying in Brussels, in 2014;
Considerably less than the €4 million spent by Deutsche Bank, and also less than the $3.4 million Goldman Sachs says it spent on lobbying in Washington;
But then again lobbying rules in Brussels are “much looser,” which casts doubt upon their figures, to put it kindly.
It has been said that Goldman Sachs’ entry in the Brussels lobby register, made it look like a bit player; when, in fact it has been active in EUSSR lobbying for years, with access to the Politburo (Commission) that other lobbyists could only dream of.
And the bank has form in profiting from the EUSSR’s profligacy.
For example, it made complex (dodgy?) financial deals with the Greek government in 2001 that allowed Greece’s entry into the Euro, even though the country’s economy was clearly unsuited to being part of the single currency.
Akin to your financial advisor lying to your building society to get you a mortgage…
The bank is reported to have made $500 million from the lies, sorry, advice, which “disguised” the extent of Greece’s debts.
Would that be a repeat of their historic Modus Operandi; sub-prime selling; but on a national scale?
It led to calls for the bank to be dragged to court for its role in the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis.
And why wouldn’t the EUSSR go after Goldman Sachs in the courts?
Might it have something to do with the fact that Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), is a former employee of Goldman Sachs?
Other ex-employees of Goldman Sachs include our own Mark Carney, at the Bank of England; Petros Christodoulou, who managed Greece’s debt management quango; Mario Monti, the technocrat appointed as Italian prime minister after the EUSSR deposed the democratically elected government; Antonio Borges, the former European chief of the International Monetary Fund; and Otmar Issing, former board member of the European Central Bank.
In another of Goldman Sachs’ cosy relationships, in 2000 three more former employees of the bank combined to set up Ocado, the grocer for those who are too posh to shop at Waitrose.
And the chairman of Ocado is none other than Stuart Rose, head of the BSE campaign, (though he can’t always remember that) whom David Cameron ennobled in 2014.
Goldman Sachs’ dodgy governmental advice is not confined to the Continent;
It also advised the UK government on its shambolic undervaluation of Royal Mail shares,
Whose sale at a knockdown price is estimated to have lost the taxpayers £1 billion;
While, entirely coincidentally of course, another arm of the bank made a tidy £12 million from trading some of the shares itself.
There is a reason that in 2010, Rolling Stone magazine described Goldman Sachs as;
“A great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.
Much like the EUSSR, it sticks its nose in where it is not wanted and uses its cosy relationships to take money from unsuspecting, gullible sources.
Hopefully this donation to BSE will do more harm than good to the BSE campaign.
The public should see this as the coming together of two self-interested elite groups that care nothing for voters or customers.
As long as the Public actually do see it, that is…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Months ago, back in 2015, the BBC News Headlines; “Turmoil & panic on global markets”
Fair enough; China’s economy is slowing (melting?) down…
But, our Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, warned us then of a “difficult year ahead”
And a “Global risk to the UK Economy;”
Adding that we face, “A dangerous cocktail of risk from abroad”
That was a couple of months ago
Now he has got all his colleagues at G20, saying the same sort of things; but blaming Brexit…
And these are the “experts” that were caught napping when Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, etc, took us for a ride and caused the global recession of 2008
So now what we get are warnings
There are advantages to warnings
First, they scare people, especially those that have no idea if they are based on fact or fiction
Second, in the event of catastrophe, they can say “We told you…”
Third, if catastrophe doesn’t happen, they can claim it was due to “Actions we took…”
George is a staunch Europhile, and will be well aware of how to scare the undecided…
Exactly the same sort of warnings were rife back in 1974 & 75
When we last had a vote on Europe
Then it was about staying in or getting out of the EEC
Most analysts agree that fear about the prospects for a solitary UK’s economy was the biggest single factor in carrying the “Remain In” argument to victory in the 1975 referendum.
This time round, things are different;
Then we were struggling…
Now we have the 5th biggest economy in the world…
Then the EEC members were out-performing us
Now we are the 2nd economy in the EUSSR, soon to be #1
And the EUSSR is failing
We don’t need the EUSSR anywhere near as much as they need us
They sell much more to us than we do to them;
And we sell more to the rest of the world than we do to the EU
Absolutely unconnected with Brexit; the EUSSR’s Euro are in trouble and it’s not going to get better anytime soon.
It has been likened to the Titanic,
It’s sinking;
Its crew is bailing like mad, but the end is inevitable
If a “global financial shock” with a European epicentre does occur, the cause will be the imploding Euro
Not Brexit
It’s not just rats that leave a sinking ship;
Wise people do, too
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
You know that amazingly successful project; “The European Currency” known as the Euro?
