Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Ask yourself why David Cameron Wants to Stay in the EU.

I often drift off the beaten track when it comes to political debate and it takes me down tracks and asks questions that no-one else is asking.

For instance: As the head of the UK Parliament, why is David Cameron on the "Remain" side?

If you think about it, if we voted "Leave", he would get greater power, he would be the head of an independent Parliament that could forge its own destiny. Rather than submitting and rubber-stamping a large number of laws handed down by the EU, he would be able to influence 100% of UK laws in Parliament, by debating them with elected members of Parliament. He would be able to have influence and sway debate in Parliament and chart a course for the nation, he would help forge a destiny for this country at the start of it's new-found independence.

As a public servant, as someone who should be focussed on public service, there should be no greater goal than being able to have your name written into the destiny and history of the UK.

But instead he wants us to remain part of an undemocratic club, where he has very little influence, being part of a club of 27 other countries. Linked to the will the majority of those nations for good or ill.


Is it because he can take credit for the best parts of EU legislation, while saying the worst isn't his fault?

Is it because the EU provides a layer of beaurocracy that he can appoint favourites to so they become part of the well paid establishment?

Is it because his friends in the big corporations want a steady flow of cheap labour from Eastern Europe?

I just wonder why?

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Terrorist Blind Spot Blights Belgium and France

In the aftermath of the terrorist bombings in Brussels, David Cameron has slated Nigel Farage for saying that the attacks are not linked to immigration.

Reeeallly..... I think Mr Cameron stretches credulity somewhat. It's like he has a blind spot to the realities of what is actually happening on the ground around the EU and it's borders.

As I've said before, Europe and Schengen and the whole idea of free movement would be absolutely fine, if the external borders to the area weren't so porous. The fact is that the sheer numbers of people travelling across Europe's external borders has overwhelmed those countries that lie on the fringes of Europe.

The razor wire fences have gone up all too late and are all too easily bypassed as the refugees, asylum seekers and terrorists just walk to the next country along and walk through the border there.

With free movement within Schengen, one would have visions of razor wire, dogs, guard towers, machine gun nests and the rest protecting the external borders. You know, so we can control who is walking across the border and therefore able to be inside that border.

Instead the terrorists are able to move freely and unchecked between the terrorist camps in the Middle East and the city centres of Europe, taking advantage of the massive influx overwhelming the poorer countries on the fringe of Europe.

The interesting thing is why Brussels, why Paris? Could it be they are easier targets than Germany, or is it payback for interventions in Syria and Lybia? Who knows. It could just be they are easier and softer targets than the rest of Europe.

Getting back to the original point, David Cameron is wrong, very wrong. Free movement of people between countries is a fundamental part of the EU project that they will not give up easily, even though the application is very flawed. Just like most things the EU sets up, the theory is fine, but when it comes to application the reality is pretty poor. Just like the Euro project that went ahead against all common sense, agricultural policy that used to create mountains of unused subsidised food, EU immigration and border policy is a shambles that we need to extricate ourselves from.

The only reason there haven't been more atrocities in the UK is that we have good intelligence links to the U.S. and the fact it's harder to cross our border without significant checks.

Until the EU protects it external in a robust manner, then it leaves itself open to attacks of this nature.

Although its not a big leap for a terrorist group to sail a boat over from France, Belgium or Holland, up the Thames and then carry out an RPG attack on the terrace of the House of Commons, or drop of a group of Jihadis with weapons not dissimilar to the Mumbai attacks.

Thursday, 3 March 2016

Debunking the EU Referendum "Remain" Scare Tactics.

On the Radio this morning there was a lot of talk about the latest scare stories from the "Remain" camp in the EU referendum.

The main one that France would kick out our border force people on their soil and allow migrants to cross the channel  if we left the EU.

Okay, I accept that when we leave the EU, we may lose the agreement that allows our Police and Border forces to work on French Soil.

So yes, migrants will be able to travel across the channel.


We'll not be part of any agreement to accept migrants of any shape or form, other than our obligations to the UN. Anyone arriving without documentation will be shipped right back to France on the next boat back. No debate, no humans rights prevarication, just get back on the boat and let the French deal with you.

Anyone with documentation will be held in detention centres and swiftly dealt with (no ECHR bollocks any more) and anyone not matching our UN obligations will also be shipped back.

So, sorry "Remain" and the French, scare averted.

Next is the myth that suddenly we won't be able to trade with anyone when we leave.

Now this one is patent bollocks. The first thing we do when we leave the EU is invoke Article 50 and then we start negotiations with the EU about leaving. This process of "de-tanglement" as we negotiate the separation will take roughly 2-3 years as we re-negotiate arrangements concerning our various areas of trade, security, etc.

