“Project Fear” by “Cameron & the Remainians” Part 5
And so it goes on…
This is PART 5
13th April
Former Military types are lining up to back Brexit, rubbishing claims by Dave that leaving the EUSSR would jeopardise the UK’s national security.
They see the biggest threat to British security being a Remain vote on 23rd June.
In November Dave said: “Our membership of the EU does matter for our national security and for the security of our allies, which is one reason why our friends in the world strongly urge us to remain in the EU.”
But, it is membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which has kept Britain safe these last few decades, not membership of the EU, and that Brussels’ plans for an EUSSR army would only encourage our enemies to see us as a target.
Major General Julian Thompson, who as leader of 3 Commando Brigade, commanded British land forces during the Falklands war; accused the European member states of being, “reluctant to get stuck in.”
He continued: “I find it quite extraordinary that they are trying to set up a separate defence organisation. It makes us less safe. It muddies the water. If we are not in the EU, we won’t have to be part of it.”
Major General Malcolm Hunt, who lists on his CV, command of 40 Commando in the Falklands, post-war garrison commander on the Islands, and a post at NATO, echoed his colleague’s comments, saying: “There have been proposals from the EU that a European Army should be formed, together, presumably, with a defence policy. The defence of Europe is provided, as it has been since 1949, through the auspices of NATO.”
Commodore Mike Clapp, an officer veteran of the six-day battle of San Carlos Water against the Argentine air force, added: “The idea of yet another European military organisation is madness. It weakens deterrence so it is dangerous too.”
Theirs are not the only pro-Brexit military voices speaking out against Mr Cameron’s dire warnings. Rear Admiral Chris Parry, speaking to the Express, remarked it is, “NATO, and NATO alone, which provides the collective guarantees that our island nation needs.”
Comparing the “well planned” defeat of Saddam Hussein’s forces by a NATO run campaign during the first Gulf War to the “feebly planned, strategically myopic” EUSSR-inspired intervention in Libya in 2011, he added: “In the event of a Brexit it is inconceivable that European countries would not co-operate with the UK in dealing with security and other threats as they do today. They need us, just as we need them.”
And he slammed Mr Cameron for “dragooning” a number of military personnel into supporting his pro-EUSSR campaign by signing them up to a letter penned by Downing Street. The letter was an own goal for the Prime Minister when it emerged that at least one of the signatories, General Sir Michael Rose, had never actually put his name to it, forcing Downing Street to issue a humiliating apology.
Sir Michael said: “Sovereignty and security are intrinsically linked and in recent years we’ve seen the EU erode our sovereignty.”
It was a point more forcefully made by Richard Kemp, the former Army Commander in Afghanistan in Sunday’s Express, where he wrote: “There is no benefit in staying in the EU and national security would be strengthened if we left. Most EU members’ lack of commitment to defence is shown by their spending. No other EU state equals the amount the UK commits in absolute terms, or as a percentage of GDP. Other than Britain and France, no major EU military power comes close to meeting the two per cent of GDP membership of NATO requires.”
He argued that an EU Army, in line with the Union more generally, would excel at furnishing itself with all the baubles and luxurious trappings of office, but would fail at the serious task of defence.
“Any EU army, an inevitable development of ever-closer union, would weaken our defences, drawing commitment away from NATO and costing vast sums of taxpayers’ cash,” he said.
“There would be shiny new headquarters, flags and generals, but an EU army could never become a serious deterrent or fighting force.”
And he dismissed suggestions that Britain’s hand against jihadi terrorism is strengthened within the EU, saying: “The most important weapon in the fight against terrorism is intelligence. But there can be no viable EU intelligence-sharing mechanism. All sharing of sensitive information is bilateral, between individual states. Our most important intelligence partner is not any EU state but the US. By leaving the EU we will gain far greater control of our borders and better confront these challenges that have the potential to undermine the very fabric of our society.”
Andy Markham, corporate deputy head of weapons procurement for the MoD, has said that leaving the EUSSR would mean the UK would have a better value stock of military equipment.
It would also stop Britain sending money abroad to buy weapons which can be made in the UK, and thus save our crippled steel industry. He also said that from a procurement position, if we looked at taking away process and adding value into acquisition, we’d be better out of the EUSSR.
UKIP MEP Mike Hookem, said: “We’ve had a deluge of propaganda from the MoD and Number 10 telling us we need to be in the EU to be more secure. But here we have clear proof that what equipment our troops use in warfare or to defend our country is being hamstrung by our EU membership.”
Sir Richard Dearlove, who led MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said that the UK would experience “security gains” from Brexit. He said the UK’s status as Europe’s “leader” in intelligence and security meant it was “difficult to imagine” European nations breaking off their relationships with it.
He dismissed the role of Brussels security bodies such as Europol, saying they were “of little consequence.” Information is not shared across all 28 EU states because they are potentially a “colander” for intelligence, he said.
In November 2015, Ronald K. Noble, who was secretary general of Interpol from 2000 to 2014, wrote:
“Europe’s open-border arrangement, which enables travel through 26 countries without passport checks or border controls, is effectively an international passport-free zone for terrorists to execute attacks on the Continent and make their escape.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
The BBC helpful as ever, tells us that David Miliband quit frontline politics to head the International Rescue Committee aid organisation after narrowly losing out on the Labour leadership in 2010 to his younger brother Ed.
Is that the old International Rescue with string puppets, or the new CGI one?
D Miliband says in a speech for the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign group: “My message is simple: Now is not the time for unilateral political disarmament.”
