I was puzzled to hear among the news items this evening that the apprehension of Ratko Mladic was a key enabler in Serbia joining the EU. Without him locked up in the Hague, Serbia would be locked out of membership.
Just what is it about this man that the EU find so offensive? Okay, he's a mass murderer, but the EU has done and continues to do business with people like this, so why him and why now?
Old Holborn has an inkling into timing of his capture, but why is it so imperative he be incarcerated?
Is it because he could mount an effective opposition to EU domination? Was the EU insisting on his capture and inprisonmemt in order to neutralise the serious political threat he or his supporters pose?
EU Referendum has a note on the innefectiveness of UKIP over here in the UK, and I'm beginning to wonder if a lot of the reason for UKIP's existence is to distract anti-EU feeling into a useless cul-de-sac. Certainly if its members can easily swap parties and move to the pro-EU Conservatives, some questions need to be asked about the sincerity of its senior members to the anti-EU cause.
All across Europe, all the parties that continue in power are all pro-EU. There doesn't seem to be an effective anti-EU voice providing credible, effective opposition to the EU and able to hold its policies and organisations to account.
When countries vote against it as Ireland did to the Lisbon treaty, their democratic choice is ignored and they are forced to vote again, but the "right" way.
Instead, despite all the evidence to the contrary provided by the dog and pony show we have for a government, we have been subsumed by a one-party state. No-one is allowed to oppose it, no-one must criticise it, no-one is allowed to vote against it. Instead it steamrollers all in its path, enveloping more and more countries in its homogenising, enslaving one-ness.
It is evil.
The 25 Hour News - A news week so eventful, even the blogs that normally share space on this post have had to make way!
17 hours ago