A compelling and often frightening account of how we European's are wrapped in our leader's political denial to get to grips with the many wrongs that have been festering. Problems and resentment from decades of denial caused by uncontrolled mass migration of Islamic culture into our continent. A pretence that the peoples of Europe supported this mass influx of Muslim people. How we (Caucasian Europeans) have become subjugated by the twisted politically correct rulers of our nations. A pretence that we must feel culturally enriched by camouflaged denials of our rulers. The persistent denial of the facts we everyday people have seen. The persistent muffling of concerned people. The debasing of concerned people. People not allowed to mention for fear of being labelled RACIST.
RACIST - The condemning word that gives anyone a free pass to victory over any sensible debate. The radical change of many of our inner cities and the criminal negligence of Police and Government to stop the problem. The persistent and much more enthusiastic attempts of the Police and Government to deal with the consequential or secondary problems that have begun to surface from their continued denial.
It tells us everything we know but what we are afraid to say. This is a very brave book and I recommend it to all who believe in freedom of speech.
I think there is a realisation among many pro-EU supporters that something must change within the EU government concerning policies that are implemented upon people that have no say in how they get such fundamental rights imposed upon them.
The EU should have political parties of all structures trying to go out and win the support from the combined EU over who rules them. The EU must be elected by the citizens of Europe and not a boardroom committee.
Sir John Major - the former UK Prime Minister was regarded as pro-European. He now accepts that the UK must have a referendum on EU continued membership. He makes a point about being cordial and polite with other member states and speaks, I think, from the point of view that the UK referendum will bring about the UK remaining in the EU with returned powers and vote winning concessions.
Hooray! Little rabbits in green fields, a beautiful blue sky and a rainbow, in fluffy bunny land - NOT!
I can understand that he wants our ministers to talk politely with all EU states. He talks about gaining understanding. This is admirable and correct, but it is also the way we get patronised by our political classes before they feed us the usual 'big nothing' and this stinks to high Hell.
Europe will be cordial and polite and try to offer minuscule concessions that will be reclaimed at a later date - slowly, slowly, catch a monkey. Both these quibblers (EU and UK) might be talking along lines that don't mean anything to the anti-EU voters. The one thing John Major did get right; is that this is a huge gamble. He means for the pro-EU Brits.
Mass uncontrolled migration - irresponsible, cruel, inconsiderate, migration is the one reason why UKIP may win enough votes to carry its argument on Britain withdrawing from the EU. No one is allowed to voice this too strongly for fear of being called racist, for fear of being ostracised by left wing apologists. I don't think it will matter what the UK and EU negotiators thrash out. Its like two arrogant teachers squabbling over whether to make the class learn Biology or Geography. The class is fed up and wants to go home and they don't care about the subjects on offer. Teachers that teach but refuse to learn are useless and school is boring. The voters may want to leave and find their way because all UK political parties are oblivious to the real problem with the exception of untested UKIP.
However, there remains 60 million voters that know these problems. Some are happy with the mass migration, while a great many are not. Perhaps the majority of this electorate will not vote from the point of view that John Major and many of the political classes are negotiating on. Many of the British electorate feel betrayed by the political classes in the UK. Whatever concessions the political classes claim to win may not matter. I honestly think that this John Major speech does nothing for the 'UK remaining in the EU' argument. I don't think the electorate are hostile to the new EU policing laws or the industrial laws. They are just concerned about mass migration that they have no control over.
If someone wants their house clean and tidy and they are restrained from doing this, its no good offering them a dog biscuit or a set of golf clubs. No one is interested in these little gifts - they mean nothing. I don't think the pro-EU Brits will be able to sell this reclaimed powers thing in a referendum. A large portion of British people are are fed up with mass uncontrolled migration into the UK from Eastern Europe and other countries. At the end of the day UKIP will argue against minuscule gains if the government tries to renegotiate the UK's relationship with Europe. UKIP can show the 'big nothing' for what it is, and still present the problem of mass uncontrolled and irresponsible migration to the British electorate. A multitude of angry voters who will only see this one huge irresponsible past undertaking of their deeply distrusted political classes, talking the usual patronising - 'big nothing.'