What?
“Simple” perhaps; the thoughts of a simpleton?
Or a Europhile scaremonger?
And I don’t think this Miliband is a simpleton…
“Political disarmament” is handing over political control & power to an unelected bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
Using that rather strange terminology, Brexit can only be described as “Political rearmament”
But, unlike normal rearmament, it won’t cost billions, but will save us £350 million a week…
“No nation in human peacetime history, never mind Britain,” he goes on, “has voluntarily given up as much political power as we are being invited to throw away on 23 June.”
Really?
I’d like to remind young Miliband of what Tony Benn said about the UK joining the EEC; “The most formal surrender of British sovereignty and parliamentary democracy that has ever occurred in our history.”
That’s a view I shared then; voting “No” in the 1975 referendum; and still agree with now.
And “For what?” asks Miliband; and answers; “A cold, hard lesson in the demon of hubris, born of delusion that the world owes us a break;”
“A tragic miscalculation which weakens ourselves,” he says, “Our friends and the international order on which we depend.”
“Hubris,” meaning pride; is the word intellectuals use to indicate that pride is a “bad thing;” it isn’t.
We, unlike young Miliband, who has chosen to live in America; are proud to be British, and believe that the UK is more than able to thrive on its own…
And after over 40 years of the unelected Brussels Big Brother ordering us what to do; somebody certainly, “…owes us a break;”
Brexit will NOT “…weaken ourselves, our friends…” or any “…international order on which we depend.”
Regaining genuine Democracy and National Sovereignty can only strengthen the UK.
A stronger and independent UK can only strengthen NATO; an “…international order on which we depend.”
And if it weakens the EU; tough; that benighted abomination is not an “…international order on which we depend.”
It is an “…international order;” a nascent superstate; that we need to get out of.
Miliband goes on to argue that being in the EU boosts British power, security and values and that walking away would diminish its influence and strengthen “our enemies.”
“…the EU boosts British power”? If anything diminishes “British power” more than membership of the EU, I can’t imagine what it could be. The UK is currently a subservient nation; unable trade independently; and our Foreign Policy more & more controlled by the EU.
“…the EU boosts British security”? David, you’re ‘aving a larf… That is such a ridiculous claim; countered elsewhere, so well and often, I shan’t waste time on it here…
“…the EU boosts British values”? That is even worse. The EU doesn’t even recognise “British values;” such as freedom, fair play, Parliamentary Democracy and National Sovereignty; let alone “boost” them.
All this from the former Labour Foreign Secretary that campaigned to scrap the pound; signed us up to the Lisbon Treaty that sacrificed important EU vetoes; and misled the public about the powers given over to the EU; he’s been wrong all along, and he’s wrong now.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Daniel Hannan writes:
Austerity is evidently not for everybody. There might not be money for junior doctors or people on disability allowances, but there’s money to tell us to vote to stay in the EU.
The Remain and Leave campaigns are limited by statute to spending £7m each. Yet ministers are spending no less than £9.3m of taxpayers’ money to prop up their faltering campaign.
Whether or not you support this government, and whether or not you want to stay in the EU, there is something outrageous about spending our own money on telling us what to think.
The government’s defence; that it is giving us facts which just happen to bolster a Remain vote; is almost too absurd to merit serious refutation. By the same logic, it would be OK for ministers in an election year to send every household a state-funded booklet setting out the “factual” case for re-electing the Conservatives.
Why this sudden swerve?
Until very recently, ministers were assuring us that the state machine wouldn’t be deployed in the campaign.
When the referendum legislation went through parliament, the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told MPs: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. I can assure the house that the government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.”
David Lidington, the likeable Europe minister, was even more emphatic: “Let me repeat that we have no intention of legislating to allow the government to do things such as mail-shots, paid advertising or leafleting.”
Why, then, have ministers gone back on their words?
Why have they chosen to ignore both Britain’s Electoral Commission, which has declared its unhappiness, and the basic rules on the conduct of referendums required by the Council of Europe, which states: “The use of public funds for campaigning purposes must be prohibited in order to guarantee equality of opportunity and the freedom of voters to form an opinion”?
Why have they annoyed neutrals and quite a few Remain campaigners by so flagrant a disregard for fair play?
Is it, as some cynical commentators claim, an attempt to move the news off tax havens?
I don’t think so. I know this will irritate some Guardian readers but, unless someone is going to accuse David Cameron himself of avoiding tax, I’m blowed if I can see what the poor fellow is supposed to have done wrong.
No, there is a far simpler explanation. Pro-EU campaigners are starting to panic. They were expecting to be comfortably ahead by now. Voters were supposed to have been cowed by all those letters from CEOs of multinationals and chairmen of mega-banks and retired diplomats and other hoary-headed grandees threatening them with the terrors of the Earth.
It hasn’t worked. There comes a point when threats become so overblown that they serve to irk rather than to frighten. When, to pluck an example at random, we hear Anna Soubry, the small business minister, claiming that outside the EU, our exports to the other states would fall to “almost absolutely zero”, we don’t just disbelieve that assertion; we stop believing anything she says about the EU. We know that Norway exports two-and-a-half times as much per capita to the EU from outside as we do from inside; Switzerland four-and-a-half times as much. We suspect that she must know it, too.
Yet pro-EU campaigners seem stuck in their doom-and-gloom strategy. It’s not just that they seem to have nothing positive to say about Britain. They don’t even have anything positive to say about the EU. The last thing they want to discuss is the paltry deal Brussels was prepared to offer in the renegotiation. All their talk of “reform” has dried up. Instead, they deploy an intrinsically pessimistic argument: “Yeah, the EU is a bit crappy, but change is risky.” I wonder whether any amount of public money could make such a downbeat message work.
