Janice Atkinson MEP talks to RT about how Theresa May has no Brexit Blueprint to take to the EU Council at the end of the month, the HMRC fantasy figures and fake news Brexit polling.
Theresa May abandoned plans to present European leaders with a detailed blueprint for a future UK-EU relationship ahead of a Brussels summit this month. This decision was taken as business leaders said they were losing faith in her handling of Brexit.
According to the Financial Times, senior government officials said Mrs May now planned to publish a 150-page white paper after the European Council meeting on June 28-29, in spite of earlier claims that it would help to shape debate ahead of the summit.
The EU is proposing to make changes to online copyright laws. Three of the articles within the proposal, however, have raised serious concerns in regards to how they would change online behaviours, specifically in terms of uploading and sharing media.
These proposals to reform EU copyright were presented by Günther Oettinger shortly before leaving his post as Digital Commissioner. The previews of news articles that appear on Facebook will be deemed a copyright violation. No one will be allowed to share preview links to a news site without direct permission of the publisher.
Article 3 would create a copyright exception when used for Text and Data Mining research methods for research institutions and only for the purpose of scientific research. However, this has drawn significant criticism as it will prevent independent researchers, journalists and companies from using the technique for products and services, placing more limitations on startups and other organisations existing outside of the scope of “scientific research.”
Even more concerningly, Article 11 would require extra copyrights for news or media outlets, requiring anyone who would like to link to a news site to first get a licence from the publisher. This has been condemned by critics as a “link tax”. The proposed law gives media giants the power to charge fees for sharing links, by copyrighting tiny preview snippets.
This link tax is a broken idea that will harm access to news and information.
Article 13 requires that internet platforms that rely on hosting large amounts of user-uploaded data must monitor that content. Additionally, they must moderate the content to identify copyright infringement. The proposal could limit freedom of expression and harm independent creators.
Upload monitoring software cannot tell infringement apart from legal uses like parody. Filters also frequently malfunction. As a result, legal content will be taken down.
Filters like these always end up blocking legitimate legal content, and therefore will lead to masses of lost creativity. Links routinely include snippets, so restricting snippets restricts linking.
Julia Reda, Pirate Party Germany MEP, states in her article ’10 everyday things on the web the EU commission wants to make illegal: Oettinger’s legacy’:
“These proposals are pandering to the demands of some news publishers to charge search engines and social networks for sending traffic their way, as well as the music industry’s wish to be propped up in its negotiations with YouTube.”
“These proposals will cause major collateral damage – making many everyday habits on the web and many services you regularly use downright illegal, subject to fees or, at the very least, mired in legal uncertainty.”
An open letter signed by over 80 signatories states that “[The Copyright Directive is] on the verge of causing irreparable damage to our fundamental rights and freedoms, our economy and competitiveness, our education and research, our innovation and competition, our creativity and our culture.”
In short, these requirements place a huge burden on internet companies and discourages investment in user-generated content startups, preventing competition to the dominant US platforms from arising, effectively locking in YouTube’s dominance.
Earlier this week, Italy’s two anti-EU populist parties tried to form a coalition government but were blocked from power by the country’s President Sergio Mattarella, because he rejected their choice of a deeply Eurosceptic finance minister.
Then on Wednesday, Five Star Movement leader Luigi Di Maio attempted to resurrect the populist coalition by offering to withdraw Eurosceptic Paolo Savona as his choice for finance minister.
Now a German MEP has raised the prospect of the EU taking control of Italy’s finances if the Northern League and Five Star Movement do manage to form a government in future. Markus Ferber said the EU Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund could ‘march into Rome’ in echoes of the Greek crisis.
There may well be a new general election later this year in order to break the deadlock.
“The upcoming elections will not be political, but instead a real and true referendum … between who wants Italy to be a free country and who wants it to be servile and enslaved,” League leader Matteo Salvini said on Monday.
“Today Italy is not free; it is occupied financially by Germans, French and eurocrats.”
On Tuesday, European Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger said he hoped Italy’s poor economic situation would keep populist parties out of government.
“I can only hope that this will play a role in the election campaign… sending a signal to voters not to hand power to populists on the right and left,” he told German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
So, every time a country disagrees with Brussels they either have to vote again (Ireland) or lose control of their finances (as in Greece, and now possibly Italy).
Brussels is telling Italy it HAS to retain half a million illegal migrants, vetoes (via its stooge Italian president) a Eurosceptic Italian government, and now threatens to take over its economy and finances. How can ANYONE think this is normal and acceptable democratic behaviour? But Remoaners in Britain apparently do! Thank goodness we are escaping from this dictatorial mess – EVEN if it takes years to do so.
With it being nearly a month since the local elections, it is time to reflect and look back at the results and what they mean for the country as a whole. From this, who were the real losers and winners of these elections.
Overall, while Labour did perfectly well (and doing the best in London for decades) they didn’t achieve the massive sweep they were expecting and fell short of their 2014 results, with those results including them gain nearly 5 times as many councillors and gained councils whereas here they didn’t gain any.
Maybe Corbyn mania is starting to die. This can only be a good thing.
Meanwhile the Conservatives held a huge sigh of relief. They didn’t get the massive crushing many were expecting. And while they lost 33 councillors and 3 councils, it was not the massive defeat expected, nor was it their results at the 2014 elections whereby they had lost 11 councils and 236 councillors. Their maintaining of safe seats and specific wards (like mine of Enfield Town Ward) was a major plus, meanwhile some occasional gains from Labour (like Gorse Hill in Worcester) gave them some boost in those areas too. So, the Conservatives performed OK here, albeit not incredibly strongly.
So, who were the real winners this time? It was neither the main two parties obviously. Rather, it was the party many assumed (including myself) were on a death spiral, especially after their tuition fees controversy, the animosity held towards Nick Clegg lowering their support and their irrelevance in a post-Brexit world with their anti-Brexit rhetoric. That would be the Liberal Democrats. This is mainly because of their results. They were the only major party to gain council seats (taking three off the Conservatives in Kingston upon Thames, Richmond upon Thames and South Cambridgeshire) and gained the most councillors at 75 next to Labour’s results. They certainly did better than they had done in the 2014 results, where they lost 2 councils and 310 councillors.
Why did they do so well then? Partially, the resentment towards the two parties probably helped, but in particular the disagreements between the Conservatives’ promise to deliver Brexit and the anti-Brexit attitude of many London areas (including the ones the Liberal Democrats won over the Conservative Party) made voting for a more EU friendly party the preferred option for those constituents. That would follow a similar pattern to the general election last year, with their aggressive anti-Brexit campaign (including the now infamous ‘Vote Her, Get Him’ poster) allowing them to gain some seats in Conservative seats like Bath and Twickenham for example, despite the former Conservative MPs backing the EU in the 2016 referendum. There is also potential that their moderate centrist platform may attract disillusioned Labour voters who are against the hard left in Corbyn’s lot, and some seats where Labour have strongholds increased their Liberal Democrat presence indicates this. However, this is only speculation.
Finally, who were the biggest losers in the election? That would be UKIP. They made the biggest losses of that time, with 126 councillors lost, maintaining only 3 councillors overall in Derby. The most obvious reason for this is that most people see UKIP’s mission as a done deal, trusting the main parties very strongly with Brexit. The infighting that has been going on in the last few months, especially with the Henry Bolton and Jo Marney controversy, has not done their image any good either.
In conclusion, these results establish one thing: Britain is once again a two-party state. Labour and the Conservatives are baying at each other’s seats for power, all the while the Liberal Democrats are just creeping up, destined to perhaps stay around longer than one first thought. It clearly shows that they aren’t going away any time soon. The collapse of the UKIP vote and the lack of any major results for any of the other minor parties (with only the Green Party gaining some more councillors at 8 in total) indicates this only further.
Brexit will happen. Yes, it’s true, it might not be the hardest of Brexits that Ukip supporters or the hard right wing fringes of the Tory party expected, but it is still happening. Theresa May has distanced herself from any possibility to remain in a full scale Customs Union and Single Market as well.
Anyhow, it would not be realistically feasible to have one without having the other, as Britain is not exactly like Norway. Some people might be tired of reading about Brexit and all of its possible outcomes in the Mail or Telegraph everyday, while other staunch Brexiteers might have lost hope in the hard-Brexit they desired.
However, taking all of this into consideration, we do have to remind ourselves every now and then that as annoying and sometimes unfullfilling this process can be, Britain really has inspired the euro-sceptic masses in the geographical union to unite and act upon questioning the European Union’s ‘divine rule’. The whole system is slowly crumbling, Europeans scattered across the continent are now more euro-sceptic than ever, as they can look at Britain and believe that another world is possible.
Look at Italy for example, only a couple of days have passed since the official agreement to form a government between the two main euro-sceptic parties in the country, The League led by charismatic Matteo Salvini and the Five Star Movement which is home to the anti-Euro youngster Luigi Di Maio.
The two parties have agreed on one of the most anti-establishment figures of the wider Italian establishment elites, Giuseppe Conte. Conte is no social conservative, and not particularly right winger either, however he is certainly euro-sceptic and has admitted himself that the left has alienated ordinary working class Italians and not been able to protect individual rights and freedoms. If Conte was English, he would be some sort of Libertarian guy with a good haircut, and a Ukip party membership. He has defined himself “the lawyer of the good people”.
As expected, the Italian national mainstream media as well as the global one, have started bashing him and criticising his appointers for not providing enough information about his past expertise as a jurist and professor.
Someone from the deep-state even spread the rumour that Conte never went to university and his curriculum vitae was falsified. This turned out to be proven quite wrong after less than 48 hours. Also, poor Salvini and Di Maio who are working to build this new government alliance, have been dismissed as “modern day barbarians” by the Financial Times.
