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.

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.

BUT AS WE WON'T BE PART OF THE EU WE'LL BE ABLE TO KICK THEM RIGHT BACK OVER TO THE FRENCH SIDE.

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.

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.