Should we have left the EU - Vote Below?

Will The UK Actually Leave The EU?

As we no longer have polls on the site, please just leave a comment on any page about your thoughts on BREXIT or Donald Trump

Tuesday 28 June 2016

What Europeans Think About BREXIT

What Europeans Think About BREXIT



The following are two videos from a European perspective on the UK vote to leave the EU.

First an opinion given before the vote from an ex Norwegian Government minister who compares the "project fear" tactics rolled out by the Remain campaign, to her own EU referendums.

They had two referendums in 1972 and 1994, and they voted NO BOTH times.

However they still pay just over half a billion to be part of the European Single Market and have to accept free movement of people and labour.

She declares the "Project Fear" to be "All Rubbish", and that we have "Nothing to fear from BREXIT".


Now from an opinion from a famous Italian Economist who lists out all the benefits from us voting to leave the EU. 

Paolo Barnard, is a very censored Italian economic journalist and he lists all the reasons we should not fear a BREXIT in the video below.

It is also very interesting for all those on the Remain side who have scoffed at claims from myself and others on the left who have voted out due to the push towards globalism and the downward push on wages that:

“for what are the Bilderbergs men trembling for (then)? What are the huge companies afraid of? No they’re not scared of an economic loss, they are scared of the loss of control over a neo-feudal, authoritarian and anti-democratic project called the European Union.” – Paolo Barnard.


So did either of these videos calm your fears about voting BREXIT or do you still believe we are sailing dangerous waters with the prospect of Scotland voting to leave the UK? 

This seems unlikely seeing that the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon tried recently to reach out to the EU to see if Scotland could remain in the EU and was rebuffed.

She was told that the whole of the UK must leave the EU including the parts that voted to Remain such as Northern Ireland and Scotland.

She was also told that despite SNP claims to the contrary in the recent lost Scottish Independence Vote, that she would have to re-apply to join the EU, and most importantly accept the Euro.

This was NOT something she wanted to hear as the SNP claimed during the last vote that they would be able to keep the pound despite the claims by the UK Chancellor that this was not possible.

Having to wait years without free trade with the rest of the UK OR Europe would leave Scotland in an even worse position that the UK now as at least they can trade with England AND Europe for the next 2 years until we de-tangle from the EU under Article 50.

If Scotland leaves the UK they would be alone and in uncertain waters. The Euro is a failing project and that is probably one of the reasons they wanted to keep the pound.

So don't worry about the UK splitting up, I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

What do you think?

Are you worried?

Rememebr to vote at the top of the page if you think we made the right or wrong decision.

Sunday 26 June 2016

Blairites attempt a coup against their leader just at the time we need strong leadership

Blairites attempt a coup against their leader just at the time we need strong leadership

By Dark Politricks
www.darkpolitricks.com

Just at the time we need strong leadership after the EU vote, and the Tory party are split fighting over who should be the next leader, the Labour party decide to mount a coup against their leader.

Hillary Benn was sacked last night for attempting to foment a coup against Jeremy Corbyn, and now loads of Blairites have decided to quit their posts as well.

This is very selfish and dangerous as we cannot have both of the major parties in chaos at the time that the country needs a steady hand, and stability in a post EU world. 

The markets hate instability, and with both the Tories and Labour infighting, and the Prime Minister David Cameron resigning, it is certainly not the right time for Labour Blairite traitors to try and split their own party up.

Don't they remember that Jeremy Corbyn had the biggest mandate in Labour history to become leader?

He got so many votes from all 3 sectors, including half a million people who signed up as affiliate members so that they could vote in the leadership election, that he won overwhelmingly.

Therefore the Blairites are really stupid to attempt a coup at this time. They really are a disgrace to all the millions of Labour voters, who voted to leave the EU for very good reasons.

How they can blame Jeremy Corbyn for losing the remain vote, I really have no idea.

It really is a stupid opportunistic attack at the wrong time in my opinion, and one they have been plotting for months. They never accepted the leadership vote and have been waiting for a time to attack Corbyn for ages.

All the Labour voters who chose to vote out had very good reasons to do so and none of that could be changed by Jeremy Corbyn just telling them to vote to remain.

These reasons include: the lack of democracy within the EU, the pressure on public services they rely on, longer waiting times at the NHS, plus the constant downward push on wages to the lowest common EU level.

This is all caused by the rich globalist elites who make their money from lower wages, and it is these international corporations and bankers, or the powerful 1%, who wanted us to stay in the EU and gain from many poor peoples suffering due to it.

Therefore it is mostly millions of Labour voters who suffered the most from the EU and the push towards globalism.

Blairites like Hillary Benn and the Tories are constantly pushing towards more globalist, central governance, and this has an effect on people lives that they obviously don't understand. Why? Because they don't suffer like the majority of people in this country.

When they are ill they don't have to wait 6 months for a hospital appointment, they go to BUPA, or their private doctor.

They don't have to worry about their wages, as they get to vote on how much they get paid.

They don't have to wait years for a council house, as they get paid enough to live in 2 house. Usually one in their constituency and one in London so they can live near work.

Therefore they have no concept of what normal people have to go through.

They just don’t understand why millions of Labour voters would chose to leave the EU.

Hillary's dad, Tony Benn, was vehemently anti-EU, and he would have been ashamed of his son if he was still alive.