Apparently, the Wall Street globalist and capitalist gurus did not like the idea of having a party in Italy that would push for EU reform. They must have not liked Salvini’s masculine beard and cigarette-smoking habits either. These people are, after all, massive bigots.
The lying media have been using their scaremongering tactics to drive ordinary people against Brexit during the British campaign. The Guardian’s hippie-journalism style that is overly obsessed with racism that is not just present in our beloved UK. It is quite common across the channel aswell, and even beyond the Alps all the way down to Rome, and southern Europe.
After constant hateful pieces against Salvini’s League, written by left-wing Italian “Repubblica” paper, who are really the “cousins” of the far left French outlet AFP (Agence France Presse), branding Salvini as some sort of neo-fascist only because he has promised mass expulsions of illegal aliens and putting an end to immigration from Libya, it is clear that lefty-journalists have become a laughing stock.
Very few people listen to them now or deem them as credible. They are the ones who complained during an EU press conference in Strasbourg where Salvini gave a statement; they were bothered by the fact that non-affiliated and more neutral journalists clapped and shouted congrtulatory statements to Salvini himself who had just won an Italian election. One lady, who adressed Salvini directly in a rather rude tone, was invited by him to leave the room if she could not respect a politician who has just won an election.
The beauty of populist males like Salvini, with alpha characteristics, is that they manage to appeal to ordinary men and women. Males want to be just like Salvini, while females dream of having him as a companion. On another note, most Italians are statistically much poorer now than when they joined the Eurozone twenty years ago.
Apart from Italy, grandiose things are happening in France as well. Marion Le Pen launched yesterday in Lyon a new policy institute for the European conservative-thinking youth. It was officially inaugurated as the Institute of Social Science, Economics and Politics. ‘The Spectator’ has already discretly announced that this new “right-wing adventure” could effectively pose a threat to the monopoly of the left on young people. Meanwhile the ‘The Guardian’ has clearly stated that this policy-institute basically a training school for far-right leaders. They could be right.
Who cares what these lefties think, though? “Far-right” is just a buzzword or an insulting slur, invented by intolerants, who will not accept any form of social conservative values. Let us ignore these sad mainstream media fellows, and let us rejoice because finally someone with a lot of guts and money has decided to play the long-term game to save social conservatism. Respect for the French, and for Marion Le Pen, “the new Jeanne D’arc.”
We seriously do need to rejoice. The news from our own Britain but also from France and Italy should make us feel more optimistic about the future. Conservatives, and social ones especially, are no longer fragmented in one continent; we can now be united under the eternal banners of Nation, Tradition and Family.
As Kevin Wendall Crumb, magnificently played by James McAvoy in the even more magnificent Shyamalan film “Split”, says; “Rejoice, for the broken are the more evolved, rejoice.”
Conservative MPs are reportedly preparing themselves for a snap general election over fears Theresa May will not be able to break the Brexit deadlock. Such a scenario would see a ‘no deal’ occurring or Theresa May backing down to the EU’s demands. If the Prime Minister backs down, a vote of no confidence will likely pass and a snap general election will be on the table.
Brexit negotiations reach their crunch verdict in autumn when EU leaders are due to meet and decide whether or not to sign off on the deal.
But the PM’s plans for a future partnership with the Brussels block has hit the buffers again amid a row over customs arrangements.
Some MPs are said to have spoken to their local party associations asking to be re-adopted as parliamentary candidates in preparation for an election later this year.
An un-named Tory MP told the Sunday Times: “It’s becoming clear there’s no compromise that will keep remainers such as Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve happy as well as the likes of myself and Jacob Rees-Mogg…
“The numbers are against us and if we face repeated defeats when the withdrawal bill returns to the Commons, the only alternative will be to kick over the table and trigger a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, which will likely lead to another general election.
“After speaking with like-minded colleagues, I have raised this with my association chairman and asked them to get on with readopting me as the candidate in my seat in anticipation that we could go to the polls as early as the autumn. I am even preparing my first leaflet drop for the summer.”
Labour MPs have also picked up on the prospect of a new election, with an unnamed MP saying: ‘I heard two separate reports from MPs who said they had heard Conservative MPs planning for an early election.’
May called a snap general election in June 2017 to try and widen her small majority in Parliament and improve her negotiation position. Instead, the Tories lost their majority and had to make a deal with the DUP to avoid a hung parliament.
Before the 2016 referendum, numerous senior politicians including the then prime minister and chancellor said that in the event of a Leave vote, the UK would leave the single market. So, MPs should respect the will of the people.
I am struck by the tens of thousands of people who are joining the Football Lads Alliance and Veterans Against Terrorism marches, new media is springing up, citizen journalists and activists are joining together to defeat cultural Marxism that is turning this country into a very intolerant place.
We need more people – particularly women – to join us.
Are you part of the growing millions who are concerned about where our country is heading?
Whether it is jihadi terrorism, Brexit, immigration, controlling our borders, the violent gun, knife and acid attacks on our streets – you can have your say.
We never consented to whole towns and cities being taken over by alien cultures. Yet, you are now expected to cover your head in Tower Hamlets, small corner shops are being told not to serve alcohol and where English isn’t the first language, but is second or third.
We never consented to higher taxes, higher house prices so that our kids can’t afford a house, or our NHS being overburdened because of high immigration.
We never consented to free speech being shut down. This has happened since Tony Blair brought in the hate crime law which is being used against us, time and time again.
We never consented to our police force being cut. We never consented to our police being required to police the internet against free speech, and is being used against us, time and time again.
We never consented to our police advising those of you attending the World Cup not to fly the “imperialistic” or “antagonistic” St George’s flag. Where did this language come from, who authorised them to use it?
It’s our flag, we will fly it with pride. And a warning to those of you who are planning to travel to Russia for the World Cup, beware, the Russian police are much tougher than ours. I wouldn’t want to spend a night in their jails. Just a thought.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. Don’t be silent any longer.
Ladies, tell this liberal left government of Mrs May, tell Jeremy Corbyn and his Marxists, that their vision of Britain is not ours. Tell the Lords that to stop Brexit by seeking a second referendum is unconstitutional and goes against the Salisbury Convention where the House of Lords does not oppose a government’s manifesto.
And when the deputy governor of the Bank of England talks down our economy by saying it is ‘menopausal’, let’s tell him that Brexit will be like an HRT boost in the arm, Brexit on oestrogen – powerful stuff!
Whether you’re a grandmother, teenager or inbetween, a wife or girlfriend, get involved. Attend our marches and debates. You can change the way we’re heading.
Come and meet us, come and meet me, let’s have a chat over a coffee or a glass of wine or beer.
Women, Britain needs You! Let’s Make Britain Great Again.
The government has announced that a decision on the UK’s position on the customs union will be made next week.
Today’s announcement should be taken with a pinch of salt, however, as the government has said the decision will be made ‘next week’ three times now.
On Wednesday 2nd May the cabinet voted 6-5 in favour of a Brexit ‘maximum facilitation’ plan for the customs union, however, a final decision was delayed until the following week.
A week later, on Tuesday 8th May, the customs union was not discussed during the cabinet meeting and was again delayed until the next week. Two days later, the Prime Minister cancelled plans to discuss the customs union.
This brings us to today, where during a Cabinet sub-committee meeting, the decision was set to be announced ‘next week’.
Theresa May has reportedly rejected plans to stay in the customs union. Such a partnership would restrict the UK from making free trade deals, effectively destroying chances of a real Brexit.
However, ministers are at war over two customs proposals. The customs partnership – Mrs May’s preferred option – would see the UK collect tariffs on behalf of the EU and then pay them back. Brexiteers regard the proposal as unworkable and cumbersome – and they were joined by Sajid Javid and Gavin Williamson in criticising it at a tense ‘War Cabinet’ meeting last week.
The second option – maximum facilitation, or ‘Max Fac’, would see technology used to help ease trade with the EU for ‘trusted traders’.
But whips also fear Theresa May has no chance of getting the Brexiteers’ ‘Maximum Facilitation’ proposal through the Commons. At least a dozen Tory Remainer rebels are threatening to side with Labour in a looming vote on whether to stay in the customs union.
It is essential we are able to do our own trade deals and are governed by British law. This is what we voted for!
Digital Minister Margot James has announced a change to government procedure regarding the sharing of information between the NHS and the Home Office as part of the debate on the Data Protection Bill. Under a Memorandum of Understanding, this information had been shared since 2005.
Previously, the Home Office had used NHS records to track down illegal immigrants in some cases but will now only use them if the subject has committed a serious crime.
MPs, including Conservative Sarah Wollaston who tabled the amendments, said they were concerned about ‘patient confidentiality’.
So, there you have it – MPs are more concerned about the privacy of illegal immigrants than they are about their unauthorised use of our overstretched NHS which, according to official figures, already suffers an estimated £2bn burden through ‘Health Tourism’.
This ‘privacy’ will also hinder the Home Office still further in their attempts to deport the unknown number of illegals residing here within the UK.
Furthermore, this whole ‘Data Protection Bill’ debate is a farce – the new GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) legislation is being enforced under EU directive on 25th May and the UK must comply irrespective of what is discussed from the Green Benches.
It would appear that the delays in our leaving the European Union are not only contributing to further red tape that costs UK businesses millions in compliance but also hindering Government attempts to protect our sovereign borders and remove lawbreakers.
It is high time that we rejected this legislation and implemented Brexit immediately, with or without a deal.
You also have to wonder about the priorities of MPs such as Ms Wollaston.
The League of Nations was an intergovernmental organisation born in 1920, just after the end of one of the greatest tragedies humanity witnessed; The Great War. The League was one of the first, if not the very first, peace-promoting institution that had an inclusive approach to preventing diplomatic and military crisis among European nations. It included Britain of course.
