“Project Fear” by “Cameron & the Remainians” Part 6
Part 1 is HERE ……………….……….. Part 2 is HERE
Part 3 is HERE ……….……………….. Part 4 is HERE
Part 5 is HERE
And so to Part 6
28th April
Every year millions of pounds are raised by charities, from the donations of the generous; often for starving people in Africa…
And every year, I find myself asking, why?
Why again?
Why still?
Why every single year?
Well, here’s part of the answer;
Some of the saddest and most disturbing reasons for Africa’s continued poverty are the EU’s policies.
Both the Common Agricultural Policy and EU trade tariffs keep African farmers poor and use the UK’s money to do it.
Continental European farmers are subsidised to produce more food than we can eat, distorting the global food market.
African farmers cannot compete and are forced into subsistence farming, where one bad season brings economic ruin and a couple of bad seasons mean starvation.
EU Tariffs mean that in 2014 the whole of Africa made just under $2.4 billion from coffee exports, while Germany made $3.8 billion.
Germany made more money from coffee without growing a single bean than a whole continent which grows vast amounts.
Germany’s coffee producers need cheap, raw beans to make money, so there is no import tariff on green, unprocessed coffee.
That’s why the vast bulk of African coffee exports are unprocessed.
But there are import tariffs on processed coffee because it is in the processing, branding, packaging and marketing that Germany makes its money.
These tariffs protect it from African competition.
And it’s the same story with cocoa.
The £350 million we send to the EU every week is helping it to keep some of the poorest people in the world in poverty.
The EU is using YOUR money to do it.
But what about our farmers?
They receive EU subsidies too, don’t they?
Well, just enough to keep our farming industry addicted to EU membership.
But think about what happens to the rest of our money;
It goes to those heavily subsidised farms on the continent.
Our farmers are being taxed to subsidise their competitors to keep African farmers in poverty.
It’s utterly indefensible.
The EU won’t change because it doesn’t see the need to.
But the UK isn’t like that.
Not the UK I know. Not the UK I love.
That is why I will vote to leave the EU and that is why I urge you to do the same.
We need to tell as many people as possible that a vote to Leave is also a vote to help some of the world’s poorest people.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
In a speech today, 27th April, Alan Johnson compared the referendum vote to the 1945 general election that brought in Clement Attlee’s post-war Labour government which created the NHS.
I would have thought a more relevant comparison would be with the referendum in 1975; the was a lot of lying, scare stories from the pro-Europe; then EEC; in that one, too.
But, “The vote in the referendum on the EU on June 23 is every bit as important as that election in July 1945,” is what he said.
He went on; “It is vital that our unions campaign for Britain to remain in Europe and campaign for a Europe that protects working people and keeps the swivel-eyed alliance of the right of the Tory Party and UKIP off our rights at work. To protect the jobs that depend on our EU membership and the protections at work guaranteed through our EU membership, it is vital that our unions campaign for Britain to remain in Europe.”
Those jobs do NOT “…depend on our EU membership,” they depend on trade with the EU.
Similarly there are millions of jobs within the EU that depend on EU trade with the UK.
There is absolutely no likelihood that trade between the EU and the UK will cease; which is the only way any of those jobs would be under threat.
There have been lots of Remainian scare-stories about this.
To put it simply;
Why do we get trade arrangements?
We get them because it is to the mutual benefit of both parties.
The EU sells much more to the UK than the UK sells to the EU.
There are many more EU jobs that depend on EU-UK trade than there are UK jobs that depend on EU-UK trade.
So, however much Brexit may upset Brussels politically; any counter-productive, tit-for-tat trade behaviour, like a tariff war, would hurt the EU a lot more than it would hurt the UK and EU industries would stand for it.
Then Alan Johnson accused pro-Brexit Tories like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson of wanting to strip away workers’ rights; saying, “Their vision is a small state with few, if any, workplace rights, and the Thatcherite ‘supply side’ economy that Nigel Lawson was eulogising the other day. They know the EU protects workers’ interests, and it’s one of the principal reasons why they want to leave the EU.”
First off, that last bit, “…one of the principal reasons why they want to leave the EU,” is a bald-faced lie; enough said.
Second; as Alan Johnson knows very well, ALL current regulations will remain in force following a Brexit.
It will then be up to the newly-Sovereign, elected Government of the UK to decide which to keep; which to amend; and which to repeal.
For the first time in over 40 years those decisions will be made by our elected Government; and if we don’t like the result, we will, be able to kick them out; alleluia!
This is a Referendum campaign about Brexit; not a General Election campaign about forming a government.
Third; I would suggest that the most important “Worker’s right” of all is a fair wage. And there is no doubt that uncontrolled immigration from EU countries has kept UK workers’ wages artificially low.
Remember Lord Stuart Rose, the chairman of ‘Britain Stronger in Europe,’ (when he can remember its name), dropping yet another clanger, (he can’t have many clangers left; I bet BSE hope he’s run out!), when he was addressing that Parliamentary committee.
Rosie put his foot in his mouth when asked if, in stopping the “Free Movement” of Labour, Brexit would cause a pay-rise for British workers.
He replied; “Well, if you’re short of labour the price will frankly go up. So yes…”
Then Rosie stuck his other foot in his mouth by adding, “But that’s not necessarily a good thing.”
So Brexit will in fact promote that most basic “Worker’s Right” — a fair wage.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence, confirming what some of us have been saying for some time, has warned that the Free Movement of citizens around the EU is “in conflict” with the need to maintain security.
Open borders across Europe have allowed Daʿesh to infiltrate “sleeper cells” across the continent and into the UK.
These cells are poised to launch Paris or Brussels-style massacres, the America’s intelligence chief has warned.
He said there is evidence of Daʿesh (ISIL, ISIS or IS) fighters in Britain, Germany and Italy planning outrages like those witnessed in France and Belgium.
He has warned that some have taken advantage of the migrant crisis to slip in to Europe and has called for better intelligence sharing between member states.
The comments echo warnings by the head of MI5 that Daʿesh is intent on carrying out mass casualty attacks in the UK.
Mr Clapper, the principal intelligence adviser to the US President, warned Daʿesh was spreading in Europe and that the Schengen agreement to allow free movement was costing the EU its security.
Which begs the question; did Obama know this when he was telling us we should vote to Remain In?
Of course he did; clearly demonstrating that the US economy matters more to him, than the safety & security of his British friends.
Briefing journalists in America, James Clapper said: “There’s a fundamental conflict — on the one hand there is the European Union’s incentives and drives to promote openness and free movement of people and goods and privacy, which is in some ways in conflict with the responsibility each country has as a nation state to protect the security of its border and its people.”
Mr Clapper also became the most senior Western official to publicly acknowledge Daʿesh’s extensive reach into the continent.
Asked whether the UK, Germany and Italy specifically had sleeper cells similar to the ones which carried out terror attacks in Brussels and Paris, he said: “Yes, they do. This is obviously a concern of ours and our European allies. We continue to see evidence of plotting on the part of ISIL in the countries you name.”
Daʿesh fighters were behind the slaughter of 130 people in Paris in November and 32 people in a double suicide bombing in Brussels in March.
In the weeks and months since the attacks Mr Clapper said a rough portrait of the extremists’ presence in Europe had begun to emerge. It suggested the UK and Germany were particularly vulnerable to attack.
Mr Clapper said: “We’ve learned that they are fanatic, very OPSEC (operational security) conscious; they’re very mindful of that.”
“They have taken advantage of the migrant crisis in Europe; something which the nations, I think, have a growing awareness of.”
Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, said: “This is a worrying view which needs to taken very seriously as it comes from a key ally which works with the UK closely on these matters.
“There are worrying concerns about free movement across the EU. Once someone passes through the external border of the EU there are simply no checks before they get to the UK. Even there they are not challenged robustly enough as they are EU citizens. These gaps need to be addressed.”
And Brexit would undoubtedly be one effective step towards that being “addressed.”
More than 800 people are believed to have left both countries to join Daʿesh in Syria and Iraq and, as far as the UK is concerned, around half are believed to have returned.
