It's about being positive and taking control

Regular readers will not be surprised that I am voting to Leave the European Union in Thursday's referendum, however I wanted to share why and maybe persuade any waverers and undecided.

I am afraid I must start off in a negative frame of mind.  I have to look at the Remain Project Fear and ask everyone to consider if they have ever heard anything that is more negative and consistently so.  Threats for extra taxes, swingeing public expenditure cuts, slashed pensions, isolation, economic recession, World War 3, plagues of boils, etc., etc.

OK, I made up the plagues of boils but you get the picture.  Doom and gloom will descend on Friday, if the British people dare to Brexit.

What the Remain camp don't say though is what the future will look like if Britain does the wrong thing and votes to Remain.  What will a future Britain look like, locked within the ever failing European Union? I don't know.  It seems though that neither do the Remainers.  They cannot tell you and throughout this campaign have not even tried to.

Many Remainers seem to think that voting Remain means voting for the status quo - it doesn't.

Voting Remain means a green light for the ever closer union that David Cameron thinks he has an opt-out, from.  Make no mistake, a vote to Remain means that Cameron will have shot his bolt.  When he next meets his 27 counter-parts they will know he can do nothing if they renege on the feeble deal he brought back to the UK.  They know they can pass any deal to bail-out the Euro-crippled countries like Greece (and soon Italy and Spain) and require the prosperous UK to stump-up the money and there is nothing, nada, null, zero that Cameron can do, other than pay-up.  They know that Cameron simply could not do anything.  He couldn't go back to the people of Britain.  He couldn't with tears in his eyes and a tremulous voice, say ' but they cheated, they are not honouring the agreement'.  He will be what he is today - a dead man walking.  He will have no credibility in Brussels nor in Westminster.

Worried about Turkey gaining entry? Tough! If they want in, there is nothing that can be done about it.  Don't believe me?  Look how Turkey have been given billions of Euros and visa-less travel just by threatening to allow the flood of refugees to continue.  They can do this, again and again and Britain will be told to toe the line and pay up. That's the EU way.

But enough negativity.

The Leave campaign have been pushing a positive policy.

• One that is based on faith in the ability of Britain's people 
• One that sees Britain in a global marketplace and not tied into a protectionist customs union 
• One that says the nation that gave democracy to the world is best placed to continue this more than 1,000 year long tradition, if its people are in control of Britain rather than unelected Eurocrats
• One that sees its security continues to be best served by alliances with nations both in and outside the European Union
• One that looks out into the world and sees huge global markets in China and India
• One that recognizes that self-interest will mean that the EU will agree a positive trade deal with the UK, when we Leave.
• One that helps David Cameron fulfill his manifesto pledge by getting net immigration down to the tens of thousands
• One that opens its doors, as it has always done so, to people who can contribute to the needs of the UK
• One that sees a nation can only call itself that if it controls its own borders
• One that recognizes a sovereign nation cannot allow its military to be subsumed into a trans-national defence force and maybe dragged into conflicts against its national interest
• One that, at its core, trusts the people of the UK

On Thursday, if you are currently undecided, you have to make a clear choice - Vote  for the positive Leave position or vote for the doom and gloom fear camp and Remain.  Remember, the leap into the dark is to Vote Remain, Vote Leave is a leap into a brighter, freer future where we, the people, are in control.

Be positive, take control and Vote Leave.

EU and Elephants

Don't worry, this isn't about circuses or zoos.  Though, before I move on, and given just as something that 'tickled' me. I came across a lovely Polish saying, on Twitter.  Not my circus, not my monkeys - so not my problem.

Anyway, back to the European Union and Elephants.  Or rather, the Brexit vote and Immigration.

There. I said it.  I used the immigration word.  Naughty me!

Immigration though is a key, maybe the key factor affecting Britain's relationship with the EU.   Ronald Reagan is famously quoted as saying 'a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation'. Within the European Union, that is the position in which the UK finds itself.

I have posted on this blog before about all of the fallacious and specious economic arguments put forward by those that want Britain to remain in the EU.  Simply put, they are wrong, they are based on unfounded fears that the EU will, as a result of a vote to Brexit, punish its largest single export market. Isn't going to happen, so let's move on.  