While the League of Nations did not exactly work out to perfection, since another, perhaps even worse war, occurred in no time, it did provide a few years of stability and a sense of civility among the great powers of the first half of the 20th century; Britain, France, the Soviet Union and even Italy and Spain.
It was an elegant consortium of nations, led by strong men of valour and intellect, who did not really believe they could achieve real disarmament and to be able to combine their foreign policies but tried to regardless, at least for some time. Europe itself knew it needed a break, needed to heal, from the 1914 catastrophe.
Within its limits, the League of Nations was certainly still a respectable of institution. Unfortunately, the same cannot always be said about today’s “modern” and “progressive-thinking” league; the United Nations. Let us make no mistake, the existance of the United Nations is still helpful and necessary for the world, and will remain so for the near future.
Nonetheless, serious accusations against Britain were made very recently by a UN rapportour named Tendayi Achiume. The insane anti-British allegations were not only a series of rather unenlightened provocations, which are undoubtedly unhelpful at such a delicate stage of negotiations between Britain and the European Union, but are also quite frankly the demonstration of an inhumane and extremely partisan or even biased manner of handling discourse by part of the UN.
Tendayi Achiume, speaking on behalf of the UN at a Conference in the heart of London, clearly stated that Brexit was a disaster as it led to a high rise in ‘discrimination and intolerance’. Oh dear, those two words again. Any British conservative who hears those words is by now probably nauseated or feels as if they are suddenly back in university, getting lectured by an annoying political sciences professor. Achiume very much resembles one of those types, who are by the way over-represented at any British academic institution.
According to Achiume, there has been a rise in different forms of racism, including anti-Semitism after the Brexit vote. Let us focus on this point for a brief second. If one is an anti-Semite in Britain it is obviously not Brexit which would have triggered that sort of appalling behaviour. What in the world does Brexit have to do with anti-Jewish sentiment? Simple answer: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Brexit is intended to mainly restrict immigration from European nations, and most certainly not Israel or for that matter any countries that have a non-white majority.
Also, most statistics that have been made available by Guardian scaremongers and others right after Brexit, such as the increase of hate-crime by 3% and the reported number of 1,382 incidents have been proved to be unreliable by most respectable news outlets while government officials have not ever indicated that those numbers were correct.
This is mainly due to the fact that “hate crime” is an intricate matter to assess. The truth is that anyone can accuse someone of “crime” of this nature, while having little to no evidence. Hate crime is literally based on people’s perceptions and feelings.
We live in a society today that gives too much importance to feelings, rather than facts. In Britain, 70% of the hate crimes reported turn out to be proven false or incorrect in court. The statistcal “evidence” that leftists, and organisations like the UN prefer to focus on are only reports of hate crime made by minorities. Honestly, this is hardly evidence at all.
Ever since the day of independence, 23rd of June 2016, global organisations that promote liberalism and post-modernism like the UN or the EU itself have had very disrespectful things to say about Britain. They cannot bear the fact that one nation opted out of the Kalergi Plan that aims to destroy national identities throughout Europe. Thankfully, Britain will soon be able to return to control its borders and economy, becoming a centralised state again.
This certainly won’t stop delusional people like Achiume from believing everything is racist. Every now and then she should be presented with facts, such as that in late 2016 and early 2017 the two most significant crimes that occured on minorities in Britain were not a result of racial hate or tension since they were either carried out against each other by people belonging to the same ethnic group or by cliques of youngsters against other youngsters, an example being the popular case in the destitute suburban area of Harrow, where Polish man Arkadiusz Jozwik was murdered by a 16-year old.
Achiume was not thinking very clearly before she went on to spew her anti-British propaganda, which is very common among the progressive ‘intelligentsia’ circles of today. She must have not done a lot of research. Next time she comes to Britain she should perhaps be invited to visit the Calais jungle in France. She can speak to the refugees, and she will find out that the majority of them cannot wait to enter the United Kingdom to start a new life. Why would they want to come here if this was such a racist and intolerant country, Mrs Achiume?
If she doesn’t like Britain, next time she could give her wonderful speeches on human rights and liberalism to a crowd in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Gaza, or Zimbabwe, I’m sure over there they will treat her magnificently, not like us arrogant and intolerant Westerners.
This week saw another attempted by the unelected House of Lords to thwart the will of 17.4m people by voting to change the EU withdrawal bill.
Gravy train riders such as Lord Kinnock and Adonis who earn substantial amounts of money from the EU have their snouts well and truly in the trough at the expense of our democracy.
A recent government petition to abolish the Lords rocketed over the required 100k signatures in a matter of days following the news. Abolishing the Lords is overkill but a reform is long overdue and it is fair to say that this is a glorified retirement home.
The most concerning aspect of this is that those in the Lords are so out of touch with the ordinary people, they are complexly oblivious to the backlash that could very well take place if democracy is cheated, something that has been witnessed in history before.
The senior House of Commons researcher Christopher Howarth warned that the “ambitious” and “vague” amendment was deliberately worded in such a way to make it difficult to understand, while still granting the peers the power to destroy Brexit.
Blogging on the Brexit Central site, Mr Howarth explained there are a series of separate “triggers” contained within clauses of the amendment which could “force the government to re-negotiate its Withdrawal Agreement with the EU”.
He said if all the triggers are all activated, they could ultimately lead to the Lords vetoing the Government’s Brexit deal.
He warned Peers could then then potentially block ministers from pushing ahead without an agreement – throwing the exit process into complete disarray just weeks before the UK is scheduled to split from the EU!
Mr Howarth said if this were to happen, it would be too late for the EU to reopen negotiations, and may pave the way to Britain remaining in the bloc.
He said: “That is their Lordships’ plan: throw as much mud as possible into the system and hope it fails.” The EU could suggest a delay in Article 50, staying in the EU or remaining in the Single Market/Customs Union… for a price.
The Lords must quickly understand that the will of the British people and the silent majority is a forced to be reckoned with. We shall not stand idly by while these old farts try to destroy everything we hold dear.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan was interviewed on the Peston Show on Sunday regarding the recent scandal concerning the status of the Windrush Generation and fears that people here legally were facing deportation.
In the interview, Khan brought up the status of the 3.5 million EU citizens currently in the UK, pointing out how they would feel post-Brexit having seen how the children of a previous generation were treated in regards to their rights to stay here.
When Peston stated that Theresa May has talked of ‘preferential’ treatment for those EU citizens above non EU migrants and asked if Khan agreed with that, he simply stated ‘yes’. Peston then pressed and asked if he would support this policy, to which Khan again confirmed that he would approve of such a decision.
I have to say, this made my jaw drop. Sadiq Khan has made much of London being ‘open for business’ and has spoken out many times about the positive effects of immigration – indeed, we all heard multiple times how his father was a bus driver from Pakistan who came here to contribute.
How then can he support a policy that discriminates against people such as his father in favour of open door migration to white Europeans, irrespective of their skills, commitment to the country and desire to integrate?
One of the key benefits of Brexit is that it allows the UK Government to set up a new, ethical points-based migration system that judges people on ability, skillset and as individuals rather than where they come from, their religion and ethnicity.
For Khan to then show support for the current system that discriminates in such a way shows his commitment to the equality he claims to champion is just a sham.
It is often mooted that the House of Commons should reflect the characteristics of the population. Normally this is thought of in terms of which gender and communities are represented, basically determined by any of the protected characteristics. But should we compare our MPs to how they voted in the most important decision the people have made in recent history, to leave the EU; the Brexiteers are woefully under-represented.
As I look across to the other house, the House of Lords; hoping to see some balance from our allegedly respected Peers, I see the house filled of Yesterday’s Men. Surely this house, our second chamber of legislative power whose purpose is to scrutinise the legislation from the Commons, would show balance. Unfortunately, this is not so. Instead they scrutinise the public’s decision instead by voting 335 to 244 in their latest attempt to derail Brexit.
At face value, it seems both houses hold the public in contempt, save grace for a few delightful people. But who are these Lords who preside over us with such impunity?
We are all too familiar with the benches of the HoL being squatted by rejected MPs with the likes of Kinnock, Mandelson and Clegg; those who in some way can carry favour with their own parties to claim their right to a peerage (such is their state of self-expectancy).
But should we gaze across the red benches in detail, which other former MPs could we find? No other than the disgraced Peer and former MP Douglas Hogg, the former Conservative MP who claimed expenses for having his moat cleared and now is seeking to overturn the will of the people.
Hardly an upstanding member of the community.
So it is clear as a rare summer’s day, what the Lords’ opinion of the public will is. They treat our decision to the leave the EU as an abhorrent mistake by the uneducated (and racist) people who do not know what they voted for.
I believe and know what the public voted for and I believe it is time that the people were given the opportunity to return the gesture of giving our opinion on our Lords.
It is time we had a say on the House of Lords, a referendum so the people can hold court on our opinion on them. I also know that the people will know what they vote for should the opportunity arise; to confine our Lords’ unchecked power to history as Yesterday’s men, as they once were.
A week before the much anticipated moment when it will present its ideas for the EU’s post-Brexit 2020 budget, it has emerged that the European Commission wants to increase its budget.
The commission plans to put forward a budget larger than the previous one, and is expected to propose that the budget for the period of 2021 to 2027 should be between 1.13 and 1.18 percent of the EU’s gross national income, compared to the 1.0% now.
The UK has already poured money into the EU’s budget for years, and this is yet another way that the EU is trying to convince Britain to stay in the EU, by making the Brexit divorce bill so high that the UK would have no choice but to throw out the democratic will of the people and remain.
The PM should show some backbone and say “we are leaving and we are taking our money with us”.
Treasury predictions during the EU referendum campaign were wrong to the tune of £100billion, according to a report which accuses former Chancellor George Osborne of overseeing a “gross miscarriage of government”.
The author, Timothy Congdon, a world-leading monetary analyst, describes Mr Osborne’s doom-laden forecasts as “preposterous”, pointing out that they were incorrect by nearly five per cent of GDP.
