Tuesday 27 October 2015

'A reformed EU'. What does that mean, and how likely is it?

Everyone, politicians of all sides, commentators, economists have been talking for months (years even) about the UK staying within a 'reformed EU'.

But what does this actually mean?

On the face of it, I take it to mean a different EU;  a better EU for the whole of Europe. More democratic, more supportive of smaller member states, more active in securing global trade deals, more about trade and ensuring prosperity for all members.

An umbrella organisation with influence over environmental, employment, health and safety standards, with a remit to create a level trading playing field that is free from corruption and which enables incoming member states, many of whom are mired in corruption, to break those shackles and become truly members of the first world. With free and fair trading societies but without losing the good bits of their 'places' - their history, culture, democratic influence, nation statehood - the very things which make each of these places special with their own identities and a cultural contribution to make to the whole.

Not all, but the vast majority of these things are about bringing new members into the first world. They are not about forcing the UK to have fair laws on health & safety or 'clean beaches': The UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia and the Low Countries are already 'there' in terms of most of these issues, it's largely about bringing up standards in other countries and, along the way, creating Europe-wide standards for every member state.

And, in theory, if this happens then the EU will have created a better, fairer, more equal trading area that will be better for us in the UK and everyone else in Europe. Which is partly why we seem happy to continue to pay £28 million a day (net) towards this ideological goal.

But the EU is doing very few, if any, of these things successfully. Ask any young person in southern Europe how the prosperity thing is going. Ask people who don't have a vested interest in the EU (i.e. are not paid by the EU) how their basket case economies are being helped by being in the Eurozone. And I'm not just talking about Greece here, but also Portugal, Poland, Eire, Spain, Italy, even France. None of these countries is prospering under the yolk of the EU.

So what reforms are we hoping to secure? That the EU will undergo some kind of 'reboot' and get back to its founding principles?

That is not going to happen. Indeed the EU's response to the endless crises that it is directly responsible for, is to go for more integration (cultural, political and financial) which will essentially create even more of the pain that it has been inflicting upon the vast majority of 'ordinary' people in Europe for the past 40 years.

It is now moving headlong towards a single federal state, with its own central government, anthem, flag, army, tax and employment system, retirement laws - a completely integrated single state, based on the German model. Yeah good luck with making Greeks or Spaniards or Italians 'German' in their outlook and behaviours. Let alone the citizens of incoming countries like Albania and potentially Turkey.

This federal, United States of Europe will never happen successfully or fairly in a way which benefits all members states, but the EU is now so bought-in to this federal process - and the Eurocrats have nowhere else to go if this project fails - that their policies and 'direction of travel' is now much more entrenched than it has ever been.

The plan is really about securing and maintaining their own cushy lifestyles and gold-plated pension schemes, as well as doing Germany's bidding - because Germany IS doing very well out of the whole process while everyone else is suffering. And it seems to me that the rest of Europe has become 'expendable'; with democratic processes and the will of the people being ignored - see Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Eire and, just this week, Portugal. And the financial quagmire into which they have all been lured by the 'free money' provided by the EU (Germany), is now being used to achieve their complete subjugation.

So there is simply no prospect of a 'reformed' EU. They have stated their goals and they don't seem to care how many people and countries fail, so long as the EU remains viable as an institution. And the old chestnut about the UK only being able to affect the direction of the EU 'from within' is utterly redundant: (Business for Britain)
And Dave obviously knows this and so, if they'd bother to spend any time thinking about it, does everyone else, including the media. It's just that they don't seem to want to face reality and are carrying on kicking the can down the road in the hope that something will turn up to get the whole place out of the utter mess that it finds itself in. Many, like Ken Clark, Heseltine, Mandelson, Blair, Clegg, etc., are so wedded to the EU via their own pension arrangements, that they're hardly likely to dissent. And the EU pays the BBC £millions a year to be 'on side' so don't expect any 'balanced reporting in line with the BBC's charter' there then.

So this 'campaign to remain in a reformed EU' is simply not credible. The EU is not going to be reformed.

What Dave et al are really talking about then, is a reformed relationship between the EU and the UK. It really is no more ambitious than that. They know there is not the slightest possibility of achieving any real reform of the EU. And actually, from a parochial (technical term approaching) UK point of view, so fucking what?

If these countries' governments are stupid enough to want to hand over all their powers to Germany (via the EU of course, snigger) then what business is that of ours? But we should not be helping Germany, to the tune of £28 million a day, to achieve what will effectively be a full-blown take-over of Europe.

The EU is set on a (federalist) course that we don't support. Except we are supporting it with massive amounts of British taxpayers' money. How mad is that? We could build a fully staffed and equipped NHS hospital every 2 weeks for the same money we're paying into the EU.

