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.

I have faith in the UK - do you?

This isn't a blog on religious belief.  I am sure it wouldn't deter some readers, if it were but some don't follow.

No, this is about having faith in something a bit more tangible - the United Kingdom.

I have lost track of the number of times, I have heard the 'Remainians' (the name given to those who want Britain to remain in the EU) say that a vote for Britain to regain its independence would be a 'leap in the dark'.  If I think of such an important vote as a leap, I prefer to consider it as a leap of faith.

I have faith in the United Kingdom.

I have faith that the UK can regain control of its democracy, which for many years has been constantly undermined by membership of the European Union.  For many European countries, democracy is a relatively new phenomenon but not for the UK.  The largest constituent of the UK, England, has enjoyed differing levels of representative democracy for more than a thousand years.  It is a system, from which other countries have also benefited, particularly those in the so called, Anglosphere.  Countries such as the USA, Canada, Australia, Ireland and India, for example.

I have faith that the UK will be able to enjoy a thriving economy.  The UK has always been a trading nation and we continue to be so.  As the economies of the EU, and particularly the Euro-zone, have stuttered and stagnated over recent years, Britain has been slowly re-connecting with the rest of the world outside the EU.   The Remainians  emphasise that the EU is a market place of 500 million people.  No doubt that is true.  Remember though that there are 6.5 billion people outside of the EU. To save you doing the maths, that is 13 times more people outside the EU, than are in it.

Not that we would automatically lose access to the EU, were the British to leave.

Forget Project Fear with their talk about '3 million UK jobs are dependent on the EU'.  The number of 3 million has been found to be a highly dubious extrapolation from old data but mainly remember that whatever the number of jobs, these are dependent on trade with the EU, not the EU itself.  There is no logical reason why trade between a free UK and the EU, should be reduced.  Yes Britain would need to conclude a trade treaty with the EU and of course this could very easily be concluded within a very short space of time.  The template for this already exists.  It is the way that trade is already conducted between the UK and its EU partners.  All that is needed is for that to be converted into legislation.  However, also don't forget that failing that, the tariff rates that would otherwise prevail would be those from the World Trade Organisation.  These WTO rates are in the range of 2-4% - so hardly likely to lead to a massive change in trade relationships.  I also have faith that EU businessmen will pressure their own political leaders to quickly conclude a trade treaty with a now free United Kingdom.  Given that the rest of the EU enjoys a significant trade surplus with the UK, does anyone seriously believe that these countries would not treat with a free UK so as to retain such a beneficial commercial relationship?

I have faith that those in power in a free UK and those in the EU and in the rest of Europe, will continue to see the benefits of cooperation on security issues.  In this interconnected world, all governments need to cooperate and share information on security issues.  It defies logic and common sense to think that a vote for Brexit, would then mean that Britain doesn't share information that it gathers from GCHQ or other assets, with other members of Europol.  The same applies reciprocally to the security services of other European countries.

I have faith that freed from making a net contribution of at least £10 billion a year to the EU budget (the amount is sometimes quoted as more than £20 billion but I have taken the lowest number, on which there seems to be no dispute), the money can be better and more efficiently spent in the UK.  I am certainly right to have faith that the funds, when they remain in the UK, will be properly accounted for.  The same can never be said of the EU.  To me, the fact that the accounts of the EU have not been signed-off by auditors for the last 19 years speaks to at best, an extremely inefficient organisation and at worst, an organisation that is riven through with corruption and mis-spending.

I have faith that freed from the protectionist policies of the EU, the UK will be able to support developing country economies by buying their agricultural products.  The EU Common Agricultural Policy has a terrible effect on the economies of these developing countries.  One has to wonder just how many of the economic migrants from Africa now flooding into Europe are doing so because they cannot make a living at home, as a result of the trade barriers that the EU puts in front of the exports from their home countries.  This isn't fiction, just because it sounds like it, the  EU imposes trade barriers on agricultural imports from third world countries and then turns around gives aid to those very countries.   Sounds like economic colonialism to me but we hear not a peep from the 'Left' in the EU.