Thereby lies our major concern; “…believed to have returned;” we don’t actually know. With the Schengen plan & EU Free Movement; we have no way of knowing.
One in five of those are considered a “high risk” and seven major plots have been thwarted in Britain in the last 18 months alone. That conservative estimate; “One in five” of “around half;” indicates that there are thought to be about 80 Daʿesh fighters loose; forming those “sleeper cells,” previously mentioned.
Eight were involved in killing over 130 people in Paris; just three in the attacks in Brussels.
I wonder if Dave, Theresa et al still really think we’re “Safer In”
And just in case you think what little border security we have will keep terrorists out; we now know that a key suspect in both the Paris and Brussels attacks, Mohamed Abrini, without our knowledge, visited “friends” in the UK last summer.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
If, despite the loads of dosh banks such as JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs have shovelled into Remainian coffers, the UK were to leave the EU, do the Treasury really think the bulk of the financial sector will head for Paris or Frankfurt?
Some misguided banks might, but not for long.
London is at the centre of the time zone and English the international trading language.
London is also the legal and accounting centre of the world.
The infrastructure here to raise capital and finance foreign trade is tried and tested and people from international backgrounds love working here. There are more than 300,000 French people alone working across London.
By comparison, Frankfurt and Paris are financial villages.
Building the necessary infrastructure in either would be a 20-year project, and the EU won’t last that long.
The validity of the HM Treasury mandarins’ forecasts, 14 years in advance, is, putting it kindly, suspect.
They didn’t notice the 2008 crash until it was actually happening.
And the headlines resulting from that forecast; loudly trumpeted by the Chancellor, were lies.
As ever, all we hear from the Remainians is doom and gloom.
They make no mention of the long-term benefits of being part of the failing “European Project;” they know there are none.
All we hear is “we cannot afford to be out.”
The EU has been in economic decline for the best part of 15 years.
The EU dream has turned into a nightmare.
Why would international banks want to leave London and head to the mainland when the EU’s banking sector is hanging in rags; needing an urgent capital injection of at least £230 billion, very soon?
Unshackled from the European Commission’s sclerotic labyrinth of mostly irrelevant regulation; and guided by regulation from the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority; the City will be able to continue increase its international presence.
Brexit should be a celebration for the City.
It’s not a leap into darkness, but a stride into the light.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Downing Street joined in with racism charges against Boris for describing Mr Obama as “part-Kenyan with an ancestral dislike for the British Empire”.
Boris was simply stating the facts.
Barack Obama’s father WAS Kenyan.
In his book “Dreams From My Father,” he also reveals his distaste for Britain’s colonial history.
(Boris could have added that Obama is the product of a bigamous, ultra-short marriage; but he didn’t; so I won’t… …oh…whoops)
Yet the reaction to Boris’s remarks, orchestrated by No10, bordered on the hysterical.
President Obama may be is entitled to speak up for American interests; though wrong to threaten us.
But as one of the leading lights of the Brexit campaign, Boris is justified in questioning the President’s motives.
Mr Obama has brazenly offered up British sovereignty as the price America is prepared to pay to save the EU.
Worse, he wants us to stay in the EU for exactly the reasons we want to get OUT; the looming collapse of the Euro and uncontrollable mass immigration.
Washington is terrified the disastrous single currency is about to come unstuck, plunging the world into another recession.
This is a genuine threat; almost inevitable.
It is in America’s interests to try and stop it.
But Britain can no more stop the EU imploding than it can change the weather.
President Obama argues we have a voice at the top table.
But we have spoken up on countless occasions, only to be ignored or shouted down.
Mr Obama credits the EU with avoiding conflict in Europe for the past 70 years.
But there has been no credible threat to peace since 1945; thanks to the NATO military alliance, not the muddled EU.
And, wrong again, he suggests Britain would be lucky to sell a bag of sweets to America for ten years if we quit the EU.
Well, Britain has no trade deal with America right now, yet we happily buy and sell goods and services worth around £35 billion a year each.
It is true the Eurozone is in imminent danger.
Greece is an economic corpse.
Italy is on the brink.
But Brussels has no solution except to bind member states at great expense into ever-closer union.
As for immigration, Europe is overrun by newcomers whose culture and religion put them at odds with the host community.
As long as we are members, our population will rise in step; by at least three million over the next few years, says the Treasury.
As “good Europeans”, we are apparently supposed to just accept this.
It is remarkable that in his lecture to Britain last week, the Leader of the Free World did not even mention Boris’s central point about sovereignty and democracy.
America, quite rightly, would never surrender border control. It would never answer to remote and unaccountable organisations as we do to Brussels and the European Court of Justice.
Crucial issues of democracy and sovereignty lie at the heart of our In/Out debate.
They affect every part of our daily lives; law and order, the economy, trade, human rights.
We have no independent voice in Brussels.
If we vote to remain in the EU, we surrender even the meagre influence we still have.
We cannot save the euro.
We cannot control Europe’s external borders.
But Boris is right; once out, we would at least be able to avoid being sucked down by the sinking ship.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
If we vote to remain a member of the EU on the 23rd June, then the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels will get their unseen plans out of the drawer and carry on with the business of Ever More Union; inexorably ratchetting powers inwards from member nations; building the United States of Europe.
Despite what the Remainians claim, reforming this complex & corrupt political structure is impossible.
Unreformability is at the heart of its DNA; it is designed by treaty to ensure reform never, ever happens.
We have been attempting to reform it for years and the answer is always the same; more Europe and less national sovereignty.
Look at the pathetic packet of paltry promises and half-arsed assurances that constituted their best offer in the face of the threat of Brexit
If we vote to remain, Dave’s Dismal Deal will probably be ripped up and forgotten anyway.
There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop that happening; trivial as it is, it’s not legally-binding; not even worth the paper it’s written on.
Let’s not forget that this supposed promoter of democracy has removed a democratically elected government twice in the last five years in Italy and Greece, and installed unelected Brussels-approved Bureaucrats & Accountants.
European Parliamentary election turnouts are so low because people feel extremely dissatisfied with this out-of-date, unprogressive political union.
Subsequently we are now seeing the rise of extremist groups and far-left and far-right political parties across the continent.
And yet the EU is meant to bring about peace and harmony?
The Euro is crashing; bouncing from crisis to crisis; bail-out to bail-out; costing the UK more & more each time…
The UK’s unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent, the EU’s average is 8.9 per cent, and the Eurozone stands at 10.3 per cent: this is evidence of a failing European economy.
The European Union is the only declining trade bloc in the world.
And our EU membership forbids us making our own trade deals with emerging economies that would benefit them and British businesses.
The EU is failing and will eventually disintegrate disastrously; we need to be out before that
The 23rd June will be the last chance to make a planned exit; to take back control of our democracy and our own affairs.
We can be stronger, richer and more influential if we vote to leave.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
It is a bit pointless to argue yet about the mechanics of Brexit.
Our aim is to achieve it; winning the Referendum with a “Leave” vote
What happens after that will be down to the government.
But, that being said;
Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is not the best way to go; it leads to up to two years of negotiations under EU terms; and we would remain under the EU yoke during that time.
Nor do we want to go through further protracted negotiations with all EU nations; possibly another referendum, as appears to be suggested by this letter.
By far the simplest and quickest exit would be achieved by repealing, or amending the 1972 European Communities Act, which establishes the primacy of EU law over our own UK law.
Thus getting our laws back under our control and putting our government in control again
The morass of EU regulation, much of which is costly, unnecessary and undesirable, would become UK regulation; which we would then be free to accept, repeal or amend as our national interest requires.
And we would continue to trade with the EU, as the rest of the world does today; almost certainly assisted by a bilateral free trade agreement, which they need far more than we do.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
At least one Euro-rat, President Jean-Claude Juncker’s chief of staff Martin Selmayr, really doesn’t seem to care if we vote to leave.
With only weeks to go before the Brexit poll he has written to German transport minister Alexander Dobrindt, expressing his “concerns” about the legality of the UK’s road tolls for heavy goods vehicles.
Apparently, the EU believes this breaches the bloc’s equal treatment rules as our government simultaneously lowered excise duty for British trucks; effectively, says Selmayr, penalising foreign vehicles driving on UK highways.