What did Tony Benn say about the EU?
  • What powers do you have?
  • Who gave them to you?
  • On whose behalf are you using them?
  • And how can we get rid of you?


Well the EU has a lot of powers, we the people didn’t vote to give them those power, they are using them on behalf of the globalists and big international corporations, and the people of the UK just voted to get rid of them.

You can watch him in action now.


So with the Labour party splitting itself up, and the Tories doing the same. I wouldn't be surprised if a new political party based around MP's who wanted to remain in the EU was formed. It probably will be full of Tories who wanted to stay in the EU and Blairites, who are in reality just Tory Lite.

Tony Blair was sometimes more right wing than the Tories. Especially when it came to our democracy and civil rights.

He removed many rights including those to protest, to remain silent without prejudice if arrested, and he turned the UK into the most surveilled nation on earth. We have CCTV cameras on every lamppost and shop corner and are monitored constantly online by GCHQ. Also the Lisbon treaty (or European Constitution) was signed under Blairs successor and partner in crime for decades, Gordon Brown.

So never think of the Blairites as left wing they aren't. 

If they were true left wing MP's they would be supporting their leader not trying to overthrow him at a time of major instability.

This is what George Galloway another major personality from the left who voted to leave the EU has to say about the current Labour coup, and the possible split within the Labour party.


So what do you think?

Do you believe that we will see two Labour parties, one based around the millions of Labour voters, members and affiliates who support Corbyn, and one filled with Blairites?

Or do you think we might see some sort of party based around Tories and Blairites who all wanted to remain in the EU instead?

Let me know.

Don't forget to vote at the top of the page if you think leaving the EU was the right thing to do or not.

View the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com.

By Dark Politricks

© Dark Politricks



Saturday 25 June 2016

Why the left voted to Leave the EU

Why the left voted to Leave the EU


The votes came in during Thursday night, and the world woke up to shock on Friday morning. The UK had voted to leave the EU.

There is no denying that the voting was very close with 51.9% people voting to leave and 48.1% of UK citizens voting to stay.

This map of the UK on the BBC news site shows the breakdown of the vote.

There is also no denying that the UK is now very split because of the decision. Apart from London, the cosmopolitan city of the world where a hundred nations have their own "China Town" areas, the rest of England voted to leave in strong numbers.

Wales also overwhelmingly voted to leave, but Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay. This is obviously going to cause many further issues with the SNP already calling for another referendum on leaving the UK.

We could be seeing the breakup of the UK and maybe even the EU with many other nations wanting their own vote to leave the EU.

However despite the issues many people will be wondering why so many people on the left side of politics voted to leave the EU.

We already knew that huge swathes of right wing Tories and UKIP supporters have been waiting for years for a chance to vote to leave the EU, but lots of you will be wondering why so many left wing and Labour voters chose to also vote to leave the EU.

Isn't the left supposed to be all for the EU, and the social aspects of a Europe. An area where we all are one people on the same continent, working and living where we want, and having our rights protected on a European level?

Well this video might help you understand why left wing voters decided to support a BREXIT.

It's a talk by Mark Blyth a professor of Political Economy at Brown University.

In the video he talks about the BREXIT vote and the ramifications for the ‎UK and ‎Europe.

He also considers the current situation in ‎Greece and the long run effects of what he calls "Trampism".

It is well worth watching if you are wondering why people voted to leave from the left.



So did that video help you understand why the left voted to leave the EU?

Remember, the Blairites are not real left wingers and their opportunistic attack on Jeremy Corbyn just proves that fact.

Labour is supposed to be the party of the workers but many of the poor white working class Labour voters have been the people to suffer worst from globalism and "free trade", a system where prices and wages are pressured downwards to the lowest level.

You could be having your job threatened by workers from the Eastern European countries who are willing to work for less than you.

Or you could be waiting long times for doctors appointments due to the large number of people needing the services and not enough GP's and consultants to handle the pressures.

Or you see successive right wing (Blairite and Tory) Governments not funding our public services to the right levels, or building enough council houses.

If so then you are going to be angry and pissed off.

Who are you going to blame?

Well many people on the right have blamed the migrants but many on the left blame the establishment and the constant push towards globalism.

The UK government, Blairites, the EU and all the other globalist entities including the worldwide corporations who benefit from cheap labour and their ability to base companies in cheap tax havens, are the ones who have been the ire of many on the left.

These people are not racist they are just suffering, and they see the EU and other global forces and ideas such as the TTIP trade agreement. 

This is one agreement which we are now hopefully out of due to it being agreed on an EU / US level. 

The forces who want TTIP have helped push countries to offshore their jobs to lower wage countries and allow cheap labour to flood into the UK. These are all globalist plans which have hurt so many poor unskilled, skilled and even professional workers.

So hopefully that video will help you understand why many on the left wing voted for BREXIT and it may even make you think that it was the right decision.

Let me know in the new poll at the top of the page,

68% of you voted to leave in the last poll so that may tell you something about the division in the country over the EU referendum vote. It's definitely a country split down the middle on the EU.

However now we have left you many have changed your mind about your decision.

Put your mouse where your heart is and tell me what you think.

Thursday 23 June 2016

Before you vote today please read this article

Before you vote today please read this article


For the first time in my life I, like many of you, are going to be asked what is probably the most important question ever, one that could affect the country and all our lives for decades to come.

