HOW FAIRLY WILL CAMERON’S IN/OUT EU REFERENDUM BE CONDUCTED?
I notice that in the last few days we have had a number of articles from the Europhiliac media, like the Times Leader on Tuesday May 19th, talking up the prospect of having the In/Out Referendum next year, probably next May.
The noteworthy fact is that it is the Europhiliacs in the Conservative Party who generally want to get it over with quickly rather than many of their more Eurosceptic voices. The Eurosceptics want the referendum in 2017. This set me to thinking why that would be? I also started to consider how the referendum would be conducted.
The Eurosceptic argument for having the referendum in 2017 was to allow David Cameron a full and reasonable opportunity to negotiate repatriation of powers to Westminster. Thus if nothing sensible is offered Eurosceptics will be able to prove that the EU is un-reformable and thus we are better off out.
In the meanwhile, however, of course various voices within the EU, including Angela Merkel and the President of the EU Commission, Jean Claude Junker, have made it clear that there will be no meaningful negotiation with substantial powers being returned. In these circumstances it is easy to understand why Europhiliacs would want to get the referendum over with as quickly as possible before voters can start to build-up resentment that so little is being offered, which, of course, would help in building a head of steam for British exit from the EU (“BREXIT”).
Then of course there is the serious question of what version of the electorate will be given the entitlement to vote in the referendum. I notice that some, particularly Labour and SNP voices, are currently saying that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, who of course have had the “benefit” of 10 years of Europhile propaganda, at public expense in their schools and are therefore thought to be likely to mostly vote in favour of staying in.
There is however the wider question of whether the electorate will be restricted to just British citizens or the General Election franchise which includes Irish citizens as well and various other categories, including some Commonwealth voters. Particularly and rather more alarmingly whether it will be the local government franchise which would include all those EU citizens who have registered on the electoral roll. If the millions of EU citizens resident in the “United” Kingdom are permitted to vote then that will make it much more unlikely that the vote will be in favour of “BREXIT”. The franchise will therefore be a crucial battleground. David Cameron appears to have indicated recently that he has conceded the Eurosceptic demand for the franchise to the General Election one but we all need to check the Bill’s wording on this when it is published.
Then there is the question of how the EU referendum itself will be conducted. Perhaps the model to consider is the referendum organised by John Prescott when he was Deputy Prime Minister. This was when Prescott hoped to start the process of breaking up England by getting a democratic mandate to separate the artificially created “Region” of the North-East. Labour had recently gerrymandered this “Region” to give itself a permanent majority (N.B. John Major’s original “Northern Region” gave the Conservatives an impregnable majority by including Cumbria).
It is worth remembering that in that referendum the preamble to the question which was put on every ballot paper miss-stated as fact a number of inaccuracies and misleading claims designed to encourage people to vote in favour. There was widespread protest, including even the usually useless Electoral Commission, but nevertheless that wording was included in the Act which meant that it had to be on the ballot paper by law. The question itself was somewhat loaded as well in favour of a Yes vote, all of which gave Labour, it thought, the best chance of winning that referendum.
If loading the question and misleading the voter wasn’t enough then they also thought that they wanted to make the referendum a conquest between North-Easterners and Tory “toffs”. So even though Neil Heron, the metric martyr, had got a highly successful No campaign going and was undoubtedly almost single handedly the principal reason why the result was a No vote, nevertheless Labour manipulated the setting up appointment of a No campaign so that a Tory millionaire businessman, John Elliott, was put in charge of it.
I notice on Twitter and Facebook that some over excitable UKIPers seem to think the pro-BREXIT campaign might be led by them with Nigel Farage. I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think it is much more likely that Cameron will engineer it so that it is led by a Labour figure. By doing this he will aim to split Labour on the issue and make it as repellent as possible for Conservative loyalists to vote in favour of BREXIT.
The most credible leader from the Labour side of the BREXIT campaign would be Frank Field. For that reason I think he will be excluded and the appointee will be a less credible Labour figure but one who has at least some Eurosceptic credentials. Would you like to speculate on who that person will be?
I suspect also that the time period given for the referendum will be short so that the BREXIT campaign cannot really get going and the amount awarded to the Yes and No campaigns will be kept to the statutory minimum with the smallest permitted ceiling on spending by third parties. This will allow the Europhile media to have the maximum influence possible.