Selmayr also states that the Commission will start legal proceedings against Britain; seemingly unaware, or not bothered that this could send many currently undecided voters into the Brexit camp.
As German news magazine Spiegel has pointed out; “The European Commission in Brussels is currently seeking to avoid any actions that could generate negative coverage in the UK and have an unfavourable impact on the referendum vote on EU membership; scheduled to take place there on June 23. EU legal proceedings over a British law are the last thing Prime Minister David Cameron, and others who want to see the UK stay in the union, need at the moment.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Half a lifetime ago, when this country last had a debate on our relationship with Europe, two of the most iconic political figures of the age — Enoch Powell and Tony Benn — both campaigned against the UK’s membership of what was then the European Economic Community. The reasoning of these wildly different men was the same — their objection to the subservience of an elected government to unelected foreign bodies, the meek surrender of our national sovereignty, the fundamental lack of democracy in the EEC.
Since joining the EEC, Britain has lost control of all that is fundamental to what Abraham Lincoln described as,
“Government Of the People, By the People, For the People.”
As Tony Benn once said,
“If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democracy.”
And it is the unelected European Commission, with its current President Jean-Claude Juncker, that governs the EU.
We have absolutely no say in choosing its members and certainly cannot “get rid of” them.
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 false foundation on which the United States of Europe is being built.
Every single EU Treaty, from the Treaty of Rome, 1958; Our Accession Treaty of Brussels, in 1972; the Schengen Treaty, 1985; the Maastricht Treaty, 1993; Amsterdam Treaty, 1997; Nice Treaty, 2001; through to the Lisbon Treaty, 2007; has been about “Ever Closer Union” and the total elimination of National Sovereignty; what they describe as, “…this supreme and catastrophic evil.”
The United States of Europe is the single aim of the so-called “European Project”
In the planned United States of Europe, there will be no England.
Instead of the UK there will be Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland; plus however many regions England is divided into…
The EU likes Regions; it prefers them to countries, which tend to have awkward electorates…
This division of the UK was started by successive Europhile UK Governments introducing and increasing “Devolution”
Remember Blair’s “Regional Assemblies,” which he unwisely left in the incapable ham-fists of “Two-Jags” John Prescott, to manage?
In a typically cynical vote-catcher, Cameron got rid of those; but is now quietly re-introducing them; rebranded as regional “Elected Mayors”
The EU is a burning monolith of failure and corruption. We are trapped within its walls scrabbling around for the key to the escape door. Come the referendum, the British people will have the key; we must open the door and get out.
It is time to face up to the real choice, to have the destiny of our country determined by an unelected Politburo in Brussels;
Or to give our children and grandchildren the freedom to shape their own future;
In an Independent, Democratic and Sovereign UK
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Boris Johnson writes;
So I gather they think it’s game over.
The Bremainers think they have bombed us into submission.
They think that we have just seen the turning point in the referendum campaign, and that the British people are so intimidated by these testimonials; American presidents, business leaders, fat cats of every description; that they now believe the British people will file meekly to the polls in two months time and consent to stay in the EU; and thereby to the slow and insidious erosion of democracy in this country.
If that is indeed the view of the Remain campaign, they are crowing too soon.
They are perhaps ignoring the resilience and thoughtfulness of many middle-of-the-roaders.
One senior public servant; a man of no political party, and who had previously been on the fence; texted me after the US intervention and said he had been so outraged at President Obama’s “back of the queue” remark that he had instantly decided to vote Leave.
But let us suppose that the Bremainers are right in their complacency.
Let’s imagine that we all wake up on June 24, and discover that the people have indeed been so cowed and so perplexed by the scare stories that they voted to Remain.
What then?
There will be instant jubilation in Brussels, of course; champagne corks going off like Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture.
Among the vast clerisy of lobbyists and corporate affairs gurus; all the thousands of Davos men and women who have their jaws firmly clamped around the euro-teat; there will be relief.
Things will go on as they are; indeed, things will go into overdrive.
For more than a year now, Brussels has been in a self-imposed lockdown.
Nothing must be done to frighten the children.
The British referendum; that embarrassing and tedious genuflection to democracy; must be safely won; and then they will get their plans out of the drawer and get on with the business of building a federal superstate.
You may have noticed, however, that the Euro crisis is far from over, and that the EU remains a gigantic engine of job destruction.
Eight years after the disaster began; it is obvious that the problem is structural, not cyclical.
In Spain, Portugal and Greece, a whole generation of young people has been sacrificed to the Moloch [somebody or something that requires a costly and painful sacrifice] of the Euro; and they are still on the dole. The Greeks are unable to pay their debts; the Italian banks have a €360 billion black hole.
In response, the EU plans “more Europe”, a fiscal and political union, in which Britain would inevitably be involved.
Remember we were told we wouldn’t have to pay for the Greek bail-outs?
And then we did?
According to the European Commission’s Five Presidents’ Report, which lays out plans to shore up the euro, the Commission wants to have a new European approach to company law, to property rights, to every aspect of employment law.
Why?
Because if the Germans are to be persuaded to engage in a perpetual bankrolling of the less prosperous regions of the EU, then they want proper Germanic rules to enforce good behaviour.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. And Brussels can see only one way to save the Euro; and that is to get Germany to pay, and therefore to allow Germany to call the tune.
Remember that twice in the last five years, the EU has removed a democratically elected government; in Italy and Greece; and installed Brussels-approved technocrats.
It is a toxic tyranny.
They want to go on with the work of building a unitary state, in a way that is anti-democratic and ultimately very dangerous, since it will one day provoke real public anger.
Britain should not be involved in any of this; and yet we have absurdly and inexcusably given up our veto rights; and the whole process is going to be conducted within the “single market;” that is, the existing EU structures; so that we are morally and legally comprised, and share all the ensuing political and economic damage.
Inch by inch, month by month, the sausage machine of EU law-making will extrude more laws; at a rate of 2,500 a year, or perhaps even faster, once the referendum is out of the way.
More and more people will exercise their unfettered rights to come to this country, putting more pressure on our public services. And eventually; when we are unable to take it anymore; the UK will utter a faint sheepish cough of protest.
Please sir, we will say; raising our hand in the EU Council, we need reform.
And eyebrows will shoot up in a Batemanesque way.
REFORM? They will say, in the tones of Lady Bracknell.
REFORM? But you just had reform…
If there is one thing that proves the folly of remaining in the EU; in the hope that we can change things from within; it is the tragic poverty of that deal.
The Prime Minister asked to restore social and employment legislation to national control; for a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental rights; to stop the European court adjudicating on UK criminal law; to ensure that immigrants have a job offer before entering the UK; to revise the Working Time directive to protect the NHS; to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and the structural funds; and full-on Treaty change.
What did we get?
Two thirds of diddly squat.
We need to talk about that deal in the weeks ahead, because it shows how contemptuously we will be treated if we vote to remain.
This is the last chance, in our lifetimes, to take back control; of £350m a week (and use some of that cash to deliver a seven-day NHS); and the last chance to take back control of our democracy.
Of course the elites want to remain.
They will always have power.
The losers are the hundreds of millions of Europeans whose only power is their vote; their ability to sack their governments at elections.
That power is being taken away.
It is indefensible, and it will lead to real trouble.
We can be stronger, richer and more influential if we vote Leave.
In believing that we can all be scared into thinking otherwise, the Remainers are fatally underestimating the British public.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Michael Ancram; The Marquess of Lothian was former chairman and deputy leader of the Conservative Party and shadow foreign secretary; writing in today’s (26.4.16) Telegraph, says;
“While I admire and love the US, the spectacle of its president seeking to persuade me and my fellow countrymen to sell ourselves out of national existence finally persuaded me as someone who still believes in Britain that I had no honest option but to vote to leave.”
“I wasn’t surprised by Mr Obama’s strong opposition to the concept of Brexit. For all my political life it has been America’s wish to see the historic nations of Europe fade into a single European entity; or to use the president’s word, “bloc;” the single voice which could then more easily be persuaded to do its bidding.”
“There is nothing dishonourable in pursuing one’s country’s interests.”