I do not think things would be as straight forward as this next article states. However, with all the hardships that will ensue after the UK leaves the EU; I do think it would be better for us to leave rather then try for a renegotiated relationship with the EU.
We must be completely in or completely out. To be completely in a very undemocratically led EU, as it is at the moment, is no longer a viable option.
In the long run, the EU will become democratically viable to its citizens, but alas, not quick enough for the UK. Our politicians can't sell the EU to the electorate as it is. The EU has dropped the ball and no longer cares about UK membership to the degree of becoming democratically responsible to European voters quick enough. The EU is far too interested in saving the EU currency.
Rome burns while un-elected Presidents play their fiddles.
The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.
EU leaders are determined on political union. This is clear from the way the Lisbon Treaty and the Constitution were driven through, ignoring their rejection by popular votes in Ireland, France and Holland. Polls show that almost no-one in the UK wants political union, and more and more want us to leave. The politicians tell us that leaving the EU is unthinkable. They are wrong.
We can leave the EU. We would prosper outside as a free and independent country, trading with every part of the world, as we have always done. See Britain outside the EU
Of Course we Can Leave - our Parliament is Sovereign
We can leave the EU, because no UK Government can bind its successor. We are subject to EU rules only because UK legislation says that we are. Statutes are passed through Parliament to implement each EU treaty. These statutes require UK judges to have regard to EU law in making their judgements.
Repeal this UK legislation, and we are free. EU law no longer applies to us. The debate with the EU would be about how best to manage our leaving, not whether we can leave.
We don't have to pay anything to leave. In fact we will stop paying into the EU budget – more and more every year.
There is a procedure for leaving the EU in the Lisbon Treaty, but no sovereign nation would use it in practice. Treaties can be repudiated (ask the Germans). The Lisbon Treaty procedure requires permission from a majority of countries and MEPs. The leaving country is not allowed to take part in the discussion of the details of leaving, such as who bears any costs. Having left, the country remains bound by EU rules for two years. Having decided to leave, who would be so spineless as to accept so one-sided a deal? The Lisbon Treaty affects the UK because an Act of our Parliament says so. If we repeal the Act, then we are not subject to the leaving procedure.
How would we Leave?
The actual steps of leaving could be as follows:
• Repeal the European Communities Act and its amending acts which brought in subsequent EU treaties.
• Stop paying contributions into the EU budget.
• Repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from European Court of Human Rights. UK courts could then no longer refer to foreign jurisdictions in their decisions - just British law and precedent.
• There are thousands of UK laws based on EU Directives. It would be impossible to repeal them all at once. We should pass a series of Enabling Acts as vehicles for amending EU-related laws, and set up a Parliamentary group to review them over 2-3 years. Their brief would be to reduce the burden of regulation substantially and remove the influence of EU Directives. An Enabling Act each year would revise those laws which had been considered by the group. Businesses would be free to create more jobs.
• Negotiate a free trade agreement after we have left - once we give them a fait accompli it would be in their interests to regularise trade. WTO rules would prevent discrimination against us, as would self-interest - we are a big market for EU countries.
• Negotiate our own free trade deals with the growing countries of China, India, the Far East, South America and the US – deals to increase the trade of Britain, not the EU
• Notify the EU that we are resuming control over our 200-mile fishing limits, reviving what is left of our fishing industry
• Replace the Common Agricultural policy with a policy which helps British farmers produce what we want at affordable prices
We Can Leave the European Union - and Still Trade Successfully with Them
And Finally, a Thought from our former Prime Minister
"Of course, Britain could survive outside the EU...We could probably get access to the single market as Norway and Switzerland do..."
British Army tanks have evolved since British WWII tanks. Modern British tanks are of course much more complex with dynamic instrumentation to make them more effective. To drive a tank in this day and age is probably more agreeable then during WWII. Challenger 2 saw its first combat in March 2003 during the invasion of Iraq. One hundred and twenty Challenger 2 tanks went into action around Basra and saw action during the siege of Basra where the covered with fire support for British forces.