We can also discount the somewhat deranged comments from David Cameron, who seeks to suggest that a vote for Brexit could lead to World War 3.  Suppose for just a second that this was true.  Why then would he risk such a situation by holding a referendum that might produce a Brexit vote?   Oh I know he only offered the vote to scupper UKIP but still, if he actually believes what he said, then it is madness to continue with a vote.  Truth is, just as Cameron said earlier, as recently as February 2016, the UK can survive outside of the EU.

So let's look at immigration.

The numbers of people that are immigrating to the UK, from within the EU seem to be incredibly difficult to obtain.  Then when they are published they don't add up - more on that in a moment.  

According to the most recent numbers of immigrants, in the year to September 2015, the numbers were

55,000 from the EU 2 - Bulgaria and Romania, up from just 5,000 in 2007.

69,000 from the EU 8 - Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. This is up from 53,000 in 2004.

130,000 from the rest of the EU countries , up from 53,000 in 1991.

These total to 257,000 when rounding is taken account of.

One issue with these numbers, is that the number of new National Insurance (Social Security) numbers that were issued in the same period was 630,000.  The UK government has so far failed to explain who received the 'missing' National Insurance numbers.

We need to consider, why these people are coming to the UK.  I doubt it is the weather.

The strong suspicion is that people are coming to the UK because of the strength of the UK economy and the economic benefits that are available.  Add to this the disparity in the UK minimum wage and that prevailing in the 'sending' countries as well as 'in work benefits' and we have a cocktail mix that guarantees the attractiveness of the UK as an immigration destination and, most importantly, one that will continue.  

But I am getting ahead of myself.

Based on recent data, from 2015, the minimum monthly wage in the UK is Euro €1,378.

In countries that are suffering IMF/EU and World Bank restrictions, countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal, the rates are €684, €757 and €589 respectively.

In Bulgaria and Romania the rates are €194 and €235 respectively.

In the so called EU 8, Czech Republic €335,, Estonia €390, Hungary €345, Latvia €360, Lithuania ¢325, Poland €410, Slovakia €380 and Slovenia €791

The minimum wage in the UK acts as a magnet for economic migrants from EU countries.  For some of these people, they can come to the UK, take-up a low-paid job and be far, far better-off than they would be in their home country.

Then add to this 'in work benefits'.  These are things like Working Tax Credits.  This is an invention of the fiscally incontinent former Chancellor, Gordon Brown.  These effectively subsidise companies by providing workers with taxpayer-funded handouts which supplement the low wage they are receiving.   For those migrants from low minimum wage countries, this just makes the UK look like a better and better choice.   Add in child benefit - another taxpayer-funded handout and a migrant would be crazy to go anywhere else.

Note I am clear, in my mind and media comment supports this, that migrants do not typically come to the UK to be 'benefits scroungers' who will 'sponge' off of the welfare state.  Rather they come to the UK to work.  Many of them end-up doing the work that work-shy, benefit dependent simply won't do.
David Cameron's much vaunted 'victory' at the EU summit, on the UK having the ability to apply some kind of 'emergency brake' on benefits to EU immigrants is essentially worthless.  These people do not come here for the benefits, they come here for jobs.

The problem for the UK though is more about available resources.

The NHS is straining under its current load.  In reality, it cannot cope, today.  On any reasonable metric, the NHS is failing.  It isn't even a question of money - the NHS gets flooded with taxpayer money.  The problem is human and infrastructure resources.  Not enough doctors, nurses and hospitals. The requirement for these resources cannot keep up with ever increasing demand.  The existing population is living longer and that is a challenge so you can imagine what kind of a burden an extra 257,000 people  places on the system.

The problems facing the NHS are replicated in schooling and housing.  It has been estimated that more than 50% of all new homes that are being built (and there's nowhere near enough of them, for 'locals') will be needed for immigrants.  It has been estimated that a new house would need to be built, every 6 minutes, just to keep pace with the housing of EU migrants.  That's 240 a day, every day.
.
Classroom sizes in certain areas are approaching 3rd World levels.  Oh and not all of the children , or their parents, speak English, which places a further burden on an already over-loaded system.

So immigration on this scale is simply not sustainable.  London is said to have an immigrant population of greater than 50% and there are parts elsewhere in the UK, where the indigenous population are feeling swamped.