The leading media organisation in trying to influence the public to vote to remain in the EU will of course be that media outlet which has by far the largest and most dominant market share of all in our media, this is of course the, partly EU funded, BBC. It doesn’t require any imagination to guess which result the BBC will be supporting!
However event though the cards will most likely be stacked as heavily as possible against a Yes to BREXIT result that should not lead us to total despair. In the North-East referendum 79% voted to reject the break-up of England despite all the cards being stacked against that result. Despite also the BBC’s efforts on behalf of the Labour Party in the recent General Election, we now know that many of our fellow citizens weren’t taken in. The big question is whether that will happen again this time. What do you think?
The public may well be getting wised up politically- but no nearer taking action the get England back some local [Non EU] power. It looks like the Celtic fringe and their incessant demands will do more to shape English opinion [by a backlash] than any internal awaking of pride in our beleaguered old country.
ReplyDeletetegz, And why do you think that Cameron has stirred them up if he doesn't intend to make the vote an anti-English issue in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? With Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London solidly in favour of staying in, the numbers are already beginning to favour the result Cameron is looking for..
DeleteRobin wrote, "There is however the wider question of whether the electorate will be restricted to just British citizens or the General Election franchise which includes Irish citizens as well and various other categories, including some Commonwealth voters." The answer is that it is to be the second option including Irish, Maltese Gibraltarians and Cypriots.
DeleteAs was pointed out elsewhere, Ireland has been a foreign country since 1949, and the Irish are foreigners.
Ireland has done well from EU largesse over the years and many an Irishman has grown rich on EU grants and subsidies. It would hardly be seen as the patriotic thing to do for any Irish person to vote for the UK to leave the EU. The Irish probably constitute the largest ethnic group resident in the UK. Compared with the other groups which will be eligible to vote, Maltese, Gibraltarian and Cypriot and Commonwealth (these are also likely vote for the UK to stay in), the number of Irish is huge. Clearly, tricky Dave is using a bit of sleight of hand suggesting that the Irish are just a small minority like the others.
tegz, The phrase "Celtic fringe" is meaningless. The reality is three different devolved countries - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Scotland could become independent, Wales could be forced into independence, and Northern Ireland would fight independence all the way.
DeleteIntroducing a mythical "Celtic fringe", as a bogeyman, does not help. Each of those three countries has its own separate agenda.
I query the use of "Celtic fringe". See The Atlantic Celts
DeleteAncient People or Modern Invention?
by Dr Simon James
Did the Ancient Celts Ever Exist in Britain?
The Celtic peoples hold a fundamental place in the British national consciousness. In this book Simon James surveys ancient and modern ideas of the Celts and challenges them in the light of revolutionary new thinking on the Iron Age peoples of Britain. Examining how ethnic and national identities are constructed, he presents an alternative history of the British Isles, proposing that the idea of insular Celtic identity is really a product of the rise of nationalism in the eighteenth century.
Recent DNA evidence shows that the English and Scots are genetically identical, 60% Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) and 40% Gaulish (Welsh).
There is more genetic difference between North Wales and South Wales, than between the South of England and Scotland.
The differences between the Scots and the English are cultural arising from history and geography.
The Scots have two languages other than British State English, i.e., Scots English (Inglis) and Scottish Gaelic (Erse), which identify their national identity.
England only has British State English (shared between the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish, and with the Commonwealth), and that does not distinguish the English. That is why we need New-English.
You are right about the importance of language to identity.Someone once wrote that English is a compromise between the English and a language. Now, it is a compromise between the world and a language.
DeleteIf the English Democrats are about anything, they have to be about identity.
A likely contender for No campaign leader from the Labour Party might be John Denham. Although not an MP anymore he has been trying to interest the Labour hierarchy in engaging with Englishness. He is of course entirely bogus.
ReplyDelete"The leading media organisation in trying to influence the public to vote to remain in the EU will of course be that media outlet which has by far the largest and most dominant market share of all in our media, this is of course the, partly EU funded, BBC. It doesn’t require any imagination to guess which result the BBC will be supporting!" Of course you are right, the BBC represents the establishment globalist interests. The Tories' strategy of silencing economic "left-wingers" within the corporation clearly paid off during General Election, with every report on the economy and employment figures being up-beat, whatever the evidence to the contrary. Further bullying over coming years will see Cameron's globalism firmly entrenched at the Beeb. The totalitarian state continues to advance under the Blairite Cameron.