During part of this conflict within an urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces. Machine guns and rocket propelled grenades were used were used upon this one particular Challenger 2. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was immobilised by the group of resisters who surrounded the stricken vehicle.
The Iragi irregulars fired the weaponray at the Challenger 2 from various directions. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades at close range, plus a MILAN anti-tank missile.
Inside the Challenger 2, the British crew survived until the tank was recovered for repairs by relieving British forces who drove the Iraqi irregulars off. The worst damage was to the tank's sighting system.
The same Challenger 2 was back in operation, six hours later after repairs.
Another Challenger 2 operating near Basra was hit by 70 RPGs during a different incident and survived with crew intact. The Challenger 2 was proving good in tight situations.
In August 2006 at a place called al-Amarah in Iraq, a Challenger 2 was penetrated by an old Soviet RPG-29. The frontal hull of of the tank was ruptured through ERA in the area of the driver's cabin.
The driver lost part of his foot and two more of the crew were injured. However, the driver was able to reverse 1.5 miles to an aid post.
I can't help thinking that if two technologically advanced nations came head to head. How long could such nations keep up fighting with such expensive tanks? How often could they be replaced There are many fine examples of good tanks but how would they fare against more resourceful opposition?
By this, I imply that any force with the durability to endeavour and keep fighting and with ability to destroy such vehicles; how long before a nation begins to run out of financial resources to replace or repair such technically advanced vehicles. Imagine better RPGs that can cause such damage - easier to produce on the mass market then such tanks that must cost so much.
I think some of the tanks of today are truly awesome machines, but I can't help thinking that smaller intricate and less expensive technology might cause such warfare to be too costly for tank providers in a more prolonged war and against a more determined enemy.
It is very encouraging for fellow Brits to voice sensible arguments for the UK to try and help reform the EU from within. Richard Branson's blog was very well worded and simple in its good reasons for staying in the heart of the EU and fighting to change the present way Brussels and Strasbourg work. We (Brits) should not run away from this. All euro sceptics correctly point out a great many things wrong with the EU, but using a UK exit policy of the EU is very wrong indeed.
Everything that Richard Branson states in his blog are sound reasons why. Mainly the future - the EU will sort this mess out and the coming years will look very promising if we stick together. I hope and pray that more substantial people of influence will make their voices heard for the United Kingdom to become more deeply involved with the EU.
I believe that other fellow Europeans in all other states would want to change and restructure some of the EU's bureaucracy, but the other states don't use running away from the problem as a solution. It is no good voicing correct points about a faulty apparatus and then running away from it. Get in there (all the people of substance from across Europe) and change it - make it more effective and seen to be so. We need more high profile Brits like Richard Branson delivering short, sweet sharp to the point messages like the blog he wrote below.
Branson warns against British EU exit
A British exit from the European Union would be 'very bad' for British business and for the economy, said Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson.
Writing in his New Year blog, the founder of the Virgin Group said global business relies on large trading agreements created by regions, not by countries.
"The EU is the UK's biggest trading partner. Its combined market dwarfs the US and China. For that reason alone, the UK must stay in to help rebuild the EU," he wrote.
"Obviously Europe has had difficulties, but so has America and most other countries in the world. The tough medicine that countries like Ireland, Spain and Portugal have given themselves will result in Europe being in far better shape than America in a few years' time."
Looking ahead, he said Britain must be at the centre to help the EU forge new partnerships with the emerging markets of Latin America and Asia - and to renew and extend our relationships with the US and Canada.
"Those powerful economies want to trade with a market of 500 million people and not the UK's 60 million," said Branson.
"The UK must not become a peripheral country on the edge of Europe. This will be damaging to long-term prospects of British business and also in the country's ability to attract new international companies to set up and employ people in the country."
He urged the British government to get together with Germany to restructure Europe. "We are in a position where if we take a positive approach, Germany and ourselves could be the key two countries to the restructure of Europe.
"Unless we do all this, Britain could be an island completely adrift in 20 years."
