Tuesday 30 June 2015

If you think Greece is the villain you've not been watching very closely


Greece joined the EU in 1981 and joined the Euro in 2001 when it came in. It didn't ever meet the Maastricht criteria for monetary union but heck it was another member so the EU bent the rules a little to encourage another supporter. As it did for Spain, Italy, Portugal, Eire. Even France and Germany itself have sometimes fallen out of the strict criteria for EU membership but hell, they're 'good blokes' so let's not kick up too much of a fuss.

In 2008 Greece, along with everybody else associated with the Euro and the Dollar and the Pound found itself in difficulty. The EU printed some cash and bailed Greece, along with everyone else out. And the EU called for reform in Greece, austerity, the collection of taxes, reform of the pension system that saw most Greeks retiring at age 51 on generous terms.

Greece not unpredictably said thanks and pissed this money up the wall. It's what they do. And who is to say they're wrong? They have a lifestyle that most of us would envy but that doesn't mean we would want to pay for someone else to enjoy it. They defaulted. As Germany knew they would. Banks were exposed to the debt and an EU crisis loomed. Another in a long line of EU crises.

So Germany (the EU) bailed them out but the money didn't actually get to Greece. It was, in theory, 'paid' to Greece but it was actually used to pay back the European (German mainly) banks who were exposed to the Greek debt and default. So Greece didn't actually get the money but it's liabilities in terms of repayments to the German banks were met.

But those cleared liabilities were not about clearing the debt, they were about paying off the interest they owed to the banks. So Greece still owed the original capital that had been loaned to them but it now had added to that amount the money needed to repay the interest. So let's say for the want of accurate figures that Greece had been given £10 billion and owed £5 billion in interest. £5 billion was then 'generously' paid to Greece but went instead directly to the banks who were owed the interest and Greece ended up with £15 billion of debt when it couldn't service the original £10 billion anyway.

That is effectively what happened except that the figures were obviously much bigger than those in my illustration. Today Greece owes the EU (IMF, ECB etc) £352.7 billion.

It has not a snowflake's chance in hell of repaying this. Not just now or over a schedule of payments, but ever.

And why did Germany (sorry the EU) allow this to happen? It knew about the Greek economy the tax and retirement ages etc.It knew full well that many Greeks work a four hour day with a two-hour lunch included in that.

It's called Usury. Google it. And how ironic is it that Germany of all countries should make use of it after the last unpleasantness.

It was all done with open eyes and the knowledge that Greece would succumb. It was about securing control and dependency.

The same thing has happened, by the way, in Spain, Italy, Portugal and Eire - it's just that those countries are a bit more grown up and have strived to meet their commitments. Even though this has caused great suffering to their people. It is exactly the same thing but Greece has been the weak link and is now not willing to play Germany's game. Not willing and certainly not able to do so.

Greece is certainly not blameless. It has not reformed its economy and has not tightened its belt in order to be more responsible.

But that was an impossible undertaking. It was never going to happen. And the same tactic employed in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Eire - i.e. a drive to make those countries dependent and compliant, is still playing out. They have made a better fist of it than Greece so far, but they are still mired in debt to the EU and their people are still suffering as a consequence.

But now, because these countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Eire) have suffered massively in order to remain afloat in this EU usury programme, they are understandably massively against Greece being exempt from it's commitments - (why should we and our people have suffered if you're just going to let Greece off?) - that the real problem arises.

Even if Greece has been duped into having this massive debt, why should these other countries have suffered - and boy have they suffered - only to see Greece being let off it's financial commitments?

'We've suffered why aren't they being made to suffer too?'

And were I in their shoes I'd have exactly the same reaction.

But the thing is this: Italy, Spain Portugal and Eire have undoubtedly suffered whilst one could argue that Greece has not suffered to the same extent. It still has a basket-case economy and over 50% youth unemployment and it was already a less robust economy than the others when we started this so let's stick with this principle for a moment.

The fact is that Italy, Spain, Portugal and Eire are by no means out of the woods yet. They are all still mired in debt and have probably decades of suffering to go through before they come out at the other end of this project. Even if it succeeds which is not a certainty by any means. They just want - and I completely understand this - Greece to have to suffer as much as they are in order to 'enjoy' their status as part of the club.

It's about human instinct and fairness. I understand that as do we all.

But what if Greece defaulting would cause an end to this usury project? What if Greece by defaulting would bring the whole stinking edifice down and also free Italy, Spain, Portugal and Eire from the tyranny of the EU? Wiping their debts and enabling them to rebalance their economies and to look forward with some degree of hope about the future?

Would they then want Greece to suffer like they have done or would they welcome the chance for a brighter future? In those terms it would seem to be a no brainer, but I'm not sure we're at that stage yet. Some countries would rather 'stay in' and make sure that others suffer as they have, instead of seeing the bigger picture. We'll see in the coming months.

The bottom line from my viewpoint is that if Greece manages to bring the EU down and to make the Euro just an aspiration, a 'peg' instead of a real and credible currency it'll be a great thing. The financial speculators will eat it up and quite rightly. And if that happens the EU is toast. And real European countries and people will be able once again to live, prosper and enjoy hope and aspiration. The EU has been killing this for years and it's time we took back control from these unelected twats and were able to get on with our lives.

A Greek default which brings down the Euro could be the best thing that has happened to Italy, Spain, Portugal and Eire for many years. We should hope and help to make it happen. And as far as the UK is concerned, that means voting for us to leave the EU and to kill it off as soon as we can. Because if we leave it will surely kill off this ridiculous project.

Thanks for reading.











Monday 29 June 2015

What are we waiting for Dave?


Thirty Brits dead. Murdered on the beach on their holidays by Islamic Extremists. Posing no threat to anyone, relaxing and enjoying the fruits of their labours - a holiday with their families.

So what are we waiting for Dave? These people were targeted because they were British. As I understand it non-Brits were told to leave the area before the shooting started.

Brits targeted just as if they'd been walking along Piccadilly. But it's easier to get to them in Tunisia - there's less security, less vigilance.

Our dedicated security forces may be succeeding in thwarting Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK (for now) but it is now clear that we are under attack as a nation, as a people.

And that we are under attack from people with whom there is no negotiating. No chance of compromise or agreement. No mercy, no thought for human decency, no fear of their own death, no humanity whatsoever.

And they're not going away, they are increasing in number. The threat is growing by the day.

It's high time that we stood up to these murderous bastards. I marched against the gulf war because it was a ludicrous project, totally unfounded in terms of reason and with no coherent exit strategy. It was purely about Bush's need for vengeance and Tony's abject acquiescence to war mongering. It has made us reluctant to go to war again now, but now there surely is a proper reason to take action.