ReplyDeleteUntil three years ago, Rotherham was solid Labour particularly in the north of the city. 62 of the 63 councillors were Labour. Today, Ukip in Rotherham hope to take control of Rotherham council in 2016. Ukip is second in many northern seats, where voters cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative. A third of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in South Yorkshire, England is elected each year, followed by one year without election. Since the last boundary changes in 2004, 63 councillors have been elected from 21 wards.[1] Following the failure of the council in dealing with the sexual abuses scandal, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles announced on 4th February 2015 that he would also make an order under the Local Government Act 2000 to compel Rotherham council to switch to holding all-out elections (where all members will be up for election) in 2016 and then every fourth year."
ReplyDeleteMany Labour Party members have defected to Ukip over the question of immigration.
If only the voters of Rotherham (and other Northern cities) realised what Ukip is actually about.
The English Democrats have to concentrate on replacing Ukip as the opposition to Labour in the North.
Those voters are not as interested in the EU as your blog might suggest. What concerns them is what is happening to Rotherham and they do not make the connection to the EU. The EDs must make themselves "relevant" to those voters. They cannot avoid the necessary step of getting councillors elected. You have yet to realise that "all politics is local".
Robin, While the EU referendum is probably the biggest issue of the moment, as far as the English Democrats are concerned (their power to influence the result is practically zero), it is academic and a distraction from the work of establishing the party on the ground and getting English Democrats elected to office in those vital Labour controlled seats in the North. When what is needed is to address the issues that concern those (mostly) Labour voters in the North where the party will make its first break-throughs in places like Rotherham. In the case of Rotherham, how the city has changed for the worse, and the question of immigration which is the top of their minds. You never mentioned immigration in this blog. (You cannot assume that people reading the blog will make the connection with the in/out vote. Farage hammers on about it despite Ukip's actual policies on the matter, in order to create the impression of Ukip that he wants to convey. Perception is most important - something Cameron, too, knows full well.)
ReplyDeleteFewer than 5% of the people the English Democrats need to win over would respond to the kind of wonkishness (punditry) in this extract:
"The Eurosceptic argument for having the referendum in 2017 was to allow David Cameron a full and reasonable opportunity to negotiate repatriation of powers to Westminster. Thus if nothing sensible is offered Eurosceptics will be able to prove that the EU is un-reformable and thus we are better off out.
In the meanwhile, however, of course various voices within the EU, including Angela Merkel and the President of the EU Commission, Jean Claude Junker, have made it clear that there will be no meaningful negotiation with substantial powers being returned. In these circumstances it is easy to understand why Europhiliacs would want to get the referendum over with as quickly as possible before voters can start to build-up resentment that so little is being offered, which, of course, would help in building a head of steam for British exit from the EU (“BREXIT”). "
This kind of ruminating on your part, is not going to build support. The act of appearing on RT is good, but you need to be seen around the likes of Rotherham, Doncaster and Middlesbrough, perhaps on You-tube, but certainly on regional TV stations such as Calendar, and on local radio in South Yorkshire (in particular highlighting the contradictions in Ukip's policies), which you could do from Essex. That is how you really could exercise your skills of advocacy on behalf of the party.
Something you failed to mention explicitly in this blog is the importance of English sovereignty in matters such as the EU (a serious flaw in Ukip's position, since the other UK countries and London look like deciding the outcome of the in/out vote). You must spell things out in ways which ordinary people can relate to and understand.
Ukip's winning strategy in the South was as the traditional voice of Conservatism (posing as latter day Empire Loyalist, while actually being neo-liberal globalist).
ReplyDeleteBefore the General election Ukip decided to target seats in the North. Learning from the SNP, Ukip went to the left with the creation of red Ukip. While that tactic paid off handsomely in the North, it damaged the party in their southern stronghold (Farage failed to get elected and Reckless lost his seat).
Ukip was seeking to position itself (and succeeded to some extent) to become the alternative to Labour in the North, but overstretched its lines of communication. It should have first made the South secure for itself before moving on the North and the Midlands.