“What was offensive and counterproductive was for Mr Obama to present it as being out of concern for the interests of the British people.”
“It was not, and is not.”
“The president’s disingenuousness is only the latest in the string of mendacious tactics adopted by the Remain campaign; as they have been overtaken by panic, their lies have flown thicker and thicker.”
“But for 40 years, now, we’ve been lied to about the EU.”
“And I’ve had enough.”
“Ever since we were first conned into voting for the EU by Harold Wilson, the steady pursuit of and progress towards ever-closer union and ultimately the achievement of complete integration has meant a grinding erosion of our hard-won freedoms and rights and in the process a damaging corrosion of our democracy.”
“When some 12 years ago we resisted the introduction of a European constitution, I believed that if we were determined enough, there was still a chance of achieving real and lasting reform. As shadow foreign secretary, I called frequently for a return to the Europe of Nations, sovereign states trading freely with one another, co-operating where it was mutually beneficial to do so but retaining our rights of self-determination.”
“Such reform, however, was never on the Blair government’s agenda; if anything, the opposite was.”
“Nevertheless, I remained hopeful that a future Conservative government would at least try.”
“After the 2010 election, during the Coalition years, the Lib Dems stymied any such initiative.”
“But I remained hopeful — particularly since David Cameron, in speaking boldly of a reformed EU, inferred that he would move in that direction. After the Tory victory last year, Cameron’s rhetoric remained the same: reform Europe or get out appeared to be his message.”
“In the event, he didn’t even try. Following a mockery of a renegotiation, he now with almost unimaginable cynicism claims a Europe reformed and asks us to vote for it.”
“The blunt truth is that even as it faces the twin traumas of mass migration and Eurozone instability, Europe remains grimly, resolutely, unreformed.”
“It’s the same Europe he previously criticised and was so keen to reform; it is still-hell bent on the achievement of a wholly united Europe within which our once proud country would become a mere region.”
“Yet Cameron now calls on us to vote for it, predicting dire consequences if we do not.”
“Forty years ago, fed the same arguments and reassurance that further integration was not on the agenda, I was taken in by Wilson.”
“I do not intend to be taken in again.”
“An honest Remain campaign would admit that they are asking us to vote for that country called Europe.”
“They do not do so, because they know that the British people would reject it out of hand.”
“They should at the very least try to explain how the EU has been reformed; they dare not because it hasn’t.”
“Their last resort is to try to scare us about the consequences of leaving.”
“Today yet another insidious argument is being peddled by the Remain campaign: that only by staying in the EU can we achieve reform in the future.”
“I have heard that argument, the “confiture tomorrow” scenario, on and off for the past 40 years; decades during which I have watched the ratchet constantly being turned in the opposite direction.”
“The real choice we face on June 23 is between signing up to the European Project or getting out.”
“If the British people vote for a United States of Europe so be it.”
“In that case let it be for good and positive reasons.”
“We would betray of our future if we were to allow ourselves to be scared into doing so by unsubstantiated short-term fears, and we would be shutting the door for a generation or more on the chance to get out from under the heavy heel of a Europe we neither trust nor like.”
“There are some who predict that the EU will soon self-destruct because of its fatal flaws; so none of this really matters.”
“But even if that were true, I would rather be watching from the outside than participating from within. Indeed, I never thought I would come to this view but for the sake of my children and grandchildren, I believe the time has come to nail our courage to the main mast and to renew our faith in our great and historic nation.”
“That is why on June 23 I will be voting to leave.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
When Britain first, at Heaven’s command, arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land, and guardian angels sang this strain:
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
The nations, not so blest as thee, must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish, great and free; the dread and envy of them all.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
Still more majestic shalt thou rise, more dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies, serves but to root thy native oak.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
Thee haughty tyrants ne’er shall tame: all their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame; but work their woe, and thy renown.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
To thee belongs the rural reign; thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main, and every shore it circles thine.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
The Muses, still with freedom found, shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned, and manly hearts to guard the fair.
“Rule, Britannia! Britannia rules the waves: Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet,
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
26th April
Following Obama’s patronising bullying, I was among many who questioned the possibility of the United States ever allowing itself to fall into the kind of supranational mess the UK is mired in at the moment.
Then I decided to have another look at their Declaration of Independence; seeming to remember some gems in there.
There are more than just a few gems!
There are whole seams of Brexiteer gold.
Except of course, the Americans started their Revolution first, and a year later produced their Declaration; a little arse-about-face, but as a warning of what could happen in parts of Europe before very long, it’s worth reading…
First we have “The Introduction;” a very reasonable intro for a Brexit manifesto:
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Next comes “The Preamble,” and though the English is dated, there is really nothing to change when it comes to justifying Brexit:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident;
That all men are created equal,
That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;
That among these are; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men; deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed.*
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,** and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,** and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
*In political philosophy, the phrase “consent of the governed” refers to the idea that a government’s legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised.
Article 21 of the United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that; “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”
The “Will of the people” cannot be assumed; it needs to be determined by the use of democratic elections. That is how a legitimate government is “…consented to by the people…”
The European Commission operates as a government, with 28 unelected members of the Commission; European Commissioners; appointed en bloc every 5 years. There is one member per member state, though members are sworn to represent the interests of the EU as a whole, and not their home states. One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker); proposed by the European Council and in a single-candidate ‘election,’ is elected by the European Parliament.
**Dangerously, political philosophy acknowledges a “right of revolution;” the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests. The phrases; “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” and “… to throw off such Government,” are references to the “right of revolution;”
This should be born in mind by any government that ever chooses to ignore the result of a national referendum; which could certainly be described as demonstrating the “…common interests” of “…the people of a nation.”
Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions including the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
The main body of the Declaration, “The Indictment” is entirely aimed at King George III; but one or two of the 28 charges require very little amendment; changing “He” to “They;” for them to ring bells with us now…
#5 “They have dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people;” as in Italy & Greece
#9 “They have made Judges dependent on their Will alone…” That would be the European Court of Justice
#10 “They have has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” EU Inspectors harassing Farmers & DEFRA, in controlling the chaos of CAP spring to mind
#13 “They have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:” EU Decrees, Directives & Regulations
#16 “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:” or at least denying us the chance to make trade-deals
#17 “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:” first VAT, but others will follow, if we remain in…
The next part was “The Denunciation;” aimed at the British people then; with some abridgement, it could be a message to Remainians and anti-Brexiteers everywhere today:
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us…
…We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence…
…They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
And so we come to “The Conclusion,” which contains the actual “Declaration:”
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare:
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honour.”
Someday, that could, of course, be rephrased, thus:
“We, the Representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Mother of Parliaments, assembled, do in the name of, and by the Authority of the good People of the UK, solemnly publish and declare:
That this United Kingdom is, a Free and Independent State; that is Absolved from all Allegiance to the European Union, and that all political connection between the UK and the EU, is totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent State, we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our Honour.”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
I’ve been to the USA several times; visiting most of the US States.
My wife and I have “adopted families” in Wisconsin and Arkansas; there’s contrast!
I love America and many Americans;
But the press conference that Obama and Cameron gave on Friday 22nd April, the eve of St George’s Day, was a British humiliation.
It was an embarrassment.
That a Prime Minister should draft in a US President to stand next to him and lean on us; delivering threats that help him in his failing referendum struggle was shameful.
Once again, Cameron shows what he thinks of the electorate; and Obama shows what he thinks of the UK and the British.
He probably doesn’t hate us; but neither he nor Cameron respect us either.
As an A-list celeb Obama happily, if awkwardly mingles with our Royals; but he’s very clearly quite lost in the complexity of the historical relationship between the UK and the USA.
The Brits were stitched up something-rotten, on the debt front, by the US after WWII, with the intent to destroy the British Empire and what was left of our clout; but we’ll usually overlook that if discussions are conducted with a certain respect.
I don’t mean the use of the bogus phrase “Special Relationship;”
We know that’s a fraud.
It’s trotted-out by the US State Department in relation to damn near every country that POTUS visits.
The Brits can be politely realistic about our relationship behind the scenes.