The one that evidently needs a new “Ever Closer Union” Treaty, to try and solve its problems
Well, in the forthcoming referendum debates; when various clever-clogs & self-serving organisations claim to know better than us, what is best for the UK;
It’s probably worth remembering what they said about the Euro;
In 1998, Tony Blair said;
“The decision to launch the single currency is the first step and marks the turning point for Europe, marks stability and growth and is crucial to high levels of growth and employment”
In 1999, the CBI argued that joining the Euro would;
“…deliver significant benefits to the UK economy;”
Including allowing British companies, “…to participate fully in a more complete and competitive single market;”
And removing “…from the UK economy the harmful impact of exchange rate volatility.”
In 2001, the European Council pontificated that;
“The Euro area now represents a pole of stability for those countries participating in it by protecting them from speculation and financial turmoil. It is strengthening the internal market and contributing to the maintenance of healthy fundamental figures, fostering sustainable growth”
In 2002, Kenneth Clark said;
“The reality of the Euro has exposed the absurdity of many anti-European scares while increasing the public thirst for information. Public opinion is already changing…as people can see the success of the new currency on the mainland.”
In 2009, Business for New Europe Chairman, Roland Rudd said;
“Business leaders appreciate the success of the Euro… It has defied the doomsayers who predicted failure.”
Also in 2009, Labour MEP, Richard Corbett told us;
“The Euro has been a rock of stability, as illustrated by the contrasting fortunes of Iceland and Ireland. Joining the single currency would be a major step”
Again in 2009, BT Group Chairman, Sir Michael Rake said,
“The Euro is a great success, and in today’s global economy, the Pound is no longer an important currency. If we are not careful, we could become like Iceland in the next financial crisis”
In 2010, the then European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso assured us;
“The Euro is a protection shield against the crisis”
Unless the Euro is the crisis, that is…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
14th March
In the EU Visitor Centre, in Brussels (probably in Strasbourg as well) there’s a plaque which reads:
“National sovereignty is the root cause of the most crying evils of our time, the only final remedy for this supreme and catastrophic evil is a federal union of the peoples.”
That is the driving force of the EU; not trade; not Human Rights; not mutual cooperation; but ever closer union, leading inexorably to a United States of Europe.
That has been the single aim of what they call the European Project, right from the very beginning
The first step was the European Coal & Steel Community, which, for reasons of National Sovereignty, Clement Attlee kept us out of.
The European Economic Community; the EEC that Edward Heath, lying through his teeth, led us into on the 1st of January 1973, was but the second step in that project.
Heath had no mandate to take us in; hell, he hadn’t even asked for a mandate…
And in 1975 Harold Wilson, conned us into voting to remain a member.
The next step came with the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, which rebranded the project as the European Union.
The founding fathers of the EU had already ensured that democracy had no part in its make-up, and the DNA of the EU is encoded to make that irreversible.
Supranational domination was their intent and they weren’t going to make it easy to undo.
That is why the institutions are so fundamentally unreformable.
All power, control and decision making is firmly in the grasp of two of those EU Institutions; the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Neither body has any elected members
The European Commission is a clone of the Politburo of the old Soviet Union; it has 28 members; one from each member state; none are elected; all are appointed.
Commissioners, often failed national politicians like Mr & Mrs Kinnock, must be chosen, “…after taking into account their commitment to the European project; including Ever Closer Union” and they sign an oath that they will not represent any other “body”; even their country.
All EU law originates in the Commission.
The European Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, is composed of one judge per member state; currently 28.
It is tasked with interpreting EU law and ensuring its equal application across all EU member states. It has no say in National Laws, but can and does rule as to whether or not they comply with EU law…
In presenting what I’ve dubbed, “Dave’s Dismal Deal”, our prime minister lied about reforms, because he knew full well that you only have to fool some of the people some of the time.
But, if he had attempted real reform; the “Fundamental, Far-reaching Reforms” he promised us, he would have openly failed and everybody would have known he had.
As it is, he merely proved that from the inside we have no influence at all; the EU is unreformable.
The national response to his pathetic deal has been the thoroughly underwhelming; “Is that it?”
So Dave and the Remainians have stopped trying to persuade us of the wonders of “Dave’s Dismal Deal” and resorted to “Project Fear” instead.
We are warned; it will be too hard and far too time-consuming to conclude alternative trade deals; apparently we no longer have the requisite skills, desire or attitude in the Foreign Office.
So, immediately following Brexit; despite selling much more to us than we buy from them; the EU will slap punitive tariffs on British exports.
Cameron has said; “And, that could mean tariffs as high as 13% on Scottish salmon, 40% on lamb and up to 70% on some beef products.”
Of course the UK would reciprocate; and the German motor industry would naturally be purring with contentment when UK sales of Mercedes, Audi & BMW cars, fall through the floor, becoming 40 or 50% more expensive.
And French wine producers would happily sit back, probably quaffing and applauding, as Beaujolais, Beaune & Bordeaux, costing 60 or 70% more, lose out to their equivalents from Chile, South Africa & Australia.
