Treachery from No. 10

Some might say that treachery is too harsh a word but I use this with intent.  The dictionary definitions all talk about betrayal of trust, deception, disloyalty and bad faith.  That seems to be a clear description of what has just transpired in London.

Charitably, we might say that the treachery came from over-zealous Number 10 speechwriters though I am minded to think that the words were all pre-approved by David Cameron, himself.

From Barack Obama, I didn’t expect anything positive.  Nothing to represent the wishes of the people of Britain.  After all, he is a strong proponent of the elite running the world rather than the voice of the people being heard.  Consider how he ignores the wishes of the American people and tries to rule by ‘Executive Order’ like a latter-day emperor.  I have long suspected Obama of being anti-British and his latest statements support my belief. 

I suppose he was influenced by his Kenyan father.  An awful lot of Africans raised in the colonial era, turned to the left for their political teaching and sought to blame their previous colonial  for the ills that befell their country, especially, post-independence.  It never occurs, to these people that having now enjoyed independence for 50+ years the mess that their countries are in, can be traced back to the imposition of left-wing ideologies that were not suited to Africa and, being left-wing, were always doomed to failure. 

But I digress.

Obama’s words and particularly the use of the British word ‘queue’, instead of the American ‘line’  are redolent of Cameron’s Project Fear team.  Number 10’s fingerprints are all over Obama’s threat to put a UK trade deal at the back of the line.  This man talks of a ‘special relationship’ and then threatens?  That is not the tone that Americans use, when talking to friends.  Obama’s words shame Americans. 

That won’t come as a surprise to many right-thinking Americans.  The Nobel Peace prize winner has a highly vindictive streak which he has displayed on many occasions, though mostly to his domestic ‘enemies’ (those who dare to disagree with the sainted Barack).

So back to Project Fear.

As has been said before, without a trade deal, UK exports to, and imports from, the US would be subject, under World Trade Organisation tariffs, to rates of 0-4%.  Hardly significant.  Indeed, one might wonder why we would even bother with a trade agreement.  But think of this another way, too.  The UK is the 5^th largest export market for the USA.  Exports total $56.4 billion or 3.8% of total US exports.  Germany represents a $49.9 billion market for American goods or 3.3% of total.  However, the UK exports $58.8 billion to the USA or 2.5% of US imports.  Germany, on the other hand exports $126.5 billion to the USA.  So the UK has a miniscule trade surplus with the USA of $2.4 billion while Germany has a surplus of $76.6 billion.  Put another way, British and American workers benefit, just about equally from the trade between the two countries, however, American workers are severely disadvantaged by the heavy trade imbalance it has with Germany.

Many people who voted Conservative in the May 2015 General Election, will have done so because they trusted the Tories.  They trusted their economic competence, probably above all else.  However,  I am sure that many didn’t migrate in droves to UKIP because they saw that only the Conservatives could actually deliver a referendum on EU membership.  At the same time, they would have expected that when the choice was presented to the British people, then something approaching fair play, would be deployed. 

Instead, we are seeing more and more dirty tricks being used.  Obama’s threat is just the latest in a long line of statements and half truths and out-right lies that are being pedalled by the Remain campaign. 

So let’s be clear, since we are talking about trade and I apologise to regular readers, for having to repeat it. 

Without a formal trade treaty , WTO tariffs apply and these range from 0-4%.

Remainians need to explain why, Germany and France, indeed the  whole EU would not seek to swiftly conclude a trade deal with an independent-again UK.  The UK represents a very large existing export market  for both of those countries.  Who, in their right mind (so that caveat probably excludes the In crowd) would throw away such an advantage?  You will have seen French farmers protesting, in the past and seen how disruptive they are.  Imagine the protests when a major market becomes shut to them, because of a fit of pique from the Eurocrats in Brussels.

The big issue with trade isn’t that a treaty couldn’t be concluded, within the self-imposed 2 year time-frame.  The big issue is why, no preliminary steps are being taken on this matter.  I know that some might say ‘well if we vote to remain, then we will have wasted money’ but please – suddenly we are worried about government waste?  What about flipping that on its head and saying that any prudent government has a duty to consider and plan for all possible outcomes. Instead of Cameron stacking the deck against a Leave vote and seconding civil servants to the In campaign, resources should be assigned to the ‘what if’ camp.  As in ‘what if the UK votes to regain its independence, what are the implications and what do we do’?

Obama has failed in the USA – he has spent the best part of eight years, creating division in America.  Destroying the US economy, politicising appointments and public discourse, like no other President before him.  That is the ‘legacy’ for which he will be remembered.  Fortunately, his term of office has less than a year to run.  You will have noted though, his presumption that even out of office, he can dictate that any UK treaty request will be ‘back of the queue’.  At least he thinks he can.  The problem with jumped-up emperors is that they start to believe their own narrative – there is no delusion like self-delusion.

So Obama’s threat is anyway empty.  It is unbecoming America but there you go.

The treachery from Number 10 is far worse though.  Many Conservatives will struggle to forgive the badly-advised Cameron.  He has said he will resign as PM before the next election – no doubt in time (if he delivers an In vote) to take-up his reward as the next EU President!.  The prospects for George Osborne to succeed him are fading fast.  Theresa May and Philip Hammond too.   Maybe Boris Johnson will get the nod from the Conservative Party, though I wouldn’t discount Michael Gove’s chances.