Just don’t publicly humiliate us.
Don’t come here, swaggering around, bullying, telling us to get to the back of the queue when our countries and the Commonwealth spilled so much blood together in Normandy and beyond defending freedom and liberating Western Europe; when all we want to do is get back that freedom.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
23rd April
So Barack Obama thinks that a post-Brexit UK would be; “At the back of the queue” when it comes to a trade deal with the USA.
Some years ago, I was with some American friends, in a bar in Mexico, when a group of English people came in and, as we do, formed an orderly queue at the bar. Not seeing this one of my friends walked up to the bar and got some beers; as he turned away, one of the Englishmen called out, “Oy! Don’t you know how to queue?”
My friend said, “Nope,” and returned to our table…
He didn’t know what “Queue” meant; Americans don’t use the word; they say “Line.”
Somebody fed Obama that line…
Obama defended his right to offer an opinion, saying: “In democracies everybody should want more information, not less, and you shouldn’t be afraid to hear an argument being made — that’s not a threat.”
In democracies, you elect the people that make your laws; if you don’t like them, you can elect someone else.
Currently the UK is not a democracy
And yes, that was a threat.
Some time back, Barack Obama’s former classmate, the US Trade representative, Michael Fromen; in another attempt to scare us, poured cold water on the idea of the US agreeing a trade deal with a post-Brexit UK.
But US Republican Presidential hopeful, Jeb Bush countered, with the Republican Party line;
“Great Britain is a sovereign nation, and they must make this decision about their relationship with Europe on their own. The US should not bully an ally. That said, if Great Britain made that decision (Brexit) of course the US would work with them on a trade agreement.”
And the motive for Fromen’s scare tactic became clear when it was revealed that he & his wife both used to work for the EU; he was a member of the “Forward Studies Unit” (whatever that is) of the European Commission.
Obama’s threat might mean something if it had been one of the Presidential hopefuls saying it; but Barack, the most unpopular US President, in recent history, is a lame duck; on his way out.
I seriously doubt that US industry that sells so much to us, are of the same view…
Of course we’d rapidly get a deal with the US…
And it’s worth remembering that the secretly negotiated US-EU Trade deal; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; over two years in negotiating so far; is NOT the kind of deal we want any part of.
TTIP is the greatest threat there is to our NHS;
One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This would essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.
The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP.
However, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS are still on the table.
Brexit would mean that we’d escape that.
I’ll say again; does Barack Obama not understand that we don’t like taking instructions from foreigners; especially ones we haven’t elected? That is, after all, one of the reasons we are having a referendum; so we no longer have to.
If we object to Europeans who we haven’t elected, telling us what to do; what makes him think we will accept an American who we haven’t elected, telling us what to do?
Barack, most of us Brits aren’t called Tony, or Blair…
If American friends ask me why I want the UK to leave the EU; why we don’t just get on with it, be more positive and make the EU 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 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…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Does anyone understand how UK Corporation Tax works?
If a business “…rolls over losses from previous years,” and so ends up in the happy position of not having paid any UK Corporation Tax since 2008; yet “…paid out dividends worth £335,000 to shareholders, in May 2014,” is that all above board?
I only ask because the business in question is Osborne and Little Group Ltd., and one of the happy shareholders is our Chancellor of the Exchequer, George.
Journalist Fraser Nelson is a Europhile; a dedicated Remainian; (or so he says; I’m not convinced) but he is also an honest man.
Writing in the Spectator on 18th April, he starts: “Sometimes, George Osborne’s dishonesty is simply breathtaking.”
Thanks to Fraser’s explanation, I’m now close to understanding how “Jovial George” and the “Treasury Mob” managed the sleight of hand that ended with the headline: “Everybody £4,300 worse off in 2030”
It’s based on a trick made famous by “Blind Lemon Brown” when he was Don of that mob; back in 2005; when he was breaking new ground in the abuse of statistics.
As Fraser says, “The technique; to present a rise as a fall; is the closest you can get to statistical alchemy.”
Labour had campaigned against “Tory cuts” but the Tories spoilt that by pledging to actually outspend Labour: there would be no cuts.
So what could Brown do?
His answer was brazen and dishonest, but effective.
He announced that Labour would spend £27 billion more than the Tories, and then claimed that the Tories would, therefore be imposing “cuts of £27 billion.”
The technique was politically successful insofar as the public just remember that Big Scary “Cuts of £27 billion.”
So how has Jovial George used maths-magic to get to the blindingly bogus suggestion that Brexit would make you £4,300 worse off?
Fraser points out that; “For anyone who cares about honesty in politics, and the abuse of statistics, this is an interesting case study.”
First George had to pluck a date out of the blue; he chose 2030.
Now, the Treasury Mob projections are rarely correct over 14 months, but George Osborne decided on a forecast which looks 14 years ahead!
This forecast is that by then, the UK economy will have grown about 37%, but they claim that this would only be about 29% growth following a Brexit. Bear in mind this is the bunch of experts who couldn’t forecast the crash of 2008, until it was actually happening…
What George and his minions then did was; first, falsely claim that we would be “permanently poorer” referring to the difference between 29% GDP GROWTH and 37% GDP GROWTH.
If you’re told that; “You’re getting a 29% pay-rise; not a 37% one;” you don’t go away thinking you’re going to be 8% “permanently poorer” do you?
You accept that you’re going to be 29% richer…
Then, the second part of George’s con was to relate this possible (forecast/guessed) reduction in GDP growth to Household Income.
They are two completely different things.
As Fraser says; “This is Osborne’s crowning deception, to allow him to conjure up his headline figure of £4,300. This is what he wants households to remember. This is as intellectually dishonest as any manoeuvre ever attempted by Gordon Brown”
The Treasury and the OBR discuss GDP all of the time: they never convert it into a per-household cash figure because (unlike debt, tax etc) they know that’s a pointless exercise; there is no connection.
This, “GDP per household” thing, fraudulently created by George, bears no relation to household income.
If current GDP is divided by the number of households we get £68,000.
Whereas the average household income is in fact £45,400
So having described an increase as a decrease, and then made a bogus conflation of GDP with household income, George came up with:-
“Britain would be permanently poorer if we left the European Union, to the tune of £4,300 for every household in the county. That’s a fact everyone should think about as they consider how to vote.”
That’s not a fact; that’s a lie.
But it is a lie that; “…everyone should think about as they consider how to vote.”
Fraser then says, “I’m a Europhile, but these are the kinds of tactics that make me want to vote ‘out’ — the appalling level of dishonesty with which the government is making the case. If the case for ‘in’ really was a strong as the Chancellor suggests, why would he need to mislead? Perhaps the reason is that he can get away with it: he can cook up a £4,300 figure (a quarter of the average person’s disposable income) and have it repeated enough times for voters to remember.”
That really is the problem; George cooks up the figure and the media repeat it, and repeat it as if it was gospel.
PS: On Question time the other night, one audience member said: “I did some maths on the back of an envelope as well. I should say I’m an economist and a financial adviser. And I took the £10billion of net savings we would make if we left Europe and I multiplied these by 14, which is the number of years up to 2030. I then used the economic credit multiplier, because of course you have the benefit of spending that money, the taxes raised on it, some economic growth and so on. And do you know the figure I came up with? The figure I came up with was £1.5 trillion, which means if we leave the EU we’ll be able to fund and repay the national debt by the time 2030 comes.”
As one Twitter user later tweeted: “Who was that financial/economist audience member on question time who did the envelope maths? He absolutely smashed it!”
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
David Cameron said we must stay in the EU so we can carry on “influencing the decisions that affect us.”
We’re often told by Remainians that; “the UK must be at the top table,” so that we can “reform from the inside.”
Now we are told that research by “VoteWatch Europe;” an independent Brussels-based thinktank; has shown that, between 2009–15, the UK has been on the losing side, in EU Council votes, more often than any other EU government.
The VoteWatch Europe study also found that in the European Parliament, the UK’s MEPs are more likely to be on the losing side than MEP’s of any other country.
So not only do we have very little influence within the EU; we knew that; but now we also know that the UK actually has less influence than any one of the other 27 member-states.