Oh, but I forgot; not being a member of the EU, for the UK, World Trade will be altogether quite impossible.
There is absolutely no chance that anybody, anywhere in the world, would want to buy anything from us; and perish the thought that anyone would even consider selling us anything at all…
We’re told that there is apparently nothing anybody would be able do to stop our companies, consumers, ex-pats and tourists being bullied and victimised; probably rounded & shot occasionally; by vindictive foreign governments.
We would, they say, be bulldozed by the angry Euro-rats of Brussels wherever we turned.
Even a former attorney general claimed that British ex-pats living in Europe would risk “Becoming illegal immigrants overnight”, although he is perfectly well aware that their status would be protected under the Vienna Convention of 1969.
Hysterical economists tell us that the damage to the economy could be “Greater than that of the Great Recession;” and of course Vladimir Putin is just waiting for Brexit, before invading Europe; because apparently it’s only our membership of the EUSSR that’s holding him back!
That’s all that’s saved Europe from war since 1945, you know; it’s apparently nothing to do with NATO; or our nuclear deterrent; just the jolly old EU and our membership of it…
And we really need that Free Movement for EU citizens throughout the EU, and document-free travel for anyone throughout the Schengen zone, to protect us from Daesh or al-Qaeda, don’t we? They worked so well in Paris, twice.
Even best-selling children’s books; the Gruffalo was highlighted; would no longer be written because, apparently, no foreign authors or illustrators would be allowed into the UK if we were not part of the EU.
It’s quite incredible that Hans Christian Andersen and the Brothers Grimm managed it before the existence of the EU. How did they do that?
But Project Fear has not just been deployed here at home. Dave has orchestrated some of his Euro-mates, to get in on the act.
First we had, one Gunther Krichbaum; seen by many as Mrs Merkel’s anti-British ‘attack dog,’ claiming that the UK’s economy would be devastated as a result of lost EU trade deals, saying: “You won’t be able to survive; trading conditions will not be in your favour.” And continuing menacingly: “There is the question of tariffs.”
Then French president Francois Hollande warned of the “consequences in many areas” should Britain choose to leave the EU.
At about the same time the Mayor of Calais threatened that in the event of Brexit, the residents of the Jungle camp would immediately cross to the UK. That’s like the Chairman of Felixstowe Town Council deciding the export tariff on ball-bearings to Belarus…
And then we have Spain’s foreign minister saying they would “…pounce on Gibraltar the very next day,” if Britain votes to leave the EU!
However, “Project Fear; Foreign” threats reached dizzy heights when Jean-Claude Juncker weirdly warned that Brexit could somehow spark World War Three.
These and many other extreme claims that have been made in recent days are laughably implausible, even to nervous, swing voters.
Fear is only effective if it is credible and this has all been rather pathetic and defeatist.
“Project Fear,” or more accurately, “Project White Flag,” is really just one long stream of nauseating, miserable, hand-wringing, cringing negativity.
All it highlights is our current Government’s ineptitude, indolence, and incompetence
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world and we’re more than strong enough to stand on our own two feet
After we vote to Leave, we will negotiate a settlement on our own terms; one that will return control of our borders and money and our government to the UK.
Don’t be fooled by those who are running our country down.
But Cameron has kept at it; recently two Whitehall reports claimed quitting the EU would hit UK exports and lead to a “decade of uncertainty”
We’ve had the “Exports” argument already; loads of times; but put simply it is this;
The UK buys a lot more from the EU than the UK sells to the EU.
So a trade deal, without tariffs, would be much more advantageous to the EU than to the UK. Conversely any tariffs would hurt the EU more than they’d hurt the UK
That’s it.
What intrigues me is; why are we supposed to be frightened at the prospect of a “Decade of Uncertainty”? Personally, at my age, to be assured of another decade of anything is vastly appealing; I’d like a few decades more, but one is enough to be going on with…
But, “Uncertainty”?
Life is uncertain, the future is uncertain; none of us knows what’s going to happen for certain.
We can only deal in probabilities and risks; hopes and fears.
Which is why the appallingly depressing negativity of the entire Remainian “Project Fear” campaign is so… Well… Depressingly appalling…
Some future probabilities are so highly probable that they are almost certainties…
The EU intends that its mantra of “Ever Closer Union” will take it inexorably to its goal of the United States of Europe; therefore that is an almost certain, highly probable outcome; which will probably only be stopped by the disintegration of the EU itself.
If Brexit hastens that event; instigating a “Domino Tumble;” Nederexit, Irexit, Grexit, etc; I won’t be sorry…
Though it is equally likely that the EU’s demise will be caused by the almost inevitable implosion of its mistaken economic experiment, the Euro…
There are however definite certainties to be found in the Present; the EU certainly IS an over-regulating, domineering and rotten, corrupt, inefficient and undemocratic abomination.