Just saying 'they'll never succeed' is not doing it Dave. They are succeeding while we wring our hands. Sooner or later we'll have to go in again and sort this mess out properly. And along the way we'll also need to ask the question of our home-based Islamists (moderate and otherwise) whose side they're on. Whose laws take precedence - the UK's or the Qu'ran's. If it's the latter they'll have to go.

Not a popular or 'PC' view I know, but in the end, it's what will have to happen if we're to retain the way of life that we've fought for for centuries.

The clock is ticking Dave. The first step is to recognise - rather than deny - that we have a problem. The second step is to sort it out once and for all. You might have to break the bad news to the global arms industry at some point, but they'll have a bonanza in the short term. And then they can invest their £billions in the products of peace.

Doing nothing is not an option any more. Or are you waiting for the inevitable major event on the streets of the UK? It is coming. We all know this. For the sake of the tens or hundreds or thousands of people who will inevitably die in the UK if we stick to the current mantra, get on with it now Dave. You don't now need to wait for any further bloodshed in the name of Allah, here or anywhere else.

Thanks for reading.










Sunday 28 June 2015

EU renegotiations start on Wednesday Dave. Have you got your list?



OK so we have an EU that is committed to 'ever closer union' for its members. A direction of travel that is clear, publicly stated and set in stone as far as Germany and France are concerned. And if it's what Germany and France want then it is the direction in which the EU will be going in years to come. And no other members of this club will be able to change this even if they want to. It's clear and unambiguous. Whether they actually get there is another matter of course. Economically it's 'challenging' to say the least as we can see (in Greece for example) and politically it's difficult since it essentially requires every member of the club to meet Germany's high standards in terms of work, tax, pensions, retirement age and, ultimately total and utter subservience and dependence

Some countries are struggling with this. Actually everywhere that isn't Germany is struggling with this. Except the UK funnily enough.

But where the UK is struggling is in the area of logic.

Because we don't see the future of Europe in terms of 'ever closer union'. We see it as a place where free trade is king; where we can co-operate and work together on a Europe-wide scale where necessary; where we can consider international crime on a collective basis, where we can work together as geographically local nation states on the big issues like trading standards (which are now global in any case and nothing to do with the EU).

Our view as a nation is that we want to be part of a club that promotes the values and skills and prosperity of our region and that region just happens to be Europe. But in the age of globalisation we have to marry this aspiration with a global perspective. We were once 'little Englanders' fighting for our own economic success stories. That is no longer an issue. If you cannot compete on a global level you have a short life-span in terms of business success. And with its tariffs on trade with Africa for example, which effectively prevent that resource-rich continent from trading its way into the first world, we are all actually in danger of signing up to become 'little Europe-ers'.

So at a time when the world has gone 'global' we're contemplating voting to stay inside a trading bloc - the world's only shrinking/failing trading bloc - that is anti-global and 'protectionist'. That disallows us from making our own trading deals with the rest of the world unless we can secure agreement from countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Romania first. Or from France and Germany who don't want to see us prospering on our own behalf and when we do, use it as an excuse to send us an increased bill to contribute to failing EU countries on top of our (net) £28million-a-day contribution which is either the 2nd or 3rd* biggest contribution to the EU already.

How can any of this possibly be in the UK's economic interests?

So what reforms do we need to secure then Dave?

Control of our borders?

Well, we know, because the EU has made this very clear in recent times, that we will not be able to stop the EU's free movement of people policy - so we won't be able to control our borders.

Reform of the monstrously inefficient CAP (Common Agricultural Policy - 47% of the EU budget)?

The CAP effectively keeps the French economy and its subsistence farming culture viable. France would veto any reforms of the CAP so we have zero chance of achieving anything in this area.

This what the BBC (2 days ago) believes Dave's list to be:


An opt-out from ever closer union? So we don't agree with the direction of the 'club'. We can't make it change and really it is not our business to decide on this issue (we know it won't change anyway) so why do we still want to be a member and why do we want to continue to (help to) pay for it to go in a direction we don't agree with? That's just mad.

Sovereignty of national parliaments to be boosted? What at the same time as it is being reduced by the direction of 'ever closer union'? And so 'groups' can block legislation? Groups? Not 'us' but a group we'd have to find who support us? How's that been going for the last 20 years? The associated argument about our 'having a seat at the table', some influence if we're on the inside is absolute nonsense given the EU's voting system. We have a shrinking 8% influence in the EU and we're just (at best) ignored or more often sneered at by the European Parliament whenever we take a view.

Safeguard financial services - why on earth do we need to do this in a globalised world? And why on earth do we need approval from the unelected EU for this?

Cut immigration by cutting benefits? So not controlling our borders like any self-respecting nation state does, but just making it slightly less attractive? Will this deter criminal gangs or even economic migrants who, with no work in their own countries will continue to come and work for even less money, putting even more downward pressure on UK wages? And why do we need EU approval to set our own benefits laws?

Make the EU more streamlined and competitive?

What the fuck does that even mean? The EU is an economic basket case and we're it's biggest customer worldwide. The UK is already streamlined and competitive - it's why we are recovering economically whereas the Eurozone is not. Meaningless drivel - we might as well say we want to make Europe's grass just that bit greener.

Nothing on Dave's list adds up to anything remotely meaningful and nor will it make any difference to how the UK operates if we remain inside the EU.



Fundamentally the EU wants a 'national' anthem, flag, army, government, financial apparatus, tax and pensions system. It wants Europe to be one country.

Fundamentally we do not share this aspiration.

No amount of renegotiations or reforms will ever lead to the situation where we will get what we want. There is simply no possible chance of this ever happening while the EU exists. No amount of tinkering - and to call Dave's 'list' tinkering is probably investing it with too much gravitas - will achieve anything meaningful or be in our best interests.

And Dave knows this. He may be many things, but he's not a stupid man. If he comes back from the EU shouting about the success of his reforms and insisting that we should therefore vote to stay in, you can be sure of one thing: That he thinks we are stupid and that he can get away with this illogical bollocks.

Thanks for reading


*oh almost forgot! The public domain figures put France as the second biggest contributor to the EU after Germany with us third. These are 2012 figures but the proportion will not have changed much just the amounts no doubt. They have Germany paying (net) £19bn, France £18bn and the UK £13bn. There are some figures albeit from 'better off out' suggesting that the cost of our membership is actually more like £90bn here but my point is that I simply do not believe the 'net' figures for France. This is their national current account graph for the past eight years:


 

France is getting much more back from the EU than is being declared in my opinion. I'm working on digging up some evidence of this but as you might know it is well hidden. France is an economic basket case and will be the biggest loser if the EU does eventually fold. I hope it does and the news over the past few days from Greece will hopefully be a good start in this process.