Whether we should stay or remain in the EU.

Some people like to boil it down to a simple question of little Englanders versus educated metropolitan elites. However everyone's perspective and experiences of living within the EU differs and one cannot gloss over certain facts and issues with promises and maybes. Whatever way vote it is a leap into the dark.

If we vote to leave there could be economic consequences and if we vote to stay there could be even more issues. Mostly related to living in an already overcrowded island and definitley as part of an undemocratic club that wishes to unite even further, pushing ever more towards a United States of Europe (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html)

I didn't get a chance to vote to join the EEC and many people who did have now decades later changed their minds. Why? Because we are no longer just in the European Economic Community we are in the European Union.

The change of name should tell you a lot as the EU is a very different beast to the EEC and even the remain campaigners admit there are many problems with a democratic deficit, migration, and pressures on our services and housing due to our membership.

The problem is that the EU needs to integrate even further than the current undemocratic bureaucracy because of the one part of the EU we don't belong to, the EURO. 

Without a proper fiscal and political union the EURO is bound to fail. Nations like Greece, Spain and Italy have seen what happens when they cannot reduce or increase their own interest rates or de-value their currencies due to being locked into the EURO. It causes job losses, mass migration of their youth and austerity measures forced upon them.

Luckily, despite all the main economists, bankers, IMF, the World Bank and most of the same people who say we must remain in the EU now, we decided to stay out of the EURO. That helped our economy and we had one of the longest economic booms since the World War. We actually finally managed to pay off our debts to the USA for World War I and World War II!

If you can remember the 80's and 90's then you will remember interest rates of 12-15%+ which made borrowing expensive but it also meant you could actually get proper interest on your savings in the bank.

This was also a time where anyone in society could sign up to their local council to be put on the housing list and accumulate points the longer they were on it. There was none of this current shortage of council or housing association stock. A situation where you are turned away unless homeless or seriously ill, and sometimes not even then. All due to the lack of housing association stock which has been used up a long time ago and not replaced by the government.

Also during this time when Maggie Thatcher was exporting our manufacturing jobs offshore, closing the mines and turning the UK into a service economy whilst privatising anything she could,we joined something called the ERM.

This was the European Exchange Rate Mechanism where European countries pledged to keep their currencies in check with each other. I quote from the fount of all knowledge Wikipedia.

We joined the ERM in October 1990, effectively guaranteeing that the British Government would follow an economic and monetary policy that would prevent the exchange rate between the pound and other member currencies from fluctuating by more than 6%.

On the 8th of October 1990, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher entered the pound into the ERM mechanism at DM 2.95 to the pound. Hence, if the exchange rate ever neared the bottom of its permitted range, DM 2.773, the government would be obliged to intervene. With UK inflation at three times the rate of Germany's, interest rates at 15% and the "Lawson Boom" about to bust, the conditions for joining the ERM were not favourable at that time.

The signs were not good and what happened? Speculators such as George Soros bet against the pound and we couldn't manage to keep within the range set. This caused Black Wednesday where over £3 billion was lost and Soros made over a billion by shorting the pound.

We were forced out of the ERM and we devalued our currency.

At the time it was all doom and gloom but by actually de-linking our currency from the Germans we actually managed to start exporting goods and a few years later our economic recovery started.

What does all this have to do with the EU you may be asking?

Well it shows you that without a proper federal Europe, which many politicians and EU commissioners have called for over the years in public, the EURO will fail. 

When countries cannot control their own currency and interest rates due to the rules of a giant trading block in which certain countries like Germany do well in manufacturing, and others like Italy and Spain, are mainly tourist based, there are very different fiscal requirements for each country. Therefore if the EURO is to succeed more political and fiscal union must happen. This has been discussed many times and is openly admitted by many on the remain side.

Whatever good you may think the EU has done with the protection of workers rights, environmental concerns and free trade and visa free living, we are not in this central gang of countries that are heading towards a United States of Europe.

Whatever you may think, the Germans, French and others all realise that for the EURO to succeed they must have closer ties and they are pushing for a more Federal Europe.

This poses a problem for us.

Without being members of the EURO we will be forced to adopt EU laws and regulations that are made to help the EURO countries and not us.

We are just one voice at a big table and they want to take away the veto on many issues which would prevent us from stopping certain laws that come in to help the EURO ZONE countries not us.

Now you may not care who makes your laws, or whether you can't get a council flat or even find a place to rent or buy within your price range due to the mass shortage of housing in this country.

However if you do, you have to realise that the mass migration that started after Labour opened the doors to newly admitted Eastern European countries in the early part of the century, has caused pressures that we just cannot cope with.

Migrants help the NHS and they do wonderful jobs, pay tax and all the rest of the things English people do.

However if our governments, Labour and Tory, cannot build enough houses for the people already living in the country then how are they going to manage to build a city the size of Liverpool, every year for the current estimate of 300,000 migrants that enter the country. Whether half of these people come from outside the EU or not is irrelevant. Migration HAS changed the country.

You only have to walk around many towns to wonder if you are in England or Nepal, Poland or Pakistan.

You may like sitting on the bus hearing a myriad of languages being spoke and not understanding any of them.

You may like getting your car washed at the local garage for a tenner by what is really slave labour.

You may like being treated at the hospital by nurses and doctors we have basically stolen from poorer nations. Countries who had spent lots of money training them, just so that they could migrate here and get better wages.