And why would anyone even want to try to reform a relationship with someone who has directly opposing views and takes absolutely no notice whatsoever of our concerns and wishes? Particularly when there are no meaningful benefits to our remaining in this dysfunctional relationship

Trade is always the argument isn't it? Would we be shut out by the EU if we were to leave? Would it be more difficult for us to trade in Europe if we were outside the EU?

Well consider this: The UK is the Eurozone's biggest customer in the world. Bigger than China and the US as far as the EU is concerned. Does anyone seriously think that the EU would make trading between itself and its biggest customer more difficult if we were to leave? Our trade deficit with the EZ is £46 billion a year, in their favour.

Making UK trade with the EU more difficult would be like a patient on life support flicking off the power to the machine that's keeping them alive.

And yet, and yet. Dave tells us that he'll be negotiating 'in Britain's interests'. If we leave, the EU will almost certainly be fatally wounded. It would seriously struggle to remain viable. Just think of the crisis that arose when net recipient Greece was in it's 5-yearly melt-down earlier this year. And then multiply that situation by a hundred-fold if the second or third (debatable because France is clearly getting more back than is currently being admitted) biggest contributor were to leave?

So Dave holds all the cards in this negotiating position, but he is reluctant (actually outright refusing) to play them. He's not negotiating in Britain's interests, he's trying to fudge the whole thing so that we stay in the EU for reasons that are bigger than we are being told about. They must be. I follow this very closely and I cannot fathom why Dave is still pro the UK's membership of the EU whether it's reformed or not. It makes no sense whatsoever.

He's selling us out in my opinion, and there is no earthly reason, if one looks at this with our own national interests in mind, for him to do so or to be behaving how he is.

All of which adds up to the fact that there will be no reformed EU and no meaningful reforms to our relationship with it. Which, in turn adds up to the fact that we should leave - on friendly terms of course - but leave nonetheless.

And then we should pay very close attention to the EU ministers/Eurocrats and their attitudes towards the UK once we've left.  Just to see if they are still sneering at us while their utterly unjustifiable livelihoods fall into the dust.

Dave is toast if he carries on with this 'campaign for in' charade much longer. And if he doesn't, in the end, act in the national interests of the people who elected him as Prime Minister, he will go down in history as an enemy of this country's interests.

I don't really care much about that, it's up to him and he currently has every opportunity to do the right thing. What really is important, is that we take what will probably our last chance to leave the EU and retake our leading position in the world as the 5th or 6th largest economy on the planet, and in control of our own destiny instead of having an 8% (and falling as new members join) influence on the planet's only failing trading bloc.

And if you let apathy decide your vote when the referendum comes; if you think we're better off with the status quo, that leaving is not worth the risk; you will be condemning future generations to being ruled by people we - and they - don't elect. And it won't be the status quo. The EU is not standing still, it is pushing inexorably towards a federal state.

If we leave we will be free to take our rightful place in the world and will be able to control our own destiny. We will be governed by people who live locally to us, who understand our issues and, crucially, who we can vote out if they don't deliver what we want them to.

If we stay in, the laws by which you will be forced to live, will be made by people you didn't vote for, can't vote out, and who will almost certainly never have heard of the city, town or village in which you live, let alone understand your issues.

I genuinely cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would want the UK to 'remain' in the EU. Outside we will still be part of Europe, will still be a major trading partner, but it will be on our own terms. That must be worth fighting for - as we did, as a nation, twice in our relatively recent history - and for very similar reasons if one thinks about it.

Thanks for reading.









Thursday 22 October 2015

This 'human beings' thing..

During last week's BBCQT when all hell let loose between 'surburban' Rod Liddle and 'utter leftie snob' and New York resident Simon Scharma on the UK's best response to the tide of immigration that is coming inexorably from the Middle East to Europe, one audience member effectively stole the show and you may think won the argument by playing the 'these are human beings' card.

Fellow human beings who need our help was the message. And so we should obviously offer whatever help we can, was the unspoken bottom line. Indeed, I'd go further. The 'they're human beings' mantra didn't use the words 'just like us', but it was there writ large of course.

The problem is that they are not 'human beings just like us' at all, and therein lies the problem. You may say 'I'm out' at this point and condemn me, but I'd ask you to read on if you want to give me a fair hearing on this massively difficult subject. If you don't enjoy being challenged in your views, why the hell are you reading my stuff in the first place? :)

In an ideal world I would have every sympathy for this generous but naive view. My solution would not be for us to then take everyone in, which is what she was implying, but it is, on the face of it, a compelling argument and illustrative of the generosity and care that is part of our western culture. It was, if anything, a comment that did her credit in a fundamental humanitarian sense even if it was essentially flawed and terribly naive in my opinion.

My solution, as I have blogged about here and here, would be to try to help these people in their own region so that a; they're not forced to risk their lives at the mercy of ruthless people traffickers in order to get here and b; that we are not swamped by a mono-culture that clearly does not share the same values that made the 'human beings' message so compelling.