My advice to Conservative voters, in the upcoming local elections is don’t vote or vote UKIP.  Cameron and his clique do not represent Conservative values and, just as importantly, don’t listen to those that do.  Their actions, since before the launch of the official EU Referendum campaigns has been all about doing what is right for themselves and not doing what is right for the country.  The negotiations were a farce, from start to finish.  The end result? A worthless document that was being rubbished before the press release was even wet off the presses.  And has continued to be down-played by the EU elite, ever since.  You would know this if the UK media hadn’t already bought into Cameron’s lies and deceit, from day one.

The treachery of Cameron and Co. cannot go unpunished.  Patriots who have faith in the UK to stand as an independent nation, as we have done so for so much of our history, only have their vote with which to punish Cameron.  Use it wisely and vote Brexit.  And it wouldn’t be a bad thing to give them a hammering at the local elections, either!

Britain and Labour's shame

This isn't about the home teams' poor performance in the Rugby World Cup.   Sadly, this is a comment on the abject state of Britain's policy of appeasement and cowardice in the face of radical Islam.

The UK parliament will, at some point in the near future, vote on the UK military taking part in a coalition of countries fighting against Daesh in Syria.  The Labour party are still considering their position but their leader seems to be fundamentally opposed to any military action, whatsoever.  The Conservative leader, Prime Minister David Cameron, had his nose bloodied a couple of years ago and now wants to have a vote that produces an overwhelming majority in favour of action.  The Scottish Nationalists have yet to settle on their position but have previously been against intervention.

Bear in mind that what will be voted upon, is intervention in Syria.  The UK is already contributing, albeit very half-heartedly, in the fight against Daesh, in Iraq.  Think about that, for a moment.  You are a Royal Air Force bomber pilot about to bomb a target close to the Syria-Iraq border, but since the border is really just a line on a map, do you bomb a Daesh convoy or do you return to base?  Do you just bomb the ones you are fairly sure are on the Iraqi side and let the others close to the border proceed or what?  Do you worry that the ones you didn't bomb are now free to go off and enslave and kill people who aren't members of the Daesh death cult?  Do you think about the fact that liberal 'desk-jockeys' back in the comfort of the Ministry of Defence, in London, will, after the event sit in judgement over you and, like Sergeant Al Blackman (so called Marine A) you could end up in jail?  Do you maybe think that it would be far easier to have a leader like President Obama, who is severely restraining the USAF's bombing missions and so taking away the need to make such decisions (even though America could bomb, both sides of the border)?   Do you think that a leader like Russia's President Putin would be better - he seems to be okay with bombing and doesn't respect borders (see Ukraine) but does seem more interested in bombing anti-Assad forces, than Daesh.  Do you have time for all this thinking?

But I digress!

As said earlier, Britain's parliament will vote, in the near future.  The vote has been mooted for some time but Cameron has been postponing it because he couldn't be sure of winning it - even though the Conservatives have a parliamentary majority.  With the recent unanimous UN Security Council vote, he will perhaps feel more confident of getting wavering Labour supporters.

Labour is now led by Jeremy Corbyn and in the past he has shown very strong support for the murderous Provisional IRA terrorists as well as the terrorist Hamas organisation, so he is perhaps conflicted about taking on another terrorist organisation?  Certainly his reaction  to the death of Jihadi John - he thought it would have been better if he had been brought to justice - was typical Corbyn, since only 'boots on the ground' (something Corbyn opposes) could capture Jihadi John!  I expect that a vote when it comes, will produce the largest rebellion against Corbyn's leadership, because he will oppose a vote calling for escalation against Daesh and many of his backbenchers will not support him.

The SNP are struggling to find a way to make themselves relevant, at Westminster and only manage by performing stunts, so they may oppose, en bloc.  They are saying they will hear what the government has to argue and then decide but my sense is that they instinctively oppose the Conservatives, just on principle.

What most bothers me about all of this, is the moral vacuum in which the UK, finds itself.  We seem to be okay with others doing our fighting for us.  We accept Russian pilots putting their lives on the line, to bomb Daesh and therefore remove people that might come to the UK and kill and terrorise us but we won't fight.  That is shaming!  I don't believe that there is any cowardice on the part of the UK's military but it is certainly being exhibited by UK politicians!

These same UK politicians have seen the failure of multi-culturalism and yet continue to appease Islam.  They bend the knee to the terrorist supporting Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Iran so it is no surprise that they are unable to see a clear way out of the moral dilemma in which they have cornered themselves.

They are starting to consider that maybe, just maybe, opening the doors to the so called 'refugees' currently invading Europe isn't the best way to solve the Syrian civil war.  Especially with so many potential terrorists coming in, at the same time.  Certainly the opinion of the British public is moving very decisively away from accepting 'refugees' - post-Paris, while at the same time, majority opinion is still in favour of the RAF taking part in air strikes on Daesh.

I posted recently calling on the forces of good, to carpet bomb Raqqa and I repeat that.  Daesh need to be eradicated.  The fools in the corridors of power, in Westminster, the White House and elsewhere need to understand that there can be no negotiations or discussions with this death cult.  Daesh are interested only in killing people that do not follow their version of Islam - those UK Labour people who think that a political deal can be reached with Daesh are the same kind of fools that led to the belief that it was possible to do a deal with Hitler, in the 1930s.

Cameron must call the vote, early next week and expose Labour and the SNP for what at best might be called naivete and at worse, political opportunism.

Oh! And the vote should not be just for air strikes.  It should be for all military options.


    

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!’