Ukip's policies for winning in the North (probably to be abandoned, following the sacking of deputy chairman Suzanne Evans and Patrick O'Flynn ... as Ukip seeks to regroup in the South) need to be adopted by the English Democrats. They have the advantage over Ukip in that they can play the Englishness card. As a party which is opposed to nationalist separatism, Ukip is vulnerable to the English Democrats' clear message.
It is news to me that the BBC is partly funded by the EU. When did that happen? This probably explains why it, as well as the rest of the media is basically in private hands, being big business and by extension, the banks as is the EU. This would also explain partly why the BBC has so vilified Nigel Farage. The rest is down to its Marxist agenda. Mr Cameron is spending hours of time touring the Continent to get approval for the changes he wants to make to the EU. We hear that the rest of the EU do not want us to leave - Hollande is a different kettle of fish from De Gaulle. The reason is that they are all puppets of big business and the banks. We know that the Rothschilds control the ECB as well as most central banks in Europe. The EU is a charade and Mr Cameron's little tour is a charade. Other member states will agree to some minor changes to keep Britain from leaving or to avoid a Brexit. But the reason for the speed is to rush the referendum through before the opposition can mobilise and the Yes campaign will have massive amounts of money coming from the corporations, European and American and the banks. As for the wording, my wise wife has already worked out that it will be loaded so as to bring about a No vote. Once that has been achieved then we are here for eternity and TTIP and transatlantic and if they can changes the regimes in Russia and China the One world oligarchic union they have been planning for at least a hundred years, Nothing the little man does seems to be able to beat these people. Democracy is long since dead and the manipulation of Europeans worldwide is evident to see. Universal suffrage was a brief interlude of barely one hundred years. However, at least George Monbiot wrote an excellent article in the Guardian the other day explaining what TTIP will mean for Europe and the world and the removal of democracy.
ReplyDeleteI have come to the end of Rod Liddle's excellent book, Selfish Whining Monkeys and he has reached the conclusion that we are caught between the Marxism of the Frankfurt School and the Monetarism of Milton Friedman. This is what I was told about 30 plus years ago i.e. the world, or rather, Europeans, being done down by the satanic duo of Marxism and Money Power. Lady Jane Birdman, one of the Marxists' via Searchlight's favourite bête noire with her One worlders, would have said " I told you so you ninnies".
From Frankfurt, too, there burst forth at the start of the 19th century that famous family pledged to take over the European and American banking system which they seem to have just about achieved. The question is have the followers of the Frankfurt School and the Monetarists being working hand in glove or have their aims merely been the same, basically to destroy European Christian Civilisation and the democracy which spread from Hellenic Greece and down from Scandinavia to transform the world? We know that three of the aims of the Frankfurt School were to empty the churches, bring about a sexual revolution and destroy European national identities through mass immigration. The latter seems to echo the aim of the UN commissioner for migration and ex-Rothschild employee Peter Sutherland with his comment that there must be further mass immigration into Europe in order to destroy its homogeneous nations and bring about the ultimate Marxist EU dream.
Nothing is as it seems.
We have one defence against the globalist agenda you refer to, It is nationalism and the nation state. Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain are showing the way and are resisting ECB (European Central Bank) imposed austerity with a show of national sovereignty.
DeleteThe BBC being funded by the EU could be as nothing if the corporation is "reformed" by Cameron's crowd, ITN which produces the news for all the other channels is looking to produce news and documentaries for the Beeb. The Daily Mail is a major shareholder in ITN. That will, as near as dammit, create a monopoly of news in this country. What is then over the horizon is a takeover of ITN by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News using TTIP legislation.
DeleteLynton Crosby (Cameron's Australian campaign guru) says that Britain’s political class is dominated by “a bunch of people, most of whom live inside the M25 who could never live on the £26,000 that is the average annual earnings of people in this country.
ReplyDelete“It wasn’t just Ed Miliband’s Labour Party that revealed itself as out of touch and remote from the people who are the backbone of Britain. It was a failure for the Westminster-centric ‘Eddie the Expert’ and ‘Clarrie the Commentator’ who were tested and found wanting.
“It was as much a judgment day for them, and they lost.”