Because - and I know this is a very harsh, controversial and likely unpopular thing to say - these 'human beings' are not the 'human beings' that the audience member had in mind when making the point. Her point was made, in my view, based on the naive assumption that these are 'human beings' just like us. And that if we 'human beings' were in the same sort of peril as they are, we would want to be treated and helped in the same way that she was proposing to help them. By treating them as if they are the same as we are.

But they are not the same as we are. There I've said it. Puts on tin hat.

Let me please just say here for the avoidance of doubt, that I do care about people and I am not saying any of this in a selfish way. It breaks my heart to have to say that these people are not 'human beings just like us', because in an ideal world they should be. But I am right in saying that they are not. And that is a tragic fact. Let me also say that some - but not all - of these 'human beings' are throwing people off tower blocks for being gay and are beheading people for not converting to Islam. Not all. But what I have said is also a fact. An important fact.

Had they all been born in the West and been brought up in our largely free, fair and democratic society, they might well be the same as us; have the same generous values as us, whatever their original background or religion - I'm not making a racist point here in any way. But they weren't and that means that there is a massive difference between our idealistic view of them being 'just' human beings and what they actually are, and have become because of where they grew up, where they have lived their lives thus far and their indoctrinated, religion-driven belief systems.

They don't share the same beliefs and values of generosity and care that we do and whilst that is certainly a source of sadness and sympathy towards them, they simply are not the 'just human beings' that was implied in the comment.

It is nowhere near as simple as just saying 'they're human beings' (just like us). Because they're not.

I'm sure the woman who made the comment would extend her view about just 'human beings' to gay people. I bet she'd be one of the first to stand up for gay people as 'human beings'. I bet she'd stand up for the rights of women not to be controlled or enslaved or for people who don't believe in one religion or another not to be persecuted. She'd probably be outraged by the fact that young girls are being forced into marriage at age 11 and being sexually mutilated (FGM) at a very young age. Routine practises in the world of these 'human beings' of whom she speaks. And if so, I'd be standing right beside her.

The 'human beings' she was in favour of helping without reservation, are human beings many of whom (and not just the 'extremists') are intolerant of gay people, intolerant towards people who don't believe in the same God or religious doctrine that they do.

Yes we should help our fellow human beings if we can: Given the sheer numbers involved it is imperative that we endeavour to help them in their own countries so that they don't have to risk their lives to get away and also so that we are not swamped by 'human beings' who don't share our values in any meaningful way. Because if we do take people into the UK who have these values it will certainly undermine our society and the very belief system that spawned the 'human beings' comment. And if their views are welcomed in their own countries but not in ours, that's a bigger and better reason to try to help - and keep - them where they are.  Because if (when?) it so happens that we take millions of these 'human beings into the west and the UK in particular, hers will become a hollow argument very quickly as their intolerance sweeps her engaging, attractive, naive and ultimately flawed stance from under her feet.

And those that we do help by welcoming them into the West, must understand that the western values and generosity that has welcomed them in, to help them, must be reciprocated and not undermined.

Harsh? Perhaps. Practical and necessary? Undeniably in my view.

If we don't act to ensure that the 'human beings' we help, understand what being a 'human being' means in the West and in the terms implied by the BBCQT speaker, then the values, generosity, care and the very humanity she was talking about, will be lost and rendered utterly irrelevant. The status of 'human being' might mean one recognisable thing to us in the West, but it certainly is not the same thing that is understood amongst those we seek to help in this increasingly tragic situation.

Of course, in the end, these people are just human beings, in peril, in need and deserving of our concern and our care, but sadly they are not 'just like us' and if we are to survive, retain our values and generosity, we need to understand this difficult issue in my opinion.

The BBCQT speaker had the right idea and the right values but what she was espousing will result in the exact opposite of what she has in mind. And that's unutterably sad. But true nonetheless.

Thanks for reading.





Monday 19 October 2015

Multiculturalism has worked in the UK for centuries. What doesn't work is a massive mono-cultural influx

We're all immigrants really. If you go back far enough. Some have to go back further than others but many, like me, feel - and indeed are - entirely British, even though my dad was an immigrant from southern Ireland only 60 years' ago.

Whether it was the Norse or the Angels, the indigenous Celts or the Normans, the French, Finns, Poles, West Indians, Indians, Asians, us Paddies, the marauding Scots, we have ended up as a thriving multicultural society with broadly agreed views, values and outlook on life. And we have largely arrived at a consensus; shaped by the views, values and beliefs of people from all of these backgrounds, as to what being British is about. And I think we should be immensely proud of this: Britain has given more positives to the world than any other nation on earth.

It is not an unblemished record. There have been dark days and exploitation along the way but in terms of the most valuable assets - for nations and individuals - freedom, choice, rule of law and a civilised approach to living our lives, we have led the way globally for centuries.