Oh, and on top of the 257,000 people from the EU, there was a further 273,000 immigrants from outside the EU.

And then, just around the corner is Turkey.  Germany, suffering under Merkel's madness has agreed to 'energise' the ascension of Turkey, with its 79 million population, into the EU.  Consider that Turkey has a monthly minimum wage of €425.  How many of them might want to upscale their earning capacity and move to the UK?  Turkey being a predominantly Muslim nation then layers religious and cultural differences on top of the immigration problem.

The only realistic solution for the UK is for the country to take control of its borders and to restrict the number of people that can come to the UK.  In reality this would mean very dramatically reduce the number coming in.  It would mean ending working tax credits for immigrants and child benefit, unless the child accompanied the immigrant - many currently don't but stay in their home country.

Saying the above, it is therefore crystal clear that the UK must vote leave - Brexit - on June 23rd.  Not doing so, will simply lead to further and ever increasing deterioration in public services as well as a sense of alienation and non-belonging for the native population.

So, consider, then do your duty and vote Brexit.

Europe fight back or die.

What do you think it will take for the elite that are running Europe into the ground, to wake-up and recognise the existential threat that they have allowed to grow, in their own countries?  How many in Paris?  How many in London?  How many in Brussels?  How many in Madrid?

Angela Merkel and those European leaders that still listen to her continue to adopt policies of appeasement.  Policies that open Europe's doors to people that will commit more and more atrocities in Europe.   The latest was to try and come to some kind of arrangement, as blackmail is now described, with Turkey.  That this deal is with the odious and undemocratic Turkish regime, is conveniently overlooked.  So is the almost certain condition that this agreement is in contravention of international law.  Such trivialities are brushed aside by the elite - nothing to see here, move along.

I was going to say 'here's a prediction' and then go on to say that the deal won't work but I was unable to keep up with events.  There are migrants in Greece who Turkey cannot or more likely will not take and so the deal has no merit, other than to try and con voters within the EU, that something is being done.

I posted here in the aftermath of the November, Paris attacks.  In the intervening period, nothing much has changed.  The sale of French national flags and now those of Belgium have increased.  Same applies to candles and the jars in which they are placed.  No doubt flowers and cuddly toys have also seen sustained sales growth.  However, substantive change?  Nothing.

Don't believe me?  Consider the following.

One of the Paris killers had been living in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek prior to the November 13, attacks.  After the attacks, there were very strong indications that  Salah Abdesalam had returned to Brussels.  Cue a flurry of activity and then .... nothing.  Maybe that lack of success was due to the Belgian police not being able to carry out  raids between 9.00 pm and 5.00 am.  Certainly that would have contributed to the failure exhibited by the Brussels police but they were also very reluctant to upset the local residents of the suburb, which has become a largely immigrant ghetto.

Eventually Abdesalam was apprehended, last week.  Good news, until you consider that he was caught within a kilometre or two of his previous address.  Oh, and it took Belgium 4 months to find him!

When he was arrested, some members of the ghetto population came onto the streets to protest and berate the police.  Next time someone tells you that 'murderers like Abdesalam are not representative of mainstream Muslims' ask them about this.  Clearly, the Muslim community in Molenbeek were sheltering and protecting him.  Why else would they do this unless they shared in his murderous philosophy?

Belgium has a large problem with Muslims.  For many years, Brussels was seen as a safe haven for Islamic terrorists - many speculated that there was an unwritten compact between Belgian authorities and these killers.  The former wouldn't actively pursue the latter and the terrorists wouldn't visit their trademark killings on the streets of Belgium.  That has changed with the advent of Daesh.  Belgium has the highest per capita contribution of fighters that have gone to Syria and Iraq to join Daesh.  Some of these murderers have returned 'home' and now want to visit their jihad on their host countries.  They will be aided in this by those Daesh that are flooding into Europe at the invitation of Angela Merkel, certain other European leaders and various celebrities and other 'useful fools'.

Consider some numbers.  Reasonable estimates are that last year, Europe was invaded by more than a million migrants.  At least he same number is expected, this year. Let's stay with last year though. What percentage might be Daesh?  5% would get you 50,000.  1/2% would get you 5,000.  Let's go with 0.0005% - that will get you 500 killers.  500 men and women who are experienced in killing, trained in bombing and firmly believe that they will defeat and conquer the soft, decadent and corrupt Europeans.  Think the 500 number is too high?  Consider, the UK has, last year, allowed back 800 of its citizens who had previously left the UK and gone to fight for Daesh.