He added: “Most went to Oxbridge, talk only to themselves, and last time they met a punter was when they picked up their dry cleaning.”
Mr Crosby revealed his shock at an election campaign, which he said was dominated by “stunts”.
He also predicted that Ukip will “decline” and “drift away” in the wake of the in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
"Ukip will “decline” and “drift away” in the wake of the in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union". That should leave a political vacuum for a populist English nationalist party to fill.
DeleteEnglish Democrats will only fill that "vacuum" if they develop a winning strategy and winning policies.
DeleteA recent poll showed 51% in favour of leaving the EU and 49% for staying in; this will not be helped by the fact that those from Eastern Europe who have profited from the free movement of labour to come here will, I believe, be able to vote in the referendum. This is a very small margin, if the poll is to be believed and one that can easily be overcome by the mass media on behalf of the one per cent so as to ensure that we never break free.
DeleteNot all who went to Oxbridge are out of touch; Enoch Powell did, I did and so did Nick Griffin - if he is genuine and not a plant. It is nothing to do with going to Oxbridge; it is to do with if you have a logical brain and can work out the consequences of the actions of our political and financial elites. Many of those who went to Oxbridge don't have the same practical common sense as the ordinary common working man and his logic; that is the problem. They think themselves superior to him. I never have nor never will and neither did Powell either. Heath et al certainly did. And the Marxist Labour politicians of the last few decades think they know what is best for the working masses, their flawed and stupid ideology of international socialism which is anathema to Mr Average as he knows that it puts him at the bottom of the pecking order. I have known Oxford academics who are committed Marxists and yet have never every spoken to an ordinary worker for fear of contamination. The rest of us admire the ordinary working man for the abuse he has had to suffer at the hands of those in power. The Labour Party that he set up to help him is now Marxist Internationalist and Multiculturalist and anti-English and anti him. Britain's Greatest Generation last night was an example of the woolly thinking the chattering classes now espouse and which I did not tune into and which is part of an ideology not shared by the downtrodden English working man.
Delete"A recent poll showed 51% in favour of leaving the EU and 49% for staying in; this will not be helped by the fact that those from Eastern Europe who have profited from the free movement of labour to come here will. This is is a very small margin, if the poll is to be believed and one that can easily be overcome by the mass media on behalf of the one per cent so as to ensure that we never break free."
DeleteThe eastern European will not have a vote, but the Irish will. They are the largest immigrant community in the UK. The Church of Rome is very keen on UK membership of the EU, which could be a factor in shaping Irish attitudes. Ireland, too, has an interest in the UK staying in the EU.
The Irish should be treated like other European immigrants. Their vote will give the 'yes' side a big advantage.
The Scottish Nationalists want an arrangement whereby all four nations in the UK have to vote against staying in, (the first "rig" of this referendum being, that a "Yes" vote will be a vote to stay in,) or we stay in, anyway. In short, the Scots, Welsh and Irish each have a veto.
ReplyDeleteSo if, say, twenty-five million English voters voted "No", we could still stay in because 1.5 million Scots voted "Yes"
Alex Salmond (echoing the words of Nicola Sturgeon) stated on Radio 5, that the UK should not be "dragged" out of the EU, "against the wishes of the Scottish people". So, to hell with the wishes of the English, the Scots get the final say.
Does his arrogance know no bounds?
Clive,
Weston-super-Mare.
If Scotland stays in and England comes out then there is talk of Scotland adopting the euro. This will put England under increasing pressure to follow suit. I have been told that the plan is to get everybody in by 2020 and then there is the currency union with the dollar to follow, according to Paul Craig Roberts, following on the EU/ NAFTA joining up. I don't know if anybody has told the Danes and the Swedes about this!! As for Cameron, he will huff and puff but both England in the EU and probably eventually in the euro are probably his plans as well.