And whilst these 'British' values have been shaped by everyone concerned, they have also endured because (for the past couple of hundred years at least), those coming in have understood - or quickly come to understand - what being part of this great nation actually means in terms of benefits and responsibilities, duty and opportunity, respect and generosity. It only really works when we're all pulling in the same general direction and the vast majority of British people (newly arrived and of long-standing tenure) understand and accept this.

Multiculturalism then, has and does work for Britain when it is about people coming from virtually anywhere on the planet and with wildly varying views, beliefs and backgrounds, if they understand, believe in and accept what it means to be part of this place.

This does not mean that they have to give up all cultural, historical or even religious affiliations from their former homes (Norman Tebbit's 'who do you support in the cricket match'? question), but it does mean accepting that you are now a British citizen first and that our laws, at the very least, are sacrosanct whoever you support at Lords, the Oval, Trent Bridge or even your place of worship.

And this has worked essentially for two reasons:

Firstly because the numbers involved were relatively small over time and that there has been a diversity of incomers in terms of their backgrounds. And yes people have tended to congregate in areas where their fellow immigrants have settled but in relatively small numbers that have subsequently been assimilated into the general population. There are obviously exceptions to this in Bradford, my home town of Leicester, Birmingham and parts of London but they have 'worked' (relatively speaking) for the second reason:

Which is that most of these 'incomers' have been grateful to be here, have recognised the generosity of their hosts and that working within the system rather than fighting against it, is likely to produce the best outcomes for them and their families. After all, why strive to come here only to fight against the existing situation which promises a better life for themselves? That would be mad.

Wouldn't it?

Given what I've said so far, I'm not sure I really need to spell out the rest of my point, but I do realise that there are two types of people in the world:

1: those who can assimilate from incomplete data....


In recent years what we currently and erroneously describe as 'multiculturalism' clearly hasn't worked and isn't working. That's not my opinion, but the received wisdom from government and most cultural, economic and political commentators. Dave has today begun to spell out government policies designed to address the problem that is radical Islam in our society. And as usual the Muslim Council of Britain is rejecting the attempt rather than getting on board with it and trying to help - for the good of the people it supposedly represents. Which remains extremely worrying - what agenda are these Muslim leaders really working to?

But it's not a failure of multiculturalism because what we now face is not multiculturalism but mono-culturalism. It's a failure that has come about because of an influx of people from one culture - a culture which, in these significant and likely to grow (massively) numbers, cannot be 'forced' (by economic or cultural/community reality nor the barrel of a gun), to assimilate, to take on our fundamental values, to respect our laws.

And by not imposing our laws consistently or effectively, by turning a blind eye to FGM, polygamy, child brides, honour killings, electoral fraud, child grooming for sexual exploitation, radicalisation, attempts to influence our education system, we are effectively creating a much bigger problem than should ever have existed in the first place.

Multiculturalism has always worked in Britain. What we currently have is an influx of mono-culturalism and by allowing it to retain its own identity, in some places to enforce its own sharia law system and by turning a blind eye to its disregard for UK laws, we are exacerbating the problem. Which is why it's simply not working.

But it has now become a massive problem. One that will take several generations to solve if indeed we can solve it at all. And one which, in my opinion, could well lead to serious conflict on our streets before long.

Dave is right to be doing what he's doing, but it may already be too late.

Thanks for reading.


























Sunday 18 October 2015

Refugee or Migrant? It's no longer a clear distinction and nor is it enforceable

At the start of this growing international crisis it was my view that we should help and where appropriate take in genuine refugees (as we always have done) and that we should not take in economic migrants who have no legal right to come here, in line with the Dublin System and UN laws passed in Geneva in 1951 - laws which were designed specifically to stop this current crisis from happening in the first place.

By instinct I still feel that these principle-based laws and approach should hold sway - they were arrived at for a reason after all - but the fact is that we are now being swamped by reality and that the situation that these laws were framed to address has now changed beyond recognition.

Quite simply the sheer numbers involved now mean that we have to take a different approach and none of the western politicians at the epicentre of this crisis - and crisis is not an inappropriate term, it may not be strong enough - seem to realise just what is happening or what will happen if we carry on the way we are.

The first point to make about my initial view is that whilst it may have been correct in principle and in law, the fact is that it has now become impossible to differentiate between genuine refugees and economic migrants. Particularly when the 'West' seems now to have become so liberal in its view of the situation and so reluctant to enforce existing and long-standing laws (whether you agree with them or not). 'These people are human beings' went the mantra on BBCQT this week. And of course that's right and I think we all have some sympathy with that view.

But even if we could differentiate between genuine refugees and economic or 'illegal' migrants, it would not solve the problem we face as a nation, or as a group of western nations or even as 'human beings'. Why? Because this crisis has now become about numbers and fundamentally about how many people wealthier countries can afford to help - and go on helping in the future - without being 'swamped' by an influx of the needy or 'ambitious'.