Good luck with “Reforming from the inside” Dave…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
People complain about us Brexiteers banging on about “Project Fear”
But every single day we are drip-fed a diet of apocalyptic horror stories by the Remainian scaremongers; the latest being the Chancellor’s guess at how poor Brexit this year will make us all, in 14 years time…
The Prime Minister decided some months ago to campaign on security, rather than economic arguments.
It wasn’t plausible, he thought then, to say that Britain couldn’t thrive on its own; especially at a time when our economy had been creating more jobs that the rest of Europe put together.
So he’d campaign on the theme that served him so well in the Scottish referendum and last year’s election; safety & security.
Which is a nice way of saying: scare the bejesus out of the voters, and hope for the best.
Project Fear worked in Scotland, because separation from the UK was a genuinely scary prospect; it would have left the new nation’s economy at the mercy of the, now-collapsed, oil price.
Project Fear worked in the general election because Ed Miliband had a long list of terrifying policies, and the prospect of his being propped up by the SNP was quite real.
“Call Me Dave” floated the canard that France will expel British border guards from Calais and we will be flooded with thousands more illegal immigrants from Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and beyond; even though he knew perfectly well that the bilateral Anglo-French treaty which covers border controls at the Channel ports has absolutely nothing to do with our membership of the EU.
He then enlisted the help of a French government minister to repeat this fairy tale; raising the spectre that the Garden of England will soon be carpeted with squalid Calais-style camps, overflowing with violent, testosterone-filled, knife-wielding young migrants hell-bent on rape and robbery.
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond painted a picture of millions of British expats on the Costa del Boy being rounded up and sent home. He knows, under international law, it’s not going to happen but trots out this trash anyway.
How long before he declares that if we have the audacity to vote Leave, a plague of giant rats will immediately be unleashed, visiting upon us a Doomsday scenario of disease and destruction?
Then there’s Theresa May, another alleged Eurosceptic, who is trying to convince us we will be at the mercy of foreign murderers and terrorists if we’re outside the EU.
I’m assuming, as Home Secretary, she realises that while we are still members we can’t stop anyone from the EU settling in this country?
Is Theresa really admitting that she couldn’t protect us from terrorists and illegal immigrants if we were to become an independent nation once more?
As far as the economic case for staying in Europe goes, that, too, is based on a narrative of lies, cowardice and fear.
They’ve enlisted companies such as (German-owned) Rolls-Royce to threaten their employees with losing their jobs if they vote to Leave.
This is despite the fact that the Indian owners of export-led Jaguar Land Rover say the effects of Brexit on their business would be negligible.
The idea that all trade between Britain and the EU would end tomorrow if we quit is patronising nonsense.
This country is the EU’s single biggest export market.
They’ve got far more to lose than we have.
Is BMW going to refuse to sell cars to Britain in a fit of pique?
Will the French and Italians stop selling us wine, or buying Scotch whisky?
Even the Football fraternity is being targeted by “Project Fear”
Tory peer Karren Brady has come out with the idea that leaving the EU would somehow knobble English football, making it hard if not impossible for top Premier League clubs (whoever they are) to sign the best talent from the European continent.
Lady Brady is apparently, the vice chairman of “West Ham,” I’m guessing that “West Ham” isn’t some form of pork product.
Anyway, I’m told that hundreds of non-EU players have been easily signed by Premier clubs with no fuss at all.
For example: ‘Arsenal’ signed Kolo Touré from Ivorian club ASEC Mimosas; ‘West Ham’ signed Carlos Tevez from Brazilian side Corinthians, (I suspect Lady Brady, being Vice-Chairman might know that one) and Dwight Yorke signed for ‘Aston Villa’ having previously only played in his native Trinidad and Tobago.
Apparently, not one of these players came from a member state of the EU or was even playing for a side in the EU when they joined the Premier League.
Fresh hysterical, implausible claims (lies) arrive by the day.
On 23rd March, we heard Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, claiming that our fuel bills will rise if we leave the EU.
Why, given that a third of our energy comes from Norway?
Why should we fear Putin (as she claims/lies) given that we import almost no energy from Russia?
What’s more, as she admitted to The Spectator earlier this month, the green agenda means that fuel bills will rise anyway.
One Remainian spokesman said, “Who’ll be happiest if we vote to leave? Vladimir Putin; Do we want that?”
Did he mean Putin feared us as a member of the EU?
Or that Putin feared the EU while we were members?
Our national security, in relation to all-out war, has nothing to do with our membership of the EU
Our defences rest on our own armed forces, our independent nuclear deterrent, our own vigilance, and our partnership with NATO.
And will continue to do so after Brexit
We will still have the same “Five Eyes,” UK intelligence sharing with the US, Canada, Australia & New Zealand, that is nothing to do with the EU; the UK will still be a leading member of NATO, just not in the EU.
When Poland’s Foreign Minister suggested that Warsaw could support Cameron’s pathetic proposals in exchange for greater protection against the Russian threat, what he was asking for was NATO troops in NATO bases, not the deployment of an EU Rapid Reaction Force.
The claim that the EU is the source of peace within Europe is historically illiterate, scaremongering tosh.
Only “myth-makers” could attribute peace in Europe since World War 2, to the existence of the EUSSR
The EU failed to intervene in conflicts in the Balkans and has often been little more than a “talking shop.”
Leaving aside the fact that it was heavy-handed EU meddling in internal Ukrainian politics, that was at least partly responsible for the Ukrainian crisis in the first place; the existence of the EU, and the UK’s membership of it, didn’t stop Putin annexing Crimea, did it?
And it didn’t stop Russia pushing to the forefront in Syria, did it?
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.
Saying jobs are LINKED to trade with the EU is quite different from saying jobs are DEPENDENT on EU 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 EU should necessarily involve mass unemployment.”
Thus the “three million jobs at risk” lie was based on the stupid idea that if we leave the EU, all our trade with those 27 other member-countries will immediately stop.
Then we had Angular Ally, Gunther Krichbaum, seen by many as Mrs Merkel’s anti-British ‘attack dog,’ claiming 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.”
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.
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 EU!
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.”
We are warned; it will be too hard and far too time-consuming to conclude alternative trade deals;
Apparently we don’t have the requisite skills, desire or attitude in the Foreign Office;
So, immediately following Brexit; despite selling much more to us than we sell to them; the EU will slap punitive tariffs British exports.
Cameron told Scottish Conservatives; “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 will reciprocate; and the German motor industry will naturally be purring with contentment when UK sales of Mercedes, Audi & BMW cars, fall through the floor, as they become 40 or 50% more expensive.
And French wine producers will happily sit back, probably quaffing and applauding, as Beaujolais, Beaune & Bordeaux, costing 60 or 70% more, lose out to their (better, I think) equivalents from Chile, South Africa & Australia.
Oh, but I forgot; without being a member of the EU, for the UK, World Trade will be 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 here 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 turn.
Even a former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has claimed that British ex-pats living in Europe would risk “becoming illegal immigrants overnight”, though 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 it’s only the EU that’s holding him back and apparently the UK’s membership of it is vital to that Herculean task!
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 ourselves from Daesh or al-Qaeda, don’t we?
They worked so well in Paris, twice & Brussels.
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?
These and many other extreme claims that have been made in recent days are laughably implausible, even to nervous, swing voters; It’s all rather pathetic and defeatist.
Fear is only effective as a political strategy if it is credible.
And honesty is the first casualty of political campaigning.
The Prime Minister normally panics at the last minute. This time, he’s panicking early.
But Dave can be forgiven for being nervous: as he knows, he’s losing the argument.
Project Fear is being impaled by its own dishonesty.
The whole tone of the political Remain campaign is depressingly defeatist, devoted to telling us how weak and powerless we are; despite our being the fifth biggest economy in the world and the fourth greatest military power.
But let’s be sure, although I am certain Britain will be better off financially when it leaves the EU, even if I thought it would cost us billions I should still vote to leave.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Cameron disregarded the principle of government neutrality before the referendum with his “Leaflet of Lies;” wasting £9.3millon of taxpayers’ money as he did it.