If nothing else, this latest stunt vindicates one of the Leave side’s main objections to the EU: that it debases the ballot. The objective of European integration is held to be more important than the integrity of the democratic process; as the Greeks found after their referendum last year and, I suspect, as the Dutch, too, will find after their “no” vote this week. In the words of Jean-Claude Juncker: “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties”.
Is he right?
Having fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that only our elected representatives may pass laws or raise taxes, do we still care?
We’ll find out on 23 June.
Daniel Hannan is the author of Why Vote Leave, published this week by Head of Zeus
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Exports to the EU constitute about 13% of Britain’s GDP, with 17 % going to the rest of the world. We have a massive trade deficit with the EU (with whom we have a trade deal) and a trade surplus with the rest of the world (with whom, for the most part, we have no trade deal).
By and large, the businesses who only export to the rest of the world want to leave Europe.
It is understandable, as they suffer the burdens of membership of the union but have none of the supposed advantages.
Being in the EU is making them uncompetitive in the world market.
The remainder of the economy is domestic.
This means that overall, 87% of our economy and the vast majority of jobs are subject to the burdens that flow from being in the EU but prosper entirely independently of it.
Anti-Brexit multinational corporations, which represent only around 5% of the businesses in Britain, are short-termist and narrowly focused.
They benefit from the barriers to market entry created by EU regulation and public procurement rules.
They can produce cheaply and sell expensively by segmenting the European market.
They can also avoid paying tax by operating across EU borders.
They are, in other words, economically rational in their own interests but not particularly concerned about the future of the people of Britain or the wider business community.
It is outrageous, in my view, that these corporations have signed up to the EU cause without reference to their shareholders, customers or employees; just as outrageous as the government using taxpayers’ money to fund the pro-EU case.
By contrast, the business people signing up daily, as individuals, for the leave campaign are among the best and most successful in the country.
They are the voices of the real economy, and representative of those who generate the vast majority of our output.
They are the grafters who have the good ideas, the ones who employ most of our people and who risk their own money.
They are the ones committed to local communities.
It is these business people who think that staying in the EU carries a dire risk.
The risk is that in the future, the eurozone will make all the economic decisions and Britain will have no say.
They are also worried about the avalanche of regulation that could follow a vote to stay.
It is these people who have done business around the world, who know that taxpayers’ money that Brussels currently wastes could instead be invested in Britain: in public services, in infrastructure and in such things as steel production.
We will be able to make our own trade deals around the globe, just like Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.
Most importantly, we will be able to take back control of our own affairs, political and economic, giving us more certainty in a very uncertain world.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
One of the most potent arguments for staying in the EU is the uncertainty that would supposedly be unleashed by a departure.
But staying in would involve increased uncertainty over some important issues affecting our safety, including whether the UK would contribute to an EU army and whether the EU would take over the UK’s (and France’s) permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
But when people talk of certainty and safety, they also refer to matters economic.
It is true that if we were to leave the EU the immediate situation post-departure is more uncertain than if we remained.
But that is trivial.
In practice, there would probably be little immediate difference.
What the Remainians are really arguing, though, is that we cannot be sure how things would develop over the succeeding years, including the terms of our trading relationships.
This is true.
Yet the idea that a Remain vote means that things will stay the same is an illusion because the EU is changing and the world is changing, too.
In several key ways the EU could evolve, paraphrasing the words of Japan’s emperor at the end of the Second World War, “not necessarily to the UK’s advantage.”
Most importantly, for the Euro to survive, banking, fiscal and political union will be needed between members.
The UK would be an outsider; but still inside the EU.
How that would work is impossible to know.
Then there is the matter of the EU’s own spending.
The EU budget has tended to rise over the years.
Moreover, given the EU’s aspiration to become some sort of super-state, it will surely continue to rise, meaning higher UK contributions.
Most importantly, we do not know how EU regulations will develop in regard to business and countless “social” issues that potentially have serious economic consequences.
You might argue that the EU is unlikely to take a route inimical to prosperity; but why not?
It decided to adopt the Euro and that has been a complete disaster.
And it has introduced countless restrictions and regulations on business that are responsible for the average growth rate of its members being below that of other comparable countries; even without the Euro disaster.
Similarly, the EU could take radical steps to restrict or even suppress large parts of the financial services industry, which is disproportionately important to us.
We have opposed the imposition of the Financial Transactions Tax and it is currently stuck in the regulatory long-grass.
But it won’t stay there. When it re-emerges and we are still in the EU, we would have to implement it.
Yes, we could vote against such measures but our share of votes in the European Council is only 12.6pc.
And we cannot overrule the judgments of the European Court of Justice.
To all this, David Cameron’s “renegotiation” has made no difference whatsoever.
Although we cannot legally be made to join the Euro, we could be put under enormous pressure to do so.
That would not be met with much resistance from large parts of the British establishment who, after all, wanted us to join it in the first place.
Or take trade policy.
We do not know how the international trading system will develop, nor how the EU will respond.
The world could turn in a protectionist direction. The EU could increase external tariffs.
We don’t know.
What we do know, though, is that the UK is much more involved in trade with the rest of the world than are other EU members.
Outside the EU we would be free to negotiate our own trade deals, including one with China, which the EU still has not managed to achieve.
If we stay in, one major uncertainty concerns how many people will arrive here to work and settle, with major consequences for housing, public services and infrastructure.