It IS ruled by decree by an unelected Politburo, which is itself under the command & control of Big Business; the major international corporations & banks.
It has created its own laws, with the vaguest of nods in the direction of democracy; by having them rubber-stamped by its “European Parliament”, which has no other role.
Individual member states have minimal-to-no influence; except strangely, the original founding members of the European Coal & Steel Community; France & Germany…
A condition of membership of the EU is that Member states have to agree that EU Law supersedes their own, and that their own laws will accord with EU Law.
The European Court of Justice has ruled itself superior to all the member state judiciaries; and even UN regulation.
Any politician who says Brexit may cause uncertainty is being utterly dishonest.
The real uncertainty lies in remaining in. They have absolutely no idea which way the EU will go; or what will be in the next treaty; or even if they will bother to have another treaty.
The unelected Commission may just use various legal instruments to confiscate powers by the back door.
A Remain vote is not only to close the door on independence, but also to padlock it and throw away the key.
If we vote to remain in, there will be no more reform. If the EU proved unreformable even under the very real threat of Brexit, it’s not going to listen to us once we have caved in and accepted that bogus package, “Dave’s Dismal Deal”.
Not only did Cameron not try to reform the EU, or our relationship with it; he has actively lied about it.
I can’t stress how much is at stake here and why it matters so very much.
If we don’t get out now, there is only one other real way out.
And if you think that Brexit means uncertainty then you’ll get a nasty re-education as to what that word means when we’re forced out, as the EU disintegrates; because it will disintegrate.
The bottom line is that no supranational entity with so little mandate to govern has ever survived; and they have never ended well.
We can take it as read that one way or another we will be leaving.
And the choice in this referendum is to either leave now in a negotiated, staged exit where both sides take great care to avoid disrupting trade; or we do it the other way; suddenly, unplanned and all at once; sometime in the future.
None of the scares of Project Fear being thrown at us now are true. But if we do it that other way, with the sudden EU demise; then they will all come true; and worse.
You should know that the EU is not a democracy; it doesn’t work on the basis of cooperation or any of the other things it pretends.
It was set up out of fear and paranoia of what could happen, based on the geopolitics of 1950. It’s an analogue organisation in a digital age; no longer fit for purpose; but it will resist reform until the bitter end.
Now is our chance to get out; to break with the past and start designing the future.
A vote to remain is to hold this quagmire together until it inevitably comes apart.
We know that Brexit can be achieved in an orderly, relatively risk free way; but no, it won’t be easy; and yes we will have to work doubly hard to escape the gravitational pull of the EU; and it’s not going to be completed quickly.
Brexit is process, not an event; it is going to be a huge commercial and diplomatic challenge; but one that will pave the way to complete domestic democratic reform; which I think we can all agree is long overdue.
The certainty the Remain camp hopes for is that things will stay exactly as they are; they won’t.
The centralising ratchet will continue to inexorably wind-in power to Brussels away from national governments. That will continue for a period of maybe ten or even twenty years; and then things will suddenly become manifestly worse.
This is our chance to do it better. This is our one and only opportunity for change.
After it, should we vote to remain in and it doesn’t self-destruct first; the EU will become the United States of Europe and the UK will cease to exist.
In its place, there’ll be just a group of provinces or Regions of the United States of Europe; Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and however many Regions England is divided into; because in time England will cease to be as well.
It is little wonder that, as the Sun says; the “Queen Backs Brexit”
Instead of that though, we can be something better.
We can be and should be an independent nation; with a seat at all the global top tables; leading Europe out of stagnation and running our own affairs.
We should have our own trade policy, Aid policy, Agriculture policy, Fishing policy, Energy policy and Environment policy.
And we don’t need the EU gun to our heads to do it well.
More to the point; we will have the power to instruct our government; and the power to say no to it.
We should be the benchmark for democracy, not subordinate to a benign (for the moment) oligarchy.
We paid too much for the freedoms we have.
Don’t make us pay for them again.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
So Barrack Hussein Obama feels the need to instruct us on how we should vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Does he not understand that we don’t like taking instructions from foreigners; that is one of the reasons we are having a referendum.
If we object to Europeans, that we have not elected, telling us what to do; what makes him think we will accept an American, that we have not elected, telling us what to do?
Most of us are not named Blair…
If American friends ask me why I want the UK to leave the EUSSR; why we don’t just get on with it, be more positive and make the EUSSR work.
I try and explain how for over 40 years we have tried to make it work from the inside; how we’ve tried to make it reform into an organisation we can live with; how we have been ignored and/or outvoted every single time.
I point out that if “Dave’s Dismal Deal” is the best they’ll offer under threat of Brexit; what chance is there of any “reform” at all if we stay in; snowballs & hell spring to mind.
Then I ask them to imagine that their President and Congress had signed them up to a new country comprising North, South and Central America with its centre of power in say, Belize.