When you are trying to help a desperate person who is drowning the (sound) advice is that one should offer them something to hold onto like a pole or a rope. Not your hand or your arm. Why? Because that desperate person will not let go under any circumstances and will pull you in with them (by instinct not by any desire to do you harm) and then you will be pulled in and drown with them instead of, in extremis, being able to let go of your end of the rope and so survive yourself to help others.

It is not an attractive scenario, but it is a sensible one. What we are in danger of doing at the moment is offering our hand and our arm for the desperate to hang onto and not let go in a way which will cause us to drown alongside those we are trying to help.

There are 10.8 million Syrian refugees (genuine or otherwise) in refugee camps outside Syria right now according to the UN. That's just Syrian, not Afghan or Eritrean or Iraqi. In designated camps. So even if we completely disregarded the tens of thousands of displaced (deliberately or otherwise) who are crossing into Europe every week as 'illegal migrants', we'd still have to try to help and accept 10.8 million from Syria alone.

And by 'we' I of course mean 'the West', but most countries in the West can't afford (politically or economically) or have no intention of accommodating these kinds of numbers.

And so it becomes a question of how many the richer countries can take. Countries like Germany, France, the Low countries and Scandinavia. And the UK.

Dave reckons we'll take 20,000 over 5 years. Meanwhile there are now 6,000 in camps at Sangatte in Calais many of whom are trying, nightly, to cross into the UK illegally. And our 'partner' France is encouraging these people to cross France at little cost in order to be able to try to enter the UK in order to move the problem away from France.

And Frau Merkel has invited a million people to come to Germany and boy are they coming and boy do they see this as a time-limited opportunity which is why the trickle is turning into a flood.

Which is why people are drowning in the Med. Which is why people are buying life-jackets before they set out because they know (and agree to this) that the smugglers will sink the boats they're on so that their human cargo is rescued and taken to Italy or wherever, rather than being sent back.

And once in Italy they are taken to local hospitals, checked over and then they 'melt away' and get on a free train put on by the French to get to Calais.

So much for EU solidarity to try to solve the problem.

There is just one question that we need to address now. It's not about existing laws (because other than Hungary no-one is even thinking about upholding them). It's not about making a distinction between genuine refugees (who will, as always, suffer most because of this tide of humanity) and 'illegals'.

It's about, fundamentally, whether we offer a rope or a pole for these people to hang on to, or whether we offer our hands and arms. And therefore risk being drowned ourselves in a way which will mean we cannot help others in the future.

Or to put it another way, it's about whether we believe we can take in literally millions of often desperate but sometimes simply opportunistic people, a significant percentage of whom will not view our generosity as a reason for gratitude but for further demands on that generosity in terms of entitlement, religious goals and a distinct lack of tolerance towards us in order to achieve their own ends, or not.

Whether we believe that our view of these people as 'human beings' (with all the associated generosity, tolerance and goodwill that goes with it) is reciprocated.

I think that's a big call. And one that is not supported in any way by the available evidence.

I'd say that this 'taking in' approach is fraught with danger. I'd say that these people have absolutely zero history of being tolerant or caring or generous towards others.

I'd say that it's a massive stretch for us to hope that by being generous to them, that they will be generous to us, or to other needy people in the future. Which is what we would want to happen.

I'd say that we simply cannot take in these people in the numbers that are trying to come without it having a massive negative effect on our own way of life and our own generosity towards the rest of the world. Without it having a massive detrimental effect on the very fabric of our western society.

Instead of emptying their homelands we need to go in, with boots on the ground, not to destroy like Bliar and Bush did, but to create a civilised environment in which they can live in their own countries instead of wanting to come to the west.

If we do not do this we will find that we are dragged down to the level of society in the Middle East and the future of all us 'human beings' will be a desperate one.

Thanks for reading.


















Tuesday 13 October 2015

EU: 'not enough time for treaty change before UK referendum'. Bullshit

I've blogged more extensively here about how Dave's renegotiations are a complete con.

However I was perhaps too gentle on him in that blog and wanted to cut to the chase just a little more forcefully.

Because here's the reality we're facing: Dave - and indeed all 'serious' political commentators from all political parties (hence the ' ' ) including Miliband, Clegg, Farron, Bliar, even Nuttily Bennett - have said we need a reform of the EU and our relationship with it if we are to remain 'in'.

Of course they have all conveniently forgotten having said this now that the battle lines are being drawn and are instead urging us to stay in regardless of any reforms. A stance which fundamentally undermines our negotiating position. Which tells you all you need to know about how honest or serious they were when talking about the need for reforms.

So off Dave toddles with his new satchel and shiny shoes to try and negotiate some changes. But these changes are about what he can get away with, what he can claim as being 'success' (without, you'll have noticed, first telling us what his 'red lines' for renegotiations are). They are about Europe agreeing the minimal, peripheral, window-dressing changes that will allow Dave to campaign for 'in'. They are simply not about what is best for the UK now and, more importantly, in the future. Despite what Dave will tell us.