I really don't think the 500 is high, much more likely a great understatement.

Point is that keeping Europe's doors open will only serve to increase the number of Daesh, in our midst and add to the frequency of attacks and the number of victims.

Here is a challenge for you.  You almost certainly use Twitter and probably other social media.  What is/are the religion (s) of those people you have seen, beheading other people? Same question for where you have seen people being thrown off of buildings or executed by a bullet to the head or set on fire or drowned in a cage.  Now see if you can square the answer with the claim that this religion is the religion of peace.  See if you can figure out how so called 'moderates' allow these killers to live in their midst, indeed to actually sustain them.

Here is another challenge for you.  Ask your political representatives how many migrants Europe is supposed to be able to absorb?  What will be a number at which, once reached, the European elite will say 'OK, that's enough now'.  1 million last year, another million this year, enough or do we keep on inviting them in?  Then ask your representative how are these to be accommodated?  Who will build and pay for the extra housing, schools and hospitals that will be needed? Where, in a stagnant economy, will these migrants find jobs?

The European Union (EU) must close its borders to all migrants and do so immediately.  The EU must man those borders with the military and must build fences and walls to keep out those who would bring death to Europeans and our culture.  The EU navies must turn back all of the vessels that are being used by these migrants.  Infringe the territorial waters of Turkey or Libya?   Absolutely.  So what.  Just do it.  Libya is a failed state and can do nothing and Turkey must be brought into line.  Turkey must understand that their facilitation of the invasion of Europe, must cease.

The foregoing only addresses the growing external threat.  In terms of the internal threat, strong measures need to be undertaken.  There can be no 'no go' areas or ghettos in Europe's cities.  The police, supported if required by the military, must re-establish the rule of law - and I do not mean Shariah law - in these areas.  They must search and find all illegal aliens and then deport them.  The so called Human Rights laws need to be suspended for these people.  They have zero regard for the human rights of others.  Yesterday they took away, forever, the human rights of 34 people.  In Paris they did the same for 130 people.  We simply cannot allow this cancer to exist in our midst.  Radical surgery is called for.  Do you think that Daesh consider 'political correctness'?  If they do, it is only to know how useful it is, to them in 'guilting' Europeans.  Anyone that says anything honest or slightly negative or questioning about Islam is automatically a racist.  Say that and the Left and the media and all those well meaning liberals get on your case and perform a hatchet job on you.  Of course, being a figurative hatchet job, it's not as good as what Daesh can do themselves but it does have the effect of silencing people.  Every time I hear these liberals and Lefties supporting Daesh, I am reminded of the quote attributed to Lenin, which talks of the 'bankers selling the Communists, the very rope with which the bankers would be hanged'

In closing, a request.  Don't put flowers or lighted-candles on street corners.   Don't post Je Suis.... on social media.  Instead use that energy to tell your elected representatives.  Enough!

Oh, and as for me.  If I wasn't convinced before, Brussels confirms that the only choice for the UK is Brexit.

Banning Trump

I hesitate to put a number to it, since it is increasing so rapidly, but more than 400,000 people, in the UK, have petitioned the UK government to ban GOP hopeful Donald Trump, from visiting the UK.

The cause is said to be his statements that America should ban all Muslims from entering the country. It seems that many people find Trump's views as undemocratic, and unworthy of the American ideals of free speech etc.

So the solution is, to show the value that the British put on free speech by banning Donald Trump's right to free speech.  Funny old world!

I don't particularly like Donald Trump and find his brand of politics is just 'Mr Angry with a loud voice' but he has undoubtedly struck a chord with many Americans.  So far, with Trump, all we have really heard are sound bites, particularly around immigration and latterly concerning Daesh and Muslims.

You might think his views are obnoxious but he has the right to say them.

If British people want to petition the UK Government, why not do so in opposition to the UK Government allowing Islamic terrorists, who have fought for Daesh, in Syria and Iraq, back into the UK?  Why not petition the UK Government to ban the hate preacher Anjem Choudary?  Why not shut-down Finsbury Park mosque and some of the other radical mosques?  Why not ban the wearing of the burka?  These are subjects worthy of a petition.  Donald Trump's right to free speech, isn't.