This new country, the United States of All The Americas, has its laws made by an unelected group of former, often-failed politicians; a Politburo.
The Treaty signed by the President, and ratified by Congress says that this USATA’s laws, made by that unelected Politburo, override all laws made by the US Congress, and all laws made by Congress must conform to those of the USATA.
The citizens of all Central & South American member nations (not just Mexicans) are free to travel to, and live and work in the US; without any hindrance. The US authorities are not allowed to stop them.
If they commit crime, the US will not be allowed to deport them.
A court, set up by this USATA, probably in Quito, can and will override rulings of the US Supreme Court.
The US is regularly outvoted in USATA meetings, by Mexico and Brazil, or Colombia, Ecuador & Costa Rica; but, as a successful member-state, has to pay a much larger amount than any other into the USATA’s budget.
And that budget hasn’t had its accounts signed-off, by USATA auditors, for 20 years!
Would they be happy with that?
I think not…
As Boris Johnson says;
“To this day the Americans refuse to kneel to almost any kind of international jurisdiction.”
“Alone of Western nations, the US declines to accept that its citizens can be subject to the rulings of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.”
“They have not even signed up to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
“Can you imagine the Americans submitting their democracy to the kind of regime that we have in the EU?”
No, nor can I
So my advice to Obama is, as we say, “Wind your neck in, Barrack, and Eff Orf!”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
One of the most recurring scare-mongering Remainian lies is;
“Over three million jobs are at stake if Britain leave the EU.”
This was first touted by Lib-Dem Danny Alexander, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in June 2014;
He claimed that it was based on,
“The latest Treasury analysis,” adding: “That is the measure of the risk that isolationists would have us take.”
That was an out-and-out lie.
In August, 2014, this claim (Lie) was debunked by Her Majesty’s Treasury, as the result of a Freedom of Information request. They responded with, “The full source of… ” (Alexander’s claim) “…was a Treasury assessment done in 2003; not an estimate of the impact of EU membership on employment; but a very rudimentary piece of analysis, that approximately three million jobs were involved in our trade with the EU.”
What the treasury was referring to was a report by the then-director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, Martin Weale, which the old campaign for Britain to join the euro used to threaten the public.
As Arron Banks has pointed out; then as now, saying jobs are LINKED to trade with the EUSSR is quite different from saying jobs are DEPENDENT on EUSSR membership.
Martin Weale himself described the Europhiles’ interpretation of his work as “absurd”.
“It’s pure Goebbels. In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts. Nobody could plausibly believe the figures [and] there is no reason why being outside the EUSSR should necessarily involve mass unemployment.”
Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EUSSR, all our trade with those 27 other member-countries will immediately stop.
Thoroughly debunked you might think;
Yet in one of his disastrous TV debates with Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg revived & enlarged on it when he suggested that if we left the EUSSR, we would be a “…sort of Billy No-Mates Britain; well, it will be worse than that; it will be a Billy No-Jobs Britain,”
Yes, that’s right: according to the then Deputy Prime Minister, we’d all lose our jobs if we left the EUSSR!
Perhaps it’s worth noting that both Alexander’s & Clegg’s careers have been inextricably linked to the EUSSR.
Clegg’s political life began in Brussels, first at the European Commission itself, then later as a member of the European Parliament.
Alexander spent eight years as director of communications at the European Movement and its successor, the Britain In Europe campaign.
In the latter guise, this was the main organisation that lobbied for Britain to ditch the Pound in favour of the Euro:
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The timing of the Prime Minister’s latest speech on the EUSSR was a tad unfortunate.
Dave outlined what he sees as the positive economic future that he naively believes awaits the UK if we remain members of that over-regulated, undemocratic, power-hungry, abomination that is the EUSSR.
Unfortunately, at almost precisely the same time, Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank, was explaining that the Eurozone economies need yet more urgent attention to stop them spiralling into an irreversible deflationary cardiac arrest.
Dave’s rare attempt to strike a positive note in the referendum debate was welcome, after weeks in which his side of the argument has focused on the negativity of the barely credible false warnings of “Project Fear.”
It is his misfortune that events abroad simultaneously offered a rude reminder that continued close association with the EUSSR and its central project, the Euro, carry significant risks of economical morbidity.
Since the Eurozone’s series of crises began in 2007, nine years ago, it is easy to forget that many aspects of European economic life, which appear almost normal, are anything but.
The ECB emergency package includes a headline rate of interest set at zero, a negative rate for lending to banks and yet more money created via quantitative easing.
Four years after Mr Draghi promised to do “whatever it takes” to save the Euro, he is still testing the limits of monetary policy to try to counter the pessimism that grips European consumers and businesses.
Worse, there is no sign that even this strong medicine will save the Euro’s life, merely keeping the patient suspended between life and death; as a hospital spokesman might say, on life support and “Stable but Critical.”