You may like the multicultural society we have become, but you have to admit that we cannot cope with the current population pressures on our services as it is, let alone the estimated 80 million in a decade or so.

If our government cannot manage to build enough houses as it is how do you think they are going to suddenly start building millions that will be required?

It may be great if you are already a home owner as a shortage means your property value rises but if you want to buy or rent the prices are extortionate and you will be waiting a long time.

So when you go to vote tomorrow just think about what it will be like in 15 years time when our already over crowded country has an extra 10 million plus people in it.

We already have one of the highest levels of people living per square mile in the world. How will it be when rent for a single bedroom flat is over a grand a month and you have to wait 8 months or more for a hospital appointment.

I just got told yesterday that my current referral to the pain clinic which was sent off over 3 months ago will be in September, almost another 3 months away. That's 6 months for a serious condition and this is now. Imagine what it will be like in a decades time when our underfunded NHS has to cope with 80 million people. How long will we have to wait for an operation or consultation then?

I have nothing against migrants, nearly every doctor I have seen who has tried helping me has been one.

I have nothing against free trade, it helps our economy.

I have nothing against the Human Rights Act, it protects our rights when our own government wants to remove them.

I have nothing against co-operation with European nations on terrorism, crime and the environment. We need to join together to crack serious crime and stop ISIS gunmen attacking pubs and clubs.

However all this can be AND should be possible without having to be part of the EU.

I do have a problem though, as the left wing Tony Benn famously said, with not being able to vote out the people who make the rules I have to live by.

The EU may only make a small proportion of them but it is one of the most undemocratic bodies in the world. The most democratic part of it, the European Parliament has the least power within the whole giant bureaucratic body.

The EU Commission makes the rules we have to abide by if we want to participate in the free trade zone, even if you are not trading with the EU.

Many small companies don't even do business with European nations yet they still have to abide by the regulations they put out. They may be good for some things such as protecting our paid holidays and health and safety but telling manufactures of goods how they must be made when they are not even trading with the EU is red tape that small companies still have to comply with.

So just think today when you go and vote whether you want to have to wait half a year for a hospital appointment because of the number of people already waiting ahead of you and the failure of our government to properly fund and staff the NHS.

The remain campaign is right when they say this is not the fault of the EU but if our government is not doing it now WHY would they suddenly start if we voted to remain in the EU?

The same goes for the argument of reforming the EU from the inside out.

We have had decades to reform the EU and what has happened......nothing.

So what makes you think we will suddenly have a much louder and more important voice than the other nations if we vote to remain in the EU club?

Remember, we are the 5th biggest economy in the world. 

When people claim that is to do with the EU they are forgetting the 400+ years before World War I when we were the biggest economy in the world. 

We traded with all nations and we did pretty well before we had to borrow billions to fight 2 World Wars.

So whatever you decide to do today just think about the future first.

We may suffer a dip in the pound for a bit and shock horror, as one business man from the remain side said, wage rises! Also if we can reduce the number of people coming into the country and start building some more houses the prices will come down and you will be able to afford to get onto the ladder.

Remortgaging your house on the backs of the homeless isn't fair or right and your only gaining wealth due to the shortage of housing in the country.

Remember it was people remortgaging and living on credit cards that made our post 2008 recession so bad. The boom we had under Gordon Brown was built on debt. That is no way to build a strong economy.

Forget the experts, they are all globalists and elitists who want to see unions of countries all over the world. Less boundaries ensure that they can make more money themselves. They have got it wrong before and there is a good chance they will have got it wrong again.

I hate to have this vote whilst the Tories are in power as I don't trust them one bit and that is the one thing that worries me about leaving. 

However if we do leave David Cameron and Osborne will be gone pretty sharpish and I have no doubt we will have a chance to vote in another government, one that would protect our civil and working rights without the need for the EU.

One last point.

If we were not currently in the EU would you vote to join it? 

If the answer is no then you should be voting to leave. If it's yes then vote remain.

The choice is yours but it will affect our lives whatever choice we all make.

Your Guide to the UK Referendum on EU Membership

Your Guide to the UK Referendum on EU Membership

By WashingtonsBlog
washingtonsblog.com

By Professor Richard Werner, economics professor at University of Southampton, and the inventor of quantitative easing.

The British people should be clear about just what they will be voting on at the EU referendum this Thursday. What does it actually mean to stay in the EU? What does it mean to exit?

Concerning the second question, the dominant issue in the debate has been the question whether there will be a significant negative economic impact on the UK from exiting the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron, together with the heads of the IMF, the OECD and various EU agencies have given dire warnings that economic growth will drop, the fiscal position will deteriorate, the currency will weaken and UK exports will decline precipitously. George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer has threatened to cut pensions if pensioners dare to vote for exit. But what are the facts?

I have been trained in international and monetary economics at the London School of Economics and have a doctorate from the University of Oxford in economics. I have studied such issues for several decades. I have also recently tested, using advanced quantitative techniques, the question of the size of impact on GDP from entry to or exit from the EU or the eurozone. The conclusion is that this makes no difference to economic growth, and everyone who claims the opposite is not guided by the facts. 