He said: “Instead of employment falling by hundreds of thousands, it has risen by hundreds of thousands. Instead of house prices going down, they have gone up. Instead of the public finances lurching more heavily into deficit, they have been better than at any time since the Great Recession.
“Above all, Mr Osborne’s scary rhetoric about a return of the Great Recession now looks preposterous. Despite all his supposed capability, he could not have been more wrong.”
He continued: “The grotesque misjudgment was not about something distant from his department’s area of responsibility.
“This was a subject where he had direct ministerial accountability and which was perhaps the defining public policy issue of his career.”
The report, which will be published in the May edition of Standpoint magazine, calculates the difference between the Project Fear forecast and the reality was 4.6 per cent of GDP.
Do you remember George Osborne threatening that there would be an emergency tax-raising budget if the UK voted to leave the EU? This threat, of course, never materialised. It was just an attempt by the elites to scare ordinary people, rather like these unrealistic economic forecasts.
With all of this news, it’s difficult to figure out why the House of Lords are backing us staying in the Customs Union, unless of course it’s self interest, EU pensions and so on!
During the Brexit negotiations, one thing has remained a constant – the confusion surrounding Labour’s stance on where they stand on both membership of the EU and a vision for Britain outside the bloc.
Speaking recently, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP stated that his party has not ruled out giving support for a second referendum. Strangely, Shadow Northern Ireland minister Owen Smith was sacked by the party last month when calling for exactly the same thing!
McDonnell also stated that Labour are ‘walking a tightrope’ when it comes to their position on Brexit, suggesting that they are more concerned with losing votes than they are in putting forward a coherent vision for our country.
With support for Labour now coming from the middle class Islington set after years of ignoring their working class heartlands, it would appear that they are afraid to lay out a position for fear of alienating either the remain supporting London vote or the leave supporting Northern electorate. So much for the ‘Men of integrity’, Corbyn and McDonnell!
Ominously, he also commented that they were prepared to show ‘flexibility’ on free movement of people in order to get a good deal for Financial Services companies and access to the Single Market.
The hypocrisy of his position is amazing – McDonnell is always bashing financial services from his regressive left pulpit whilst claiming to stand up for the working classes who are most affected by free movement.
Indeed, a few years ago McDonnell supported a series of demonstrations by the RMT Union about what they termed ‘Social Dumping’, the undercutting of their members by cheap imported labour – the very labour that McDonnell is now prepared to show ‘flexibility’ over.
What a slap in the face for those Trade Unionists who believed that Labour were standing up for their conditions in the workplace!
It is telling that many senior Labour politicians are wriggling and evading on the Brexit position when their electorates gave them their instruction on June 23rd 2016 – Leave the European Union.
Indeed, John McDonnell’s own constituency (Hayes & Harlington) recorded a 60% Leave vote, the highest of the three Parliamentary constituencies in Hillingdon and a larger mandate than neighbouring Uxbridge where Brexiteer Boris Johnson is the MP.
So, why the constant fudge? In my opinion, it is to keep the money coming from the large pro-EU trade unions such as Unite and an attempt to be all things to all people in order not to split their vote at any upcoming General Election.
That Labour would put narrow party political interests ahead of the future of our country in refusing to lay out their stall on the biggest issue of this generation tells you all you need to know about their organisation. It is also why it is patently unfit to be near the levers of power in a pro-Brexit UK.
This week in Strasbourg saw two major debates on Russia and Syria. We were also honoured with Jupiter, the supreme god of the skies, thunder and lightening, aka President Macron.
He strutted his PR rhetoric, beaming the smile, a gimlet eye here and there and a step back and a tight grip on the podium for the showman, the new king of the European federalists.
The majority of MEPs and the Commission were in awe of Jupiter and his message of more taxation, more Europe and more of everything the voters are becoming to despise.
He promised an “off with their heads” message to the populists, the greatest threat his kingdom had seen since the Revolution.
He was proud of his country bombing Syria, because it showed the international community he was tough.
Each group leader was allowed a few minutes to pay homage to their new god, and they did.
The hard left, socialists, Greens and liberals all wanted higher taxes, tax harmonisation, green stuff and to tax the digital economy.
Merkel’s bunch were no better. They wanted all the taxation plus more Europe.
The leader of the ECR group, British Conservative, Syed Kamall, was in thrall too, begging Jupiter to offer us a few scraps to help Brexit along. The grovelling was nauseous.
Then Jupiter’s crown wobbled a bit when the French EFDD and ENF leaders spoke. It was like listening to the Brexit arguments all over again. Non grand Europe! No to open borders, no to immigration, no, non, no. It was a bit Thatcher-like.
Once he had replied robustly and angrily to my colleagues, the second round of speakers commenced. Speakers from each group were called according to their numbers of MEPs, providing they had indicated they would like to speak. We were last, with three of us, including me, indicating we would like to speak. President Tajani avoided our eyes and closed the speaking time. Nigel Farage had also left in disgust.
Theresa May has been dealt a humiliating blow in the Lords. A wrecking amendment to the EU withdrawal bill has been passed.
Peers have just voted 348 to 225 to back an amendment in the name of crossbencher, Lord Kerr, with cross-party support – meaning a defeat for the government.
The amendment requires the government to report to Parliament by 31 October 2018 on the steps it has taken to negotiate continued participation in a UK-EU customs union before the European Communities Act 1972 can be repealed.
Remaining in the customs union will stop us doing trade deals and wreck Brexit.
Conservative ex-chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby said during the debate that he was chair of Vote Leave and “made it absolutely clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the customs union and single market”.
He went on to insist it’s “nonsensical to say you can’t trade without a free trade agreement”.
This is the latest attempt of the undemocratic Lords to thwart the will of the people who voted by a majority to leave the EU. This is establishment forcing through Brexit in name only.
Yesterday the Remoaner “People’s Vote” campaign was launched, in a bid to get a second EU referendum.
According to Open Britain, this was supposed to be the grand culmination of 350 protest events around the country.
It was supposedly bringing together 9 Remain organisations, backed by countless millions of pounds from billionaires like Soros, tax exile Branson, disgraced WPP founder Martin Sorrel and many more.
This great event was supposed to be the climax, after months of campaigning by toxic has-beens like Blair, Major, Mandleson, Heseltine, Patten, Blairite spin doctor Alastair Campbell (he of the dodgy dossier fame) and his “New European” newspaper, and self-appointed celebrity rich girl Gina Miller.
What was meant to be a huge national Remain protest movement ended up as a sad, pathetic damp squib with just 1200 attending the launch of this “mass movement” in the Remainer stronghold of Camden, where the average house costs more than a million pounds.
Incredibly there were NO political heavyweights attending this event – NOT EVEN any of the above mentioned toxic political has-beens.
For this campaign to succeed they will have to win a vote in the House Of Commons. However, the 4 speakers represent a tiny minority in the Commons:
the Green Party leader and sole MP;
a Lib Dem spokesperson, for the party who have just 8 MPs;
Tory outcast Anna Sourbry, who represents nobody but herself;
Chukka Umanna, who leads a tiny Blairite, anti-Corbyn faction of Labour MPs.
So, without support in the Commons this People’s Vote campaign will need a MASS POPULAR MOVEMENT. But this supposedly great popular event has embarrassingly exposed this claim to be totally delusional.
Just 1200 hundred people attended this great inaugural meeting despite
a huge publicity boost yesterday morning by the BBC Andrew Marr interview with Patrick Stewart, the latest “luvvie” deluded enough to think people care what he thinks, living in his privileged Camden celebrity bubble;
a call to arms by Open Britain and the 9 Remain campaigning organisations they claim to represent;
numerous plugs in the usual media suspects, with their millions of viewers, listeners and readers, including Alistair Cambell’s New European Remain campaigning newspaper which claims to have 20,000 supporters!
WHAT A DISMAL FAILURE!
Figuring prominently in much of this event publicity was a “businessman” called Peter Cook. Peter who? It took a lot of Google searching to find who is this great business leader backing this mass movement campaign. He turns out to be someone who believes music will change the tide in favour of Remain!
A bad Brexit deal is looking like it won’t be such plain sailing after all for five EU member states, according to the Express.
Denmark’s fishing industry relies on access to UK waters for 30-40% of their revenue, acording to the Danish Prime minister. 40% of the Dutch economy is coastal, fishing being an important component, leaves them likewise exposed to any loss of access.
Spain has talked tough on Gibraltar but the stoic people of the Rock have begun to turn the tables, reciprocating by threatening to refuse access to the 13,000 Spanish nationals who commute to work each day in their lucrative financial sector if they are not treated fairly.
While Frankfurt may be set to gain 10,000 banking jobs from the City, a bad deal for the UK would result in far greater damage to German industry.
France faces similar risks, alongside the potential disruption of trade between Calais and Dover.
It is the 9th of May 1915. I can feel the ice-cold, wet mud ooze into my worn out, old boots. Other than the light of a soldier’s cigarette in the distance, I can see little in the pitch-black night.
We are positioned just south of the French town of Armentières. This is a dark night though in another sense. Come morning, eleven thousand of us will die as we are ordered over the trenches into German machine gun fire. In 2018, our tombstones stand in Aubers Ridge as a monument to the stubbornness of our leaders.
I’ve expressed to my superiors that we can’t win by this approach, for which they marked me as disloyal, brash, immature, and so on. I’m desperate, frustrated – we are going to die, and for no advance forward of our line. Thousands will fall for no reason but stiff necks.
Sixty years ago, we experienced similar in Sevastopol. The Russians said, “L’armée anglaise est une armée de lions, commandée par des ânes.” Will our leaders forever repeat the same errors, achieving Einstein’s definition of a fool? We are being sent to certain death, because our leaders, “the Donkeys”, reject the machine gun, the tank, ungentlemanly sabotage, guerrilla warfare.