And as financial markets have quickly calculated, the ECB may now have run out of options, leaving Mr Draghi, next time, watching the Euro’s demise and powerless to help.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
There is no doubt in my mind that our Prime Minister asked other national leaders and politicians to warn against Brexit; though he has denied this; dismissing claims of a “giant conspiracy” as “complete nonsense.”
Though as I said the other day; it would appear that the Remainians “Project Fear” has just gone a tad OTT; especially among Dave’s Euro-mates…
First we had, Angular Ally, Gunther Krichbaum, seen by many as Mrs Merkel’s anti-British ‘attack dog,’ claimed the UK’s economy would be devastated as a result of lost EUSSR trade deals, saying: “You won’t be able to survive; trading conditions will not be in your favour.”
Continuing menacingly: “There is the question of tariffs.”
Then French president Francois Hollande warned of the “consequences in many areas” should Britain choose to leave the EU.
At about the same time Natalie Bouchart, the Mayor of Calais threatened that in the event of Brexit, the residents of the Jungle camp would be allowed across to the UK
That’s like the Chairman of Felixstowe Town Council deciding the export tariff on ball-bearings to Belarus…
But Natalie was supported by France’s economy minister, Emmanuel Macron, and the threat wasn’t denied by Frankie Hollande…
And Franck Dhersin, the Mayor of Teteghem, a large suburb of Dunkirk, joined in; “The border will move to Dover and so the migrants who come to Calais and other ports and towns in northern France will then be put on DFDS ferries and taken to Dover. This will happen. The people of Dunkirk and Calais have had enough. We are the officials and this is what has been decided.”
And then we have Spain’s foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo saying they would pounce on Gibraltar “the very next day” if Britain votes to leave the EUSSR!
He said on a Spanish breakfast radio show, that, while he hoped Britain would remain in the EUSSR, its withdrawal would represent a ‘golden opportunity’ for Spain.
However, “Project Fear; Foreign” threats reached dizzy heights when Brussels Politburo President Jean-Claude Juncker has weirdly warned that Brexit could somehow spark World War Three
Bizarrely, Jean-Claude instructed us Eurosceptics to visit European War Graves, “…to try and avoid a breakdown in peace between nations.”
But now some of the French cast of “Project Fear; Foreign” would appear to have forgotten their lines; or lost their scripts; for they are ad-libbing dangerously on the side of Brexit;
One of Mr Hollande’s own Socialist Party MPs, Karine Berger, has said: “The debate showed that the UK was asking for rewards for not respecting the common rules. Under these conditions, I do not think that a Brexit would harm the EU.”
An exasperated French MEP, Philipe Juvin; seeing the prospect of Brexit as an “opportunity” to establish a “hard core” of EUSSR member states bound to Ever Closer Union; said: “If they want to leave the EU, let them leave!”
Similarly Dominique Riquet, a Radical Party MEP, recently told a local French newspaper: “I hope the English leave! I have always thought they would be better off outside than inside… We need to progress… and the UK will do all it can to make sure this doesn’t happen.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
It’s a Topsy-turvy world;
I’m a life-long conservative,
Well alright, I disagreed with Edward Heath back in 1975, and then found out that he was a liar;
And when I met him, I discovered that he was an ill-mannered, ill-tempered, spoiled brat as well.
Anyway him aside, I haven’t really disagreed with any of the Tory leaders, until now…
But;
Since the Referendum debate started, I’ve been quoting Tony Benn…
Nodding along as I listened to George Galloway…
And more and more I find myself agreeing with Vladimir Putin…
First with regard to Syria; and now regarding the current self-inflicted European refugee crisis
Russia has criticised the EUSSR’s handling of the migrant crisis, quite rightly accusing the Politburo and Euro-rats of wilfully ignoring cultural differences that have caused such widespread friction and chaos across the Continent.
The head of Russia’s Federal Migration Service, has pointed out the obvious;
That the EUSSR has never formed a unified strategy to integrate refugees into Western society
He said: “The European Commission left it up to individual nations to decide how they want to treat asylum seekers; despite the fact the policies and capabilities of member states are very different. The EU does not have an effective system for registering incoming migrants or effective mechanisms for deporting illegal immigrants.”
As a result, he claims the EUSSR was caught “unprepared;” that’s “napping;” when hundreds of thousands of migrants first starting arriving on the Continent last year.
It was worse than that; yes, the EUSSR was caught napping, AND that was despite Angular actually inviting the tidal-wave to “come to Germany.”
He also accused Euro-rats of ignoring the “differences in culture, religious traditions, and customs” between the refugees; the vast majority of whom are Sunni Muslim; and each nation’s resident communities.
He added: “Practicing family reunification and offering refugees generous benefits without integrating them into the labour market, the EU did not expect that such a great number of people would claim these rights. This was clearly a mistake. The policy of multiculturalism has failed.”