DeleteI have referred above to the UN Commissioner or whatever for world migration, Peter Sutherland. He appeared on Worlds Apart with Oxano Boyko last night talking about the Libyan boat people. He seemed, to my mind, to reveal his true intent. He would not be drawn into a discussion of the fact that the migrants are only leaving because of what the West has done to North Africa, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa. This may well be because his real employers Goldman Sachs are bankrolling the wars for their own profit and cashing in on arms sales. However, alarmingly he said that the mass immigration from the southern hemisphere to the north was going to go on for hundreds of years. He never once said that the only way of stopping it was to help develop the countries of origin so that the migrants would stay put or to try to stop them breeding so fast. He said that economic as well as other refugees had to leave for Europe because of the state of their own countries and that Europe, morally, had to take them to stop them drowning before getting here. What he seems to have in mind is a mass influx completely submerging Europeans in their own countries. This would tally with what he has said about destroying our homogeneous nations. He said that the demographics in Europe meant we need young blood to fuel our employment demands ( what about the millions of young unemployed Europeans?).
I suspect that the real agenda is to turn all European countries into a mirror image of the third world whilst bombing everywhere. What sort of a world have they got planned? Plus, of course, the European empires kept stability in the third world and everybody clothed, fed and employed. It makes you wonder whether America/Wall Street brought such empires to an end so they could do as they are doing now. What hope for England and the English they want Europe to end up like Africa?
Meanwhile, Putin suspects America of engineering the FIFA business to get at Russia and its forthcoming World Cup.
Of course, Russia is not without corruption and there could have been some with its bid. But the timing is interesting.
As for America and Europe, as they are turned into police states ruled by the banks and big corporations how can anybody call them not corrupt, as John F Kennedy found out to his chagrin!!
Clive,
DeleteYou can't blame Salmond for trying to do something he was elected for, i.e., to stop the UK being "dragged" out of the EU, "against the wishes of the Scottish people".
"So, to hell with the wishes of the English". He wasn't elected to worry about the wishes of the English.
I'm not sure that this kind of anti-Scottish sentiment has much traction with the people the English Democrats need to appeal to. Many English people in the North have considerable sympathy with the SNP's position, Scotland and the North having both been ignored and held back by Westminster and Whitehall.
The sentiments you express reflect a southern attitude, which is more likely to translate into support for the Tories in the South, than for the English Democrats, particularly since Cameron wrapped himself in the English flag to win the General election.
Following the Great Leader's meeting with the Polish prime minister in Warsaw, the Daily Telegraph hailed his triumphant visit with this headline,
ReplyDelete"David Cameron meets Angela Merkel after Poland says 'definite no' to plan to curb benefits for immigrants
After Prime Minister met his Polish counterpart Ewa Kopacz, her chief adviser says 'Cameron won't get far'".
"To hell with the wishes of the English,the Scots get the final say! "
ReplyDeleteI don't think so! Clive of Western-super-Mare.
Every race and ethnic group have ignored or stated either explicitly or by intimation the same "to hell with the wishes of the English" not least some of the "English" themselves ( those phony Marxist ' Inglish ' know what I mean!!).
Everybody except the English proper have had the final say. Past and present British ' Inglish' have done and are still doing everything to ensure the Inverse Colonial Project succeeds in its replication of the ongoing US-UN programme called Manifest Destiny. The foremost requirement programme is the destruction of Nation States and their Indigenous peoples and cultures to include England and Europe,TTP being final instrument of this ' Full Spectrum Dominance'.
For verification of matters mentioned, go to www.nomorefakenews.com and see John Rappoport and his article 'TTP,Monsanto,Rockaffeller,Trilateral Commission,Brzezinski.
Does this explain the supercilious Peter Sutherland and his wish to move the southern hemisphere into Europe and swamp it. It seems as if it might. Europeans seem to be a thorn in the flesh of these people whoever they really are and the UN was probably set up with this programme in mind. It seems as if it is encouraging those from the south to bang on our door, seek reparations for colonialism etc. I will check out the John Rappoport article.
DeleteFurther to my comments yesterday - yet to make this blog - about the interview with Peter Sutherland about the boat people from Libya and the fact that, as UN commissioner for migration and scion of Goldman Sachs Bank, he thinks that Europe is morally responsible to take them as the economic and other situations in their home countries are forcing them to flee, which, he says will happen for hundreds of years, there was an item last night on RT about the Oxford Union debate about reparations for our former colonies and by extension those of other European countries.
ReplyDeleteApparently, a flier advertising the debate had a picture of a manacled pair of black hands on it. This has caused the "diversity officer" of the university to resign. RT's Laura Smith was interviewing an African gentleman called Kwaku about this. He said that this is typical of the racism and white privilege still evident in this country. Suddenly a little bell went off in my brain. I said, hang on a minute, our former colonials were granted independence yet are receiving aid from Europe and now want financial reparations for our colonial past, despite the fact that countries like Zimbabwe which under the British were the breadbasket of Africa are no longer so.