On the other side of the 'debate' we have the EU saying that there is no possibility - no time - for them to enact treaty changes in time for the proposed UK referendum. So even if reforms are 'agreed' in principle, there can be absolutely no guarantee that the EU will enact them because the treaty changes upon which these reforms rely, will not be possible in the time-frame.

So the EU could tell us what we want to hear, Dave could then bring the full weight of the British establishment to bear, secure an 'in' vote at the referendum based on 'agreed proposals' and then the EU could simply chuck out our concessions when treaty changes are voted on by the EU at some point in the future.

And if this happens (which seems very likely to me given how the EU machinery works) will we then get another referendum? Because what we voted on didn't happen?

Will we fuck.

And here is the future of the EU mapped out in its own document. If we vote to remain 'in' we will not get another chance. In ten years' time we will have given up the Pound. And along with it any possibility of Britain remaining as a nation state able to govern itself.

Which is why the 'in-crowd' have jettisoned their previously stated case of needing reforms in Britain's interests.

The thing is, when Greece encountered its German-designed and infinitely recurring 5-year financial crisis earlier this year, the EU was able to change its rules, almost overnight. Not to help Greece you understand but to help the German and French banks (and the IMF) who were exposed to Greek debt. Little 'net recipient' Greece was able to motivate the EU to change its rules very quickly in order to protect itself.

Just imagine if the third biggest contributor to the EU threatened to leave unless it (the EU) enacted or legally guaranteed treaty changes in line with our requirements? Do you really think Mr Juncker would say 'sorry we can't do it in the time-frame'? Do you really think he'd gamble with the very existence of the EU going forward (because if we leave it is utterly doomed to fail) on this basis?

Of course he wouldn't. If push came to shove, the EU would have no option but to accede to our demands for the reform of our relationship with it. And it would, if Dave threatened to campaign for Brexit without these reforms being cast in stone, do anything to ensure that we stay in and that the Eurocrats' cushy lifestyles and solid gold pension pots are maintained.

Dave must know that he is holding all the cards in this high stakes game of brag. And he tells us, almost daily that he will fight for EU reforms in Britain's best interests.

So why isn't he doing so?

Thanks for reading.








Tuesday 6 October 2015

Dave's 'renegotiations' are a complete con

If one is negotiating with a rival, an opponent or even a partner who cannot continue to exist without one's support, you'd have to say that one would be in a strong position to achieve what one wanted.

When you start a sentence using 'one' it gets out of hand doesn't it? Anyway..

This is essentially where David Cameron is right now.

Without the UK's support - the only thriving economy in the EU besides Germany just now - the EU simply cannot continue to exist. Outside of Germany all Eurozone countries are struggling, some more than others I grant you, but all are in deep economic shit (technical economic term).

Following the utter shambles that has been Greece for the past 7 years and the fact that the other 'PIGS' are still mired in debt, and the 'crisis' that Greece's problems (a net recipient to the EU it is worth remembering) caused to the EU, what would happen if the UK were to say: 'No thanks Angela, we're out'?

It would fold. And quite quickly.

And that puts Dave in a very strong position from which to negotiate reforms of the EU that are in the UK's interests.

And he has stated, over and over again, that the EU needs reform and that the UK needs the EU to reform if we are to remain as a member. His stance is that he will support us 'remaining in' a reformed EU. And that's kinda OK, if the reforms he's talking about address the serious issues we face and will repatriate democratic powers to the UK, will allow us to control our borders, will re-assert the primacy of our own parliament over the EU. Will allow us to negotiate our own global trade deals. But Dave will not tell us what his red lines for renegotiations are. So we have no idea what his 'reformed EU' actually means or looks like.

Even members of his own Cabinet do not know what the renegotiations are trying to achieve. How mad is that?

It's like holding four aces in your hand in a game of Poker. And knowing that your opponent has, at best a pair of threes.

If we leave the EU fails. Almost overnight (which is why it will be a massively dirty fight when push comes to shove in the referendum). The reality is that if Dave is currently in a massively strong position to negotiate these reforms that he tells us about: If he wanted all members of the EU Parliament to come over to the UK and go litter picking on the M1 on the first Monday of every month in return for keeping their cushy lifestyles and solid gold pension funds intact, he could demand it and they would come. They would simply have no choice.

So why isn't he?

First let's take a look at whether they are rivals, opponents or partners. And then let's add in the terms 'customers' and 'friends' to that list - it's worth doing.

Rivals?

Well yes, Eurozone countries are our rivals in terms of trade. We compete, albeit on an increasingly global agenda for business and UK manufacturers and suppliers of goods and services are therefore rivals of other European countries. Simple fact.

Opponents?

Similar I grant you, but 'opponents' is perhaps a stronger term. We can work alongside and compete with rivals, but opponents are those who compete in order to beat us. (i.e they are stronger, more credible and potentially an existential threat to our economic drivers and industries). 

