The EU, Suicidal Steamroller?

So... way back when (it seems decades ago now) Divid Cameron went to the EU in an attempt to avoid the referendum.

He requested concessions from the EU on immigration and other things.

They gave him nothing.

That triggered the referendum and the public decided to leave the EU.

Our politicians duly trooped back to the EU to "negotiate" the terms of exiting the EU. Remember this is not where we stand after we leave the EU. This is just the deal to administer the exit process between March next year and whenever agreements are made and talks concluded.

The EU gave away no concessions, but the UK government conceded every single red line.

Such was the deal that was shown to the cabinet yesterday.

The chances are very high that as of March 29th 2019 we will exit the EU without any kind of agreement to easee the transition from in to out, without a process to export to the EU and for the EU to import to us. The borders will be closed.

German car manufacturing will catch a cold.

In it's zealousness for the grand project, the EU has rejected not only our requests, but has also failed to understand the reasons for our dispute with them. They fail to compute that the EU steamroller is doing wrong, or that anyone can criticise the direction of said steamroller.

Over the decades, repeated Prime Ministers have tried to reason with the EU secretariat in an effort to get it to work more democratically and fairer. These have ALL failed.

David Cameron's entreaties to the EU back in 2015 were the last gasp saloon for the project with UK membership. It failed spectacularly to understand our viewpoint despite the decades of negotiations.

Now the EU has again failed to understand the UK sentiment and sense of fair play in these one-sided negotiations and quite rightly MPs and the population at large have a problem with the deal put forward this week. It not only ties us to the EU, but also fails to provide a point where we will leave. The EU have learned from article 50 and this time have not allowed any exit mechanism as part of the deal.  We cannot tell the EU we are leaving, we have to ask permission. Just on that point alone the deal is unaccceptable.

It's quite clear that the EU had no intention of negotiating a deal that is mutually beneficial, instead they decide to punish the UK, provide the worst deal available and also lock us unto some limbo state we can never escape.

In effect, the EU has committed suicide. All those German car workers, the wine merchants of France will not forget that the EU put the political project above jobs.

Brexit Deal Published. Where is Ireland?

After reading some of the text of the Brexit deal and coming to the same conclusion as others that we will be locked into a customs union in perpetuity (BRexit In Name Only), it seems the great stumbling block that the EU have used with great skill is Northern Ireland and the border with the South.

They have used Northern Ireland and our own Union of Nations against us, so that in order to preserve the frictionless border between Northern and Southern Ireland the EU have cannily locked the rest of the Union into lockset with EU regulations.

The EU have gamed us into this. The kicker is if we agree to this agreement, we have no way to unilaterally exit the agreement, we have to ask permission to leave. A lovely way to hamstring any subsequent government, even if it was an anti-EU one ( for instance if UKIP get into power).

All I can see now is a rejection of the deal by Parliament and a no-deal exit from the the EU machine, with several political scalps along the way.

That's if out MPs and Lords respect the result of the referendum. Time will tell.

Diversity and Multiculturalism

There is a growing movement of people following the Tommy Robinson/ Britain First anti-extreme Muslim sentiments that are growing in the UK.

Several terror attacks, the rise of "extreme" Islam and the unwillingness of more devout Muslims to integrate into Western society points to a big error in the way the Muslim community have been accepted into the UK and the Western World.

First, you have to look at history and how this clash of cultures has come about. I've blogged before about back when I was a kid in the 60's I lived in a multicultural area. Hindus, Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians and yes a smattering of Muslims all lived in my area and went to my schools. We hardly had any racial tension because we all got along. Even the Muslims in those days understood the value of Western Society and were grateful for the opportunities that immigration to the UK afforded.

Obviously the second-generation Eastern Europeans had an easier time becoming fully integrated, although they paid for their own community centre so as to save their cultural identity.

The Hindus and the first wave of Muslims integrated fine.  I had Hindu and Muslim GPs back in the Eighties when the NHS wasn't as reliant on immigrants as it is now.

So, I'm talking from a position of tollerance and fair play: the essence of Britishness I guess.

Diversity in it's literal form I have no problem with. I know a racially diverse country is not a bad thing at all.

However, what I do have a problem with is the monster that has become multiculturalism.

The multicultral phenomenon started in the Eighties although it had it's roots in the late Seventies. It professes that once person's culture is just as valid as another, that no culture is superior to another, which then infers that cultures need not integrate with one another. I'd throw the phrase "Cultural Marxism" in here, but reeaaallly, is it?

It is the monster that has allowed Muslim enclaves to be created (because all cultures are equal and therefore Muslims have the right to a separate culture, identity and community). In effect rather than the intergrational policy that diversity and equality promoted, multiculturalism promote cultural racism (although racism isn't really accurate as it's a separation of cultures, but the term fits because it has the satisfactory overtones).

This cultural racist (cultural separatist for want of a better phrase) policy gained traction in the Nineties. In that decade you saw more and more Muslims and especially young Muslims being influenced by incoming immigrants and their strong cultural identity.

That in turn led to the more devout Islamists gathering a flock of followers. The more extremist organisations that are now two decades later mostly proscribed came to prominence.

Those organisations reached out to their brothers in other countries. At that time Iran wasn't the poster child of Muslimhood and to be honest, the tide of Muslimhood in the UK at the time was turing from a Shia majority, to a Pakistani Sunni majority.

As the Islamic power in the world was the Sunni side, backed in the main by Saudi Arabia, but reinforced by the other gulf states and as Muslims in the UK became a Sunni majority. The Sunni-led Gulf Staes was where the funding came from and that's why in the main the Imams that came to preach in UK Mosques were the more fundamentalist Wahabbi sect of Islam.

Hence why in 2001 the Muslims in the UK quietly (or not so quietly in some cases) celebrated the twin towers attacks

History may have been different had Iran not been ostracised after the Islamic revolution and the kidnapping of the US embassy hostages. The Islamic problem probably would not have happened as there would be a balancing affect in the Muslim world putting the brakes on the domination of Wahabbism.

Anyway, back to the point: the multi-culti/everyone and every culture is equal policy in the West has caused a great deal of problems.

The debate has not yet turned to where and how multiculturalism has failed and how to rectify the problems it has caused. But turn it has to, because the problems will not go away until they are recognised and brought into the daylight and debated.

To find an answer to a problem, first you have to recognise you have a problem.

The alternative is unthinkable, because it usually involves violence and violence is to be avoided at all costs.

But the clock is ticking.......