A British actress was recently quoted describing Great Britain as a 'cake-filled, misery laden, grey old island'.  Since I am not a 'lefty' I don't subscribe to the self-loathing to which socialists and communists are prone.  Cake-filled?  Really don't understand that - certainly don't understand how Britain is any more 'cake-filled' than say Austria with its delicious sachertorte or a tredlnik from the Czech republic - such a strange, weird statement.  Misery laden?  Hmm, the actress was speaking in Germany, which ranked at 26th place, according to the 2015 Happiness Index, ranks behind the UK which is in 21st place.  Grey? Maybe she should get out of her tinted-windows limousine and see the colours of Britain.  There are some grim colourless parts of the UK, just as there are, in so many other countries, around the world but look at the variety of colour that extends across the British countryside and call that grey!  Old island - yes, she is right on this.  We are an old island and an old democracy as well but that hasn't stopped our country turning out giants of industry, letters and arts, science and philosophy and politics.  I have faith that we will continue to do so.

It is probably old fashioned to say this but I share my faith in the United Kingdom, with previous leaders of this country.  I share it with Winston Churchill who, in 1940, when Britain stood alone against the Nazis, had faith in the British people and had faith that our British values of decency and democracy would prevail against the evil National Socialism of Hitler.
  
Join me, take a leap and have faith in Britain - Vote Leave!

Be afraid !

Reports from Tripoli, Libya state that eleven commercial airplanes have been stolen.  At any time, knowing of such a theft in what is effectively a failed state,  would be worrying, however, coming so close to the 9/11 anniversary, this must be considered very concerning.

Of course the principal targets would likely be Western - so mainly US, UK or French interests but Egypt and Israel can't sleep easy, knowing of this theft, either.  Neither can Baghdad, Tehran or Jeddah be off their guard.  It is not known which of the multiple terror organisations or militias have taken these planes so the targets are unknown.  Given the random nature of the mindless violence that terrorists visit upon people, maybe knowing which group stole what plane might not even make any difference! 

There remains the possibility that these planes were stolen for the reasons usually given for thievery - I saw it there and thought I could steal it and sell it to feed my drug habit, or something like that - but I just don't see this as a crime of opportunity!  11 trained pilots and probably co-pilots and navigators just happen to be passing Tripoli airport during a battle between two factions and decide ' Hey, while all this is going on, why don't we steal those planes and then fence them, later on?  Yes, of course they are fueled and ready, let's go!

This issue is very worrying on two counts. 

The act itself leaves many of us and our loved ones, vulnerable to the actions of madmen who seem to think human life of little or no value.  People who would fly a plane into a building and not be worried about the ensuing death.

Equally concerning though, is the lack of any noise or activity from the media.  I know that the American MSM try to avoid all Libya stories because, whisper it very quietly, that is kind of, like, Benghazi territory and no one can speak of that, lest it tarnish the reputation of the sainted Obama and blessed Hillary!  But hey!  There are eleven commercial passenger planes missing and there is every likelihood that these are now in the hands of terrorists.  That should really concern us all and all of the posturing that is coming and to come from the NATO summit, will mean nothing if these planes are flown against civilian targets.

We face a more than usual uncertain future until this risk is eliminated.

Syria - The Vote! Questions for the Syrian opposition.

Well done to the UK Parliament! 

The opposition of the Labour Party to the UK Coalition government's motion was entirely predictable.  Though the performance of Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, lacked any passion and consisted of more froth than a bad latte! 

What was very encouraging, indeed heartening, was the 30 Tory MPs that voted against their own government.  And, to be fair,the 9 Lib Dem MPs who did the same.

Here is my 'take' on Syria and those chemical weapon attacks.

At best the House of Commons vote was premature.  The UN inspection team has not yet reported on the latest attacks but the UK and US government have both jumped-in and stated that they know this is the work of the Assad regime. 

Consider though, what did the Assad regime have to gain by such an action?  By most accounts, the regime were in the ascendancy in the civil war.  The fractious 'rebels' had been indulging in internecine squabbling and murder within the areas that they controlled and their lack of a serious 'government in waiting' (more in a moment on this) as well as seeming, at times, more focused on gaining localised advantages (see the stories about the attacks on Syria's non-Shiite people) rather than on regime change surely must put on the table the possibility that it was the 'rebels' that carried out the attacks. 

Just think about it!  They are losing.  They have heard the ever more foolish Obama speak of 'red lines', they have heard France's Hollande and Britain's Cameron and Hague talk of the need to stop the carnage caused by the Assad regime (the deaths caused by the 'rebels' somehow are always overlooked), so what to do?  How about finding a means to convince the world that the 'red lines' have been crossed?  A way to suck in the media obsessed Obama with shots of children, suffering hideously, on TV

In a dirty war such as Syria, no bets are off of the table.  And frankly, I would be very sceptical of any evidence produced by either side or the UN.  Everything is tainted. 