Are the "Remain" camp really trying to tell me that during this process we can't negotiate our own trade agreements with countries outside the EU? That while we are still in the EU and in the process of de-tangling that we suddenly can't trade under existing EU agreements? That suddenly the world puts up shutters to any and all of our goods as soon as the population vote to exit? Or the same happens when we invoke article 50?

Our (and the EU country's) G8/G20 obligations still remain while all of this is going on, so there will be no barriers to free trade. It's just that duty may be payable on imports and exports like there is with other countries like there is currently with Norway for instance. But that tax/duty can't be punitive as required by G8/G20 obligations.

No, all of that gets negotiated. We invoke article 50, which informs the EU of our intention to leave, and then we negotiate all the deals needed for when we do leave. While those negotiations are in process, we are still EU members and can still trade with the EU and also trade with other countries under EU-brokered deals..

Next is the myth that we will be less secure outside the EU. What a joke this one is. The "Remain" camp are trying to say that some how the EU will refuse to share intelligence with us. Really, it's like trying to get blood out of a stone even while we're IN the EU.

However, as we already have close ties to the biggest intelligence gathering service in the world, i.e. the American CIA and NSA leaving the EU would make our security BETTER because the yanks might share a bit more with us as there's less risk we'd be under some EU agreement to share it with the French and ex-Warsaw Pact countries.

We're not going to leave NATO, so co-operation and inter-operability between the armed forces of the European Nations will still remain.

Next the big issue the "Remain" always push that we will have to abide by all EU standards but have no say in Europe.

Sorry, the vast majority of standards are handed down from the U.N. after global negotiations. Currently the EU represents the UK in these negotiations, but after we leave we will have direct input. If the EU have any extra requirements like CE certification, then that's just part of selling into Europe. At least our companies will have the choice to go through CE certification to sell to the EU rather than it be mandated.

If CE certification is too expensive then our companies are free to trade with countries that don't require it and save costs, therefore making their goods more competitive.

As an example, are "Remain" really telling me that for some reason overnight our mobile phones won't work in Europe because we'll make them to a different standard? What a load of bollocks. We'll continue to make them to GLOBAL standards issued by the U.N. that make them globally compatible so we can sell them in the global market.

While on the subject of global trade, apparently BMW came out this morning and said that jobs in the UK are at risk because trade tariffs (I assume between us and the EU) would affect jobs.

So, our G8/G20 trade obligations will suddenly be ignored when we leave the EU then? I don't think so. They will remain in place which means we have an obligation to free trade without punitive tariffs. I'm sure if we did start raising tariffs then the other trading countries in the G8/G20 would have something to say about it at the U.N. level.

In all of this have you noticed that I refer a lot to the United Nations? That's because in effect the EU has been superseded by the U.N. The European Union was an idea borne out of the first world war and reinforced by the period before world war 2 by the inaction of the ineffective League of Nations.

The EU is a level of beaurocracy that is no longer required. It's also unaccountable and anti-democratic. If it can't be fundamentally changed or abolished then we need to leave it. The billions of pounds we give to the EU to subsidise French farmers can instead be re-invested in schools and hospitals in our own country.
We can stop paying benefits to children in Poland.
We can start protecting our borders and get UK fishing fleets fishing UK waters again.

We can start controlling our own destiny in the world, by being able to vote the people at the top in or out. Something we currently can't do as part of the EU.

Monday, 14 December 2015

Climate Agreement Allows the rich to Steal from the Poor.

This weekends climate agreement has further entrenched the position of rich governments and corporations to take ever more money from the poor of the planet.

The "man-made global warming" cult is I believe the biggest corporate hijacking of the environmental movement in its history. Its a clever idea, jumping into bed with the environmentalists, because the very people that hate big corporations suddenly are on their side and campaigning with them.

Why do I think its a scam? My answer is follow the money. At the top are the carbon trading schemes, where the money of the poor is traded by city traders on the value of CO2, i.e. making money out of fresh air.

It makes me chuckle when the same environmentalists that fight big corporations against GMOs, or fracking suddenly are on-side when it comes to CO2. What makes the government or big corporation any less money-grabbing or untrustworthy on this one particular subject? How do they suddenly become pious when it comes to global warming?

It's not like the science is trustworthy either. Try and get a grant to disprove man-made global warming and you'll find a frosty reception. Scientific grants are controlled by the very people that are part of the establishment elite, so they control the science. Anything that disproves their agenda is starved of funding.