-ends-










Thursday 25 June 2015

Who owes whom what? Who owns our debt? Have we created a monster that we have no hope of ever being able to control?

At the sharp end, obviously, we all sell our time and effort in return for cash. So that we can pay for things like a roof over our heads, food etc. That money is clearly 'real' in that we earn it and then pay for things that wouldn't be provided or supplied if it were not 'real'. It's all about trust - equally obviously. If the money we pay for stuff was not redeemable against other stuff - so that the people to whom we pay it can then buy their own 'stuff' it would be worthless.

All good so far?

So move up a level. Businesses buy raw materials and make those materials into products that are then sold and whose price is a factor of raw material costs, labour input, marketing and the machinery of business, and profit. The same applies to the provision of services where the 'raw materials' might be expertise or time but the same costs of 'business' and profits apply. They need real customers with 'real' money to pay for their goods and so the 'real' money cascades downwards into the economy as described in the first paragraph.

And along the way we need a system of governance, laws, healthcare, education, infrastructure that help to make this capitalist system work effectively. And we need protection to ensure that we are free to engage with this democratic capitalist system, so that other people who don't buy in to this system cannot simply invade and steal the fruits of our labours. So we all - businesses and individuals - pay a percentage of our income to fund these things that we cannot - or cannot be arsed - to provide ourselves. We do what we do, earn money within this system and pay for others to provide the governance and infrastructure that help to make it work for us.

And all this is expandable from an individual to a community or a regional, national or even international scale. But obviously the wider one goes in this venture or outlook, the more danger there is from 'competitors' who might not share our work ethic, but nonetheless want the fruits of our labours for minimal effort. So we therefore need more protection and have to pay a bit more, but because it's a bigger picture there are many more people to contribute to the overall costs of what is in effect 'the protection of our way of life'.

It is a system that has worked for centuries. It is not perfect but is perhaps the least worst of all possible solutions and systems in that it rewards endeavour and meets (in theory) the needs of the vast majority of people on the planet. 

All of which is not rocket science. It is a system which encourages work and effort - there will obviously be winners and losers in terms of returns, but the simple fact is that, as the saying goes, money makes the world go round. And this system enables this to happen. It works.

There are extremes and inequalities built-in to this system - for every winner there will, sadly be many losers (financially), people will be exploited through no fault of their own, by dint of background or opportunity (or lack thereof) or geography. But it is a system that offers the best opportunity for all in the end. Some might be lucky or unlucky. Some will do well without deserving it, some might fail having given their all to a project. But I don't see any other system that offers anything like the same level of opportunity or prosperity as capitalism.

Someone has to make the money to pay for everything else. It really is that simple. And while socialism has value in terms of fighting for the disadvantaged and reducing inequality, in the end it cannot pay the bills.

It (capitalism) is not all good however: It enslaves people into work. It promotes the situation in which we become effectively 'slaves' to the banks or to the machinery of society where many people have little choice in life but to work hard to pay for their lifestyles. It ensures that millions of people get up in the morning and go out to produce stuff that is not fundamental to the success of the species. It sees gown men and women flying across the Atlantic, First Class, to attend a meeting in which the clothing of a Barbie Doll for next season is the critical item on the agenda. I find that extremely funny, but it does happen and it's where we are now. If I didn't find it funny I'd probably go mad by the way!

On the downside what capitalism does is that it encourages us to aspire beyond our means. It becomes usury. We are told at every turn what we 'must have' for the coming season or that we'd be crap parents if we didn't provide this for our kids and so we borrow via credit in order to provide what we are told we must provide, and then we are not just working for our home or our food, but to pay the interest on what we have borrowed in order to provide what we are told we must provide for ourselves and our kids. And then we are going out to work not just for ourselves but for the banks and our creditors.

And soon then we are trapped by the money-lenders, into effectively working for them, regardless of who we actually work for directly. And it was our 'choice' to take on those debts - which were small and manageable to start with but have now become difficult or problematic. But it was our choice to take them on. We have the 'goods' that credit allowed us to pay for now instead of when we had the money to buy them. And we now find ourselves working two day's a week for the government (tax) and two day's a week for the bank (to pay the interest on our debt, not the actual capital of the debt) and we have one day's income for ourselves.

And this is a mad scenario, but it's real and many people simply cannot hope to get out of it.

But let's take this up another level - to governments and international 'players'.

The UK is currently in debt to the tune of £1.6 trillion. £64,000 per household in Britain. The Tory government claims that it has reduced the deficit by half in the last five years. That means it has reduced the amount by which we are increasing our debt year-on-year from £xbillion to £ybillion. It means that we are now increasing our overall debt by about half what we were increasing it by five years ago. So the debt is increasing but not by as much as it was. And projections are that we'll be in surplus by 2019. And by surplus that means that we'll be starting to pay back what we actually owe, instead of increasing it, by that time. Surplus doesn't mean that we're fine, it means that we'll be starting to pay off the massive debt we owe, by a small amount by that time.

So by 2019 we'll be paying off a small part of the capital on which we're paying massive amounts of interest in four years' time.

The interest we're being charged on our 'national' credit card will start to come down by a very small amount by then.

But who do we owe this money to? Germany is in deficit. France is in massive debt trouble. Italy and Spain and Greece are in dire straights. The US is in debt to the tune of $18 trillion. China is in worse shape with a $27 trillion debt.

But to whom? Who is the recipient of all this potential money? Who, on a global scale has so much money that all of these countries owe it money? Trillions. Who? Is it some guy with a white cat or the IMF? And if everybody owes more than they can afford to pay. Ever. Why are we not etch-a-sketching the whole system and starting again? Is it just to keep ordinary people working because they have to?

I think it is.

The figures are meaningless. They simply do not equate to the real world. Every household in the UK 'owes' £64,000? To whom? Whose money is at risk because of our debt? Whose livelihood is suffering because they are funding our profligacy? Who has actually paid for all this stuff we have bought on the 'never never'?

Who is the underwriter of all this debt? Is it real?

It's all a mechanism in which the EU and the US have just printed money when it suits them. It is not real money as we would recognise it. It's fabricated lies. Designed to create a system in which we are all slaves. The money used to bail out the EU in recent years would have made every individual in Europe a millionaire several times over. But then who would clean the streets, who would go to the factory every day to make the stuff that makes the world go around?

