Guy Verhofstadt is a man with Cheaply Acquired Nobility.

Guy Verhofstadt is ranting on about democracy. What democracy? No one ever asked us to vote for the EU President. We never got to decide the political ideology of the unelected EU. It was imposed upon us. Perhaps the intention was well meaning, but until the EU goes to 500+ million peoples to win a vote with clear policies that Europeans can choose for themselves, this unelected body is going to continue to lose hearts and minds. I voted to leave. Not because I wanted to, but because I don't want this type of EU. It is a great shame because the EU could have been a wonderful idea. It has been hijacked by well-meaning liberals that are totally out of touch with the millions of little people they should be winning votes from. Guy Verhofstadt is a man with cheaply acquired nobility among others like him. Unelected people who want to pat themselves on the back. People who don't fear or respect an electorate because they don't exist for their elitist parliament.

Debate on the EU disaster movie.

The heat is turning up in the UK concerning EU membership. It does seem, to me, that the anti-EU are winning the argument concerning the lack of democratic accountability. Every time the media get the pro-EU on to argue with the anti-EU; the anti always seem to walk away with the points from my point of view. Maybe there are things I'm missing, but I think the UK may leave. I also believe there could be civil unrest in some of the southern European countries.

Watch Scotty M on YouTube - GREECE: Punishing Greece and the Successful

Check out Scotty M on YouTube. He has a lot of good things to say. I don't always agree with all the things he speaks of, but I do concerning this YouTube clip. I begin, once again, to think of voting UKIP.

A Dangerous Gamble - EU without Britain - Splendid Debate on German t.v.

This is a great debate on German t.v. One of the best I've seen yet. Sensible talk by rational people. Well worth a watch. No one gets over excited and no one butts in. Everyone gets to talk and is listened to. Also the presenter is A-one with questions to each person.

My own conclusion is that the UK cannot avoid leaving the EU now because both sides of the argument are locked in a paradox. The pro-European German and don't budge on concessions man sees the UK as never being satisfied, no matter how many concessions she wins. It will never be enough. He does have a point.

The other pro - European German man is more for allowing concessions and is understanding of British concerns. He seems more ready to try and persuade the UK to remain. Although he does not like the immigration angle of the UK. Unfortunate because it is the dominating one. Wrong or right; immigration is the main issue for the overall UK electorate.

The young British man who is also pro-European sees the sad reality of why the UK might leave the EU concerning uncontrolled migration, which will dominate the referendum vote, regardless of losing power and influence on the world stage. The UK electorate will prioritise reasons for and against. He tries to point out that all though the reasons against leaving are sound economically, in some ways, the UK will not put that above other issues and also many in the city of London are beginning to regard the finance industry as being hamstrung.

It is also agreed that the EU might lose more and be forced to change anyway by a UK withdrawal. Also the UK is not afraid of going out into the big wide world. The island nation has never feared this. Something the German man who fears making concessions admitted too.

Its a great debate with many different points of view spoken by articulate people on all sides of the discussion. I really enjoyed this and it does leave me feeling sad that the UK will probably leave the EU, but is also a very necessary thing.

Can Britain Make the EU Adapt or will UK lose Time and be forced to Leave?

I think we are seeing the birth of diverse new European parties and this is because the electorate of Europe are taking the EU more seriously (on the left and the right.) They have to because they are getting too many governing bodies that they feel are unaccountable to them. This is the the last time it will be jobs for the boys in the closed EU committee rooms. The EU electorate are forcing the EU parliament down this road and no one will get what they entirely want. In the long run this is good for all Europeans. Cameron is serving his own interests and will not win his argument, but the ripples of his flawed argument will pan out and the EU will need to change. The EU will find it difficult to continue the same old way and Junker is irrelevant. Whoever was nominated for this post would always be a target. Junker is just unlucky to be on the spot. He'll probably still get the job, but the post is unlikely to come about in the same way in future. This has been made politically costly to Chancellor Merkel too. Both sides have lost the argument. Both sides should not be able to have their way. The EU needs to develop more and will do. I just don't think it will include the UK though. Our nation state is running out of time and we might be getting too impatient.