The interests of other members are not necessarily the same as ours because of our very different demographic outlook, with the population in many European countries set to fall and ours set to rise considerably.
Hence a one-size-fits-all migration policy will not work.
Not only is our demographic position different, but our pension system is also radically different.
Our pensions are largely funded, whereas theirs are mainly not.
This threatens a major crisis for them as the demands of pensioners on the working population rise sharply.
What if the EU imposes some sort of one-size-fits-all pensions policy?
In helping us to make up our minds about the institutional arrangements with which we may best face an uncertain future, for all the things that we don’t know, we do know this: we functioned perfectly well as an independent country before we joined the EU; our economic position has strengthened since then; most of the world does not belong to the EU, and does not wish to; the EU’s economic record is poor because it has made misguided decisions.
Most importantly, whatever the future throws at us, if we were outside the EU, we would have the power to respond in our interests.
If leaving the EU is a leap in the dark, then staying in is a leap in the dark with both legs shackled together and our arms tied behind our back.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Apparently there are some out there, of rather, on here; who are offended by my “Childish” use of “EUSSR” when referring to the “EU,” and “Euro-rats” to mean “European bureaucrats.”
My “standard childish name-calling” of my “so-called opponents” apparently renders some incapable of reading, let alone responding civilly to my posts…
Posted before — this is the expurgated version for those who’re easily offended. I really can’t promise to be less “childish” in the future…
It was only a couple of days ago that Dave was assuring us that leaving the EU would jeopardise the UK’s safety & national security; that it is essential we remain members so we can sleep at night.
But it would appear now that the unelected European bureaucrats of the EU have been stricken with some sort of death-wish.
A death-wish that may well affect us all…
In an obvious pre-cursor to Ukraine joining the EU, the European bureaucrats have dropped all pretence of respecting democracy by plotting to grant visa-free travel to 45 million Ukrainians, in direct defiance of the Dutch referendum result.
That Brussels bureaucrats plan to ride roughshod over the voice of an entire nation in their fool-hardy bid to secure further power in Eastern Europe; is one thing;.
But stupidly baiting Russia is quite another.
Two-thirds of the Dutch people rejected the EU land grab plot in a landmark referendum last week; which only took place because of a people’s revolt against the European elite
But it seems that the Dutch are being betrayed by both their own weak Europhile Government and the unelected moron-mandarins in Brussels; who, in ploughing on with the Ukraine deal regardless, are virtually guaranteeing a demand for Nederexit; and encouraging more votes for Brexit.
After all the despotic move proves to all those aren’t already aware, that the EU has no respect for democracy; it shows the Brussels regime is so corrupt, all hope of reform is gone; and it comes just weeks before our Referendum.
Before the referendum result Thierry Baudet, who is the founding director of the Forum for Democracy, which secured last week’s referendum, said British voters would be watching to see if the EU decided to honour the result.
He said: “If politicians ignore the Dutch “No” then it will be an even stronger signal than what the British have already received; that there is no way to correct the European political class and that they should vote to leave.”
All that is good;
But let’s consider what other consequences may be on their way…
First the lesser of the two evils…
Ukraine is a troubled country in the middle of a nasty civil-war, which grew out of unrest sparked, at least in part, by EU meddling.
Just like any other country experiencing a civil-war, Ukraine is awash with weapons.
The EU appears to be ready, with David Cameron’s support, to authorise visa-free travel for 45 million Ukrainians; and access to all those weapons…
As a result, the entire population of war-torn Ukraine is set to gain the right to travel throughout mainland Europe by as early as next month.
Estimates vary; but there are between 500,000 and one million Islamic Ukrainians; the majority of Ukrainian Muslims are Crimean Tatars, who not surprisingly, live in Crimea.
Unhappy at living in a Russian-annexed zone they will be among the first to travel, unchecked across the Schengen Zone.
Sunni Islam of the Hanafi School is their faith and largest non-Christian religion in Ukraine.
Sunni Islam is the sect of al-Qaeda and Daesh.
Though there may be few Islamic terrorists among the; there may well be some, and there will almost certainly be sympathisers; with access to visa-free travel and all those weapons…
That is the threat that the EU is calling down on Europe; it should be obvious to all;
But it is the lesser threat…
In Ukraine’s civil-war, one side, the Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko, is supported by the West, especially the EU.
Poroshenko is a very suspect oligarch; a billionaire with a very chequered ‘commercial’ history.
His ‘side’ includes a hefty leavening of “neo-Nazis;” so “neo,” that the “neo” is well-nigh superfluous.
The other side; consisting mainly of Ukrainians of Russian descent; is, as we all know, supported and helped by its neighbour, Vladimir Putin’s Mother Russia.
The much greater potential peril risked by the idiots in Brussels, stupidly poking the Russian bear through the bars of its cage, again, really threatens us all…
It has been argued that it was EU expansionism that stirred the Ukrainian crisis before;
In continuing to expand influence and power into Russia’s next-door neighbour, is the EU considering Europe’s safety & security at all; even a little bit?
Or are we witnessing the pre-match posturing of two out-dated behemoths; the EU & Russia; stamping like two Sumo rikishis, before entering the dohyō that is Ukraine?
It bears thinking about
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
I remember that the International Monetary Fund cajoled the UK into the disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism…
And I remember the IMF trying to push us into ditching the pound and joining the now almost defunct Euro
Now the IMF has pronounced, with the expected doom and gloom, its forebodings regarding Brexit.