The reason is that economic growth and national income are almost entirely determined by a factor that is decided at home, namely the amount of bank credit created for productive purposes. This has sadly been very small in the UK in recent decades, thus much greater economic growth is possible as soon as steps are taken to boost bank credit for productive purposes irrespective of whether the UK stays in the EU or not (although BREXIT will make it much easier to take such policy steps). We should also remember that a much smaller economy like Norway thought more dependent on international trade fared extremely well after it’s people rejected EU membership in a referendum in 1995 (which happened against the dire warnings and threats from it’s cross-party elites, most of it’s media and the united chorus of the heads of international organisations). Besides, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China never needed EU membership to move from developing economy status to top industrialised nations within about half a century. The argument of dire economic consequences of BREXIT is bogus.

As for the first question, namely what it means to stay inside the EU, we should consult the EU it’self. Happily, the EU released a major official report about it’s key policies and what it plans to achieve in the near future in October 2015. This report was issued in the names of the Five Presidents of the EU. In case you had not been aware that there was even a single, let alone five presidents of the EU, these are: 

The unelected president of the European Central Bank, Goldman Sachs alumnus Mario Draghi, the unelected president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, the unelected Brussels Commissar and president of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the president of the Euro Summit, Donald Tusk, and the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz. 

What is the message of this not negligible number of EU presidents concerning the question of where the EU is going? The title of their joint report is a give-away: The Five Presidents (sic) Report: Completing Europes Economic and Monetary Union. https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publications/five-presidents-report-completing-europes-economic-and-monetary-union_en

The report starts with the frank admission that with 18 million unemployed in the euro area, a lot more needs to be done to improve economic policies in the EU. Well said. But what exactly needs to be done?
"Europes Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) today is like a house that was built over
decades but only partially finished. When the storm hit, it’s walls and roof had to be stabilised quickly. It is now high time to reinforce it’s foundations and turn it into what EMU was meant to be...." 
"we will need to take further steps to complete EMU."
The central planners in Brussels and at the ECB in Frankfurt are not unaware that under their command, a historically unprecedented economic dislocation has taken place in the EU during the past ten years, including massive asset and property bubbles, banking crises and large-scale unemployment in all the periphery countries with over 50% youth unemployment in Greece, Spain and Portugal, as well as the lack of any serious controls of the EU external borders to prevent an influx of unparalleled numbers of illegal immigrants and economic migrants.

However, the EU central planners are in denial about the fact that these problems have been caused entirely by their own misguided and disastrous policies. As a result, they argue that the solution to such problems can only be further concentration of powers into their hands: We need more Europe, as Mrs Merkel put it (source: please read these Merkel claims about the EU http://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-priorities-2020/news/merkel-calls-for-political-union-to-save-the-euro/)

This is what they propose to implement in the coming years, by turning all EU members into one single country.

So the Five Presidents Report makes clear that the EU is not simply a free trade area. That project had been left behind with the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and a very different kind of Europe has become enshrined with the 2007 European Constitution (called the Lisbon Treaty, since the people of Europe in several referenda rejected it. Source: please read what the author of the rejected European Constitution says:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html ).

Instead, the EU is the project to abandon all national sovereignty and borders within and melt away all European nations that dont succeed in exiting in time, into a merged, joint new single country, with one central European government, centralised European monetary policy, centralised European fiscal policy, centralised European foreign policy, and centralised European regulation, including of financial markets and banking. This United States of Europe, an undemocratic leviathan that the European peoples never wanted, is the culmination of the much repeated mantra of ever closer union.

This project has been implemented steadily and stealthily over several decades, despite major and consistent policy blunders and scandals involving the central planners (e.g. in 1999 the entire European Commission the unelected government and cabinet of the European superstate resigned in disgrace, as it was found to have taken bribes and engaged in fraud, while the EUs own Court of Auditors has repeatedly refused to sign off the EUs official books).

The economics is clear: there is no need to be a member of the EU to thrive economically, and exiting does not have to impact UK economic growth at all. The UK can remain in the European Economic Area, as Norway has done, or simply agree on a trade deal, as Switzerland did, and enjoy free trade the main intention of European agreements in the eyes of the public. The politics is also clear: the European superstate that has already been formed is not democratic.

The so-called European Parliament , unique among parliaments, cannot propose any legislation at all laws are all formulated and proposed by the unelected European Commission! As a Russian observer has commented, the European Parliament is a rubber-stamping sham, just like the Soviet parliament during the days of the Soviet Union, while the unelected government is the European Commission the Politibureau replete with it’s Commissars.

Big business and big banks, as well as central bankers and the IMF, constitute the financial elite that is behind this purposeful concentration of power giving ever more power into the hands of ever fewer people. The undemocratic nature of EU institutions has reached such an extent that I have heard a recently retired member of the ECB governing council in private confessing that his biggest worry is the undemocratic nature and extent of the ECBs powers, which have increasingly been abused for political ends. These facts have been drowned out by the constant drip of propaganda emanating from the powerful elites behind the creation of the United States of Europe.

During these years and decades of steady transfers of powers and sovereignty from nation states and their democratically elected assemblies to the unelected Brussels bureaucracy, I had always been puzzled by the apparent strong US support for all this. Whenever the process of ever closer union seemed to have hit an obstacle, a US president no matter the post holders name or party affiliation would intervene and in no uncertain terms tell the troublesome Europeans to get their act together and speed up unification of Europe into one state. In the naivety of my youth this had struck me as surprising. Likewise, the British public has recently been told by US president Obama that dropping out of the EU was not a good idea and they had better vote to stay in.