My major concern with Trump is with his egotism and over-confidence in his own self-belief.  Trump is running as a candidate for the Republican nomination.  It is well known that he is very wealthy but I have a fear that he is anti-democratic.  The Donald, as he styles himself, doesn't do humble and doesn't think he has to listen to the people who he professes to want to serve.  If the Republican voters, in the various primary elections decide to reject Trump and plump for another candidate, it is my strong expectation that Trump will cry foul and then decide to run as an independent.  This would then make, the Democrat front-runner, the highly ethically-dodgy Hillary Clinton, a shoo-in for the Presidency.

The questions that I believe should be asked of Donald Trump are these:

If, following the Primary Elections, you do not have sufficient delegates to secure the Republican nomination, will you accept the result of the National Convention and publicly and privately endorse the chosen candidate?

Will you now state, that there are no circumstances, none (as in zero, nada, nil) under which you would run as an independent third party candidate and thus split the Republican vote.

If you get the chance, ask Mr Trump these questions, and keep asking them.

Part of Mr Trump's appeal is his supposed straight talking and his not being part of the Washington insider gang.  He is not one of 'them'.  Reading around the subject of Donald Trump, we do find though that he has, himself, flip-flopped on policy and political allegiance, in the past.  One would hope, that if he did answer on the record, the above questions, he would do so honestly and would then honour his responses.  That he wouldn't, like we usually find with Washington politicians, say one thing and do something different and then justify it with mealy-mouthed excuses.  Is Mr Trump up to the challenge?

As said earlier, there is far too little policy meat on the carcass to allow one to back Trump.  I am not an American voter, so couldn't vote for him nor would I if I had the chance.  Making America Great again, is a catchy slogan but how?  That is the question.  How will Trump tackle the ever ballooning deficit and debt that has been run-up by the Obama administration and the Congress?  The American National Debt has doubled, under Obama, to $17 trillion!  I was going to write that out with 17 followed by a series of 000s but I am not entirely sure I know how many or if they would all fit on one line!

America's biggest problems are on the domestic scene.

America's economy is, in my view, stuttering.  The jobless figures are flattered by people leaving the jobs market, altogether - people taking early retirement, because they see no prospect of getting a job, young women taking the career break now, to have children because they see no prospect of a job, etc., etc..  It is going to take much more than building a wall across the southern frontier to get America's economy moving.  It has been bloated by fake money - Quantitative Easing, to you and I - for far too long.  Interest rates are far too low, though if now raised, would likely lead to other pain for ordinary Americans.  These ordinary Americans have taken their cue from the US government (successive ones of both hues) and keep on kicking the debt can, down the road.  If Americans want to understand why they are losing jobs overseas  and power and prestige on the World's stage it is because the once mighty US Dollar has become and continues to become devalued and weak.  That weakness is currently hidden within an overall weak global picture, but it is there!

The Obama administration has been obsessed with changing America.  Pushing ever more changes to the definition of marriage, to the education of future generations and a whole other raft of politically liberal, minority issues, which pull apart the weave in the tapestry that made America what it is.

Making America great again - on the international front - wouldn't be too difficult.  It would require just about a 180 degree shift in policy but that shouldn't be above an incoming President.  It would require recognition that international terrorism is the greatest threat to America (and the World).  It would require that radical Islam is identified as the founding father of international terrorism.  No radical Islam would largely mean an end to international terrorism.  It would require that the new administration recognise it has sorely tested the patience and allegiance of its allies.  In the Middle East, America should be backing Israel, should be actively against Iran and Saudi Arabia, should rein in and make clear its opposition to the potentially genocidal Erdogan of Turkey.

Militarily, America should be prepared to intervene, and that has to mean 'boots on the ground'.  Failed states like Libya and Syria need a global policeman to come in and 'bang a few heads together'  and to restore a semblance of order.  Maybe such countries aren't ready or right for democracy, maybe a strong man, who is not anti-West is what is needed, rather than a focus on women's issues and climate change, when it comes to nation building.

We're just not hearing, from Donald Trump, what he would do!