Germany is one nation in the EU that has worked hard to keep her house in order. Her economy is good and her manufacturing industry is fine. Unlike other EU countries, Germany is very successful. This is despite the fact that other nations in the EU are now in a crisis over the Euro currency which is causing a lot of hardship among countries inside the Eurozone. This is not Germany's fault. It is the responsibility of the countries that got themselves into the mess in the first place. A harsh thing to say, I have no doubt, but all I hear in my country of Britain; is that Germany is trying to control Europe.
Germany does not want to do such a thing. Collectively Europeans are at fault for steam rolling these changes of fiscal union through. The one Innocent country is Germany. She kept strong and spent what she could afford. Other debt ridden nations are now in trouble and need Germany to financially help them out. This is unfair on Germany because she is condemned if she does not help. Therefore she needs to make sure debt ridden nations implement strong austerity to pay back the loans. Again, Germany is being condemned for telling nations what to do. This is most unfair on the German nation. After all, Germany got her act right in the first place.
It is not Germany's fault
This cannot be blamed on Germany and this crisis will get sorted out - one way or another, despite what all the doom merchants across the planet are preaching. It might get worse before it gets any better, but I firmly believe it will put itself right. In the meantime, the UK is in danger from its volatile electorate who see the EU as developing from a Common Market of free trade into a federal United States of Europe steamrollered in through the back door. A great number of Brits fear this as do other European nations.
Danger of British Referendum
Pro European British Politicians are trying to ride the storm while anti-European Brits are trying to capitalise as the Euro Crisis storm rages. The anti-Euro can't afford to loose any opportunity to exploit this and get a referendum on British participation within the EU. The UKIP see their moment has come and they continue to feed Euro scepticism to the British electorate who might vote to withdraw if a referendum can take place at this time.
After the problems of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, the British wisely stayed out of joining the Euro currency, but this has rebounded on her. She probably wants to join the Euro in the future when other nations have sorted out their problems - problems the UK did for see. This has left the UK in a catch 22 situation concerning future Euro currency membership. Her fears were proved very right in the short term, but even more damaging then UK politicians could predict. This will make it difficult for Britain to convince people to join the Euro one day in the future. In a strange way; the British were too correct in their fears and this could have an unwanted and lasting effect on the British electorate. One that anti-European British political parties enjoy and try to exploit.
UK Should Look at Joining Euro Currency in Future
The UK must seriously look at the future within the Euro currency. I can understand our reluctance to join the European single currency now, but in the long run, I feel sure it would be better for us to integrate more with our European neighbours. We must also help preserve the Eurozone from outside too. I'm not sure if the being alone aspect, outside the EU, will work in the world of today if the referendum comes and Britain leaves the EU. I think most of our politicians know this too but the anti-Euro referendum vote is in real danger of appealing to UK voters during a time of maximum fickleness. (for want of a better word)
Pro Euro Brits are correctly worried about a referendum vote at an inappropriate moment when the Eurozone is in real crisis. Millions of British voters could be persuaded to abandon the EU. In the long run this could ostracise the UK from all the benefits of what the real EU can achieve for us. The Unity of Europeans as got to be a dream for most people, but because Britain is an island race; it is hard to convince most that we are still Europeans. She has not witnessed or seen her boarders changing for many hundreds of years.
British Political Parties Fear UKIP
I think most of our politicians want the Eurozone to succeed, but dare not openly show commitment to this for fear of giving more votes to the UKIP party led by Nigel Farage. This party can sit back and criticise without offering real alternatives to the situation; except to abandon ship and leave the EU. Their criticisms are often right, but their selfish solutions of cutting and running are not. Our much criticised British MPs, who are trying to help, behind closed doors, are up against all sorts of odds at the moment, in this tricky European political climate. Never have our politicians had to do politics on such an intricate level. They are walking a tightrope trying to avoid a British referendum upon a fickle population that can only see a few inches in front of their faces and help a Europe in deep crisis - one they expected, yet not nearly as disastrous.