While it is not surprising that the global elite that has benefitted from the trend towards concentration of power is getting increasingly hysterical in their attempts to cajole the British public into voting to stay inside the EU, it is less clear why the US president and his government should be so keen on the EU project. We had been told in the past by the European media that the concentration of economic and political decision-making in Europe was being engineered in order to create a counter-weight against the US dominance. This seemed to motivate some pro-EU voices. Surely the US president must have heard about that?

There is another mystery. Only yesterday, an impressive-looking leaflet was dropped into the letterbox of my Winchester home, entitled EU Basics Your Guide to the Referendum. It was issued by an organisation called the European Movement. The 16-page colour and high gloss booklet argues for Britain to stay in the EU. Who is this European Movement, and who is funding it? This little-known organisation seems financially powerful enough to drop a high-quality print booklet into every household in the entire UK.

The declassification of formerly secret records has solved both mysteries. For as it turns out, they are connected. In the words of Nottingham University academic Richard Aldrich:
The use of covert operations for the specific promotion of European unity has attracted little scholarly attention and remains poorly understood. the discreet injection of over three million dollars between 1949 and 1960, mostly from US government sources, was central to efforts to drum up mass support for the Schuman Plan, the European Defence Community and a European Assembly with sovereign powers. This covert contribution never formed less than half the European Movements budget and, after 1952, probably two-thirds. Simultaneously they sought to undermine the staunch resistance of theBritish Labour government to federalist ideas. It is also particularly striking that the same small band of senior officials, many of them from the Western [note: this means US] intelligence community, were central in supporting the three most important transnational elite groups emerging in the 1950s: the European Movement, the Bilderberg Group and Jean Monnets Action Committee for a United States of Europe [ACUE]. Finally, at a time when some British antifederalists saw a continued special relationship with the United States as an alternative to (perhaps even a refuge from) European federalism, it is ironic that some European federalist initiatives should have been sustained with American support.


There is much more to read in this explosive piece of scholarly research (Richard J. Aldrich (1997), OSS, CIA and European unity: The American committee on United Europe, 1948-60, Diplomacy & Statecraft,8(1), pp. 184-227, online athttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592299708406035#.V2exrU36voo )

UK journalist and former Brussels correspondent Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was the only journalist to report on such academic research findings, in two articles in 2000 and 2007:


DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. US intelligence secretly funded the European Movement, paying over half it’s budget. Some of Europes founding fathers were on the US payroll.

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. Lest we forget, the French had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the federalist signing table in the early 1950s. Eisenhower threatened to cut off Marshall aid unless Paris agreed to kiss and make up with Berlin. Frances Jean Monnet, the EU's mastermind, was viewed as an American agent as indeed, he was. Monnet served as Roosevelts fixer in Europe during the war and orchestrated the failed US effort to stop de Gaulle taking power.

One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. Washingtons main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIAs first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movements funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington.

The leaders of the European Movement Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUEs funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable.

Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, the architects of post-war US policy would be quite pleased, I think, if they were alive today.


(excerpted from: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (2000), Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs, The Daily Telegraph, 19 September 2000;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (2007), The scare of a superstate has passed, but do we want to lose the EU altogether? The Daily Telegraph, 7 April 2007)

No wonder Mr Evans-Pritchard has now concluded that he will vote for BREXIT:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/12/brexit-vote-is-about-the-supremacy-of-parliament-and-nothing-els/

The revelation that the EU is the result of a major US secret service operation effectively just yet another secret creature of deception launched by the CIA (taking seat of honour in the hall of infamy that includes false flag operations, invasions, coup-detats, and the establishment of organisations such as Al-Qaida and Islamic State) solves the third mystery, namely how on earth the allegedly democratic European nations could design such an undemocratic, virtually dictatorial structure. With the EU/United States of Europe the US not only achieves it’s geo-strategic goals in Europe, but it has also eliminated the role of pesky national parliaments that could on occasion get in the way of US or CIA foreign policy. And another puzzle is solved, namely why the EU had so readily agreed to a US request a few years back that US spy agencies get access to all European emails and telephone calls.

vote to stay in the EU thus is a vote to abolish the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and merge it into the undemocratic United States of Europe which the European elites are building under US tutelage. That the European public and, it seems, even European politicians have little or no input in key European decisions can be seen from the increasingly aggressive NATO stance against Russia (Brussels-based NATO being the military arm of the EU, which is overtly under direct US control), and the one-sided sanctions against Russia that the US could simply order the Europeans to implement (causing significant losses in incomes and jobs in Europe, while boosting US business interests).

Immigration policies are another case in point. If the US had in the past considered the largely homogeneous European populations a source of potential European resistance against it’s plans for Europe, then the policy to replace them with balkanised failed melting pots also makes sense.

Norway voted in 1995 on EU membership. Leading parties were all in favour. Big business and central banks, major media outlets and the talking heads on TV were frantically bullying and cajoling the Norwegian public to vote in. The people remained steadfast and voted out. Norway did splendidly. And so much more will the UK.

Professor Werner is Director of the Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton. He is known for proposing the concept of Quantitative Easing in Japan. His 2003 book Princes of the Yen warned of the dangers of excessive central bank independence and predicted that the ECB was likely to create credit bubbles, bankingcrises and recessions in the eurozone.