The 'rebels', heavily infiltrated by Al Qaeda, know the value of dragging-in the 'West', both in the short term by bolstering their own failing military efforts and in the medium/longer term in showing the 'infidel West' as forever interfering in the region and pursuing a pro-Israel policy etc.. 

The Assad regime is of course, beyond the Pale.  Their subjugation of their own people and inhumane treatment, has been going on for years though.  David Cameron alleges that this latest chemical attack was number eleven, by the Syrian government, on its own people.  So why did the previous ten  attacks not warrant action or comment? 

I don't have the 'answer' to Syria but I do believe that military intervention by the 'West' will be akin to pouring petrol onto a fire rather than water. 

The 'water' needed must come from the Russian inspired political process which seeks to get people talking rather than killing.  It is galling that the odious Putin is leading the right way for a resolution!  That though is one outcome of Syria.  Strange bed-fellows abound.  Just look at the Syrian 'rebels'.  This includes people and groups who have a long history of opposition to Assad and to his father, before him.  Then you have the allegedly religiously inspired jihadists who are happy to latch on to any cause that promotes their ideal of foment and religious cleansing as well as an anti-West agenda.  These groups include Al Qaeda and its affiliates.  However, this opposition is fractured and is struggling to come together to present a united front and to coalesce around an agreed negotiating team and policy.  Exactly what do the 'rebels' want?  Obviously, the overthrow of Assad but then?  

So Obama feeds those 'conspiracy nuts' by allying the US with a group that includes the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks!   Allowing the likes of the, surely certifiably mad, British MP George Galloway, to make mendacious statements which nevertheless have a patina of plausibility.  And all the time, Obama, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is preparing for war - and make no mistake, the USA unilaterally attacking Syria, will be a declaration of war, there will be no cover of a UN resolution, no 'coalition of the willing', indeed, since Obama isn't even consulting the US Congress, no local democratic mandate.

I find it incredibly ironic that the Nobel Committee manages to give the Peace Prize to both Obama and later the European Union and both are increasingly belligerent as regards Syria.  To say the prize is devalued by such is to forget that Yasser Arafat was also a recipient!

So 'jaw jaw not war war' wins the day in the UK.  And, at a fundamental level, despite David Cameron's short term 'discomfort' (as it will be portrayed by the Labour Party and their media allies), democracy, in the UK is stronger today!

Well done to the Thirty and the Nine!

Incidentally, opinion polls suggested that public support for military intervention, in both the UK and USA was found to be 11%

Over to you, President Obama and the US Congress!

The 100 Billion Euro gamble

The Spanish economy ministry spokesperson was saying on Friday, that she had no knowledge that Spain would be seeking a bailout or loan or whatever is the current terminology.  There's being out of the loop and then there's ......   No matter.  I don't think anyone took her seriously.

So, now Spain has taken the plunge and gone to its Euro-zone partners for money.  It's not clear who will provide this or how.  Will the European Central Bank simply print yet more money? Will funds be transferred (surreptitiously, of course) from Germany via some new stability mechanism that joins the growing lexicon of acronyms beginning with E for Euro and containing S for stability (I kid not) and F for fund? 

At what point does this drip feed of very large amounts come to be seen as undermining the currency itself?  We are already seeing a devaluation in the Euro (coincidentally, this helps the strong German manufacturing sector a lot!!) but what happens when the financiers (bankers, by another name but don't frighten the children!) look at the sustainability of all this?  Italy will be lining up next and I keep wondering if 100 Billion is enough for Spain.  They could maybe come back for more?

Who knows how they will handle this 100 Billion?  Re-capitalise their over-extended banking system?  Does that mean the Spanish state takes stakes?  So we end up with largely nationalised banks?  Including all those local 'cajas'?  That will go down well with all those crazy autonomists in the regions.  These are the same crazies that build airports that no one needs and no planes land at and build arts centres that no one visits.  We have seen such craziness of large vanity projects in Africa for years, maybe the geographic proximity caused the disease to spread?

Why a gamble?
Well what if it isn't enough?  The 'independent audit' of the Spanish banks is not yet complete.  As said earlier, how much is slated to bail out the Regions?  Benefits for the more than 25% unemployment place an increasing burden on the Spanish budget.  If it isn't enough, and Spain comes back to the market to borrow again (maybe just to roll-over existing debt) - look out - Financiers (see you're getting the hang of this) can smell blood better than any shark!