Years later, in another conflict, WW2, they will look down on the Bletchley Park hackers. Those nerds in WW2 were disregarded as silly kids ranting about some new toy; but fortunately they persisted with their work cracking the Enigma machine, and that won the war!
Hindsight! My brothers, please, let us learn from the follies of the past. UKIP can be the opposition in this country, we can take the North, but we must stop using conventional campaign methods! The People’s Army must be open-minded!
Imagine if the SOE had been blocked by Churchill as unconventional! Stop being so rude about our Brexit and other rallies, and join in! Brothers, none of us can afford to be proud or stubborn. And stop lying we have poor judgement; it is we who had to convince you to revise your inappropriate line-up of speakers for the youth conference.
Now, if you face thousands of well-trained, well-equipped, well-funded soldiers, opposite you on No Man’s Land, you do not take them head on. That would be pure folly! Certain death. This is not Rorke’s Drift, because our enemy has the rifles, while our leaders demand we throw spears. We need UKIP to embrace modern technology; to have some of the innovative spirit of Bletchley Park.
Why are we focussed on getting 700-odd paper candidates? We can’t win all those seats. As for the statement that such shall achieve a national broadcast, that’s irrelevant when in 2018 people have adblockers installed on their browsers, or they will be making tea during an advert break, or in the bathroom! This is the digital age! We are going to get slaughtered because we are using 1950s tactics.
Instead of a thousand spears, invest in one machine gun, NationBuilder, perch high in a tree, and you shoot the enemy’s general, or king. Get a tank – use Facebook and YouTube to cut through enemy lines and get the truth to the people. The Party found in days £175,000 for the Jane Collins case fees, but it can’t find a fraction of that amount to invest in provisions for the People’s Army. Get the right tools, strike the correct target, and the left will fall into disarray. We can win!
We must embrace guerrilla propaganda tactics! Get in that tree! Choose a few key seats, one local issue other parties ignore, and focus your team on them! Call out the Labour/Tory candidate for what they have done wrong. Use NationBuilder to target and mobilise local supporters. Fund targeted adverts on Facebook. It’s better to win one seat, than just cause a quiet noise in 20 wards but win none.
Further, the broadcast won’t have a message to embrace the core electorate aged under 50 years of age. The most urgent need is the provision of a clear ideology to unite the Party’s factions, and draw in younger members, so we can do real activism! The Party must stop looking down on Millennials – we are not teens; we are working adults; some of us have children, and mortgages.
We must modernise our campaign methods. The battlefield is social media. We must invest in NationBuilder. Imagine WW1 soldiers are shown the machine gun, but they reject it because learning new ways requires effort!
Some in the corner lament the days of the typewriter, I mean, hand-to-hand sword battles. They talk of their experience in the Anglo-Boer War. It’s time for them to humbly retire, or at least, delegate, and properly without micromanaging!
The success of this Party depends on a number of factors, including to replace staff who refuse to learn how to use 21st century campaign tools. Passing anti-entryism rules on the NEC to block Millennials won’t save your precious titles; you are fighting for cabins on the Titanic as it goes under.
Imagine those who propose use of tanks to break enemy lines are silenced as young upstarts with no experience of life. To the few senior individuals sending us snotty messages telling us to stop our work on YouTube: instead of this paranoid protectionism of your precious titles we don’t even want anyway, work with us.
UKIP, decide – continue as before, send men over trenches into machine gun fire, and experience a massacre this election, or embrace new methods, crack the Enigma code!
Fishermen are to stage a mass protest in which they will burn EU flags and vessels in a furious stand against the Government’s transitional deal that was agreed between the UK and the European Union.
The transitional deal agreement effectively means Brexit Britain will remain as part of the Common Fisheries Policy until the end of 2020.
Fishing for Leave, who organised a protest on the Thames last month which saw Nigel Farage hurl fish into the river outside the House of Commons, are now staging a fresh protest on Sunday April 10.
Around 200 fishing vessels across the country are set to unite to take part in the demonstrations which Fishing for Leave say will be joined by Brexiteers and Tory MPs.
Demonstrations will take place at Hastings, Whitstable, Portsmouth, Milford Haven, with larger turnouts expected in Newcastle and Plymouth. During the protest at Whitstable, Fishing for Leave say they are planning to set a vessel on fire, while at Hastings, EU flags will be torched. Fireworks and horns will also mark the occasion.
Fishing for Leave spokesman Alan Hastings said: “The European Union would be free to easily eradicate what is left of our fleet and has every incentive to do so.
“The EU can achieve eradication of our fleet using the failed quota system that forces fishermen to discard fish to try to find the species you are allowed to keep.
“The discard ban addresses the discard symptom not the quota cause. Now, when a vessel exhausts its smallest quota it must stop fishing, this will bankrupt around 60 percent of the British fleet, this is why we discarded fish outside parliament to highlight this existential crisis.
“Our nation’s fishing and communities were surrendered to the EU and have suffered immeasurably through EU mis-management.”
Statements are expected to be given by Fishing for Leave spokesmen and MPs at the location of each demonstration.
Who does May actually represent? She supports the EU yet she is supposed to be be representing the UK. She is giving our fishing grounds to the EU and gave the contract to print British passports to a French company rather than a British one!
Unless it acts NOW, come May 4th UKIP will cease to exist as a viable political party in its current form. If opinion polls are correct, UKIP will win somewhere between 0.9% and 2.0% of the vote nationally, with total annihilation – less than 0.5% – in London.
In recent weeks, without any publicity and without consultation, the rules have changed regarding NEC elections, barring and disenfranchising any member who has not been a branch officer or previous election candidate and anybody who has not been a member for at least 2 years. (Logical criteria would be company board experience, or qualifications in relevant sectors.)
This effectively bans any young or Millennial member from standing and condemns UKIP to being run in the same old way by the same old people. Backwards, not forwards. And it was deliberately done so. It must be reversed immediately.
Described once as being comprised of ‘Masons, Rotarians and 19th hole bores’, UKIP also manifestly fails to communicate in any effective way at all with either the public or its members.
Despite appeals from Luke Nash-Jones and others in touch with the fast-moving metropolitan reality of 21st Century politics and despite numerous offers to help tap the world of social media and modern communications, the leadership, officers and fossils – including a majority of the NEC – instead huff and wheeze with indignation at these upstarts over their pints of flat real ale in stuffy pubs in the middle of nowhere. UKIP has become invisible. It has become utterly irrelevant. It must surely die.
Meanwhile, legions of street-savvy and media–savvy operators like Tommy Robinson, Paul Joseph Watson, Luke and dare I say it Anne Marie Waters are out there making waves and their disparate and oft confused supporters are craving leadership and a central home.
They haven’t got it yet and it is manifestly clear that they will not get it from UKIP. THAT is why UKIP has not converted the Vets, the FLA – in all its guises – or the moderate right – or Alt-Light – into members. What’s the point? Joining UKIP would be a retrograde step.
I know, for certain, that a great many UKIP or UKIP fringe activists plan to leave the party very soon, possibly to oppose it. Branches will also vaporise. They are not replaceable. UKIP friendly web-sites may also disappear, through apathy and despair, leaving absolutely no dynamic communications hubs whatsoever and no one with the ability or will to run them.
This is a last chance for UKIP officers and leadership to engage with those who can save and eventually run the party. They have a choice, pick up the phone and engage with the new communicators, or pick over the corpse of a defunct party in less than 6 weeks’ time.
This news was sneaked out by immigration minister, Caroline Noakes, in a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Monday. Two weeks ago, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, visited Croatia and held a meeting with Prime Minster Andrej Plenkovic. He asked for free movement of his people and Mr Davis duly granted it.
At the February Strasbourg session of the European Parliament, Mr Plenkovic, addressed the European Parliament, damning the 17.4m people who voted for Brexit, saying: “The UK’s exit is a result of populism and a campaign of disinformation”.
He insults the British people’s intelligence but he’ll be very welcome in the corridors of Brussels, by surrendering his country’s hard won sovereignty, and insulting the British. He’s just paid his first club fee. Perhaps he doesn’t remember communism? He’s just joined the biggest undemocratic racket since communism.
In the European elections in May 2019 he will find more people to insult because the populists will return to Parliament with more MEPs, more Euroscepticism, from the right and left, some of whom also want to leave the sclerotic club.
Why did David Davis agree to Croatia’s free movement? This announcement was sneaked out during the Brexit secretary’s capitulation to Barnier while the foreign secretary is running around embarrassing our country by likening Russia’s World Cup to Hitler’s 1936 Olympic Games.
We did not vote to open our borders to another 4.28m foreigners. May’s government are truly a sham and dishonest negotiators.
Much has been made today of the Government’s decision to hand the production of the new post-Brexit blue passports to French company Gemalto ahead of British Company De La Rue.
I have dug in to this a little bit deeper and casting aside any notions of jingoism asked the big question – is the Government doing the best for us irrespective of any political interest?
Unfortunately, my conclusion is that not only are they making fools of us but the British company is not competing on a level playing field and here is the case for why.
Firstly, government contracts are tendered for and awarded on the best value for money. But our government does not base their judgement on the bigger picture which includes jobs for local people (cutting the benefits bill) and the knock on effect in terms of secondary jobs in the local economy based on spending of wages, just the initial cost of the project.
Our European neighbours factor this in to their calculations, meaning that firms in their own countries can put in a higher bid on their own contracts against UK companies and still win because public money is not just supporting the job in hand but additional benefits in the local community.
Secondly, De La Rue is a private company that generates its own funding and has to compete in an open market. But a very quick search online regarding Gemalto finds that they have been in receipt of French Government funding, backed by the EU, for research and development that props up their operations.