But here's the trick. The thing that means we can never be free of the system and will always be 'forced' to go to work to pay off our debts and the debts ratcheted up by our governments. You see we own the debt ourselves. Sometimes as wealthy individuals but more likely for us ordinary people, via big corporations and especially pension funds - the financial giants upon whom we rely if we're going to be able to eat in our dotage - and to whom we all pay, sometimes voluntarily but also whether we like it or not. We pay, all of us.

You see, when a government needs money it does two things in the main. It raises taxes from us and our employers and on the goods that we purchase. And in an ideal world these taxes - our contributions - pay for the things that we need to protect and enable our system - the things I described above as stuff we cannot be arsed to do ourselves. And in theory, in principle that should work just fine.

But for reasons of political expediency and sometimes in times of crisis (like war), this tax-take does not cover the costs of what our government needs (or wants) to spend. And in these circumstances governments are forced to issue 'bonds' - effectively IOUs on which the government pays interest and then repays the capital which is borrowed over time or on previously agreed 'due' dates. And on these due dates the government will inevitably have had to issue more bonds to raise the money it needs to pay back the last lot of bond holders, and so it goes on.

{One comment on this issue is that governments should live within their means unless there is a war situation. The tax take should pay for everything. It doesn't and this is called a 'structural deficit'. It is called this to ensure that most people have no idea what it means. What it means is that the Government spends more money on stuff than it takes in in tax. One example of this is Mr Brown's PFI profligacy. Yes PFI (then called PPP) was introduced by John Major but as a fund-raiser of last resort. Mr Brown saw it as an off-balance-sheet way of paying for everything - major investment in schools and healthcare - that did not come out of tax receipts. The 'never never' in other words. It has meant that for an £85 billion investment in the endlessly profligate NHS, we and our kids and grandchildren will be paying back more than £300 billion over the next 35 years.}

And the people with the 'real money' (by which I mean serious amounts and not the 'real' money I talked about at the start of this endless blog) needed to fund government are the financial giants and pensions companies who have this 'serious' wedge because we all pay into them.

So they own the debts that our government incurs, and they do so because we all pay into them so they have enough money to be real players in this market. And they make the money on interest whilst still owning the capital which will be repaid in full on the 'due date'. And in return we get a pension that is arguably worth more than the sum of its parts when we retire.

But along the way these pensions corporations cream off £billions in profits which pay for themselves and their shareholders. Inevitably wealthy individuals and other corporations. And all based on the contributions of ordinary people.

So we pay for their stake in the game, we underwrite any potential losses they might make because they cannot be allowed to fail, and in return they get extremely rich while we get a bit more in return than we paid in.

Whilst these people who supposedly work for us and do the things for us that we cannot be arsed to do ourselves have effectively taken over the world and we have now become their slaves. I know that's a strong word but it is accurate. We seem to have arrived at a point where the people who we employ to do stuff for us 'wealth creators' (we, the people who do the real work and create the wealth) are now effectively our masters and controllers.

It's a fiendishly clever system in which the people who control and manipulate money, skim off a percentage of all the deals that are made, now effectively control the people who grown the food and produce the 'stuff' that actually meets our needs in everyday life.

The UK is the biggest financial services hub in the world. It is the UK's biggest 'industry' but it does not in and of itself create anything of material value to ordinary people. One cannot live under a roof made of financial services. One cannot eat financial services. But one also cannot live without them.

And because of them we are having to pay - via tax - interest on bonds and other government loans that amount to more than we spend on healthcare or defence or education combined. We're spending more on the interest on 'our' debts than we are on these things.

I'm not sure that when we agreed to fund the things that we need but cannot (be arsed to) do ourselves, we envisaged this outcome. But it is a very neat trick to get us to pay the companies to buy the bonds and then pay the taxes that pay the interest on them and then the tax that should pay for the machinery of government as well. It's almost a magic money tree. But you won't be surprised to learn that it's not for the benefit of 'ordinary' people.

It shouldn't be like this. But every major country in the world has succumbed to this financial services-driven bollocks. They use terms to disguise the fact that they are fucking about with our money when they shouldn't be. It has become the 'norm'. Accepted. Living beyond the means of the people for whom they work. Without actually asking us if that's alright. As I say Capitalism works in principle. But in practise? I'm not so sure. When the US, the UK and the EU can just print money, when they can rescue the banks from gambling losses when the principle of capitalism states that they should be allowed to fail, we're in new territory. I'd argue that this current system is not capitalism. It's corporatism and I'm not convinced that it works in the way it should - i.e. to meet the interests of the man and woman in the street, which was the starting point of the whole system.

It seems to me that we have created a monster and one that we have no hope of ever being able to get back under our control.

Thanks for reading.










Wednesday 17 June 2015

The Scottish referendum will prove to have been a Godsend for the UK's EU 'out' campaign

It may have been unrelated perhaps, but I think the Scottish referendum will prove to have been a Godsend for the EU referendum 'out' campaign.

The Scottish people voted quite narrowly to stay within the United Kingdom in their recent referendum. I think that as far as their immediate future is concerned they were right to do so. And as far as the UK is concerned, it was probably best for those of us who do not live in Scotland. On a longer term basis I think they were wrong and I advocated voting for independence at the time of the vote. Because it was really about self-confidence and trusting one's fellow countrymen to achieve success in the future. The 'stay in' vote in Scotland, promoted by those in whose interests the status quo is was really about a lack of self belief.

Ask the country (Scotland) now and there would be an overwhelming vote for independence. They have effectively overcome their fears now, but it is too late. They will not get another opportunity to vote for independence for years, probably decades.

That's the thing about referendums. Even more than General Elections but they're in the same general area: The vote becomes a mandate for things you don't really agree on. You may vote Tory (for example) because you think they're economically competent but they take your vote as a green light for many other things that you might not agree with. Referendums are similar but on steroids. A vote for a free trade area in 1975, has become a 'mandate' for a federal Europe in 2015.

But I think the Scottish referendum has shown this to people. I think that it has imprinted upon people's minds that this is not a rehearsal. That this vote is not a temporary issue. That if the result is for us to stay 'in' it will be used by politicians to take us much further than we want to go. As has undeniably happened since our last vote some 40 years' ago.

Quite simply, if we vote to stay 'in' this time we will effectively be handing over control of the UK to people we do not elect and cannot vote out. If we vote to leave the EU - quite apart from the fact that it would almost certainly fail almost overnight were we to do so - it would put the control of our future back in the hands of those of us who will be living it. And it is conceivable, if the EU were to survive the cataclysmic set-back of it's biggest customer (in the world) leaving, that we could 'go back in' on our own terms in the vanishingly unlikely event that it (the EU) succeeds in the end.