And generally speaking that means Germany. Germany has enjoyed a 30% exchange rate advantage from being in the Eurozone compared to what it would have had to face on its own. That means its good and services have been 30% cheaper to sell than had it been using the Deutchsmark instead of the Euro. And that has had a massive impact on the UK's ability to compete on a world scale in recent years (since 2001).


In simple terms it's why Germany continues to make things for export where we don't. But, and this is important looking forward, we are starting to compete with them in terms of goods for export and their exchange rate advantages have made them lethargic. We are in better shape than they are right now. And Brexit would accelerate this process.

Partners?

Yes we are partners in this European project. But we saw it as being about free trade and protecting other European states from bullying by larger, stronger countries so that they could prosper within a wider trading bloc. As usual we (the UK) were generous in this regard. We saw the value of the principle and recognised that Europe's diversity would enrich all of its citizens if all prospered through trade and offering what it (each European country) was best at to the rest of the European 'club'.

Unfortunately Germany didn't (and doesn't) see it that way. It wants, as fucking always, to control everything and bring it all within Germany's yolk.

Customers?

The biggest trading bloc on the planet? Well of course it's about customers. But the EU is not about 'global customers' it's about milking European customers for the benefit of European 'suppliers'. This is why the EU has massively protectionist trading policies with Africa. Why it effectively prevents African agriculture from trading its way into the first world.


Why it effectively perpetuates the rape of Africa by the West. And why our membership precludes us from trading on our own behalf with the rest of the planet. It is not globalist but insular and protectionist in its outlook. Not something that the UK has ever been in favour of. As a relatively small island nation we have always been about trading with the world. Europe and the EU simply does not have that mindset. It is protectionist, and, in order to keep France on board, it is about protecting France's feudal, quaint, arguably lovable, but nonetheless inefficient subsistence farming culture. A minor point? 47% of the EU budget goes into agriculture and while that enables efficient agribusiness in the UK and Germany to make mega profits (and consumers ripped off), it is essentially about keeping France on board as previously described.

And while we're talking about 'customers', it is worth remembering that the UK is the Eurozone's biggest customer, worldwide. We take more goods and services from the Eurozone than any other country on earth and there is a trade deficit in Europe's favour, of £46 billion a year. If you think the EU would impose trade sanctions on its biggest source of income should we leave, you're in cloud cuckoo land.

Friends?

This is the crux really isn't it? 'Friends' are people with whom one agrees, with whom one has a common purpose, (I am aware of the irony of that phrase), common values and aspirations. One might not agree on every issue, but the general 'direction of travel' tends to be the same. How to get there might be a bone of contention, but the end result tends to be the same. And the discussion along the way tend to be friendly rather than confrontational.


I think we are friends with European people in general. I think we share the same values of freedom and prosperity, hard work for positive results individually and collectively, as a nation and as a geographically united place. We are part of Europe by dint of where we sit on the planet geographically.

But we are not 'friends' with EU politicians who want this great continent of ours to be a single place, with no diversity, with no local 'culture or traditions'. Everywhere being Germany in essence.

And we are not friends with a point of view that will make Europe a single state. With its own flag and anthem and army. That is not what anyone in Europe, from Kiel to Kos, Kerry to the Crimea actually wants. And it is certainly not what the UK government wants, but we continue to pay £28 million a day (net) to help them to go in the wrong direction from our viewpoint? How mad is that?

And this is being imposed upon us without our democratic agreement - not just in the UK but amongst the 'ordinary' people of Europe. Yes we can talk about EU politicians until the cows come home, but this 'federation' is being sought by Germany, imposed by Germany, and at the moment the UK is not just siting idly by while this happens and at the same time supporting it financially.
 
Why?

Either Dave is an utter idiot (which he isn't) or there is a much bigger game at play here. I think the latter is true, but if so why are we not being told what this is all really about? If the bigger picture is supposed to be in our interests, why are we not being told what is driving all this?

If you're interested I think it's about Agenda 21 and ICLIE and you can read more here if you're interested.

The bottom line is that the EU has failed, it has not brought prosperity to Europe (it is the world's only shrinking trading bloc) it has not protected the smaller nation states from being bullied by the larger ones (quite obviously) and it's recent actions on immigration show that it is clueless in terms of protecting its people and that its actions are in fact more likely to promote conflict and war between and within EU countries.

And Dave is sitting there holding all the aces and is unwilling to play them for the benefit of the UK. 'We need a reformed EU' he tells us, 'for the good of this country'. And yet while this outcome is entirely within his gift, the Prime Minister of the country is not prepared to act in the interests of UK citizens?

That's not just mad, but much more sinister than that. It is a complete con and it feels like we're being sold down the river for a cause that we are being told nothing about, even though we're paying for it.

Thanks for reading




Friday 2 October 2015

A Challenge!

A Challenge for you. Just for a change. A participation blog. One in which you get to play a part.

It's very simple, even I could take part in this.