View the original article at Washingtons Blog

Wednesday 22 June 2016

The Great EU Debate - Full Debate (Jun 21st)

The Great EU Debate - Full Debate (Jun 21st)


One day to go and I bet most people have either made their minds up a long time ago. People will either stick to their guns or they still don't know which they will vote. If so they will probably wobble and keep to what they know by voting remain when they enter the voting booth. A fear of a leap into the unknown etc.

If you didn't watch the BBC's great EU debate last night you can catch up on it now. This was shown on the BBC on June the 21st.

BBC 'The Great Debate' - EU Referendum Debate - Part One




BBC 'The Great Debate' - EU Referendum Debate - Part Two




BBC 'The Great Debate' - EU Referendum Debate - Part Three




BBC 'The Great Debate' - EU Referendum Debate - Part Four




So with one day to go did that debate help you in any shape or form?

Did you like Boris Johnson's idea of a national independence day on June 24th if we vote to leave the EU?

If not check out some of the other videos on the blog.

Reasons To Stay and To Leave

Reasons To Stay and To Leave


Still not sure which way to vote tomorrow then maybe these two short videos could help you.

Arguments To stay and to leave the EU...

The first video is from the Daily Telegraph and is a short video about why you should vote to leave the EU.

It claims to help voters get to the heart of the Vote Leave campaign by listing their key claims.


What did you think?

Did it help you get to the heart of the matter regarding leaving the EU?

But what about remaining in the EU?

This video is a short one from the Britain Stronger In Europe campaign and offers some points why we should vote to remain in the EU such as:

What would BREXIT mean for you and your family and why is it important that the UK remains part of the EU?

- Over 3 million jobs are linked to our trade with the EU.

- Being in the EU means lower prices in our shops, helping your family budget to go further.

- Our country is safer thanks to cross-European intelligence sharing and cooperation, and the European Arrest Warrant.

- Being in Europe means the freedom to live, travel, work and retire abroad.


Did that video help you at all?

Still confused?

Read some more articles and watch some more videos on this site. It has a lot from both the remain and leave side so is unbiased in it's point of view.

The whole point of this blog is to help you decide which way to vote by providing you content from both the leave and remain campaigns.

Hopefully it well help you enter the voting booth tomorrow with a clear mind on how you will vote.

Tuesday 21 June 2016

Gordon Brown pushes for a United States of Europe

Gordon Brown pushes for a United States of Europe


Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan attack Gordon Brown as he calls for a United states of Europe in the European parliament whilst Prime Minister.

Not only did Gordon Brown sell a load of UK Gold at rock bottom prices, destroyed our private pension system and claimed "no more boom and bust" as Chancellor and then watched as the biggest bust in decades happened as Prime Minister.

He bailed out the banks and due to running up a huge national debt when times were good it meant that when the recession hit us we were one of the worst prepared countries to face it.


What do you think about Gordon Brown breaking his pledge to give the UK people a vote on the Lisbon treaty which pushes for a more united Europe and political union?

Have you decided how you will vote yet?

BBC Question Time - Michael Gove faces the audience

Micheal Gove on the risk leaving the EU, Trade, Security and Democracy

www.darkpolitricks.com


This is the full debate on last nights Question Time between Vote Leave supporter Michael Grove and the public's questions.

Michael Gove is a Tory MP, working for the Ministry of Justice as well as being a lead member of the Vote Leave campaign.

You can watch the audience take him on in the 3 videos below.

Michael Gove on Question Time - Part 1



Michael Gove on Question Time - Part 2


Michael Gove on Question Time - Part 3




Who do you think of Michael Gove's idea that we should be outside the European Free Trade Zone and trading with the rest of the world.

If this was the case there would be no bias towards trading with any other growing economies in the world. This doesn't include the Antarctic and the EU which are the two only stagnant non growing areas by GDP in the last decade.

From my own experience the migrants that seem to be propping up the NHS are from the Commonwealth, Far East and Africa and thank god they do. Apart from some cleaners I have yet to meet a Polish or Romanian Doctor or nurse. 

I am not saying they don't exist as statistics show that they do work in large numbers in the NHS. I am just saying in my own experience I have met more migrant workers from Africa or the Philippines. We need migrants but we don't want to turn the UK into Poland or Nepal by allowing so many in that we don't recognise our own country any more. 

The South East of England has a very high migrant population where whole working class estates have changed their ethnic make up. In certain boroughs there is no council housing stock remaining for people to put their names on as we all used to be able to do, working or not. Now you only get on the list if you are dying within a year or have a severe disability in some areas where there is low housing association stock. 

I got my own letter from my local council kicking me off the housing list a decade ago saying the remaining housing association stock was all gone due to the high influx of migrants. A single male whether you have a job, severely ill, or homeless is supposed to be able to look after himself in the governments eyes. I was told unless I was dying within a year I "might" get a place - nice.

Michael is not like many in the Vote Remain campaign, a little Englander who doesn't want any immigration he just wants managed migration so that we can check who comes in and who leaves our country. 


Our previous government has been woefully slow in building new houses, expanding schools, hospitals and easing the pressures pushed onto the UK citizens under Labours decision to allow mass migration without limits in 2004 when the doors to the new Easter European countries were opened. 