An 'out' vote would leave all options open to us. If the EU and the Eurozone is so good, so 'right' for all of the people of Europe (don't laugh) then we would always be welcomed back as the biggest economic 'engine' in Europe.

But if we vote to stay in, we will be propping up a failing (currently - and that assessment is not up for debate but a simple and plain fact) project. If we vote to stay in we will be part of that failure.

And our vote will just be taken as an encouragement for the EU to carry on its merry way towards economic Armageddon.

Just look at Greece or Spain or Italy. Most of all, look at France. Forget about the economic basket cases we are (the EU is) welcoming into this failing bloc. Look at France. It is (technical economic term) fucked. We and Germany are propping France up. The EU is a 1950s- designed solution. Look at how the world has changed since 1950.

The coming referendum is about whether we are a modern country, free to fly and to prosper, or stuck within a failed trading bloc that is effectively in managed decline and will be forever.

It is ironic that Scotland wants to leave the UK and join (or stay in) the EU. Gaining independence and then immediately giving it away. I think there are many people in Scotland who envisage a bright future based on Scotland being a real player in the world and trusting the endeavour and quality of its people. But there are more Scots who are just anti England and effectively want to 'hop onto' a bigger bus in order to protect their client state/benefits culture.

Either way I think the recent referendum, in which (in the end) they voted the wrong way and now will have to suffer the consequences, means that the rest of us will have the confidence to vote for change and to vote for us to leave the failing EU project and regain our freedom to stand on our own two feet.

Thanks for reading.












The Great EUscape


The 'escapee' is actually the sheep who can read and consider the facts and issues at hand in a rational way instead of jumping off the cliff into the abyss that is the EU.

And it is an abyss if you just take the time to think about it coolly and rationally. Staying in the EU is not the 'safe' choice, it is quite the opposite.

The safe choice in the coming referendum is to reclaim control of your (our) own destiny as a people and as a nation. A destiny that we have some control over, shaped by politicians who we elect, who live locally and therefore understand our issues, values, concerns and needs. Who (supposedly) work for us and whom we can vote in - and crucially - vote out if they do not do what we want them to do.

Compare this to what happens in the EU where the laws are made by largely unelected people who are unlikely to have heard of the village, town or city in which you live, much less ever visited. Laws which are designed to be universal across the EU and take precedence over existing UK laws even if our laws are perfectly satisfactory of even more appropriate to the UK than the EU's own diktats.

If you have an issue in the UK you can write to your MP or visit his or her surgery. If you have an issue with the EU you can, erm well what? Write to your MEP who represents millions of people rather than 100k or so? Good luck with that.

Even in the unlikely event that he or she takes up your cause it will almost certainly be ignored because it is likely personal or at least local to you and not something that can be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis. So even if it is a massive local issue, that is affected directly by EU laws, it is very unlikely to be something that they can or will change because of the problems it causes to you.

And you cannot vote these people out - or 'in' for that matter. They don't need you. Why should they give a shit about you?

The fact is that there is absolutely no reason for them to (give a shit about you), and they certainly don't - so long as you continue to pay your taxes which fund their huge salaries and solid gold pension schemes.

So the safe, and the positive choice in the coming referendum is to vote in a way which enables us to retain - or actually take back - our powers; our ability to have a proper democratic say in how we are governed. If we vote to stay in the EU these powers will be diminished, probably forever and the EU will take that vote as a mandate to go even further towards the 'ever closer union' that is has publicly stated is its goal.

I think it is also important to understand that this vote is not about UK politics or parties. A vote to stay in the EU is not a vote against our existing Tory government and nor is it a vote for Labour. Indeed if you support Labour the most effective way for your political leanings to be enacted is if we leave the EU and our own government of whichever political hue has the power to deliver its policies in the future. It could be argued that a vote to stay in is marginally for a more left-wing approach to life but you'd be well-advised to take a look at how this is working out in France, Spain, Italy and especially Greece at the moment.

Finally for this blog, a vote to leave the EU is not a vote against 'Europe' as a place. It is not anti the European people - I would argue strongly that it is a vote to empower ourselves and also to begin a process that will ultimately empower sovereign nation states in Europe to stand on their own two feet again, via control of their own economies and governance. If we leave, the EU will struggle to carry on as a viable concern and I think it would make it much more likely that places like Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal would choose to reboot their memberships, probably taking back control of their own economies via a reintroduction of their own currencies so that they are not shackled to the Euro which is much too strong (exchange rates) for their economies and is the key reason why they are struggling so much at the moment and that there is no end in sight.

The EU concept, which was put together in the 1950s, after the last unpleasantness and before globalisation and the digital age, is not the forward-looking modern solution to the needs of the continent of Europe; it is an outdated concept which is failing most of Europe's people.

Quite apart from the issue of retaining our own local influence and destiny as a nation, this referendum is also about whether we tie ourselves in to a failing bloc that is in a state of managed decline and, with the introduction of new members whose economies are extremely weak and mired in corruption, this decline is extremely likely to continue for decades, generations, perhaps centuries.

This is not what we want or need to be involved in when, outside the EU we would be free to trade with the rest of the world - with growing economies like China and India and our friends in the Commonwealth. Not stuck with trying to rescue the basket case economies of places like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Italy, Spain, Greece...

Oh and France (which is a massive disaster just waiting to happen).

Thanks for reading.















If you'd said, in 1945 that Germany would take over Europe in 70 years' time and the UK would help to pay for it..

Everyone would have laughed uproariously.

So tell me, how are you voting in the upcoming referendum again?

Oh and just what is happening in Greece right now?

Thanks for reading.


Sunday 14 June 2015

So when does the campaign start Dave?

I don't know about you - and I follow this quite closely - but I'm not sure when the starting gun will be fired for the upcoming EU referendum. Has it already sounded? Did I miss it?

It seems to me that Dave is avoiding the issue of when the thing starts. He has consistently avoided telling us (who employ him after all) what his 'red lines' on renegotiations with the EU are - i.e. what reforms he really wants to achieve and what, therefore, his success or failure might be judged upon.

When are these negotiations taking place? Are they already happening? Has his schmoozathon of recent weeks been 'it'? What has been the outcome? What did they (the EU) agree to? What did they reject? Or haven't we started yet?

Are we to be told or are we to go into a vote without any idea of what is at stake? And do Dave's 'red lines' match what we want and need - which is essentially an ability to control our own destiny as a nation instead of being governed by people we don't elect and therefore cannot vote out if they do not do what we want them to do?

The thing that really exasperates me is that Dave has made electoral capital out of the fact that he is offering a referendum. 'We're the only people offering a referendum'; 'if you want a referendum, you must vote Tory'.