So long as Texas Senator, Ted Cruz, has the funding to stay the course, he will be up against Donald Trump.  Cruz also isn't an 'establishment' candidate but he is consistent and consistently right on the issues that face America.  I suppose it is too much to ask that the also rans - Rubio, Bush, etc., depart the stage before Iowa and New Hampshire but they should do so, as soon as possible.  Republicans need to be united behind a candidate.  That candidate should be Ted Cruz!

 



     

If not Assad

It is clear that we are moving towards a change in approach to the Syrian civil war.

Putin's Russia has always been clear that he supports the regime of President Assad.  We can sense though, that some European leaders are also moving in that direction.  The problem for the Europeans is that they have been very publicly strident in their condemnation of Assad.  They have repeatedly said, that Assad must go and they wouldn't talk to him.

Finally, however, these leaders are recognising that Assad has to play a part in the process.  This dawning of reality, however odious it might seem (and do listen out for the knee-jerk shrieks of horror from the liberal media), also finally moves the focus very strongly onto how to eliminate Daesh (ISIS).

Russia is calling for coordination of the military effort and, if only to avoid a potential clash between East and West forces, this really has to happen.  France has now commenced air operations against Daesh, in Syria - having earlier said that such actions would be illegal!  Seems like President Hollande is putting socialist rhetoric behind realpolitik in the pecking order.  UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, is expected to bring a motion before parliament, within the coming weeks, seeking parliamentary approval for the UK to join in the bombing of Daesh targets in Syria.  If Germany can pull itself away from the silly Volkswagen matter, then they too might participate.

This coalescing towards a coordinated and focused attack on Daesh can have a number of positive effects.

Firstly, this should allow for the creation of a series of safe zones within Syria, protected by the air power available.

Secondly, this will then provide a reason to halt the flood of migrants that have been leaving Syria.  For this, real assistance, rather than just score settling with Turkish Kurds, will be need to be demanded from Turkey.  Demanded because Turkey has, throughout the whole sorry story, served only its own interests.  Indeed, it is clear that Turkey, led by the strongly Islamic Erdogan, has allowed for a significant destabilisation of its neighbours and the EU.

Thirdly, this will take the fight to Daesh.  It is clear that the Syrians do not have the capability to eliminate them.  It is equally clear that the Iraqi army does not have the stomach for a fight against Daesh.  They have very little to no support amongst Sunni Iraqis.  Their Shia militias are simply lawless and, not too different from Daesh in how they subjugate the areas they occupy.  Their Iranian allies, seem more interested in colonizing the south of Iraq than in taking on Daesh.  The Kurdish Peshmerga can, and do, hold the line against Daesh but they are poorly armed and, due to Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian pressure, the West have produced very feeble support and materiel, so the Peshmerga are being under-used.

The issue of who succeeds Assad needn't concern us, at this point.  He is very weakened and whatever the outcome, cannot survive in the medium term.  This does not mean that Syria, free  of Daesh, will become a democracy post-Assad.  One has to question whether or not, the imposition of Western style democracy is suited for some countries, including Syria.  The Syrian civil war was a direct outcome of the so called Arab Spring.  This 'flowering' of people power has led to absolute chaos in Libya, an effective military dictatorship in Egypt (no realm change there!) and a loosening of control in Tunisia, following the ousting of long-term President Ben Ali, such that Islamic terror can stalk their tourist resorts, killing at will.

So change is coming to the Syria conflict and this will create some strange bed-fellows but the West, if Obama and Kerry's naivete  can be sidelined, has an opportunity to eliminate Daesh and then to eliminate Al Qaeda in Syria (though doing the latter might just create a vacuum for Hezbollah to fill). Now therefore, is the time for Cameron and Hollande to show backbone and stand-up to this lame-duck US President and his court-jester Secretary of State.  Who knows, they might even get some trade-off, from Russia, relative to Ukraine.

Europe's refugee crisis

This blog is principally addressed to most politicians and those in the West who have been emotionally moved by the TV pictures of the so called ‘refugees’ now invading Europe. 