I can’t improve on what Nigel Farage has written about this today, so I won’t try:
“This is all about the big banks and the establishment protecting their interests within a cosy EU cartel that looks after multi-national corporations and dismisses the democratic wishes of the average man, woman or small and medium sized business.”
“The IMF was wrong when it supported the Euro, wrong when it failed to predict the global recession and is wrong now it is trying to scare the British people.”
“The best way for the UK to protect its economic interests is by taking back control from Brussels, cutting burdensome EU red tape and start trading with the wider world; all things the EU bans us from doing as a member of their undemocratic and diminishing club.”
“The IMF in its own projections has the UK growing faster than the Eurozone and Germany individually in both 2016 and 2017, yet still tries to pour the cold water of fear onto the legitimate hopes of a nation; hopes that we can run our country and economy and country for the benefit of the people who live here, rather than the bureaucrats and technicians of international institutions like the IMF and the European Union.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
It was only a couple of days ago that Dave was assuring us that leaving the EUSSR would jeopardise the UK’s safety & national security; that it is essential we remain members so we can sleep at night.
But it would appear now that the unelected Euro-rats of the EUSSR have been stricken with some sort of death-wish.
A death-wish that may well affect us all…
In an obvious pre-cursor to Ukraine joining the EUSSR, the Euro-rats have dropped all pretence of respecting democracy by plotting to grant visa-free travel to 45 million Ukrainians, in direct defiance of the Dutch referendum result.
That Brussels bureaucrats plan to ride roughshod over the voice of an entire nation in their fool-hardy bid to secure further power in Eastern Europe; is one thing;.
But stupidly baiting Russia is quite another.
Two-thirds of the Dutch people rejected the EUSSR land grab plot in a landmark referendum last week; which only took place because of a people’s revolt against the European elite
But it seems that the Dutch are being betrayed by both their own weak Europhile Government and the unelected moron-mandarins in Brussels; who, in ploughing on with the Ukraine deal regardless, are virtually guaranteeing a demand for Nederexit; and encouraging more votes for Brexit.
After all the despotic move proves to all those aren’t already aware, that the EUSSR has no respect for democracy; it shows the Brussels regime is so corrupt, all hope of reform is gone; and it comes just weeks before our Referendum.
Before the referendum result Thierry Baudet, who is the founding director of the Forum for Democracy, which secured last week’s referendum, said British voters would be watching to see if the EU decided to honour the result.
He said: “If politicians ignore the Dutch “No” then it will be an even stronger signal than what the British have already received; that there is no way to correct the European political class and that they should vote to leave.”
All that is good;
But let’s consider what other consequences may be on their way…
First the lesser of the two evils…
Ukraine is a troubled country in the middle of a nasty civil-war, which grew out of unrest sparked, at least in part, by EUSSR meddling.
Just like any other country experiencing a civil-war, Ukraine is awash with weapons.
The EUSSR appears to be ready, with David Cameron’s support, to authorise visa-free travel for 45 million Ukrainians; and access to all those weapons…
As a result, the entire population of war-torn Ukraine is set to gain the right to travel throughout mainland Europe by as early as next month.
Estimates vary; but there are between 500,000 and one million Islamic Ukrainians; the majority of Ukrainian Muslims are Crimean Tatars, who not surprisingly, live in Crimea.
Unhappy at living in a Russian-annexed zone they will be among the first to travel, unchecked across the Schengen Zone.
Sunni Islam of the Hanafi School is their faith and largest non-Christian religion in Ukraine.
Sunni Islam is the sect of al-Qaeda and Daesh.
Though there may be few Islamic terrorists among the; there may well be some, and there will almost certainly be sympathisers; with access to visa-free travel and all those weapons…
That is the threat that the EUSSR is calling down on Europe; it should be obvious to all;
But it is the lesser threat…
In Ukraine’s civil-war, one side, the Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko, is supported by the West, especially the EUSSR.
Poroshenko is a very suspect oligarch; a billionaire with a very chequered ‘commercial’ history.
His ‘side’ includes a hefty leavening of “neo-Nazis;” so “neo,” that the “neo” is well-nigh superfluous.
The other side; consisting mainly of Ukrainians of Russian descent; is, as we all know, supported and helped by its neighbour, Vladimir Putin’s Mother Russia.
The much greater potential peril risked by the idiots in Brussels, stupidly poking the Russian bear through the bars of its cage, again, really threatens us all…
It has been argued that it was EUSSR expansionism that stirred the Ukrainian crisis before;
In continuing to expand influence and power into Russia’s next-door neighbour, is the EUSSA considering Europe’s safety & security at all; even a little bit?
Or are we witnessing the pre-match posturing of two out-dated behemoths; the EUSSR & Russia; stamping like two Sumo rikishis, before entering the dohyō that is Ukraine?
It bears thinking about
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
11th April
Wages will rise and unemployment will fall if the UK leaves the EUSSR; if the public ignores the Remainian doom-mongers and breaks free of the shackles imposed by Brussels and regains control of its borders.
Big business backs the Remainian cause because the EUSSR migration policy is designed to keep down workers’ wages.
It is totally unacceptable that big businesses have, for more than a decade, been holding down the wages of UK workers by employing more and more EUSSR migrant labour.
If you are unemployed or low-paid it is clear you would benefit from Britain leaving the EUSSR.
And older voters should vote Leave so their children and grandchildren can shape their own destiny; free from a sclerotic, over-bearing Brussels machine which is holding small businesses and the economy back.
The future for Britain outside of the EUSSR, with the ability to control its own borders, is overwhelmingly positive.