What about the media, surely they'll report the truth? Nope, they are just as controlled by the big corporate interests as they are on any subject that is beneficial to the elite.

The current status quo favours large Western corporations massively. They get to put the brakes on emerging economies as the restrictions limiting CO2 production also limit industrial expansion. So any competition is severely restricted, again boosting the profits of the big corporations.

One telling comment that came out of the climate conference was that companies will have to adapt and pay for the changes. No they won't, it will be us, the public that will pay with ever higher bills. It will be the poorest of the masses that will be hit hardest.

Money that will line the pockets of the elite and the corporate fat-cats. It's the prefect scheme because people get brainwashed into FREELY GIVING the money to the fat-cats...

"Follow the Money" is a phrase that outlines the truth as much as it ever did.

The Legal Baby Trade

Its been announced today that the number of babies being taken off mothers at birth has dramatically increased. There are calls that the mothers need more support, but it will never happen.

It doesn't surprise me at all that babies are being taken off mothers, because they are easily sold for adoption. And its all about money these days.

Looking at it in the cold light of day, supporting a mother to look after her baby costs money. Selling a baby to an adoption agency makes a profit for a council.

Its a no-brainer that it's worthwhile for the council to remove the baby on the slimmest of evidence and then sell the kid on.

The sad thing is that most of the women caught up in this system find it hard to escape, no matter how much she sorts herself out, her past will always be raked up to support the social worker's case.

Easy targets for the authorities and who is going to listen to some ex-drug addict or a skank that has straightened her life out?

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

Immigration and the Terrorist Issue

Earlier in the year I had a bit of a Facebook spat with a student friend of my son about the whole EU immigration issue.

Basically he was labelling me a racist for saying that the EU shouldn't be letting the huge numbers of people into the EU without proper checks.

He was all for letting every single person into the country that wanted to come, irrespective of their actual status.

I countered by stating he'd be the first to bleat if even one of those unchecked and unidentified persons carried out some atrocity on British or EU soil.

And so it has come to pass. Although the Paris terrorists may have been French born, they were using the "refugee" conduit from Syria to gain unchecked access back to the EU despite them being known the authorities.

This was what I was stating back in July and August. Its a problem caused by the EU relying on almost bankrupt countries like Greece to Police our borders.

What should happen is that the receiving EU country should hold and process the people arriving in their country, so that they can be identified and their claim for asylum or whatever be confirmed as genuine. If they fail the checks then they get booted back to where they come from.

However the vast numbers of people coming into the EU means that the resources in the receiving countries have been overwhelmed, to the point people are just walking through porous borders with no checks and on through Europe with no checks either.

So far the EU seem to have done nothing to bolster or support the receiving countries in any way, other than sending a few ships to pluck unfortunates out of the water and dump them on the shores of the closest country thereby adding to the problem.

Hopefully after Paris there is an appreciation that the situation is untenable and something has to change. The signs are not good however, with the EU heads proposing an EU Coastguard service, which will do absolutely nothing to resolve the issue. All they will do is take over from where our Navy ships will leave off and continue dumping refugees on Greece or Italy's doorstep to then continue unchecked across Europe.

What needs to happen is for the EU to fund Italy, Greece Hungary and the like to build reception centres for the refugees and to bolster their border force so there is a robust and effective control of people coming through the external EU border. This is the only way to (a) protect against terrorists entering the EU unchecked and (b) to protect the concept of open internal EU borders and (c) to weed out the illegal immigrants from the genuine refugees.

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

The Impossibility of Dealing with ISIS

Since the dawn of the Islamic fundamentalist problem in it's many forms, such as the Taliban, Al-Queda and now Islamic State as the BBC like to so-call it, most westerners have been perplexed at the lack of actual definitive action against what most see as a threat to Western society.

The problem is the issue is very complex and cannot be resolved without pain... a lot of pain. Both literally in the form of lives lost and the financial cost.

In it's simplest form, the Middle Eastern problem is a fight of ideologies. Or, more accurately Islamic ideologies. It's a fight between Sunni and Shia, or more clearly for Westerners, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

The conflict between the two is centuries old. The conflict between Arabia and Persia, the fight for power and influence in the Middle East. The lid was kept on it for the best part of a century by the Western Powers and their meddling in the Middle East. Setting up artificial boundaries between states and propping up despots and dictators suppressed the ill-feeling, but under the surface, when you talk to people from the Middle East there is and always has been that "them and us" mentality. Sunni will not sit easily with Shia, problems are caused even inside families where people follow the two ideologies of Islam.