This supposedly “factual” leaflet is nothing more than a catalogue of unsupported opinions, spurious arguments, half-truths and downright lies.
The mail-shot to 27 million homes is an abuse of government privilege.
It’s a clear attempt to rig the result of the referendum in favour of the Remainian cause.
It may be David Cameron and the rest of the establishment’s view that Britain is better off in the EU, but it does not mean they can subvert the democratic will of the people in order to promote it.
The Election purdah period exists to prevent just this sort of undue government influence on democracy.
Dave’s defence is that this isn’t a General Election; the Government isn’t neutral.
We’ve all heard Remainian apologists, including the PM, explain, “In this referendum, the Government is not neutral; it has a clear, definite position, which we feel we have a duty to explain…” etc, etc, blah, blah, blah…
Yes, Dave, but the Government is never neutral over a General Election either; it will always have a clear, definite position; usually a desire to get re-elected.
Yet that convention of neutrality applies then; it should now.
That “…clear, definite position,” thing is no defence at all.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
When David Cameron gave the speech and took part in a question-and-answer session at Exeter University on Thursday 7th April to launch the under-25s campaign for Britain to remain within the EU, Sir Steve Smith, Exeter’s Vice-Chancellor, sent out personal invitations to a selected number of students and academics to represent the university.
The invitations read: “I am writing to invite you to a special Q&A session with a senior Cabinet Minister. This will be an opportunity to ask questions on the important subject of Britain’s EU membership and what it means for young people.”
Naturally, with Academia’s fastidious regard for fair play, that “…selected number of students and academics to represent the university;” was a cross-section representing all the different political affiliations & views of the “…students and academics,” of the University, wasn’t it.
Er, no, it wasn’t…
Then, obviously, with the usual Tory cynical disregard for fair play; the audience was packed with Young Conservatives; members of the University Conservative Association; Tory Boy Cameron cheer-leaders etc, one would guess.
Well, no again, I’m afraid; it wasn’t.
With the grassroots of his party solidly Eurosceptic, organisers were well aware the PM’s Remainian line on the referendum would get a friendlier reception from students of other parties.
So, on instructions from Conservative head office no doubt, that’s who they invited; Liberals, Socialists and a rag-bag assortment of other left-wingers.
No invitations went out to any members of the University of Exeter Conservative Association or the Freedom Society; the two right-wing political societies on campus and also two of the biggest.
What could have been an opportunity for Tory students to meet someone that many of them see as a political hero was denied; because Cameron wanted an easy ride.
Knowing TV cameras would be there, he was afraid of a little opposition from a few students with contrary views & awkward questions.
That is the usual Eurocratic cynical disregard for fair play and Democracy.
Democracy thrives on active debate, and with regard to the EU, Cameron is clearly frightened of it.
For some time it has been apparent to many rank and file Conservatives that the leadership of the Party holds the grassroots Conservative membership’s views on the EU in contempt, and would rather, at least until after the Referendum, that they were neither seen nor heard.
That a man so obviously wishes to shut down debate and hear no criticism of his pro-EU stance, is a sign of cowardice.
If during this EU referendum campaign David Cameron is seen to be afraid to face his own membership, how the hell is he going to stop them voting for Brexit?
Long may his losing, yellow streak continue…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Now “Project Fear” goes up another gear…
They’re telling us that if we vote for Brexit, in 2030 we’ll each be £4,300 worse off…
How on earth can they work that out?
2030 is 14 years away; these people making this prediction are the same people that didn’t see the 2008 crash coming until it was actually happening…
And they’re the same people that predicted disaster if we didn’t join the Euro…
The same people that persuaded us into the Exchange Rate Mechanism; remember that?
That was a disaster; costing us thousands of jobs, and many people their homes…
As John Redwood has said, “They always want to just blame the bad figures on Brexit and they never talk about the good figures because they’re all in this together. They’re in a conspiracy to get us to stay in the EU. Who do we trust? We trust ourselves. We trust the voters. And we want our money back to spend on our priorities.”
If we vote to leave the EU, which I believe we must, we will be able to spend the £350 million we send to Brussels every week on our Hospitals, Schools, Security and Defense.
Most of the current, unpopular cuts would be unnecessary if we saved the money we currently waste on the EU
We would end the supremacy of EU law.
Once again, we could make our own laws.
Other countries around the world trade freely without making EU law supreme.
We too would have a new UK-EU deal based on free trade and cooperation.
As well as Trade, we would regain legal control of tax, economic regulation, energy & food bills, migration & crime.
If we voted for the people who make our trade deals and control public services, (it’s called ‘Democracy’) the results would have to be better.
British voters should be able to change our laws and control our taxes by voting for and against our own politicians.
We would be able to stop the current immoral, expensive, and out of control immigration system, that means an open door anyone from the EU, while blocking people who could contribute to the UK coming from non-EU countries.
We could make it easier for some to come;
The people we need, such as scientists, nurses, doctors and job-creators, from outside the EU;
And impossible for others to come;
The people we don’t want, such as convicted criminals, health migrants & potential terrorists, from within the EU.
If we regain the power to control our own affairs, we can sort out our own problems.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Raheem Kassam writes
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has surfaced, once again to lecture the Anglosphere and the Western world about its “duties” to hurriedly absorb nearly half a million more Syrian migrants.
The war-torn country’s surrounding nations, he argues, have done the heavy lifting already. Now the U.N. chief wants you and your communities to do more.
There is a misconception that all Syria’s neighbours have shrugged their shoulders towards their Muslim brethren, scorning them out of rugged self interest. It’s not strictly true. But the dichotomy presented; that it is us or them; is a false one, and one that European and American leaders should not be afraid to reject outright.
The New York Times reports that the Sec. General opened a conference in Geneva today, demanding “an exponential increase in global solidarity”, insisting that “Neighbouring countries have done far more than their share” and imploring “Others [to] now step up.”
And, of course, the stress was on European Union member states and the United States of America to do more.
The news follows quickly on the heels of Oxfam; one of the world’s most political charities; demanding that France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, and Denmark all take in more “refugees” and faster.
Of course, of the nearly 5 million fleeing Syria, most remain in the Middle East, with countries like Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan inundated by refugees.
In part, this is what has spurred Turkey on to shipping their problems off into Europe; especially the Kurdish one.
It is noteworthy too, that Oxfam and Ban Ki Moon’s criticisms were levelled at Western nations not because we have the infrastructure or capability to deal with the influx; we don’t; but because we are, apparently, “rich.” (We’ll just casually ignore our gargantuan debt crisis for the moment, shall we?)
But while the United Nations lumps the responsibility onto the West, you might ask why countries like Saudi Arabia, which claims to have absorbed around half a million Syrians, do not provide any data to support their statements.
Indeed, in 2013, net migration of those deemed to be Syrian nationals stood at around just 20,000, with criticism aimed at the country for only accepting Syrians who already have families in the Kingdom.
In fact countries that could take more, and haven’t remain free of criticism, presumably because they aren’t signatories to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.
This isn’t a sign that we are better. It’s a sign that we are dumber.
We as Western nations afford moral and political equivalence for almost all other countries around the world nowadays, but we don’t make the same demands of these countries as we place upon ourselves.
What about Malaysia? Why can’t they take more migrants and refugees?
Indonesia? India? China? Argentina?
Has Ban Ki Moon lobbied his home nation, South Korea?
It’s almost as if there’s a whole world out there.
But the onus is, apparently, on Britain, France, and America.
We are destined to follow Germany’s lead, a country now inundated with migrants and not just from Syria; because Mrs. Merkel stupidly threw her doors open and declared, “Come one, come all!”
Perhaps we should look to the words of Batal, a Syrian refugee who spoke to Bloomberg, for why the pressure is being placed on Western countries and the Anglosphere:
“In Europe, I can get treatment for my polio, educate my children, have shelter and live an honourable life… Gulf countries have closed their doors in the face of Syrians.”
Raheem Kassam is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and editor-in-chief of Breitbart London.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
Brexit would bring the UK two potentially important security gains:
The ability to dump the European Convention on Human Rights; remember the difficulty of extraditing the extremist Abu Hamza of the Finsbury Park Mosque;
And, more importantly, greater control over immigration from the European Union
One loss that would result from Brexit and which has been cited by Theresa May, the Home Secretary, as a reason for her supporting the UK’s continued membership of the EU, would be the European Arrest Warrant.