The EUSSR’s cherished “freedom of movement” puts enormous strain on our NHS, our education and our housing.
When you are trying to get your children into a school, when you struggle to arrange a doctor or hospital appointment, or when you are trying to get on the housing ladder, you will benefit from leaving the EUSSR because our country will be able to regain control over migration.
In a speech last week, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan said it would be young people who would suffer most if the UK left the EUSSR.
Implying that young people are better off within the EUSSR she added: “If parents and grandparents vote to leave, they’ll be voting to gamble with their children and grandchildren’s future.”
The young people of Greece; 48% of whom are unemployed; might disagree.
And the gift of restoring sovereignty to future generations is one that pensioners will be proud to grant, confident as they are in our ability to succeed in the wider world.
The UK’s best days lie ahead of us; our children and grandchildren will face their brightest future, with a world of opportunity and possibility, if we decide on June 23 to vote ‘Leave’.
We are the world’s fifth largest economy and, unlike many other countries in the EUSSR, our economy is strong and growing.
In the UK more than 95 per cent of all businesses are small and medium enterprises, employing some 14.5 million people.
The vast majority do not export to the EUSSR, yet all have to abide by European rules and regulations which cost them time and money and add complexity to even the most simple business decision.
What about big business?
Why do leaders of some big companies prefer to remain in the EUSSR?
As Stuart Rose, ex-head of M&S, admitted to a parliamentary committee, the real ‘disadvantage’ of leaving the EUSSR for big business is that pay for British workers would rise.
He suggested that this was not a good thing…
It is totally unacceptable that big businesses have, for more than a decade, been holding down the wages of UK workers by employing more and more EUSSR migrant labour.
How would leaving the EUSSR affect interest rates and the wider economy?
Well, currently interest rates among all developed countries are at historically low levels, and the UK is no different.
Inflation rates are also extremely low. There is no reason to think that in leaving the EUSSR, there would be any change.
Leaving the EUSSR is a process laid out in treaty. Once the UK decides to begin that formal process, there will be up to two years during which new legally binding agreements over trade and other issues will be negotiated.
The trade deals we secure will reflect not just the fact that we are one of the world’s most powerful economies.
We are also the EUSSR’s biggest trading partner and the key financial services centre in Europe.
There will be enormous interest on both sides in ensuring the negotiations are successful and trade continues; after all, the EUSSR exports a lot more to us than we do to them.
Nor would foreign investment into the UK be harmed.
We should have confidence in our country’s great advantages: we speak the world’s business language; English; we have the world’s best contract law, the highest rankings for culture, universities, and as a place to live and bring up children; as well as the benefits of a time zone that straddles the US and Asia and gives us a pivotal role in world markets.
Foreign investment, international trade and our global financial services industry would continue to thrive outside the EUSSR.
But what does leaving the EUSSR mean for taxpayers?
The EUSSR costs the UK billions every year and this will grow as EUSSR bureaucracy develops and expands its areas of intervention.
All taxpayers would benefit if we stopped these contributions and spent the money instead on our own vital services.
Preserving the existing levels of financial support for farming, fisheries and the poorer regions of the UK would still leave up to £10 billion a year of taxpayers’ money to spend on our hospitals, schools, potholes and the myriad of other priorities.
So for families, what does Brexit mean?
In terms of public services it is clear Brexit would be a huge benefit.
There is also no doubt that migration has depressed wages at the lower end of the scale.
The new UK National Living Wage will undoubtedly help many UK workers.
But it will also encourage even more people to come here and compete for jobs from an EUSSR, where unemployment rates for young people in some countries is still around 50 per cent; with no likelihood of improving.
What of pensioners? Well as beneficiaries of public services, leaving the EUSSR is clearly in their interest.
But more importantly, many pensioners voted in 1975 referendum to join the Common Market and they will now know that they were conned; lied to; sold a false promise.
The EUSSR is no longer the Common Market; it was never just a Common Market; it always was and remains a political project whose ambition is nothing less than a single country called the United States of Europe.
What of young people in the UK today?
It is they above all who have the right to look beyond the dreary issues of process and bureaucratic negotiation and ask themselves what sort of country they want in ten, 20 or 30 years’ time.
They will not have another chance.
It is over 40 years since we last held this vote.
For young people the choice is clear.
They can remain in the EUSSR, tied to the Eurozone, unable to control migration, at the mercy of one of the greatest centralising forces we have seen in European history; and continue to suffer from a democratic deficit that has already created civil unrest in mainland Europe.
Or they can seize this momentous opportunity, and embrace the four-fifths of the world that is outside the EUSSR.
Continue to trade with Europe; yes, but build as well stronger trading relationships with the 2.5 billion consumers who make up the Commonwealth; with the fast-growing countries in the Americas, and with the developing economies of Asia, which together represent our future prosperity and opportunity.
The interests of the young and elderly, employees and taxpayers, all those who use public services, the low-paid and the unemployed, are all one.
And they would be served best by voting ‘Leave’
Unless the EUSSR implodes or otherwise disintegrates; as it well might; and we remain a member; the UK will cease to exist.
It its place will be the EUSSR provinces (regions) of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and however many regions England has been divided into.
Because in time, England will cease to exist as well;
Why else would our current Europhile government be pushing John Prescott’s “Regional Assemblies”; rebranded as “English Devolution”?
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Dear “Remain In” People,
Some questions for you…
First five questions about the Euro:
1. “Do you believe that the UK should ever join the Euro?”