We can expect to see some temporary respite from the recent market turmoils but this 'deal' is very light on details and those pesky financiers just love small print!  They will want to know where the money is coming from and how and for what is it being used.

Oh, and ask yourself again, who, among those poor taxpayers that will be contributing the 100 Billion have been consulted?  Democratic deficit doesn't really come close.  I just hope this is funded by the Eurozone and the UK can keep out and not get dragged in as part of some IMF 'contribution'. 

Watch this space!

Can Scots count and/or consider?

In respect of the subject of Scottish Independence, a consultation exercise was launched by the UK Government.  Presumably on the basis that this being a subject the power over which is reserved to Westminster.

At the same time, the Scottish Parliament initiated a consultation exercise.  Presumably because Alex Salmond and the SNP thought they should have some say.  Or perhaps this was just an exercise in more mischief making?

Anyway, the exercise by the UK government ended in March and the results have been analyzed and issued.

The Scottish Parliament consultation ends in May 2012 and unbelievably it will then take 4 months for the underwhelming volume of responses to be counted and analyzed.

• We know that the Scots can count.
 

• We know that they can read

• We know, from history, that they can analyze data

So, why will it take four months?

Okay, so part of the time will be spent eliminating the comments of Anonymous  responders.  These were not allowed under the UK consultation as this could open the way to abuse and an unreflective view.  Belatedly, the Scottish Government agreed to eliminate these 'anon' responses amid accusations of such abuse and possible multiple responses by over-zealous Nationalists.  I know such abuse couldn't happen but better to be safe than sorry!

The total level of responses, including 'anons', is so far around 12,000.  Let's say that in the remaining 6 weeks or so, this gets a spurt on and the number rises to 50,000 or Scotland goes consultation-crazy and there are 100,000 responses, surely, these could be counted and analyzed within a month?

One gets the idea, that this is yet another delaying tactic from Alex Salmond to delay the question being posed until it meets a timeline that the SNP are pushing.

Time then for the UK Government to intervene.  After all, only Westminster has the actual legal authority to initiate a referendum.  Indeed, if they did so swiftly, they could save the Scottish people the unlikely to be inexpensive cost of this 'counting exercise'  which we are told will be contracted out.

I have yet to hear from any supporter of the SNP, any valid reason why, it takes less than 5 months to establish the rules for a referendum on the Scottish Parliament and conduct the exercise and then the count yet, the SNP, a party that has been craving a vote on Scottish independence for 40+ yeas (maybe longer), is so unprepared for it, that they want to wait 30 months before asking the people of Scotland.

Abu Qatada - Solutions

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Abu Qatada cannot be deported from the UK because 'information, probably, obtained under torture' will be used against him, if he is re-tried, for terrorism offences, in Jordan, where he was already tried and found guilty, in-absentia, for terrorist offences.

Some ways forward

The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation.

So the UK can obtain such an assurance and deport him.

Or

The UK can arrest him based on his seemingly inciting comments made in the past and then deport him based on these?

Or

The UK can put him on a plane to Jordan and then face whatever censure the European Court imposes and either settle or pay any fines or tell the European Court that we simply don't recognise this judgement as it goes against our sovereign rights.  End of!

Or
The UK can put him on a plane to Israel or Palestine and let him go to Bethlehem, which is his birthplace (and isn't in Jordan!)

Or
I don't suppose we could request the countries of the judges that passed this ruling, to take their turn to house him and his family, in their country? 

Whatever,

Abu Qatada and his stated dependents must be denied any and all UK state support - no welfare benefits, no legal aid, NOTHING

If Abu Qatada is released into the UK community, then place him under 24/7 surveillance and overtly so.  Have uniformed officers follow him and his family at every turn and be positioned outside his home all the time.  Also,  have his telephones and Internet monitored and require cell phone companies to turn-over details of all calls he receives.

We must make life extremely difficult for the man that former Home Secretary, David Blunkett describes as 'extremely dangerous'.


Immediately deport all other terrorist suspects who have appeals to the Law Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.  Then deal with the consequences - what will the Law Lords or ECHR do, send in their troops?  Tell them to go to the hell where these terrorists will end up!  This shouldn't be a party political issue.  This is about common sense and decency versus the liberals and legal establishment that have no concept of how their weaknesses imperil our country.

Scotland and Independence

Some of you will have read my previous posts about the fear that surrounds Alex Salmond and the SNP,  (fear of calling a referendum) and their trying to squeeze ever more concessions out of the UK government.  This on top of the excessive funding that Scotland already receives.