I have two questions for you and I am genuinely interested in your response - and I believe that there's a comments section below in which you can post your answers. There will of course be a major prize for the winner, I'm sorry we cannot return all entries but there is a prize for the best ones and they will feature in our gallery. This is not vision on. Although you might be advised to listen to the theme tune whilst considering your entry.

Here it is.

Here are the questions:

1. What are the tangible benefits of our remaining a member if the EU?

2. What real, scientific evidence is there to support the notion that man-made climate change is real and that humans can control our climate? You may use graphs in your answer. But they will have to stack up and be about real world measurements.

Turn your papers over now.






Thursday 1 October 2015

Is Corbyn a joke? I'm serious in asking this question...



I've refrained from having a go at Mr Corbyn during his election campaign. As a Tory it's not my fight and, given the approbation he's received even from his own party during the endless process, any criticism from me would have been entirely hollow.

Indeed, I've been amazed that so many 'Tories' have been sticking in the boot before he was elected as Labour leader.

If he's so bad why are you trying to stop him becoming the leader of our opponents?

Labour seems to have been tearing itself apart during this process, so why would any Tories want to climb in to the issue? Just someone to have a go at? Utter madness if you ask me. I wanted Corbyn to succeed because he'd be terrible for Labour and thereby, good for 'us'.

Let me get this out of the way early: I can't envisage any circumstance in which I would vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Ever. I think his policies would be disastrous for the UK.

But you know what? I like him.

I like his principled stance on many issues (even if I disagree with them). I like his preparedness to say 'we got that wrong' and I like his candour and connectivity with people.

I like the fact that he is - or seems to be - a real person. Flawed, with a past, but real.

I have a friend who is very similar to Corbyn - a retired headmaster who even looks very much like him - and who is great company, we disagree on almost everything, except the fundamentals of life and how people should be treated, valued, respected and encouraged. How we get there is the fundamental disagreement between us.

We usually end a heated discussion in the pub with him saying: 'you know what? You're right.' And I reply: 'you know what? You're an idiot.' And then we go our separate ways.

Actually I don't say that, I say: 'And so are you.' And he smiles and we stagger home as friends who trust each other and would help the other without question or hesitation should the need arise.

I've given you a small glimpse into my social life for a reason. It's because I'd gladly have a pint with Mr Corbyn. Perhaps even more willingly than I would with (Call me) Dave. Because Dave would be polished and impressive, and clearly knows his stuff in most areas and has, by necessity, become less of a 'lad' and more of an establishment figure, than Jeremy has yet become.

It'd be difficult to get Dave talking openly about 'stuff' - or the usual pub bollocks - because of the journey he's taken, than it would to engage Jeremy. But I think Dave is a nice guy fundamentally, if clueless on the EU and a complete stranger to hard negotiations at just the time when we need someone with those attributes.  Sadly.

It seems to me that Labour has, by accident, folly almost, actually unearthed a real person to lead it. Yes we can all point to his past, the IRA stuff, the CND stuff, the Marxist, unionist stuff. And this will of course come back to bite him and he may, perhaps, turn out to be a gift for the Tories electorally in 2020.

But how many recent Labour leaders would you have wanted to have a pint with? And how many oif them would have come without a pre-agreed subject list? And how many of them would be comfortable with 'chewing the fat'?

And how many would you have left  the pub with, arm in arm, having watched England win at rugby, having disagreed with and remained as 'mates'? Not many I'd wager.

Let's take the last few in order: Blair would have met you for the spin - and the money - he could have achieved from it. Brown would have bullied you into quiescence over your pint and left you wondering what the fuck that was all about. Miliband would have been totally uncomfortable with meeting a 'real' person and would, therefore, have made you feel uncomfortable.


As I say, I like Corbyn. He is a joke candidate for Labour in the sense that he was only invited to compete as a sop to the left - and he won! If a Tory 'agent' had been tasked with running the Labour leadership campaign, he'd (or she'd) not have come close to aspiring to what has actually happened.

And Labour supporters on my timeline have become quiet because their socialist outlook, now being articulated by Corbyn - who is now actually saying what they were previously shouting about - is inconvenient to them who have been indoctrinated by the Blair years of unprincipled power grabbing.

And that's just funny. Corbyn may be a joke in many ways - the appointment of a vegan to the agriculture brief is just wonderfully funny.

And the fact that he got where he is by way of a mistake by the Labour party is equally funny. And the fact that he's quietened many Labour advocates because they're not sure whether to support him or not is simply hilarious.

But I don't think he's a joke. I think he enriches UK politics  and gives us - for the first time in decades - a real choice between Socialism and Capitalism - in order to achieve the same end goals.

He may not last as Labour leader for long, because essentially Labour is not sure whether it needs a shit or a haircut, but he's a good thing in my opinion. A good thing that I'd never vote for if I had the interests of the UK in mind.

Funny old world isn't it?

Thanks for reading.