Therefore letting a third of a million more people each year is not just going to just send the UK population to 70+  million but where are all these new houses to fill a city the size of Liverpool going to come from and where is the room to build them?

If we cannot even build enough new homes for the people already living here how can we even expect to keep building new cities in one of the most crowded counties in the world - migrants or no migrants?

Therefore when it comes to the shortage of housing there are two choices:
- Slow the rate of migration so there is less demand on the houses we still have or,
- Build a hell of a lot more houses. Something no government has done well since after WWII when they had to clear the slums of London and built many new towns around the country to place these ex Londoners.

Why not cut the red tape, make approval for building schemes easier to pass,and always ensure 15%+ OF ALL flats and houses, whether they are in council estates, middle class estates or even the the huge apartments springing up in London that are only visited by their super rich Chinese or Russian owners once a year, only available to Housing Associations.

As for those rich people who never visit their houses they should be forced to allow homeless people to live in them due to them being basically abandoned and not kept in use. By not living in these expensive houses in London they have ruined the local economy as local shops have no customers and the local bars have no-one to drink in them. They are closing all the time.

If new rules need to be implemented to prevent people just buying big houses that are never or hardly used whilst surrounded by hundreds of thousands of homeless people then they should be passed ASAP. 

With so many people homeless or on housing waiting lists allowing the super rich to buy up houses that are hardly lived in seems stupid beyond belief. There has to be a better way and the EU cannot be blamed for this problem. Labour and Conservative governments have all failed to build enough houses in recent decades since Thatcher sold off a large percentage of the council housing that existed.

We need policies that say if you have a second home but don't use it for more than 250 days per year then they should be automatically opened up in some manner so that homeless people can stay there whilst the owners don't want to.

Remember no-on is arguing for a binary argument where we either have no migration or lots of it. It just needs to be controlled. It isn't exactly a nice choice as we need young migrants to pay their taxes to fund the growing old pensioners who need their money. However the ageing population also causes problems for youngsters looking for jobs. If someone is still working at the age of 70 then that is a job a 20 year old out of college can't do.

So far the government has just been raising the age of the pension which means young English people straight out of college cannot get jobs. Currently we are going to have 75 old grannies on reception and 65+ year old computer programmers working in IT departments. All preventing younger workers and ex students from getting work. This is all due to our rubbish and regularly milked pension pot growing bare which is why migration has been allowed to grow to help feed the tax pot.



There has to be a balance where the old stop working so that the jobs can be taken up by the young. It's common sense. At the moment it just drives up unemployment benefits except for the younger unemployed who the Tories have staggered and even prevented from getting unemployment benefits. No wonder the young people of today are mightily pissed off with what our governments are doing to them

Also if we didn't have wage suppression by allowing mass modern day slavery, yes we are currently the 5th largest nation involved in modern day slavery, we cannot possibly help downward pressures on unskilled wages when Romanian and Polish workers are willing to valet and wash you car for a tenner at the local garage.

From the site: www.antislavery.org

So next tame you get a cheap valet just think that those people working are sleeping 8 to a room or in appalling condition's and have probably had their passports taken off them until they can earn enough money to pay for them back. 

Now how is helping more unskilled and unqualified EU migrants into the country without jobs just so they can be sucked into such despicable jobs that we benefit from helpful to the immigrants?

Also how helpful is it to the unskilled English workers pushed out of jobs due to the downward pressures on the their wages?

Can you name the top 10 jobs that unskilled EU migrants do when entering the UK:


Table 1 - Top ten occupations of foreign-born workers, 2014

Top 10 by workforce share, all migrants%Occupation shareTop 10 by workforce share, recent migrants%Occupation share
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
1Elementary process plant occupations430.9Elementary process plant occupations190.9
2Cleaning and housekeeping managers340.2Process operatives120.9
3Process operatives320.9Cleaning and housekeeping managers110.2
4Food preparation and hospitality301.5Elementary cleaning occupations82.4
5Health professionals281.7Health professionals71.4
6Elementary cleaning occupations272.4Elementary agricultural occupations70.3
7Managers and proprietors in hospitality250.9Elementary construction occupations70.6
8Natural and social science professionals240.7Assemblers and routine operatives60.9
9Elementary storage occupations231.4Other elementary service occupations63.2
10Assemblers and routine operatives220.9Natural and social science professionals60.7
Note: occupation share indicates the share of total employment represented by the occupation.
Source: Labour Force Survey 2014
Are we really saying we don't have enough UK born people to do these jobs?

If the migrants doing them were not here and pushing wages right down then the department of Employment could easily get a large % of unemployed Brits to take up jobs on assembly lines, construction and food preparation and hospitality.

The problem is that the people hiring these migrants are paying them less than the minimum wage on the hush hush.

We need to stop rich companies abusing and taking advantage of EU workers by paying them a pittance and sue them if they are caught out.

We should also introduce a law that every skilled or non skilled job has to be offered to at least 5 long term unemployed Brits before going out to tender in the EU market. This way at least the people in our own country get a chance at working first.

If no Brit takes the job then fair play, allow a migrant to come over and work for the amount of wages they accept. 

So after Michael's one person debate against the British people what do you think of his views and performance?

Did he handle himself well in the interviews and did any of his arguments sway your mind?

Don't forget to vote only days to go.

References:

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/slavery_in_the_uk/default.asp





Read the original article at www.darkpolitricks.com