Well, seems like someone is finally listening.  The timing of the referendum is being discussed by the UK government as well as the question to be posed.

Salmond and Co. want a three choice option.  Something like:

Do you want complete independence for Scotland and a break with the United Kingdom or do you want greater powers for the Scottish Assembly?

• Yes, complete independence
• No, remain part of the United Kingdom
• Greater powers for the Scottish Assembly but remain part of the UK

The SNP and fellow travelers think that when faced with such a choice, they will get what they really want - Greater Powers. 

I believe that they know they will not get a majority Yes (what would be a majority?  More than 50% of the eligible voters (that is those registered to vote in Scotland) or more than 50% of those that bother to vote?)  

Getting Greater Powers is what they really want as this way they can strut and preen themselves as leaders without needing to face the full economic consequences of their actions - i.e. they will demand that the English continue to subsidize them.

As I said earlier, I think that the English should also be asked for their opinion or view. 

I think the question on both sides of the border should be:
                   Do you want Scotland to remain a member country of the United Kingdom?

• Yes
• No

A majority would be when 50% plus 1 vote of those eligible to vote is met.

The referendum needn't be binding ( I am not sure any referendum is binding on the UK Government) but this would give a sense of English  and Scottish feelings.on the matter. 


Also, whatever the outcome, the Barnett formula must go and the subsidy to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland) must end.   This needs to happen before the March Budget.

Then we can see if they can afford free university education and prescriptions etc.

Cameron pledge on EU

Per the biased BBC and in an incredibly rude interview, on Radio 4's Today programme David Cameron  

has promised to do "everything possible" to stop other EU states discussing the single market without the UK.

He said it would be "wrong" for states which signed up to a new eurozone pact to use EU institutions to discuss issues affecting other member states.
But he said the legal position was unclear and there were "difficulties" with the European Court of Justice.

Does  this mean that the UK is not a member of the Single Market, anymore?  Can we stop being a net contributor to the EU budget?

How can this even be being discussed and why isn't the biased BBC asking EU representatives how they could justify excluding the UK?

The biased BBC use the term 'Pressed' in their report of the interview.  The interviewer, Evan Davis, didn't so much 'press' as badger the UK Prime Minister.  He would not let Cameron answer the questions that he was being peppered with and only shut up when Cameron stopped trying to answer and shut-up.

Then Cameron said 'Finished?' and, while Davis was obviously perplexed (courtesy seems to throw the biased BBC!), then proceeded to answer the questions and specifically why what he did in Brussels (using the UK veto) was in the interests of the UK and, going back to the opening of this post, re-iterated that the UK wants to remain in the EU and stressed that our number one reason for the UK's membership was the Single Market because we are a trading nation.

I suspect that Cameron reflects the desire of most Britons - we are happy to remain in the EU but want it to be an organisation focused on the Single Market rather than anything 'closer'.   Of course, if some of the members of the EU want to move towards closer union then that is up to them.  We wouldn't stand in their way (it's none of our business!) but neither should we pay anything towards it.

If you get a chance to hear the interview, please do so.  If I were in Cameron's shoes, I would refuse to be interviewed by the biased BBC again. Or at least until the Today programme has been purged of its liberal lefties!  

Cash for Scrap - Act Now

The recession in the UK coupled with high commodity prices has led to a significant rise in the thefts of metals and then onsale of these for scrap/re-cycling.

These has led to metal being stolen from war memorials (yes, shame doesn't affect such low-lifes) and from churches as well as increasingly, from railways.  This latter has the potential to endanger lives but again, these thieves don't care a fig!

The UK government is proposing to require the scrap industry to have people to produce identification when selling scrap and to not pay them in cash.

The scrap industry pays lip service to the proposals but is set against the banning of payment in cash?

Why?

Maybe because at the moment it can support this illicit activity by under-paying these black-market thieves and thus enhancing their own profits? 

An industry spokesman said:

Our members do not particularly relish the use of cash. But their customers do demand they are paid in cash and their customers range from plumbers [to] builders, roofing contractors, demolition contractors [and] the whole range of people who on a day-to-day to basis sell scrap and they sell scrap for cash

So, let me know if you think that these trades people are then declaring the cash they receive as income on their tax returns or handing over the cash to their employers.

Of course, these plumbers and builders etc., are not necessarily thieving but 're-cycling' but why should we have a system which is so open to abuse and is exactly what the criminals want?