For the UK in the EU, we must be able to voice our differences and we can ill afford to fall out with other nation states. However, we are not always being taken into account, especially with the free movement of people act. (Well intentioned as it is) There are far too many problems with it at the moment and these things are plain to see. If member states are hamstrung to this degree, (unable to control borders) they'll find other ways of sabotaging the mechanism of the EU, or anti-EU parties will destabilise the member states. This is what is now happening in the UK, France, Netherlands and Denmark. Other nations are feeling the impact too.

Cameron is trying to stay afloat in this wreckage and is looking for arguments within the EU system, while at home he is losing his battle on all fronts. This guy is pro-European within his party, but he could be the last of the Tories to be one. He is seen to be making no gains, but what he is doing with his flawed argument over Junker, is creating an inadvertent wind of change in the EU. He is being seen to put all this internal national strife (concerning uncontrolled and irresponsible immigration and national banking industries) on the EU's doormat. Which is where it belongs. The EU will not listen to reason so he has to create a storm on other fronts. I think Junker is more of a strategic target while Cameron wrestles for time at home with a pro-EU battle he is sadly losing to more radical and permanent British solutions to the EU problem.

Margaret Thatcher's political end (Poll Tax Riots London 1990)

She was one of the best though she was a person with many faults. I think Maggie deserves recognition because she was a true patriot and many did admire her greatly.

Well, I would not mind betting that there are a lot of people shouting "No Way" But then there will be as many applauding. When I was 18 years of age, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of United Kingdom and she gave the country a blooming big kick up the arse. The trouble was, I don't think she always knew when to stop kicking and many of us imagined we had bottoms that were constantly smarting. The reason I have picked Margaret Thatcher for praise is because I am  now 53 and I own my house because of her. I did not appreciate it at the time. I thought she was as hard as nails, which she was.

I worked in the Royal Mail (Post Office) throughout the 1980s decade and it seemed to be a rather turbulent time. I remember the unemployment and the clashes with the unions, most notably the miners strike. Everyone that confronted her was swept aside and I was one of the young who thought she was too harsh.

As much as it pains me to say this, I believe she got more right then she got wrong. I can visualise myself as a young man in his twenties - full of high ideas and morals - being disgusted with this older me, who is writing this. But if I could, I would like to reach down that time corridor and grab myself by the collar. I'd spit. "You are so full of Bull - you know nothing and she will do you right in years to come." She did, and to be fair on Maggie, she is one I did not appreciate at the time. I think a lot of us secretly miss her. Sometimes undesirable elements took the country on and I could not have wished such enemies upon a more formidable opponent. (I almost felt sorry for them)

If I could make one complaint to Margaret Thatcher it would be:

Why did you steam roller through the Pole Tax without properly reviewing such things. It could have been a good idea if you had taken the many variables of income into the equation. You really did drop the ball on that one and then it was the old; "And you to Brutus" from most of your ministers. It all stemmed from the Pole tax - I'm certain it did. You could have had a few more years, but for that.

No doubt, Mrs Thatcher would still hear none of this.

It is believed that the Poll tax signified the beginning of the end for Margaret Thatcher. She had stood her ground on many issues over 11 years and won. This, the hated Poll tax, was one she would loose, but only after her ministers manoeuvred her into quitting a short time later on other issues. However, the Poll tax was the original cause that began to really spiral out of control for her.

It is thought that the riot in central London, with the countrywide opposition to the Community Charge (especially vehement in the North of England and Scotland) contributed to the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, who resigned as Prime Minister in November the same year, defending the tax when opinion polls were showing 2% support for it. The next Prime Minister, John Major, announced it would be abolished.