But the thing is that most people who 'want a referendum' take that view because they want us to get out of the EU. Most people who want the UK to stay in - and that 'group' undoubtedly includes Mr Cameron - don't want a referendum. So we have been presented with the disingenuous argument that you should vote for Dave if you want out (via a referendum) even though he does not support your view. That stinks to high heaven in my opinion. He's garnering your vote in order to maintain his position as Prime Minister on the promise of a referendum, when he has absolutely no intention of allowing that referendum to return any result other than our staying in.

And yes you may say that he does not control the result, but that is a naive stance to take in my opinion. He knows that a combination of apathy ('things aren't so bad so let's not rock the boat') coupled with a positive 'vote in' campaign by the Government, backed by the EU itself and the EU-sponsored BBC will be an almost unstoppable force in the coming vote.

So saying 'vote for me' because then you'll get a referendum (but then you'll lose) is a fucking diabolical and underhand sham on Dave's behalf. He's simply not interested in holding a free and fair referendum that allows the people of this country to have a fair judgement on the issues at hand. After 40 years of the EU taking us for granted, taking our £28million a day contribution but ignoring our views and concerns and then potentially fixing the outcome of a referendum via the support that I have already outlined. It is now high time that we had a proper vote based on the facts not based on bribery and vested interests and the use of the machinery of government and propaganda to influence the outcome.

I don't think we'll get many facts to play with in this referendum. Because I sincerely do not think that any of the real 'facts' are in favour of our staying in. The Tory woman on Questiontime last week (whose name escapes me sorry) when challenged to identify the benefits we accrue from being in the EU came up with clean beaches and cheaper mobile phone roaming charges. And couldn't think of anything else. Because, there is nothing else - or very little. And we're paying £28 million a day for this?

If we get to the facts the 'out' vote will win. And will save the day not just for the UK but for everywhere in Europe that is not Germany. Once again we stand almost alone in having the ability to do what's right for Europe. To save it from being under the uncompromising yoke of Germany. And being changed forever in a negative way.

The 'yes' vote (for independence) in Scotland fell short, but the subsequent events in Scotland with the amazing rise of the SNP suggest that if the vote were to be re-held today, the overwhelming majority would vote for independence. I advocated just that vote during the campaign by the way.

I think we have a chance in the UK. I think that there is real hope that we will wake up and realise that we will be much better off if we control our own destiny. We need a leader to emerge. Farage has a part to play but not as the leader of the campaign for out.

Above all we need to know when the arguments are set and when we can start to get the campaign really under way. Count me in when that happens.

Thanks for reading.








Saturday 6 June 2015

We fought against Germany's last attempt to take over Europe. Now we're helping to pay for it. Sweary - warned ;)

Most of my blogs are rational, reasoned and polite. You could share them with your granny and she'd not take offence. This one isn't in that category. If you're offended by swearing please don't read on. Thanks. Normal polite service will be resumed hereafter. There is strobe lighting and flash photography from the start... ;)

Are we fucking mad?

We fought and shed blood; millions of people on both sides lost their lives in two world wars in the twentieth century in a fight that was essentially about protecting smaller countries from being taken over by bullying larger countries. Our very existence as a nation was under threat. We fought against this threat and we fought because we believed in freedom not just for ourselves but also for people in other countries who might be competitors in the global race, but who were also just like us - living their lives, working hard for themselves and their families, wanting to trade and be useful and to provide for themselves without being under the yoke of dictatorship.

And now we're funding Germany's take-over of Europe?

I ask again; are we fucking mad?

What we are seeing in the EU is effectively a take-over of Europe by Germany. This time with banks rather than tanks, but the outcome will be the same. Smaller countries in Europe beholden to, dependent upon and in thrall to Germany. And we're paying £28 million a day to help fund this 'project'?

Extreme? Look at Greece? And Spain, Italy, Portugal. Most of all look at France. A once proud nation that is now totally dependent upon Germany. You can add 'France' to the list of German states like Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine Westphalia.

France is now Germany's puppet. It cannot take a shit economically speaking without Frau Merkel agreeing to it.

And (let's forget about Greece for a moment, it has become a doomed bit-part player anyway) look at Italy and Spain too. Economic basket cases that buy German products but cannot export their own because of the relatively strong (for them) Euro. German companies are buying-up Italian and Spanish businesses like it's going out of fashion.

And we're helping them to do this. Mr Hitler would have blushed at the speed of this take-over. And while we do not agree with the 'direction of travel' that the EU is embarked upon, we are being too polite to take a real principled stand against it. But we're not just turning our backs on the process, we are actively helping to pay for it. Even though we don't agree with it. Even though we cannot envisage ever joining the Eurozone.

And we're twiddling our thumbs about immigration and control of our borders. While Germany takes over Europe.

The answer is 'yes'.

We are certifiably, fucking mad.

Thanks for reading.








The Euro is a 'one size fits none' currency..

A comment by the former head of the German CBI equivalent interviewed on WatO today is, I think worth repeating. Hans Olaf Henkel MEP. Link here, start at 38.45 in. He was talking about the Greek crisis.

'They have been able to buy again More time in order to escape the necessity...{to pay} 

Mark Mardell: 'What do you think about that?'

Well ha ha, if I was the  Greek Government I would behave exactly like that because since the Chancellor Frau Merkel has made it clear that Greece should stay in the currency union what is the incentive for the Greek Government to do something else? I don't think  they need to do much they just need to sit and wait and in the end Frau Merkel and Monsieur Holland will give in. That is my prediction

'Do you think they're wrong?

'Yes. They are absolutely wrong. They should have not let Greece off the hook in May 2010 and when they did this they destroyed the firewall between German taxpayers and politicians in the south of Europe. They are now condemned to save the Euro at all cost. And there is only one way out - let the Greeks go. And my party position is very clear; we are willing to forgive the debts which have been accumulated but only under one condition that Greece leaves the Currency Union. That is the new government and Athens has a face saving way out because they can claim to their constituencies they have got something and for the German finance minister it really means nothing. Because every economist in Europe knows that money is gone anyway.

MM: 'That's what you want but your political judgement seems to be it won't happen because the government is too soft.

'Yes I always try to differentiate between things I would like and the things which I see happening. And I must say as long as Frau Merkel will be in charge of the German Government she will not let the Greeks leave the currency union.  The Euro is much too strong for Greece and it is much too weak for Germany. And as the ex president of German industries I tell you I am quite appalled by the fact that it is so easy for German industry to export their goods on the basis of an undervalued Euro which makes it on the other hand very difficult for the Spanish, the  French, the Italians the Portuguese and the Greeks to export their goods. This has become blatantly apparent. This is a one size fits none currency.'