2. “Has the Euro gone wrong?”
3. “Why has the Euro area spawned so many recessions and mass unemployment?”
4. “What would have happened if the UK had joined the Euro, as many of you demanded, in the 1990s?”
5. “What did you learn from the bitter experience of recommending the Exchange Rate Mechanism to the UK and seeing it destroy our jobs and economy?”
Four more questions for you about the Free Movement & Our Borders:
1. “Do you think the UK should join Schengen?”
2. “Has Schengen been a success?”
3. “If, as it seems, Schengen has failed, what do you want to replace it with?”
4. How do you suggest the UK would be able to control her own borders outside Schengen, if we still sign up to Freedom of Movement?
Three questions about the Common Fisheries Policy:
1. Has the Common Fishing Policy been a success?
2. Why has the UK lost most of its fishing industry under EU regulation and control?
3. Why did it take so many years even to stop the absurdity of throwing dead fish back into the sea?
Two questions about trade:
1. “Do you really think Germany would want to start a trade war with us if we leave, given the fact she sells twice as much to us, as we sell to them?”
2. “Do you really think the German government is lying when they say they would not impose new tariffs on our exports to them, as they don’t want us imposing tariffs in retaliation?”
One last question for you:
“If you don’t like the Euro, Schengen or the Common Fisheries Policy, what is the point of belonging to this institution?”
It’s like belonging to a football club when you don’t even like the football!
I’m looking forward to reading your answers…
“If Dave thinks that the latest EUSSR Immigration plan is likely to fail, then why is he condemning us to failure?”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Dave is in a bit of bother regarding his “Leaflet of Lies” — sorry “Government Information” pamphlet…
Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers were sidelined; left in the dark over the Prime Minister’s plan to issue the leaflet and it was signed off during a secret sub-committee made up only of pro-EUSSR ministers.
Angry Eurosceptic MPs and Cabinet ministers are very close to putting a halt to all Government business; with a working majority of just 12, the Government is vulnerable to Tory rebels, and might have to rely on Labour or SNP support; how humiliating would Dave find that?
The Electoral Commission has warned Dave that using Government funds to support his campaign was “not in the spirit” of a fair referendum and should not have been done.
But that’s how Euro-rats work; never abide by “the spirit” of the rules; especially if you wrote them.
So far, making no apology, Dave’s response has been: “There is nothing to stop the Government from setting out its view in advance of the campaign and that’s what the government did in 1975, when we last had a referendum.”
But that was Harold Wilson, Dave; he was a liar, too; still if you want to be tarred with that brush…
Nigel Farage, sums it up: “This government scam confirms my view that this referendum will be defined by the battle of the people versus the political class.”
The Royal Mail has confirmed that all 27million homes in the UK will receive the “Leaflet of Lies,” starting next week.
Then there’s that petition;
And now, Dave will be forced into a “humbling debate” on his decision to spend nearly £10 million of public cash on producing and despatching his Europhile “Leaflet of Lies.”
The petition entitled, “Stop Cameron spending British taxpayers’ money on Pro-EU Referendum leaflets,” passed the magic number of 100,000, meaning it must be considered for Parliamentary debate, at 10.32pm last night.
130,000 people have now signed the online petition against the PM’s plans; plans which support accusations that the Government is, as expected, using taxpayers’ money in an attempt to ‘fix’ the upcoming referendum.
The petition was originally set up in December last year when it first emerged the Government was preparing a pro-EUSSR dossier.
At that stage, Mr Cameron had still yet to complete his EU renegotiation deal and was publicly insisting he was, “…ruling nothing out;” when it came to which way he would campaign at the referendum; even implying at one point that he might lead a Brexit campaign!
The petition states: “Prime Minister David Cameron plans to spend British taxpayers’ money on a pro-EU document to be sent to every household in the United Kingdom in the run up to the EU referendum. We believe voters deserve a fair referendum — without taxpayer-funded biased interceptions by the Government. We, the petitioners, demand the Government STOPS spending our money on biased campaigning to keep Britain inside the European Union. The Great British Public have waited since 1975 for a vote on our relationship with Brussels. No taxpayers’ money should be spent on campaign literature to keep Britain inside the EU.”
After 10,000 signatures the petition was entitled to a Government response, which was duly forthcoming, it read: “The EU Referendum Act 2015 commits the Government to provide information to the public on EU membership ahead of the vote, and that is what we will do.”
It comes as no surprise, but I guess they knew what they were doing when they omitted the words “Factual, True or Unbiased” from between “provide” and “information”!
The vast majority of those people signed it in the last 24 hours; providing a measure of the depth of public feeling over the issue, with the rate of signatures accrued believed to be close to the fastest ever recorded on the Government’s e-petition website.
The comprehensive manner in which the petition reached 100,000 signatures combined with the the growing anger amongst Mr Cameron’s Eurosceptic backbenchers over his handling of the referendum means it is unlikely he will be able to avoid the humiliating Commons showdown.
The 16-page booklets, which will be delivered to every household in the UK, will tell voters it is best to remain in the EU at this summer’s in/out referendum.
As much as I am looking forward to seeing Dave squirm in defence of his deplorably undemocratic, but quite EU-esque, decision; part of me hopes he will not be deterred from sending out his “Leaflet of Lies.”
It won’t do the Remainian cause any good; they know the arguments aren’t on their side, whether it’s democracy, security or immigration, they’ve failed to convince the people of this country; and just flooding out more of the same, won’t change that.
We know what all the lies are, and better still, we know all the answers to them;
So I say, “Bring it on, Dave, bring it on!”