EU Structure Needs To Change
The bureaucracy of the EU is not helping either, because it is developing and is in infancy, where EU presidents are concerned. The whole EU package is unfolding at a fast pace, while the UKIP party rightly points out the unfairness. The flaws being; the lack of electoral processes concerning an unelected EU president. However, at this moment in time; how many of us Europeans would even study EU manifestos and things? If the EU is going in the direction I think it is; fiscal and federal union, then the bull had to be taken by the horns and a president had to come. The rights and wrongs of President Van Rompuy being an unelected president are clear now. Europeans are taking interest in this matter. Perhaps it is time to tweak the mechanism and start forming European parties for election across Europe, where by European citizens get a say in who they elect as president? This President of the EU matter, is a good topic of conversation to come to light and could be good for Europeans as a whole if we tackle the situation positively. We (Europeans) are not fond of this unelected situation (Even though President Van Rompuy is surely a very decent person) so lets hope something constructive is done about it. Not pull out of Europe as Nigel Farage and the UKIP party want us Brits to do.
Much of what UKIP criticise about concerning the EU might be correct, but discontinuing Britain's membership is completely wrong. We can join other Europeans and change these things for the better. There must be loads of French, German, Italian, Spanish and other great European peoples who have the same view concerning unelected presidents. We don't quit and run! We look for alternatives within the EU and make it better. This is progress and we British must look at things from this perspective rather then leaving the EU because we don't like the way it is being run at present.
UKIP Point Out Flaws in EU but have Negative Solutions
It is a real swings and roundabout issue for all of the EU, and organisations like UKIP can just sit there and point out all the EU shortcomings without solutions. As a European tool, perhaps the UKIP might have an inadvertent roll to play by pointing out the bad policies of the EU, but they are only a tool - not a real alternative for the UK.
UKIP will not want the EU to have time to get its act together and they fear the idea of Europeans getting electoral manifestos because Europeans (including British people) might begin to look at Europe as a whole - something that destroys UKIP aims - to cut and run - be ostracised with no say in world affairs.
I think UKIP want their British electorate nice and fickle for a British Referendum - fed on the criticisms of the EU crises and the idea of unelected presidents. They will only offer one solution; cut and run - leave the EU. There will be no other vote concerning changing the inner political mechanism of the EU which many other European peoples want to do. That would bring about stronger fiscal union which UKIP can ill afford.
In this tv interview Nigel Farage says so many things that are correct. He even massages other nations egos. He is a very clever man, but he has one aim: Pull the UK out of the EU.
I strongly believe UKIP solutions are less well presented then their correct criticisms. I have heard Nigel Farage say that Germany is dominating Europe. Then when Chancellor Merkel appears to listen to reason and softens slightly to Spanish and Italian needs; Nigel Farage begins to present Germans in a different light. He is suddenly condescending to ordinary German voters. Again, what he says is right, but it is easy to be observant of these issues and criticise them. Putting these things right is much more difficult and again; UKIP's only option is; cut and run - leave the EU.
Is EU Moving too Fast?
Perhaps the EU is moving too fast where fiscal integration is concerned. The European Parliament seems to think all the different peoples are of the same mind set. They are not, and sometimes the steam rollered policies move too quickly. True - the Eurozone crisis of the Southern European nations has not helped, but the introduction of a currency, not properly revised, is the cause of much of this. Maybe the dominating nations expected all other countries to be like them. The differences were not taken into account. Maybe the 'car crach' policies being introduced are the only way forward - grabbing the bull by the horns - so to speak. If it works in the long run then it might be correct. However, I can see the UK breaking away from the EU if the politics of this (car crash) method are not considered more intricately. The UK needs to be considered because of the volatile electorate and the political gains of UKIP. Pro-Euro Brits are having a difficult time trying to walk this tightrope, which I believe will come good in the long run.
I'm not trying to say that the EU is wrong either - all this is for a later long term good. It does need to take other countries into account and ostracising the UK for veto using is dangerous in the long run too. The UK contribute the second largest amount of money to EU after Germany. France contribute a greater amount but claims back much more in subsidies (Giving with one hand and taking back a huge chunk with the other.) The over all net gain from UK remaining inside the EU treasuary of contributions, is second most and, again; in the long run, this is something the EU should not dismiss lightly.