This is from their own website –
“Amsterdam, the Netherlands, May 23, 2008 – Gemalto (Euronext NL0000400653 GTO), the world leader in digital security, today announces that the European Commission has authorised the financial grant by the French government to the MaXSSIMM(*) development programme through OSEO. OSEO is a French public Agency which supports innovation and development. The programme, carried out by a Gemalto-led consortium, is intended to facilitate and accelerate the implementation of convenient personalised and secure Internet services for mobile devices. OSEO will contribute to the program through a €35-million subsidy over 3 years.”
So not only are our own government not looking at the bigger picture in terms of local jobs and regeneration, UK firms have to compete against EU competitors who are in receipt of EU authorised subsidies to prop up their operations.
The EU have been very vocal in their opposition to US based ‘protectionism’ by imposition of trade tariffs on subsidised steel (neglecting that their own tariffs in place at present are higher than those proposed by President Trump) – maybe it is time for the UK Government to look at allocating contracts based on the bigger picture and also looking at government subsidies allocated to those from overseas that not only disadvantage our own businesses but distort competitiveness against those who believe in real free trade.
For years, the Italian establishment, that old and stubborn political class close to Matteo Renzi’s centre-Left (former PM) and Silvio Berlusconi’s centre-Right (also former PM), has convinced Italian people that they had no option but to kneel down to the will of the European Union.
This of course, meant unquestionable support for the Central European banking system, Franco-German authoritarian imposition, and a disproportionate percentage of Italian laws to be decided in the Belgian non-nation, as Nigel Farage once referred to it, no offence, of course.
Italians have been along with other Europeans protagonists of history and have both culturally and socially contributed to the apparent democratic, secular, Western civilisation we have today. It is for this reason, that the common Italian man is starting to feel nauseated by this EU which appears as a giant, secured prison that is almost impossible to escape from. On March 4th, 2018, the populist and patriotic forces showed their great strength, winning the Italian election. More on that later.
We have to be honest, the Italian economy is a lot poorer than the ones of the nations to the north of the country. However, that Mediterranean pride comes out sometimes, and the average Italian now asks himself “Britain had a referendum, they left, so why can’t we?” or “Look, Britain democratically left the EU and now the Germans are acting like vengeful villains again”.
The post-war scenario did change a lot of things. Italians sympathise a lot more with the Atlantic powers, with the United States and United Kingdom rather than with the Germans. It’s no secret. It is what happens when you are not treated fairly. On the contrary, you have an out of touch middle-aged woman called Merkel telling you what to do, telling you how many refugees and illegal immigrants you have to take in each year when your own people are starving and sleeping in parked cars.
Angela Merkel, also known as the “fake Conservative”, is one of the most despised individuals in the peninsula; ironically she is probably hated more than Josip Broz Tito’s Communists who conducted mass killings of innocent Italians in Croatia and Slovenia after WW2.
The most recent elections that happened last week demonstrated that now there truly is a market for Eurosceptic ideas in the country. Matteo Salvini, from the older Northern League Party, who has met Trump before, and is a robust Eurosceptic economic nationalist and conservative, has often praised the results of the EU referendum in Britain.
His party was the most voted in the Italian right-wing coalition, and his chances of being nominated Prime Minister in the near future are quite high. He has promised the electorate that he will re-consider Italy’s involvement in the EU, and certainly hasn’t toned down his anti-Euro Currency rhetoric unlike the more centrist but populist 5-Star Movement.
Salvini is a bit like the Farage of Italy; he is a virile man who likes to smoke and have a few drinks with friends. He is the hero of the working and middle classes. He believes that once he is Prime Minister it will be the people who ask him for a referendum, the same people that like him are fed up with mass immigration from Africa imposed by the EU, as well as the destruction of the agriculture and fishing sector.
On the other winning side, we have Luigi Di Maio’s party, externally maneuvered by millionaire, comedian, Beppe Grillo, who in the past has been a close ally of Farage at a European level. Grillo who for years campaigned to not only leave the Euro, but the EU as a whole, has now told his party officials to tred lightly on the EU issue.
The 5-star movement has obtained almost 33% of the vote, and has been the most voted party (without alliances) precisely because during the initial campaign it has asserted itself as a force that will not be bullied by the EU, and expects Italy to be treated equally to France and Germany.
If things don’t change quickly, especially with regards to the Schengen agreement and immigration, both Di Maio and Salvini have said that they will choose to opt out of the bloc.
Now, after the elections, which have basically accidentally gave birth to the Italian “Third Republic”, there is somewhat of a stalemate, since it is unclear whether the Prime Minister will be one from the Northern League or from 5-star.
Nonetheless, there will be an extremely euro-sceptic government in place, one that recognises that the world is not only made of EU suit and tie bureaucrats who lack the charisma and humanity to lead real nations with an identity that goes beyond economic affairs and candle-lighting gatherings to justify undemocratic multiculturalism.
Mainstream news outlets talk about France or the Netherlands being the possible next ones to the leave the EU. They are wrong. They underestimate the pain and suffering the southern Europeans have gone through, an entire population which is ready to revolt against the establishment like never before, and give the thumbs up, and reach out to the new or maybe old saviours of western civilisation.
The Americans and Brits have already began to construct their New World Order, one of tradition, and solid democratic values. Italy wants to, and can be part of this project.
UKIP’s Interim Leader Gerard Batten MEP will be visiting Gloucestershire for one of his first Public Meetings since taking over as Interim Leader of the Party.
Gerard will be making a keynote address at Gloucester’s prestigious Guildhall before joining members at one of the city’s top restaurants for an exclusive members-only Brexit Buffet.
Gloucester is easily reached by road and rail from all parts of the South West.
Places for both events are limited and tickets will be sold on a strictly first come, first served basis.
The public meeting is just £3 per person to cover costs, and the Brexit Buffet with Gerard Batten — your chance to meet the new UKIP Leader in person — will be just £15 a head for an excellent array of hot and cold dishes.
You can secure your place right away by booking via this link. All credit and debit cards are accepted as well as Paypal.
This week has seen the Spring Conference of the pro EU Liberal Democrats and a speech from their leader, Sir Vince Cable, that shows why his party are becoming an irrelevance on the national stage – they are in denial about the Leave vote in the Referendum and have no idea what drove it.
Sir Vince stated in his keynote speech that older voters were driven by nostalgia and for a world where ‘faces were white’.
I was the co-ordinator for the Leave campaign in Hillingdon during the referendum, a West London Borough with a very diverse community. Funnily enough, those older white faces were in the more affluent North of our Borough which had the smallest leave vote – we had a 57% mandate to leave the EU across the borough but the strongest vote for our exit from the EU was in the Hayes & Harlington constituency, at nearly 60%, a constituency that is a Labour stronghold and where White English people are now in the minority.
Like Sir Vince, local MP John McDonnell dismissed the leave vote on the Sophy Ridge Show on Sky a few weeks later as being driven by ‘fear of the other’ and a ‘lack of information’
I had many memorable conversations on our street stalls in the area during the campaign, one of the most striking being with a black South African who had been involved in the anti-Apartheid campaign in his homeland during the 1980s. He advised me that he was fully behind Brexit as he had fought so hard to get his voice heard during those times – “I can’t believe that anybody would vote to give away their ability to elect those who represent them when I had to fight to get my right to vote.”
Our team also heard many BME Britons talk about embracing the Commonwealth and those who had stood with us during the times when Europe was not such a peaceful place – they felt upset that well qualified friends and family of theirs who wanted to come to the UK and could contribute as engineers and medical staff were discriminated against in favour of white Europeans who were coming to do manual work.
Indeed, a report published last week showed that EU migrants are costing the UK economy £4bn in benefits payments when our NHS is struggling to recruit trained staff from outside of the EU to fill the skills gap that has been exacerbated by the failure of our government to train the staff that we desperately need from our own labour pool.
Sir Vince also stated that the vote had crushed ‘The dreams and aspirations of younger people for years to come’. Maybe he has not consulted the younger people of Italy who see unemployment rates of over 40% and voted overwhelmingly last week for Eurosceptic parties in their national elections, or the unemployment rates amongst the youth of Greece and Spain whose economies have been crushed by the EU and their Euro currency to push their unemployment rates to similar levels?
Is this the future you wish to see for the youth of our country in pursuit of the EU superstate, Sir Vince?
Vince Cable represents the dreams of the 20th century, a protectionist bloc when tariffs were high and the world was a different place. Brexit represents the dreams of the 21st Century – a UK that is outwardly looking, globally trading, independent and prosperous. A 21st century where your personal ability and hard work is the judge of who you are, not your skin colour, age, gender or religion.
His opinions should be left in the past along, with his political party.
Mrs Merkel, despite being rejected in Germany, is continuing to pick the pockets of the EU’s population to pay for her failed and unmitigated disastrous open doors migration policies.
Her European People’s Party, the Social Democrats, the largest voting block, conspired and colluded with the EU Commission to impose a wholly alien culture on our countries which has destabilised cohesion, community relations, has seen soaring crime rates, no-go areas in Germany and France, and Sweden becoming the rape capital of the world, even though it has the world’s so-called first ‘feminist government’.
Failing to deal with the migration tsunami has now resulted in her and the socialists doing a deal that would penalise other countries for standing up to their open door policies, Schengen and mass migration. The Eastern countries, now headed up by populist politicians – Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – are flexing their muscles and newly found voices, by rejecting the Commission and Merkel’s forced migrant numbers plans. Is the Merkel axis response now not to take these countries to court for failure to implement their plans or is the new plan to use Structural Funds? Is she backing out of a fight that will see the resolve of the voters across Europe rejecting her forced migrant quotas and voting for more populist parties in the 2019 EU elections?
Britain has a proud record of taking in real refugees and economic migrants when needed. The Eastern European countries have no history of migration from Muslim and African countries and are trying to protect their culture, national identity and borders. They have seen what migration has done to our great cities across Europe, and they do not wish to inflict that on their countries.