But its use has been exclusively criminal and few would mourn or even notice its passing.
The UK is Europe’s leader in intelligence and security matters and gives much more than it gets in return. It is difficult to imagine any of the other EU members ending the relationships they already enjoy with the UK.
Furthermore, counter-terrorist and counter-espionage liaison between democratic allies is driven as much by moral considerations as by political ones.
If a security source in Germany learns that a terrorist attack is being planned in London, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, Germany’s domestic intelligence service, is certainly not going to withhold the intelligence from MI5 simply because the UK is no longer an EU member.
In addition, though the UK participates in various European and Brussels-based security bodies, they are of little consequence:
The Club de Berne, made up of European Security Services;
The Club de Madrid, made up of European Intelligence Services;
Europol;
And the Situation Centre in the European Commission are generally speaking little more than forums for the exchange of analysis and views; talking shops.
With the exception of Europol, these bodies have no operational capacity and with 28 members of vastly varying levels of professionalism in intelligence and security, the convoy must accommodate the slowest and leakiest of the ships of state.
The larger powers cannot put their best intelligence material into such colanders.
The British voice is nonetheless very influential because its intelligence and security community is, and will certainly remain, the strongest and most mature in Europe.
Washington also appreciates that its closest ally enjoys this lead in Europe at a time when the global threat from extremist terrorism remains at the top of most nations’ national security priorities.
The crucial practical business of counter-terrorism and counter-espionage is conducted, even in Europe, through bilateral and very occasionally trilateral relationships.
Brussels has little or nothing to do with them, in large part due to what is known as the “Third Party Rule,” a notion that is little understood outside the intelligence fraternity but which is essential to intelligence liaison worldwide.
This rule states that the recipient of intelligence from one nation cannot pass it on to a third without the originator’s agreement.
If an intelligence service breaks this rule it becomes a pariah.
Politicians who loosely talk about intelligence sharing seldom seem to understand that this principle is crucial for the protection of sources and is one of the keystones of trust on which successful security partnerships are built.
The UK’s defence interests remain firmly hitched to NATO and a number of strong bilateral relationships, with France as our most important continental partner.
The inability of the EU member states to act together to stem the flow of migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa shows very clearly that, when essential interests are thought to be threatened, the national security considerations of each nation outweigh the principles of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which the EU’s policy towards the problem is ultimately based.
Would Brexit damage our defence and intelligence relationship with the United States, which outweighs anything European by many factors of 10?
We can conclude confidently that no, it would not.
The replacement of Trident; the access to overhead satellite monitoring; the UK-US co-operation over signals intelligence; the Central Intelligence Agency/Secret Intelligence Service/Federal Bureau of Investigation/MI5 liaison and much more would continue just as before.
There is currently no EU-wide intelligence-sharing arrangement.
Retired general Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, said that the standard of security services across Europe was, “…very uneven.”
France and Britain had, “very good” services, he said, while in Scandinavia, they were, “good but smaller.”
The rest of Europe had “small” services and Belgium’s, in particular, was “small, under-resourced and legally limited; and frankly working for a government that has its own challenges in overall governance.”
He said that leaving the EU would boost the UK’s security.
Mr Hayden said: “I don’t mean to be arguing against the European Union, but the union is not a natural contributor to national security to each of the entity states. In fact, in some ways it gets in the way of the state providing security for its own citizens.”
He rejected a suggestion that the UK leaving the EU would affect the US’s ability to co-operate with national security services, adding that European security services were “more forthcoming with us than they are with one another.”
“We are a huge security service and each sees their national interests as being well served by having a productive relationship with us and, frankly, the same math does not apply to other services on the continent,” he said.
Philippe De Backer, a member of the European Parliament with a particular interest in intelligence services, said that he strongly disagreed with Mr Hayden’s comments over the EU.
But his subsequent comments seemed to support, rather than gainsay Mr Hayden’s
The European Parliament had long called for closer co-operation on intelligence, but “mistrust” between member states had stifled that, Mr De Backer said.
“Because of this fragmentation in 28 different intelligent services, we have seen the information services have not always been up to speed,” he said.
Dominique Moisi, who helped to found the French Institute of International Relations, said there was a “dramatic lack of collaboration and exchange of information” across European intelligence agencies.
This was partly due to a “pecking order” in which France and Britain rated each other but no-one else, “sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly,” he said.
Europe had to rediscover the “dimension of security to regain some of its hard power,” he added, but there was a kind of “protective, emotional, nationalist rise which is a stumbling block to rationality.”
This comes as Vote Leave revealed that the EU spends more on promoting the EU project than on counter-terrorism.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
John Redwood writes:
When we leave the EU we will not leave Europe.
We will still trade with them, have many agreements with them, we will travel, enjoy each other’s culture and language, foster student exchanges, undertake joint research, common investment projects and much else.
Anyone from another member state currently living in the UK under the legal provisions of the EU treaties will be welcome to stay and will be protected under international law anyway.
So will all UK residents living in continental EU countries.
It is only the rules about new entrants that will change.
An independent UK will still want to offer many university places to European students, and many UK students will still travel and study on the continent.
The UK will remain an important part of the academic global community with many links and common programmes with our European, American and US allies and partners.
All the money that the EU sends to universities, farmers and others will be continued as UK government payments, as, [currently,] we have to send Brussels the money in order for them to send some of it back.
A free UK will still welcome in many qualified and talented people to take jobs here, and will make sure our border system allows UK business access to the talent worldwide it seeks.
The new border controls will simply create a fairer system of control for people seeking low paid and unskilled jobs, with the same rules for non EU and EU people.
It will also give us back the ability to limit the total numbers in any given year.
The UK leaving the EU will still be willing to import continental goods and services with no new restrictions on our trade.
We can look forward to the rest of the EU wanting trade arrangements that preserve their present access to the UK market as they sell us so much more than we sell them.
The Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties are united in wishing to keep the EU employment laws that offer protections to UK employees.
There are no proposals to water down employment protections on exit.
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….
So now Corbyn is a Europhile; who’d have thought it?
Many of the pledges upon which he was elected as Labour leader will be nigh on impossible to achieve under EU law.
Public ownership of the railways
EU law states that railways must be managed independent of government and train companies run according to commercial principles.
A European Commission directive due to come into force in 2019 will make competitive tendering of all major railway franchises compulsory.
So Public ownership of the railways is a No-no then
Ending the privatisation of the NHS
Removing the private sector from the NHS conflicts with fundamental principles of EU law; including the freedom to provide services; EU public procurement and state aid law.
The NHS is ‘exposed to the risk of investigations, possible damages actions and fines under EU competition law.’
So privatisation of the NHS will continue unimpeded
Public ownership of the energy companies
Two EU directives on the ‘internal market’ in natural gas and electricity commit member states to competitive markets
President Juncker’s State of the Union address promised an ‘Energy Union’ to allow ‘a wider choice of products and services’.
So Public ownership of the energy companies is another No-no
Greater rights for trade unions
The European Court of Justice has made a series of judgments in the past decade which restrict workers’ ability to take industrial action.
These restrictions on the rights of workers go further than anything imposed by the British Parliament, and could only be reversed by treaty change.
So Greater rights for trade unions are out-the-window
Cracking down on tax avoidance
The European Court of Justice has held that tax rules which discriminate against foreign companies establishing branches in the UK are contrary to EU law.
The Court has also stated that it is legitimate for companies to establish a subsidiary in a second member state in order to benefit from its less restrictive laws.
So Cracking down on tax avoidance ain’t gonna happen either
But all is not lost; JC, like so many Remainians, thinks we can change the EU from the inside
Yea, right
If under threat of Brexit, all they’d offer was Dave’s Dismal Deal; how much reformation could we expect following a Remain in vote?
None; that’s how much
Just more centralisation, more integration and more Europe; “Ever Closer Union” until the United States of Europe is controlling us all…
……………………………….o0O0o………………………………….