Syria and Iraq are the current killing field for this outpouring of bile between the two factions. On the one hand Assad's Syrian government propped up by Iran, who are also helping the Iraq government (for what its worth) fight ISIS in their country too.

On the other hand you have ISIS, backed if not directly by The Saudi government, then by wealthy individuals in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

So, there's a basic premiss for the conflict.

Of course the West has to meddle, because we are allied to the Gulf States by our need to continue the oil supply and more importantly the fact the Gulf States own a large percentage of real estate in the West and account for a significant proportion of our economies and wealth. Maybe in the region of 20 percent.

So we are obliged to do whatever the Gulf States request us to do, which currently is kick the butt of any Iran-backed faction, i.e. Asssad. Which is why the UK have just 6 ancient Tornado aircraft bombing ISIS in Iraq, in a face-saving effort in order to not look like total shits and not leaving Iraq out to dry after we ruined their country. Its also why it's very hard to garner the support of those in power to extending that action into Syria. The Gulf States and their representatives have a lot of influence in Western governments.

As an example of how paranoid the Gulf States are about the rise of Shia influence, when the so-called "Arab Spring" came to Bahrain and the majority Shia population started to kick off, next door Saudi Arabia sent forces in to help the Sunni Bahrain Royal Family deal with the problem.

We're trying to be best buds with both sides, which is never going to work out so well, we end up pissing off both factions. We have a token force lobbing ordnance at ISIS in Iraq because I assume we've come to an accord with the Saudis that Iraq is our mess and we have an obligation to support the government there and protect the South of the country, but ISIS can have the North of Iraq because only Kurds live there and no-one likes the Kurds. (The Kurds are the only thing keeping ISIS out of Turkey, but Turkey still bombs them. Go figure). There are some weird Christians there that no-one understands, but not enough to make serious headlines and hey, collateral damage happens.

We won't go into Syria and bomb Assad no matter how much the Gulf states press us because we are trying to win contracts... I mean we're trying to get Iran back into the international community. Oh, and one day they may have Nukes, or even if they didn't they have the nuclear material to make a very dirty bomb which could cause a huge problem.

But the main reason we can't cause significant damage to ISIS is because their backers own so much of our economy. Just think whet would happen if we lost 20 percent of the whole Western economy overnight or even a fraction of it, or we lost the Billions in arms deals? Chaos, that's what.

So, sort that lot out if you can. Try and eliminate the threat of ISIS without pissing off the Gulf States, whilst at the same time trying to moderate the ambitions of Iran to be a major player in the region.

Its impossible whilst the status quo continues. Something has to change in the dynamics of the conflict before the problem can be resolved. I don't think the Paris attacks are enough of a game-changer, France doesn't possess the muscle to change things. The bombing of the Russian airliner might well become THE turning point of the conflict, as the Russians don't react well to being hurt like that and they carry a really big stick.

As an example of the Gulf States' financial power, just look at the price of petrol. It's dropped significantly in recent months and that's mainly because the U.S.A. have brought on stream shale oil and gas and have reduced their dependency on Gulf Oil. The Gulf States have fought back and rather than reduce production and keep prices up, have actually kept up production in order to reduce oil prices in an effort to make shale oil production unprofitable and bankrupt the American companies. It wouldn't surprise me if Gulf States start buying up American Shale production companies once their value has plummeted.

There are a couple of wildcards on the fringes that have the ability to throw big spanners in the works:

The first is Turkey. With Syria and the conflict on their doorstep they have a direct bearing on the conflict. they hate the Kurds the Turks have expended a lot of ammunition attacking Kurdish forces, as Kurds are regarded as terrorists in Turkey. However the Kurds fight ISIS, so implicitly Turkey by their actions are aiding ISIS. In fact up until recently there was a situation where Turkey ignored ISIS fighters crossing into Syria but battered the Kurds. The bomb attacks in Turkey have been attributed to Kurdish terrorists where it might have been ISIS.

Turkey also hate Assad and anyone that supports him, hence why they get in a Tizz when Russian or Syrian planes fly over or close to their territory.

They could inflict damage to the anti-ISIS front in Syria.

The other wildcard is Israel. They have been quiet on the issue of ISIS, I suppose there has been an element of "I told you so" as they have sat back and let it all kick off whilst eating popcorn. Historically a large Islamic force in Syria would be a threat to Israel, but this time they have stayed quietly fuming whilst the West court Iran.

Of course you could subscribe to the conspiracy theory that ISIS is just an Israeli plot funded by the Saudis to reduce the influence of Iran in the Middle East and keep them tied up in infinite conflicts.