Mrs May has to stand up against the EU bully boys of Merkel, Juncker, Verhofstadt, has-been socialists, the communists and the alt left and say, no. Britain has contributed far too much over the years, we are leaving and we will not pay for your failed policies.
We have seen a backlash against these failed policies across the EU – France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Brexit, Sweden, Austria and Italy this weekend. It is now the time of the populists and Mrs May should take heart from these recent elections because the UK has friends in these countries.
My grouping in the Parliament, the Europe of Nations and Freedom, will vote against these measures. If they are pushed through, which I believe will be the case because the numbers are in Merkel’s favour, there will be a considerable backlash. The current make-up of the European Parliament, elected in 2014, does not reflect the current make-up of populist governments and opposition parties.
Two weeks ago, Frontex, the so-called defender of the EU’s borders, produced a report suggesting that there are 1000 returning jihadi brides who left our countries to join ISIS. We know that the migrant crisis surge was used by ISIS to sneak jihadis into our countries. Why oh why are we now being asked to pay to settle these people? Last week I proposed an urgent debate on these returning ‘brides’ for it to be rejected by Merkel and her socialist friends. All the time they oppose the will of the people we should not be allowing them to impose their ideologies on us.
There is still time to save Europe. We need to deport all illegal migrants back to their countries of origin and send troop ships to guard our seas, armies to man our internal and external borders and to abandon free movement and Schengen. Only then can we control our borders and our safety.
I am writing a book which should be published in the next few weeks on migrant numbers and crime. Below is a snapshot, published by Europa, of the numbers of so-called asylum seekers. These do not take into consideration economic migrants and illegal immigrants, which number millions more. It is frightening.
Asylum application EU28 (2014, 2015, 2016, until September 2017)
The disgraced former leader of the UK Independence Party, Henry Bolton, says he is setting up a new political party called OneNation.
Has he become a sudden fan of Pauline Hanson? Her Australian party opposing Sharia law has such a name.
Luke Nash-Jones, Director of the People’s Charter Foundation stated, “The name of the new party is absurd and very disingenuous, because it is inappropriately taken from Disraeli’s one nation philosophy – a burning patriotism, that unites Britons across class divides. He famously clashed with liberal Gladstone, the inspiration of Bolton’s beloved Liberal Club, and his former party, the LibDems.”
At a UKIP meeting in Frimley two months ago, Bolton said that he’s an old school liberal. That would make him more like Gladstone, not Disraeli.
Nash-Jones continued, “Postmodernists David Cameron and Ed Miliband both also tried to lift the phrase ‘one nation’, which was a ridiculous stunt m, because traditionalist paternalistic conservative Benjamin Disraeli would have no time for them, or Horny Henry.”
Bolton is hardly a traditional Disraelian social conservative. In fact, he was turfed out as UKIP leader after just 5 months when it emerged his partner Jo Marney, a 25-year-old ex-model for whom the 54-year-old had left his wife, had sent racist messages, including one about Meghan Markle.
Bolton was ousted as UKIP leader at an emergency general meeting (EGM) last month, when two-thirds of the party membership backed the vote of no confidence by the NEC, thanks to the People’s Charter Foundation’s successful #BinBolton campaign.
Attempting to explain his bizarre formation of the new party, Mr Bolton said: “There is a need for a truly professional political party that believes in Britain, that preserves our national identity, culture, heritage and confidence and talks our great nation up rather than down; a party dedicated to the full independence of the UK in all areas of law, government and public administration.”
Fortunately the conflicted Bolton’s party has yet to register with the Electoral Commission – meaning that it has missed a deadline that would have allowed it to field candidates in May’s local council elections carrying the party name.
It is unclear where the new party will get funding from. Questions have arisen as to whether Jo Marney will be standing as a candidate – as suggested by a UKIP member earlier this year, maybe the couple should stand in Lambeth and see how unpopular they are.
On its website, OneNation says that UKIP “has sadly lost much of its credibility, influence and ability to shape national events”.
If Bolton wants to talk about losing credibility then he should take a look in the mirror. Dumping your wife and kids by text message at Xmas to get into a relationship with a racist young enough to be your daughter is a great way to lose all credibility.
There has been much fuss over the last few days concerning Brexit Secretary David Davis telling business leaders in Vienna that Brexit will not lead to a ‘Mad Max-style world’, in response to fears that the incumbent Conservative government will use it as an excuse to tear up workers’ rights.
From this, such bizarre references led to much response in terms of others, comparing it to other films, most notably LBC host James O’Brien dedicating much of his show to that subject. So on that subject, I feel the need to comment, both as a film buff and a Brexiteer. Which film does Brexit remind me of? That would be of course the 1997 cult classic Event Horizon.
Now while this may seem like a bizarre comparison, let’s examine the plot for the film:
The film concerns a space crew, led by Captain Miller and Dr. William Weir. They have been assigned to investigate the recently discovered space ship Event Horizon, which has been missing for the past 7 years. This is something very important, especially to the likes of Weir who was the main architect of the ship.
Once on board however, they discover that things are not what they seem. Various crew members start having hallucinations, others are possessed and injured and when finding out why the ship has been missing for so long via tapes discovered and then unscrambled (in that all members were violently attacked, tortured and murdered due to the ship having opened up the gates of hell through the ship’s dimensional gateway), the crew mostly decides to leave completely. That said, getting out is not so easy.
Weir becomes attached and then possessed as well, becoming the film’s antagonist, attacking and killing several crew members, all the while doing his best to make sure the remaining members join him in hell. At the end, Miller and Weir fight, and Miller is the eventual victor, blowing up that part of the ship with bombs planted along the ship’s corridors.
The remaining crew members supposedly escape on the remaining parts of the ship, but after one still has hallucinations of Weir, the audience is left unsure as to whether they have escaped or are still stuck upon the Event Horizon.
A frightening parallel, isn’t it? In both cases, we have something that is initially seen as a good thing or a thing worth exploring and then upon finding out that actually said thing will be very detrimental, the main characters in these situations try to leave but their will is undermined at nearly every point. From this, it can be seen that Event Horizon is the movie most akin to the situation surrounding Brexit.
It disgusts me that the Cabinet (full of former Remainers I might add) are doing their utmost to make sure that we are half in half out of the EU. That is not what most Leave voters voted for and it is about time the government understand this and follows on through with the will of the people.
This is just to point out how the handling of leaving the EU by both career politicians and unelected bureaucrats are such a farce that it can be compared to a rubbish late 90s horror film, let alone the Mad Max series as Davis had suggested.
Those films I can recommend, especially the latter, a legitimate classic that examines corruption among the media and political class, and the collusions between the two. In other words, the corruption we beat in voting to leave the European Union. Hopefully the government will respect our will and enact such public feeling accordingly. Only time will tell.
President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened the European Union with increased taxes on automobile imports while slamming the “very stupid trade deals and policies” struck by his predecessors, as his administration continues to defend his decision this week to impose unilateral tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
“The United States has an $800 Billion Dollar Yearly Trade Deficit because of our “very stupid” trade deals and policies,” the president wrote on Twitter. “Our jobs and wealth are being given to other countries that have taken advantage of us for years. They laugh at what fools our leaders have been. No more!”
He added: “If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S,” Trump added. “They make it impossible for our cars (and more) to sell there. Big trade imbalance!”
On Thursday, Trump announced plans to levy a 25 percent tax on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports to protect U.S. national security interests. His decision caused a drop in stock markets and was criticised by many Republican lawmakers.
Many countries, including U.S. allies like Canada, said they opposed the proposal. In its response, the European Union said it would consider imposing retaliatory tariffs on politically sensitive products from Republican-run states, including motorcycles, clothing and alcohol.
Despite his threat, Trump would not be able to impose tariffs on the E.U cars without going through a formal process, like the administration did for steel and aluminium tariffs — otherwise Congress would need to act.
This week, a former Prime Minister decided that democracy wasn’t worth anything since it didn’t go his way, a former Mayor and our current foreign Secretary made a mockery of the controversial Irish border issue and the socialist moron leading the Labour Party decided to betray the over six million voters who voted for Brexit in the Labour heartland of the North. It takes one of the most serious issues in British politics currently and turns it into a mockery to the point where most political comedy shows these days are envious.
It’s telling that when even one of your most apologetic defenders calls you out for speaking utter tosh, you know there is something amiss. Because in just a few minutes, Corbyn managed to stab in the back his pro-Brexit supporters, his Brexiteer MPs and even his own prior Eurosceptic views. I would say this is Corbyn’s Ratner’s moment, except that most of his supporters probably are unaware of who Gerald Ratner was.
When challenged on this by the interviewer Mishal Husain, Johnson just said that the comparison was fairly ‘appropriate’. What a p*llock. He seems to deliberately ignore how the EU’s own papers offer solutions to the issue which aren’t brought up at all in the mainstream press and ignores how similar borders exist like the US-Canada border for instance.
To make matters worse, when challenged on this in the House of Commons by a Labour Party who were ever so keen to tear Johnson a new one (including Corbyn joking about him mixing up the borders in the context of a leaked letter revealing a hard border in Northern Ireland could come to be) he ran off and left, leaving the far more competent David Lidington to clean up his mess.
That didn’t save him from the clamping jaws of the Labour Party, who constantly shouted, ‘where is he?’ and the Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry called his early exit an ‘absolute disgrace’, a ‘huge discourtesy to this house [of Commons]’ and pointing out his hypocrisy concerning how he was more willing to talk to the media ‘in the snow’ than his own opposition on the matter. Talk about broken clocks being right twice a day.