Referring to the mass sex attacks by gangs of migrant men on women in Cologne, he said; “Note the defiant behaviour of refugees and their growing claims and demands. What happened in Germany on New Year’s Eve is a striking example of this.”
There have recently been claims that Russian bombing in Syria is fuelling the flow of refugees;
Thus Russia is supposedly “weaponising” the refugee crisis to “overwhelm” and “break” the EUSSR; as if it wasn’t broken already…
So Merkel’s stupid blunder has now morphed into Moscow’s misdemeanour.
The sharp rise in numbers entering the continent has led senior EUSSR officials to plead with Putin to stop military action likely to increase the flow of migrants into Europe.
But it is Turkey that has control of the refugee sluice-gates;
It is Turkey that will open or close them, just as much as, and when, it suits… …Turkey.
Let’s not forget:
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the refugees/immigrants/terrorists are living and/or assembling within Turkey
The Turkish authorities know exactly which shops are selling rubber-boats, life-jackets and other “marine-recreation” equipment
The Turkish authorities know exactly who the people smugglers are; some of those authorities need only look in a mirror to spot one.
The Turkish authorities know exactly which bank-accounts have been set-up to accept payments for nefarious boat trips; often those authorities are the account holders
The Turkish authorities know exactly where the boats set off from; Turkey has a long coastline, but small boat launch-and-load sites are limited
Meanwhile, migrants continued to ignore warnings about that their hopes for quick access to a better life in Europe would fail.
Many still gather on Turkish beaches and pile into boats for the risky crossing to Greece.
Those refugees who reach Greece faced an uncertain future.
Already tens of thousands are stranded in the country, with many camped in muddy fields with only sporadic access to humanitarian aid.
And with the Greek-Macedonian border closed they have no hope, at least for now, to embark on the so-called West Balkan route northward which had been the path for those wanting to resettle in the EUSSR’s more prosperous nations.
As EUSSR interior ministers met in Brussels on the crisis, Austria urged migrants to give up hope of moving on.
“The Balkan route is closed,” Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner told reporters.
“The biggest problem is that these refugees still have hopes and expectations and these hopes are being constantly fed.”
More than one million migrants have come to Europe in the past year, most of them to Greece by boats from Turkey, where millions fleeing war, persecution or abysmal poverty have gathered.
Once shipped to the Greek mainland from their island arrival points, most headed to the border with Macedonia, and then onward to Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, the entry point to Austria and the rest of Europe.
Passage through those countries began being restricted last month.
EUSSR and Turkish leaders agreed at a summit Monday to the broad outlines of a deal that would see migrants arriving in Greece having fled war or poverty would be sent back to Turkey unless they apply for asylum.
However, the UN has pointed out that this “repatriation” will be illegal; contrary to International Law.
For every migrant sent back, the EU would take in one Syrian refugee, thus trying to discourage people from setting set out on dangerous sea journeys, often arranged by unscrupulous smugglers.
The important point for the UK is that if we remain in the EUSSR, when those refugees/migrants/potential terrorists obtain EUSSR passports, we WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to deny entry to any of them.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has expressed his belief that the UK has a “genuine and justified” fear of mass immigration.
He has been quoted as saying; “This is one of the greatest movements of people in human history; just enormous; and to be anxious about that is very reasonable.”
Some would, and do describe this fear, as “Racist”
He says that that reaction is “…just outrageous, absolutely outrageous. What happens about housing? What happens about jobs? What happens about access to health services?”
We have got to retake control of our borders and control of immigration
The ONLY way to do this is by voting to leave the European Union on 23rd June.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Reuters report that;
Just as David Cameron has apparently, totally irresponsibly decided not to make any contingency plans, in case of a resounding Brexit vote;
EUSSR Politburo economists have been banned from researching the impact of the UK leaving the 28-nation bloc,
Or even talking about it,
For fear of getting embroiled in the heated British debate ahead of a referendum
“There is an internal order not to discuss or study the impact of Brexit,” a senior Politburo official told Reuters, adding that the instruction had come from the office of EUSSR President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Meanwhile Juncker has refused to rule out ordering a massive advertising campaign to keep us in the EUSSR
Of course he has;
He, and all the unelected Euro-rats in the Politburo know that the UK leaving will sound the death-toll for their corrupt and undemocratic organisation, and good riddance…
So, we have Juncker, Rumpy-Pumpy & Co blowing the EUSSR budget on a B*llsh*t Blitz re Brexit;
But officials won’t be allowed to discuss it;
Because they might let slip the truth?
This Head-in-the-Sand approach means that the Politburo’s economic forecasts for the Eurozone and the wider EUSSR will take account of political and financial risks in China, the Middle East and the United States
But not the glaringly obvious risk that the UK, its second biggest economy, (soon to be #1) is going vote to leave.
Another senior EUSSR Euro-rat said the Politburo got its fingers burned last year, when it insisted it had no “Plan B” to manage a possible Grexit.