The absolute crux of why the Euro will never be good for Europe. It just traps everywhere that isn't Germany in a currency that makes exports impossible and disallows them from devaluing their currency in order to re-balance their economies and become competitive again on the world stage.

And the pain that this is causing throughout Europe but especially in the PIGS is becoming intolerable. It is causing an increase in violence and potential conflict and youth unemployment rates of around 50%. Interesting - perhaps critical - is his inclusion of France in that equation. France will ultimately be the key and just as it has been the biggest beneficiary of the EU (to keep it quiet and 'onside' with the CAP subsidising it's medieval subsistence farming economy) it will also, ultimately, be the biggest loser. I love France by the way - this is not jingoistic in any way - but they know they have a massive economic problem and in my view the sooner this boil is lanced, the sooner France will be able to stand on its own two feet again as a nation. There will be significant pain along the way though.

Thanks for reading.





Thursday 4 June 2015

Dave said today he didin't think we should ever join the Euro. So why support the project?












In today's PMQs Mr Cameron said he believes that the UK should never join the Euro. That means he believes we should never give up the pound and throw in our lot with the 'ever closer union' that is being pursued by the EU. I know he's been reported as saying this before, but it was an 'on the record' in Hansard and very public declaration today.

Extremely welcome it was too. But it does give rise to a fundamental question:

Given that the EU has publicly declared that its direction of travel is towards ever closer union and the establishment of a single state of Europe under EU control, with a single flag, anthem, army, government and financial apparatus (tax and pension laws etc), why would we want to carry on supporting this project financially if it is not something we would ever envisage joining?

And why would we want to give financial support (as the second or third biggest contributor) to what will essentially be a rival club?

Particularly when not supporting it will make absolutely no difference to our ability to trade with Eurozone countries? It makes no difference to Norway or Switzerland and as the Eurozone's biggest customer on planet earth, there is just no way that they could afford not to trade with us, or to impose any kind of trade sanctions. They have much more to lose than we do - our trade with the outside (non EU) world is growing while our trade with the Eurozone is shrinking and is now (a continuing and accelerating trend) less than 50%.

Obviously one can slice the figures to make an argument, this credible report suggests that EU membership and regulation costs the UK £90bn a year. It is a fact that we pay £28 million a day (net of rebate) which adds up to £10.22 billion a year. This more conservative latter figure would enable us to pay the estimated (by the NHS) £8 billion increase needed to fund the 'envy of the world' and get our defence spending up to 2% of GDP.

The £90 billion figure (if saved on current spending) could transform our economy, our public services and our country for the better immeasurably.

We can kick this about if you like, but the fundamental principle is what I'm talking about here. Why would we 'donate' a plugged nickel, for no benefit to the UK, when we have significant budgetary issues right here at home, to support a project that is fundamentally not what we want?

Why would we provide substantial (by any measure) financial support to the EU's take-over of Europe. Essentially to Germany's take-over of Europe when they (Germany) are our main economic rivals? I'm not saying that this rivalry is potentially violent of 'nasty' but I am saying that, in Europe, Germany is a competitor - our biggest competitor.

It makes no sense. If we accept that we will never join the Euro, I see absolutely no earthly reason why we should support those who do, who are either already 'in' or who want to join. There is absolutely no benefit to the UK from doing so.

In footballing terms, we're essentially paying for our opponents to buy a star striker - nay a star team - with whom we have an important upcoming match. And this match is one that if we lose we could well be relegated to the minor leagues. Why on earth would we want to do this?

 Thanks for reading.

















Wednesday 3 June 2015

Couple of pasta recipes for your delectation - enjoy ;)

Following on from an ancient blog about feeding three people for £53 a week in which the recipes were well received, I thought I'd share another couple of Italian recipes for you to try.

Cheap and quick but also very good, and simple to make. Here ya go:

Spagetti con tonno

This takes about ten minutes to cook, start to finish but is a meal with amazing favour and depth.


Put a medium pan of water on to boil, add a little salt and a few drops of olive oil, cook about 120 grams of spagetti per person - about 8 minutes will be just cooked, don't cook for longer.


















 Meanwhile open a tin of anchovies, pour the oil into another smaller pan with about a tablespoon of olive oil. Chop half the contents of the anchovy tin (and save the rest). Crush and then chop three cloves of garlic and add the anchovies and garlic together with a tea-spoon of chili flakes (sounds like quite a lot of chili but pasta reduces the heat of chili - trust me on this) to the hot oil and cook for a maximum of two minutes.


















Drain the pasta but not too well (i.e. retain a bit of the starchy water) and add this to the garlic, anchovy & chili mix. Turn the heat down and add a small tin of drained tuna (or sardines if you prefer/have in the cupboard), half a jar of green pesto (red is fine too for this meal) and a heaped tablespoon of drained capers. Mix, allow to heat through (couple of minutes max) and serve with a good twist of black pepper and some grated Parmesan cheese on the top.


















A glass of red and a fork only. Enjoy. It's fab. If you don't have the chili flakes or anchovies or capers it's still quite good, but I wouldn't bother. With them it's great.























Second is a really easy lasagna. I tend not to bother using minced beef in anything these days and think lasagna is much better without it to be honest. This is vegetarian, quick, easy and simple. Also very cheap and really tasty.




Simply thaw a bag of frozen spinach (the frozen stuff which comes in clumps or discs rather than recognisable leaves) drain and mix with a small carton of soft cheese with garlic and herbs (72p from Aldi). Arrange a layer of lasagna sheets over the bottom of your lasagna dish, add half the spinach and cheese mixture, add another layer of lasagna sheets and the rest of the mix on top. A final layer of lasagna topped with a tin of chopped tomatoes (27p at Aldi) and a small carton of passata (31p). Spread this out and top with grated cheddar cheese. You could top this all with some slices of tomato if you like but not essential.

















Bake in the oven at 180 degrees for 30-40 minutes.

Serve with a twist of black pepper and a side salad. You'll get six meals out of this.

Great for week-nights, not too heavy but satisfying. And costs about £3 in total!




































Enjoy. And thanks for reading.








Tuesday 2 June 2015

What the EU Referendum question really is

If the EU continues down its publicly stated path towards a federal Europe, one country, one political entity, one place, (anthem, flag, army, economy) how can the UK continue to be a part of it? Unless we want to be part of this single state?

If we stay 'in' we will have to be part of the process and the end game. There is simply no other reason why we would stay in the EU and, critically, no other possible outcome. Voting for 'in' is not a temporary measure, it is about whether we support the EU's vision for Europe becoming a single state - and if we vote for 'in' that includes the UK.