On FaceBook, I saw this small piece of useful advice as to how to react on receipt of the government’s “Leaflet of Lies”:
“Tear the shit up and send one half to 10 Downing Street SW1A 2AA and the other to; The In Campaign, St Bride’s House, Salisbury Sq, EC4Y 8EH.”
Of course, whether or not you attach expensive postage stamps, is entirely up to you…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Anti-EUSSR campaigners in the Netherlands are urging Britons to take their chance to leave the undemocratic bloc by voting for Brexit in our June referendum.
A treaty, which is designed to bring Ukraine into the EU’s sphere of influence, has been automatically accepted by mandarins in 27 member states including Britain.
But the Dutch people, furious with their Government’s constant ceding of powers to Brussels, came together to force a vote on it and the latest opinion polls show they will reject it overwhelmingly in the latest sign of how the country’s voters are turning against the EUSSR elite.
Dutch voters though expected to reject the EUSSR’s expansionist scheming when they went to the polls in a referendum on Wednesday 6th April, have been warned their views may well be ignored by unelected bureaucrats.
Exit polls appear to confirm that Dutch voters have, as expected overwhelmingly voted “No”
An overwhelming two-thirds of the population were expected to vote against a proposed Brussels deal with Ukraine in what is being interpreted as a widespread rebellion against the whole European project.
Arrogant Euro-rats were so confident of railroading the deal through that it is already provisionally in place.
Today Dutch opponents to the deal warned Euro-rats that railroading through the deal against their wishes would almost certainly spur-on a Brexit vote, as well as intensifying calls for a similar referendum on Nederexit.
Thierry Baudet, one of the campaigners who were instrumental in bringing about the referendum, said: “If politicians ignore the Dutch ‘no’ then it will be an even stronger signal than what the British have already received — that there is no way to correct the European political class and that they should vote to leave.”
Noises have already begun to emanate from the Europhile Dutch government and Brussels that the referendum is not legally binding.
But Holland’s parliament is governed by an unstable coalition with a slim majority, which may find it hard to go against the wishes of its own people on Europe.
The proposed deal with Ukraine has, of course, already been signed off by Cameron.
It proposes a huge shift in political, trade and defence cooperation between Brussels and Kiev, which is seen as the first step towards Ukraine becoming a full EU member.
But it has gone down like a lead balloon with the Dutch public, who are increasingly turning against the EUSSR as calls for a Brexit continue to gather pace.
The predicted ‘no’ vote would be yet another disaster for beleaguered Brussels and would only add to the rising anti-EUSSR sentiment sweeping Europe.
The whole project has become so unpopular that today Holland’s government issued a desperate plea to voters urging them to ignore the EUSSR’s involvement in the deal.
Finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem said: “I hope the Dutch can get over their chagrin and say: ‘Yes, we are annoyed with Europe, we are annoyed with this Dutch government, but we will still support Ukraine.”
He also angered the Dutch public by saying that, even if they reject the deal, “the government position is that we will follow the law, which simply says we will reconsider”.
That remark has added to a growing impression that the government will seek to preserve the treaty, or its essence whatever the outcome, in direct defiance of democracy.
In 2005 Dutch voters broke from a pro-European tradition and in a referendum rejected controversial plans for an all-encompassing EU constitution.
Their overwhelming “No” vote then followed a similar verdict in a French referendum just days earlier, and led to the plan being “withdrawn.” It was amended slightly and reappeared, rebranded; and was rubber-stamped as the Lisbon Treaty.
Nobody could spot any real difference; except as a Treaty, it merely needed Europhile leader’s signatures; not referenda.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
8th April
I don’t think that I can remember any previous British Government lying so consistently and so often about any political issue, as our current Government has about our forthcoming Referendum.
Here are a couple more;
On 9th June 2015, Philip Hammond promised Parliament that: “It will be for the yes and the no campaigns to lead the debate in the weeks preceding the poll. The campaigns will be designated by the Electoral Commission, and will receive a number of benefits, including a public grant and eligibility to make a referendum broadcast and to send a free mail-shot to voters. I can assure the House that the Government has no intention of undermining those campaigns … The Government will exercise proper restraint to ensure a balanced debate during the campaign.”
On 16th June 2015, the Minister for Europe, David Lidington MP, stated in Parliament that: “The Government is not a campaign: it is not the Government’s job to supplant the role of the lead campaign organisations during the referendum campaign, and it is certainly not our intention to act in that way. We have always been clear that it is not our intention that the Government should be a lead campaigner in the referendum.”
Yet now, despite Hammond & Lidington’s assurances to the House, the Government has just announced that it is intending; without any Cabinet discussion; to spend £9 million of tax-payers’ money, on a single mail-shot to 27 million homes; not presenting a balanced view of the UK’s membership of the EU; but stating the reasons why the Government believes we should remain a member of that failing, inefficient, over-regulating, rotten, corrupt and undemocratic abomination.
In his defence, Cameron said; “There is nothing to stop the Government from setting out its view in advance of the campaign and that’s what the government did in 1975, when we last had a referendum.”
Yes, Dave; but that was Harold Wilson; he was lying, too; if you’re happy to be tarred with that brush, I wash my hands of you…
Under The European Union Referendum Act 2015, the designated ‘Remain’ and ‘Leave’ campaigns groups can each spend no more than £7 million on the entirety of their campaign activities during the last ten weeks of the campaign.
It is now clear that, despite their earlier lies the Government WILL be the lead Remainian referendum campaigner.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