I must declare an interest.  I too was moved by the pictures of the dead child, lying in the gently lapping surf.   I did though have a slightly different take on this.  Like many people, I was angry.  Such a waste of a young life and what a way to die!  However, my anger was directed towards the child’s father.  Why would this father take his child from the safety of Turkey and risk himself and his family’s lives by taking them on board a flimsy boat, heading in the direction of Greece?  I fully understand why the father took his family out of Syria, though since he apparently came from Kobane, which is now controlled by Syrian Kurds, one has to wonder a little.  

However, this father and his family were in Turkey.  So why did the father take the risk?  Why are all of those politicians who emote so on TV, wringing tears and their hands on rolling news programmes, not asking what caused this man to act, as he did? 

If he was genuinely at risk in Turkey then why is this not being addressed?  He is a Kurd and Turkey has a long-standing and very active antipathy towards Kurds.  Was that his reasoning?  I can’t think of any other.  If Twitter is to be believed though, this family had remained in Turkey, for some considerable time, between fleeing Kobane and then moving on, which raises other questions about the level of fear and its immanency. 

So why then don’t Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and others punish Turkey for this climate of fear that causes people to flee from a supposedly safe country?    Where are the politicians that are condemning Turkey?   Leave aside for a moment, Turkey using the guise of attacks against Daesh to launch brutal attacks on PKK Kurds and Iraqi Kurds  who themselves are fighting Daesh.  Where is President Obama taking Turkey to task?  Search the internet and see if you can find speeches railing against Turkey’s actions, from any Western leader.

So I come back to why the father took the known risk of moving his family out of Turkey and, let’s assume he thought it best, given the ‘persecution’ in Turkey.  Why then not head towards Armenia or Georgia, or take an overland route to Greece?  Why not throw themselves on the mercy of Saudi Arabia or the UAE or Qatar – why not invade their embassies in Ankara?  These countries share religion and other cultural ties, which would help the family to better assimilate.  Of course, there are far less ‘bleeding hearts’ in those countries, which may have coloured his judgement, but surely the safety of his family would come first?

Moving on from this particular family and the tragic outcome of this man’s decision, we then come to the farce that is the European Union.  I use the word farce, though in truth, there is nothing remotely funny about what is going on – please excuse my use but I cannot think of another that captures the idiocy and hypocrisy that is now on display.

The unelected President of the European Commission – Jean-Claude Juncker thinks that all EU members should take a share of up to 160,000 refugees, this year.  The quotas would be based on GDP  and other criteria.  Britain, Ireland and Denmark would be exempt from these ‘compulsory’ quotas because they have opt-outs under EU treaties.   It is not clear how this number marries up with Angela Merkel’s seeming acceptance of Germany taking in 800,000 refugees, this year. 

Mrs Merkel ‘s decision has been likened on Twitter, to those naïve teenagers who put a note on social media saying ‘party at my house’ and then are shocked to see that in addition to those they want to attend, they find their parent’s house being overrun by ‘gate crashers’ and being trashed by these people.  What seemed at first like a good idea, shows, in the cold light of morning a harsh reality. 

This though is a reality that has far and deep consequences for the whole of Europe. 

These ‘refugees’ are not some kind of homogenous group, fleeing war in Syria.  As others have said, included under this umbrella are economic migrants.  Also, we can clearly expect that Daesh will use this opportunity to infiltrate murderers into our midst.

Worryingly, these ‘refugees’ all seem to seek residency.  That is, they want to become permanent residents.  The assumption must be that were peace to suddenly descend upon Syria, they would not return.  Once they get into Europe, they stay in Europe.  And why wouldn’t they?  It isn’t as if, like with prior migrations, they are obliged to assimilate.  They can maintain, indeed, they are very actively and positively encouraged to maintain, their own separate cultural identity.  So they have many of the ‘benefits’ of their homeland, none of the drawbacks and they enjoy the fruits of a much better economic position.   Why would they ever return? 

Make no mistake, this migration is an invasion.  An alien culture is being foisted upon Europe’s peoples.   And this does affect all of the EU countries.  Once these ‘refugees’ become citizens of Germany, they have completely free movement and can go and work and live in any member state.  They can also claim welfare benefits just as if they were a local national resident.

Europeans, including countries like the UK, should not be relaxed about this.  Just because they are not opening their flood gates to a new wave of immigrants (some would say they are already wide open, anyway!), does not mean they will not be affected.  They will.  Denmark can close it’s rail links with Germany, in an effort to stop the tide but like that old Viking, King Cnut, they are wasting their time. 