So, this is how it is. These countries were granted independence and then the post-War Labour government gave their citizens all British passports. This was an invitation to them to come and settle here which they have in their millions; why since they so craved independent is a mystery. Surely, if they are paid reparations the slate has been wiped clean so they have no claim to settle here? This seems to me like having their cake and eating it. Also, if colonialism is wrong then it works both ways. What we have seen for the last 60 plus years into Europe is colonialism in reverse, admittedly with the blessing of those who wanted to profit from cheap labour or for Marxist ideological reasons with no blame attached to the immigrants many of whose countries are still being exploited by big corporations and banks based in the West.
Although it is evident that, India perhaps apart, they will not thrive without European help.
As a former Greek ambassador said about the 12,000 from Libya who have landed on Kos and as Farage has said; this will not stop until something is done to make the home countries fit for a decent standard of life and to also to curb their birth-rates (the latter is my postscript) . The bombing and the exploitation by the one per cent will ultimately destroy former white countries. But perhaps that is the aim. It is all a bit like the sorcerer's apprentice and we are just being inundated in the same way but by people in the place of water.
Black Africans were first taken to South America, because the native Amerindians did not make good slaves. They tended to die under the harsh regimes labouring in the hot sun.
DeletePerhaps the system is looking ahead at how to maintain production under the conditions of global warming in northern climes.
The same was true of North America. The convicts who were taken from Britain as the first slaves could not survive in the climate so Africa had to be looked to for their replacements.
DeleteThe one per cent want to make the rest of us their slaves as they are well on the way to doing. Perhaps they think we are too weak for their aims and it is nothing to do with climate change.
On another and previous tack, Ian Hislop claimed that if Russia had won the Eurovision Song Contest and the next contest staged in Moscow then most of the audience would have been arrested. I think this is incorrect as homosexuality is not illegal in Russia just the promotion of it to children as it was here. Hislop should have known better,
ReplyDelete"EU referendum question revealed by David Cameron.
ReplyDeleteDowning Street has disclosed that Britons will be asked in the referendum if they wish to “remain a member of the European Union”.
People who want Britain to STAY IN the European Union will be able to campaign for a “yes” vote in the in-out referendum promised by David Cameron.
The full question in the referendum bill is: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”
It represents a victory for Mr Cameron, who was stung by his failure to be campaigning for “yes” in last year’s Scottish independence referendum.
Critics claimed that Downing Street had given Alex Salmond and the SNP the upper hand by allowing the question to be framed as a “yes” vote for independence."
The government has to find £6 billion in order to meet its obligation of 2% of GDP for defence.
ReplyDeleteFormer Defence Secretary Liam Fox says that national defence is the first duty of any government. It is difficult to square that with the open-doors immigration policy which is allowing foreigners to take over our country without a shot being fired.
A Finnish politician has tweeted that Africans should be allowed three children and then sterilised. This is a policy that the Chinese apply.
ReplyDeleteAs long as nothing is done to improve the countries of origin and stop the West destroying them then the south will continue to flood north. Only if Europeans make a stand will they force the great and the good to rebuild the countries they are destroying and stop this process. Another commentator said that Europeans expect other Europeans to be Caucasians. Well, Chinese, Indians, Africans and Japanese expect the same of their own. If things continue then England will be like Hawaii where native Hawaiians are down to 8,000 out of a 1m population - the native population of the island when Captain Cook arrived there in the 18thc.
Just a note for those who think we can push for the English to survive by calling on the Rights of Indigenous People at the UN. As I have said elsewhere the 1m Hawaiians have been reduced to 8,000 whilst their places have been taken by Chinese, Japanese, Americans etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen Hawaii became the 50th state in 1959 there was a referendum amongst those living there. All voted to join the US bar the native Hawaiians. The writing is on the wall and for the US you could substitute the EU over time. But it just shows how the natives can be reduced to minority status. Surely the UN charter regarding the rights of indigenous peoples was in existence then so what happened. Or perhaps it just goes to show who controls the UN.