Then word of a plan leaked out, causing upset in Athens and the German money markets.
“We learned from the Grexit thing,” this official said, “If we do it, the press will find out about it. So this time we’re not doing it.”
Because with the UK’s boisterous and mainly Eurosceptic press in full cry, the EUSSR’s unelected politburo has decided it has little to gain by working out what might happen if/when Brexit comes to fruition.
And they think they’re the right people to rule over us?
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Yet more “Project Fear” scaremongering from David Cameron; two Whitehall reports claimed quitting the EU would hit UK exports and lead to a “decade of uncertainty”
We’ve had the “Exports” argument loads of times
But put simply it is this;
The UK buys a lot more from the EUSSR than the UK sells to the EUSSR.
So a trade deal, without tariffs, would be much more advantageous to the EUSSR than to the UK
Conversely any tariffs would hurt the EUSSR more than they’d hurt the UK
That’s it.
Now, shut-up with the scaremongering about exports, Dave, nobody with a modicum of intelligence is frightened by those threats anymore; move on…
I was going to suggest moving on to the genuine arguments about the advantages of the UK remaining a member of the EUSSR; but there really aren’t any so I suppose you’d better move on to more scare stories about something else…
What intrigues me is; why are we supposed to be frightened at the prospect of a “Decade of Uncertainty”?
First, personally, at 70, to be assured of another decade of anything is vastly appealing; I’d like a few decades more, but one is enough to be going on with…
But, “Uncertainty”?
Life is uncertain, Dave; the future is uncertain; none of us knows what’s going to happen for certain; we can only deal in probabilities and risks; hopes and fears.
Which is why the appallingly depressing negativity of the entire Remainian “Project Fear” campaign is so… well… depressingly appalling…
It just plays on the fears of ordinary people; the voters, Dave; the voters who put you where you are, in the Hope that you would honestly represent their interests; a forlorn hope, I fear…
Some future probabilities are so highly probable that they are almost certainties…
The EUSSR intends that its mantra of “Ever Closer Union” will take it inexorably to its goal of the United States of Europe; therefore that is an almost certain, highly probable outcome; which will probably only be stopped by the disintegration of the EUSSR itself.
If Brexit hastens that event; instigating a “Domino Tumble;” Nederexit, Irexit, Grexit, etc; I probably won’t be sorry…
Though it is equally likely that the EUSSR’s demise will be caused by the almost inevitable implosion of its mistaken economic experiment, the Euro…
There are however definite certainties to be found in the Present;
The EUSSR certainly IS an over-regulating, domineering, rotten, corrupt, inefficient and undemocratic abomination.
It IS ruled by decree from an unelected Politburo, which is itself under the command & control of the major international corporations & banks.
It has created its own laws, with the vaguest of nods in the direction of democracy; by having them rubber-stamped by its “European Parliament” which itself has no other role.
Individual member states have minimal-to-no influence; except strangely, the original founding members of the European Coal & Steel Community; France & Germany…
A condition of membership of the EUSSR is that Member states have to agree that EUSSR Law supersedes their own, and that their own laws will accord with EUSSR Law.
The European Judiciary, the European Court of Justice, has ruled itself superior to all the member state judiciaries; and even UN regulation.
If the only way back from all that, to a simple Free Trade area in Europe; (which is what the voters in the UK were told they were signing-up for in 1973) is the complete collapse of the EUSSR; then so be it; most of Europe will probably be very grateful.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney was speaking to a panel of MPs yesterday, 8th March.
Of course the BBC headline news was his reference to the risks attached to Brexit, and they made a meal of that.
However he also admitted that there are clear financial risks of staying in the EUSSR.
He stated that the further integration of the Eurozone would “…inhibit the Bank’s ability to regulate the British economy.”
And we know that “Further Integration of the Eurozone” is on its way.
“Further Integration” or Ever Closer Union is the driving force; the Leit Motif of the EUSSR; Ever Closer Union until the United States of Europe as a country is a fact.
If we remain in until then, the UK will cease to exist.
There’ll be just a group of provinces or Regions of the U.S.E.; Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and however many Regions England is divided into…
Because in time England will cease to be as well
It’s little wonder if, as the Sun says; the “Queen Backs Brexit”
Mr Carney is not the first Bank of England Governor to warn of the dangers of the single currency.
Mervyn King said that the Euro was a “mistake.”
He said it was something “we should all be concerned about.”
He also predicted that it is likely to “explode.”
As the Euro spirals down from crisis to crisis, the fulfilment of that prediction gets closer by the day.
As it bounces from bail-out to bail-out, taxpayers’ money; including British taxpayers’ money is shovelled into its maw.
If we stay in the EUSSR, despite Euro-rat promises, UK taxpayers’ money will be used again to bailout the euro when it hits its next crisis.
And again at the next
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