Europe’s people need to stop and think.  It is no good depending upon politicians to solve this.  Do that and you get fools like Merkel and Juncker making their statements and other politicians sucking up to the liberal left and luvvies in the media.  People that never have to live with or be exposed to the consequences of their actions, on a day to day basis. 

I have a proposal for any of those media people or fools who say that they will take in a refugee family.  Will you do so, on the basis that you personally accept full economic responsibility for these people and all of their offspring, in perpetuity?   You will continue to house them, feed them, pay for schooling for them, pay for medical care for them and so on and on?  Not just today or tomorrow but for ever?  If not, why should any tax payer accept such responsibility so that you can salve your conscience and feel good at the next meeting of friends.  Can you look your children in the eye and convince them that their economic future will not be threatened by you taking on the economic burden of another family?

Of course, the reality is that caring for these refugees is about more than just passing over last season’s coats or putting a temporary roof over the head of a refugee family.  This is a long term undertaking.  Individual people doing this are grossly irresponsible.  They know that their involvement will always be short term.  They know that the burden, the true burden will be borne by the tax payer and society at large. 

What is there to suggest that these refugees have the economic resources to house and feed  themselves in the host country?  What is there to suggest that these people, many coming from an agricultural background, will find work?  Indeed, in a Europe that has very poor or non-existent economic growth,  where are the jobs to come from?  Juncker’s afore-mentioned plan calls for Spain to take a large part of the 160,000 compulsory quota.  Spain with youth unemployment at almost 50%! What is there to suggest that these people can pay for healthcare for themselves and their family? Or for education?

Consdider Britain (though most other countries would be equally applicable).  Does anyone believe that Britain has spare social housing?  Has, even with a growing economy, many spare jobs (particularly in the agricultural sector).  That the NHS isn’t already stretched and that schools have lots of free places? 

The reality is that any housing for these refugees will come from the private sector and will be funded by the tax payer.  The reality is that these refugees will not be able to find work or, if they do, will displace local nationals and so welfare payments will increase.  The reality is that the NHS will become more and more of a failure because it simply can’t cope.  The reality is that school class sizes will be increased and education outcomes will suffer.  And all of this with a further erosion of cultural traditions.  Trust me, it is not in the British tradition, to execute a serving British soldier on the streets of the country’s capital, by seeking to cut off his head.  Nor is it to mutilate young women or to blow-up fellow citizens (the murderous IRA, notwithstanding).

So I ask my readers, when you see the heart-string tugging pictures on TV or hear people prattling on about ‘we need to do something’ ask them  how much they are prepared to pay and how much they are prepared to give-up – not just money or material goods but also long-held freedoms and traditions. 

There was a very successful campaign against people giving a dog as a Christmas present.  The tag line was ‘A dog is for life not just for Christmas’  The way we now act, the phrase could be changed to ‘A refugee is for life not just for Christmas!’

What does the USA get out of Syria intervention

What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?

Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?

Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help?  These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values.  Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria.  There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks.  These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy.  The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban.  Is this really what America wants?

Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so.  How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance?  Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it?  Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away?  How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?

What is the end game here?  Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.

The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected.  The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.

In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels.  The upshot?  The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed.  Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country. 

The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing.  The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability.  Does Obama hate Israel that much?

And then there is Turkey.  Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted.  Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.

Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong.  You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted.  Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week.  The French were saying these weeks ago.  OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ...   Or is that just me being cynical?
 

France and Turkey

So typically French!
French MPs are pushing a bill which would criminalise the denying of an alleged/disputed genocide of Armenians in 1915/16.

Ask yourself this.

If you were a French MP, what would be your top priority as you head into 2012?
Tackling the Euro Crisis?
Addressing the structural deficit in the French economy?
Wondering how to reduce French bank sovereign debt exposure 
Attacking the British?
Continuing to alienate a faithful ally like Turkey?

Okay, since you are pretending to be French, you can have two priorities.

If you are doing it right, neither of your priorities relate to the Euro crisis or the French economy.

If you didn't get it right, then in time-honoured EU tradition, you can have another vote and keep on doing so, until you get it right.  Bien? 

Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.