At the end of the day, the likes of the said Lidington and the DUP leader Nigel Dodds managed to do a far better job at defending the issue than the Foreign Secretary, with the latter in particular pointing out that there is already a similar soft border in terms of economics and how the government was already working to fix the issue, as their papers reveal. He also pointed out how those who use the Belfast agreement and the Peace Process to thwart Brexit were disgraceful. If only our foreign secretary had anywhere near the spine. Again, this shows what a sad state of affairs this current government is when people like him are in the Cabinet and given important roles, but far better MPs (like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Philip Davies, Theresa Villiers just to name a few) can’t get there. What a joke.
So, in other words, Major claims to care about those who voted to Leave in an attempt to appeal to all, including Remainers, hence his support of a second referendum. The nerve of Major is astounding here. After advocating before the vote in 2016 that there would not be another referendum, he is now supportive of the idea, presumably because it didn’t go his way. How classy.
Meanwhile, for someone advocating a free vote because he wants Parliament to have an honest discussion over this idea, there was no free vote when it came to the Maastricht Treaty, whereby he not only enforced that the Tories accepted the treaty, but heavily penalised those who resisted (known as ‘Maastricht rebels’) with deselection and changing the rules after the 1997 election to crack down on dissenters and have them taken off any candidate list in the future.
So, there we have it. Three major (pardon the pun) politicians reducing the Brexit process into one of the proudest moments in British history post World War 2 and post Suez into a laughing stock… yet again.
At least these are occasional rays of sunshine in a very dark time for British politics, where the (not) good, the bad and definitely the ugly when it came to Major’s unpatriotic speech set the political landscape in one not of optimism and freedom but of pessimism and a further wearing down of our freedoms to unelected EU bureaucrats. The British people deserve better than this.
Today feels like Christmas Eve to me, the excitement is building before tomorrow’s huge anti-BBC rally that will show this racist propaganda machine what we really think of it. Luke and I are looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible, as you know we feel your pain and will continue to fight for you.
The weather is looking favourable so there are no excuses not to come along a support this important cause against the organisation that forces cultural Marxism on us and is destroying our democracy.
People have died for our freedom such as those on the beaches of Normandy. We shall not fail them, we shall not be silenced but will shout from the rooftops and hold the BBC to account for the damage they have been complicit in towards our country. This rally is not just for yourselves but for your children and their children who are counting on us to deal with this menace.
We thank all the groups who have pledged their support. This is our chance to make a change and you are invited to be part of this seismic event that will send a clear message to the main stream media (MSM) that our lives are not to be manipulated and will not be trodden on anymore!
See you tomorrow, Sunday, 1pm at BBC Media City in Manchester. Bring the noise!
Today, Theresa Maybe told EU technocrats that our patience is running out. More empty platitudes. Enough talk. She must make the EU respect the referendum decision to take control of our borders, laws and money.
A couple of days earlier, no doubt in an attempt to undermine the Prime Minister, groups that intend to reverse the referendum result had redoubled their efforts. A new organisation called Global Future used the ploy of claiming that the real divide in British politics is no longer between the left and the right but between ‘open versus closed’. It turns out that the three main tests of ‘openness’ are support for uncontrolled immigration, enthusiasm for multiculturalism, and a preference for internationalism over nationalism.
Global Future follows the master propagandist Tony Blair in their use of the contrast between closed and open. Two of the people behind Global Future are former directors of strategy at Downing Street: Lord Andrew Cooper worked for David Cameron and Lord Spencer Livermore for Gordon Brown.
They seek to undermine the solidarity of members of the free political associations we call the nation state by exaggerating divisions. This is the value of multiculturalism. Unfettered immigration has the same effect by weakening the sense of reciprocity on which liberal democracy relies
Theresa May has delivered her long-awaited speech on Brexit, giving more details of what she wants from the UK’s future trade arrangements with the European Union.
Fearful of a UKIP revival, May said: “I want to be straight with people – because the reality is that we all need to face up to some hard facts.” The question is, will this be as empty as her phrase “Brexit mean Brexit”?
“We are leaving the single market. Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. How could the EU’s structure of rights and obligations be sustained, if the UK – or any country – were allowed to enjoy all the benefits without all of the obligations?”
Mrs May’s Mansion House speech was an emphatic rebuttal of the accusation that Brexit is a defensive strategy. Any agreement, she said, must be consistent with the kind of country we want to be: ‘a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant, European democracy. A nation of pioneers, innovators, explorers and creators’.
Theresa May’s key points, many of which will spark anger amongst Brexiteers were:
Theresa May set out the ‘hard facts’ about Brexit and reminded voters ‘life is going to be different’ after the UK leaves the EU.
The prime minister acknowledged the UK can not have ‘all the benefits’ of the single market without ‘all of the obligations’.
May said Britain had to accept that the European Court of Justice would ‘continue to affect’ the UK even if it was no longer under its jurisdiction.
She said the UK was prepared to make ‘binding commitments’ for regulations to remain in line with the EU.
The PM said the UK would commit to keep regulatory standards ‘as least as high’ as the EU in order to facilitate a ‘customs partnership’.
May said the UK would be willing to pay to continue to participate on EU agencies including the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency.
She rejected Brexiteers’ arguments that it was up to the EU to solve the Irish border problem. ‘We chose to leave and we have a responsibility to help find a solution,’ she said.
May rejected the EU’s claim the UK was unfairly ‘cherry picking’ what it wanted in a deal. ‘If this is cherry picking then every trade arrangements is cherry picking,’ she said.
Nationalism and internationalism are said to be alternative reactions to economic globalisation. But, the nation state is valuable because it has proved to be the best way of holding power to account. In Britain, it has also been the champion of liberalism, a system of government that relies on continuous refining of the rules of law and the practice of justice to give everyone the best chance of adding their bit to the advance of civilisation.
These values are what many Leave supporters and senior figures in pro-Brexit camps have advocated for years, and it is these values that need to drive the Brexit negotiations over the coming months.
Hopeless at maths, Diane Abacus isn’t that good at history either: she played the Nazi card, as she implied Brexiteers’ political views are comparable to Mein Kampf.
Ignoring the fact that Ken Livingstone, former Labour mayor for London, was suspended for his comments on Hitler, Abbott sought to silence the concerns of the British people. She said: “Historically, such as in the period of the Weimar Republic in Germany between the wars, economic collapse has always led to scapegoating the other.”
Abbott, the leader of the inappropriately named Stand Up To Racism, was previously critcised for suggesting white mothers are inferior to black mothers. The group has had Moazzem Begg, a former Gitmo detainee, who called Jihadi John a good man, speak at their events.
She pushed the premise that anyone backing an Australian-style immigration system supposedly shares Hitler’s views on Jews. So Labour thinks all Aussies are Nazis?!
Brexiteers’ demand for lower migration levels was not driven by, as she implies, anger over “hyperinflation” resultant from the actions of banksters; and the Vote Leave campaign didn’t stereotype Jews unfairly as en masse responsible for the banking system.
In fact, it is Labour that has a problem with anti-Semtism, for example, Corbyn called Hamas his “friends” and invited terrorists to Parliament. Labour MP Shah has also been accused of bigotry towards Jews.
In reality, as Israel is not an EU member state, the Brussels-driven open door migration policy discriminates against Jews, because it requires they get a visa to enter the UK, while people from Eastern Europe can just walk in. Clearly the Brexiteers’ approach is ethical: to welcome migrants by skills in demand, not by nationality.
The EU elite is facing more upsetting elections as countries continue to vote for populist parties.
The current make-up of the political groupings in the EU Parliament does not reflect what is happening in the nation states’ elections. The socialists and conservatives currently have the largest political groupings. Across the EU, we are seeing a seismic shift to the Right yet the EU ignores this and carries on with damaging policies which are being rejected by the voters.
On 4th March the Italians go to the polls. It is widely expected that the Europe of Nations and Freedom’s Lega Nord, together with the inimitable Silvio Berlusconi, will form a coalition government. The other runner is the left/green Five Star Movement which is doing well but, because they will not form a coalition with other parties, will fail to form a government.
This is good news. One, because my friend, the Lega’s brilliant Matteo Salvini, is likely to become prime minister and two, because it is the joining of the EU’s European People’s Party group with my group, the Europe of Nations and Freedom.
This is significant because this coalition completely sidesteps two other political groups in the European Parliament which sit between the ENF and EPP. The EPP is led by Merkel’s Germans.
In December 2017, the Austrians voted and a coalition was formed by – yes, again, the conservatives in the EPP group and my friends in the Freedom Party of Austria, the FPO, in the ENF group.
Next month also sees important elections in Hungary with Fidesz’s Viktor Orban polling at 60%. He is one of the current hate figures on the Right by the EU elite. Fidesz’s membership of Merkel’s EPP is hanging by a thread, they hold their noses to keep them in the group, otherwise Mutti will lose her group’s majority in the Parliament. Orban is hated because he has had the temerity to secure his borders and reject the EU’s migrant quotas.
And then there is Poland. The PiS party, elected a couple of years ago, has undertaken sweeping reforms which the EU elite dislike so much so that they have reported them for sanctions for implementing democratically elected policies. MEPs will be voting whether to allow the Parliament to invoke Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, effectively sanctioning a government for implementing policies they were elected to mandate. My group and I will be voting against this fascist act. They sit in the ECR group, along with the British Conservatives. It is an unhappy alliance.
Both the Polish and Hungarians, including the Czechs, are being fined for refusing to accept migrant quotas. These countries have no history of mass migration by alien cultures and fear for their cultures, identities, rule of law and way of life. Yet the EU insists in sanctioning them for going against the unworkable policies of the EU.
Then later this year the Swedes will go to the polls, with the great Swedish Democrats hopefully forming a coalition government, finally kicking out the ‘first feminist government’ (the one that presided over Swedish cities becoming the rape capital of the world).
And then there are the EU elections in 2019 which, I predict, will see record numbers of ‘populist’ parties elected to the EU.