The question at hand in this coming referendum is not, therefore, 'should we remain in the EU', but 'do we want to be part of a single European state?'

Obviously there are ramifications if we do, losing the pound, our local democracy and representation etc., and some of us might want this to happen.

But the question ought to be clearer in my view. Yes I have blogged that the question as it stands is pretty fair. But on reflection, the question we face is not about retaining the status quo, it is about supporting, paying for, and ultimately joining the EU on its own terms. If we vote for 'in' we will be giving a mandate for the EU to press on with it's federal goals. And agreeing to pay a massive chunk of the costs of that process.

When I don't think we actually agree with it.

Whatever reforms Dave might secure from his 'schmoozathon' will not change the fundamental situation. We might secure some opt outs, some minor repatriation of powers (probably to do with border controls which are not the most pressing issues), but essentially if we vote to stay 'in' we are the EU's puppy now. Because we will have voted, however it's sliced - and it will be - to be in the EU and, therefore to continue to support and pay for its federal project, even if we don't agree with it.

Look beyond the proposed question and you'll understand the reality that we face in this vote. We cannot (via our 'reforms' anyway) stop the EU from becoming a single state. It may not happen ultimately because of the economic problems it has itself created, but we cannot stop its direction of travel.

If we leave it (the EU project) will almost certainly be dead in the water, but this is not the question we face in the here and now. The question we face is whether we want to be part of a single European federal state.

If we want to give up our status as a self-governing nation state. That is the reality.

And no amount of 'reforms' will change that.

It's up to you how you vote of course. But be fully aware of the consequences before you make your choice.

Thanks for reading.








Monday 1 June 2015

This coming referendum is not just about UK membership but the very survival of Europe as a 'place'

Given that we almost never get a free and fair referendum on anything - no government is ever keen to offer a choice to the public unless it is very sure of getting its own way - the coming in/out referendum on our membership of the EU is a once in a lifetime chance. For those on both sides of the argument.

And let's be quite clear about this; the UK's referendum is not just about the UK, it's about the very existence of the EU as an organisation and as a project.

If the UK votes to leave the EU the whole project will be doomed to failure. Just look at the chaos that the prospect of net recipient Greece's departure is causing in Brussels. If the EU's second biggest net contributor and the Eurozone's biggest customer in the world (the UK) were to leave it would be catastrophic for the EU.

So this is not simply about the UK's membership, it's about the EU project in its totality.

If Dave really wanted to secure meaningful reforms he only has to threaten to support the campaign for Brexit (which would undoubtedly happen with the government's support) and the EU would be faced with the stark choice of abject failure, or being able to continue as a going concern. Without the UK's financial and political support the EU cannot possibly survive.

If you doubt this, consider who contributes financially to the EU. Germany, obviously but it would have to carry the EU on its back almost entirely. France is a net contributor on paper but given that 47% of the EU budget goes on the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) which subsidises French subsistence farming this 'contribution' is more about paying some money in and then taking even more out behind closed doors. The French economy (I love France by the way) is a basket case that is only surviving because of EU support.

While the UK contribution is estimated to be not £28m a day (net) but actually some £90 billion a year - more here.

So who would provide the support Germany needs to run the EU if we left and France is essentially a chocolate fire guard? Well the only other two economies of any size in the EU are Italy and Spain. And they're both in deep and seemingly endless recessions (as a direct result of EU policies).

Yes there's Sweden, Denmark and Finland, efficient economies but without the clout or size to provide any real money to the EU.Their contribution would certainly not be the difference between success and failure for the EU. Holland then? Belgium? Like asking Budgens to bail out ASDA.

Everyone else is a net recipient. It might not be officially portrayed as such by the EU (whose books have not been signed off by auditors for the past 20 years) but it is the case. We are propping up the EU and have been for decades, without securing any meaningful benefits from being a member of the club.

But it's actually much worse than that. We're paying £90 billion a year towards the EU and we're their biggest customer on the planet and in return, we're sneered at by the EU. Our concerns and 'issues' are ignored or rejected. 'It's just the UK we don't have to listen to them.'  We have an 8% and shrinking influence on the direction of the EU. Yet we pay for about 40% of it.

And it is not going in the way we want. It wants a federal Europe, we want free trade and cooperative nation states.

It's time we left them to it. It's time we stopped funding this monstrous imposition on the nation states of Europe. It's time we stopped lending our support to what is effectively a German take-over of Europe. We fought against this recently, now we're paying to help them achieve their original goal of a take-over of Europe?

It is an utterly mad state of affairs. Instead of defending the peoples of Europe from German tyranny, we're helping Germany to achieve its goals?

We can stop this take-over from happening. Not without some financial pain (but without any real financial pain for the UK) this time too. And we can help to free the people of Europe from Germany's yoke, this time without bloodshed. But be in no doubt that this is essentially the same thing that we fought for in the most recent unpleasantness (WW2). Freedom for nation states in Europe. Freedom for people against a take-over by a bigger predator nation.

And this time we don't have to melt down the iron railings outside our houses to be made into bullets. This time we can just put a cross in the box on a piece of paper. The result will be the same. In the right 'box' your cross will save the Europe that we know and love, from German tyranny.

Because that is really what is at stake here. What Europe looks like in 40 year's time. An essentially Germanic state or a place where being Spanish or Italian, Polish or French is not just a reality but an asset to the place.

Over the top? Maybe. But consider this: Where were we 40 years ago when we voted for free trade? And where are we now? An anthem, a flag, an EU army? A single federal state of 'Europe'? Run by people we don't vote for and who we cannot remove if we want to? A socialist dictatorship. Because that is what the EU is in essence.

And it is the world's only failing and shrinking trading bloc. Do you really want Spain to be German? France to be boring? Italy to be controlled? Everywhere in Europe to be the same place, regimented, controlled, poor, except for the ruling classes in Germany?

The current feeling across the UK is that the EU is 'not that bad', I'm not really worried about it, it's OK, I don't see the need for us to leave.

This is because the EU has deliberately used issues like straight bananas to turn people off from the real issues. But the issues are so fundamental to our future and the future of Europe that we have a duty to communicate their seriousness. To inform people of what their apathy will actually mean.

Get off your arse and understand that this is a clear and present threat to our freedoms. And tell others about it.

We need to leave - and kill off - the EU. It is the biggest threat we have faced since 1945 and it's success will have exactly the same consequences for Europe as if we had lost the war.

Vote 'no' in the coming referendum.

Voting for 'in' would be akin to embracing the views and the consequences of Mr Hitler.

I know that sounds extreme, but perhaps you'll consider the facts and the issues before you condemn me for making that comparison.

Thanks for reading.