The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that metal theft costs the UK economy £770m every year

 Legislation needs to be put in place, now.  Consultation and so on, isn't required, we know what needs to be done and cannot allow for further desecration of memorials or churches. 

What is required before action is taken?  A train crash because someone has stolen copper from a signalling system?


If you agree, let your MP know.

Breast Implant removals - who pays?

According to a report on the biased BBC:

A surgeon advising the UK government has called for a staged removal of faulty breast implants, following a health scare in France.

Tim Goodacre, part of a panel looking at products made by French company PIP, said the reported risk of rupture was "quite out of the ordinary."
The government said the failure rate was 1%, but a private clinic now believes it could be up to 7%.
"This is very much higher than anything we'd consider acceptable," he said.
Speaking on the BBC's The World at One, Mr Goodacre, who is president of the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) said he did not think there was any risk of cancer as a result of the faulty implants, but he was still advising what he called removal on a "staged basis".
"If you believe a device is faulty in your car or any other object you buy you would want to have that replaced on a staged basis," he said.

The report goes on to talk about the near-bankrupt government of France, where the manufacturer of the potentially dodgy implants was based, is recommending the removal of implants at French government expense.  Will this largesse extend to those affected in the UK?  Don't hold your breath!


Also, the biased BBC reports:

Chairman of the Commons health select committee Stephen Dorrell said the cost of removing implants should be recovered from those who had provided "sub-standard products" in the first place.
"The first responsibility here would rest on those who were engaged in care that hasn't met proper standards, so the first responsibility rests on them," he said.
"Having said that, clearly if there is a health issue involved then ultimately the NHS exists to provide health assurance for all patients in the UK."

Why on earth should the NHS, funded as it is by taxpayers, incur any cost for this?  Shame on Dorrell - a pro-European Conservative!  Obviously someone who thinks that personal responsibility shouldn't always be personal or responsible!

I find myself in the unusual position of partly supporting the Labour spokeman on this.

Shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said the government needed to issue clear guidelines to calm the fears of those affected by the issue.
"Mixed messages from the Department [of Health] have not helped and families affected are looking for a stronger response from the government," he said.
"As a minimum, it must include these three basic points - first, that all medical records will be provided on request without delay and without charge. It is unacceptable that some women are being asked to wait or even pay an 'admin fee' to see their records.
"Second, where there is evidence of a rupture, private providers must arrange for urgent removal at no expense to the individual and with any costs to the NHS reimbursed.
"Third, that all women given PIP implants must be offered an urgent, free consultation with a doctor once the results of the urgent review are known to discuss options."

 The actions required are that the individuals concerned can take whatever steps they want to against PIP or their UK based plastic surgeons.  End of story.  The NHS and the government and the Department of Health should remain as involved as they were when the breasts were first implanted - that is, not involved.

One proviso - if any of these implants were made under the NHS, following say a mastectomy, then and only then, should the NHS intervene.

UK Foreign aid and Economic Performance.

According to a report on the (still biased) BBC, the economy of Brazil has overtaken that of the UK, during 2011.

As you will see from the table below, produced by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, Brazil has pushed the UK economy into being the seventh largest in the world.

And you would be right in assuming that the UK continues to give foreign aid to Brazil!  Also to India, which is seen to have the tenth largest economy in the world.  It is difficult to get data out of the Department for International Development but I would not be surprised to see China as a recipient of foreign aid, as well!

While we may think it laudable to provide overseas aid and some consider that the old adage 'charity begins at home' is too narrow minded, how can it make sense to provide aid to countries that have such thriving economies?

When might we stop providing aid to these and, if we must provide aid, give it to those countries that both need it and do not currently have an economy that helps them get up off of their knees?

We regularly hear from left-leaning news media, that 'child poverty' is a growing phenomenon in Britain and at the same time we send funds overseas to relieve 'child poverty' in other countries (something which the self-same left-leaning media, think we do not do enough of!)

I wish someone could tell me how this makes sense.

CEBR World Economic League Table
Rank	2011	2020 (forecast)
1	US	US
2	China	China
3	Japan	Japan
4	Germany	Russia
5	France	India
6	Brazil	Brazil
7	UK	Germany
8	Italy	UK
9	Russia	France
10	India	Italy

Agency workers

The Agency Workers Directive comes into force in the UK, shortly.  This effectively extends the same rights to 'temporary' workers as those enjoyed by permanent employees.

Why not go the whole hog and ban temporary workers?  Then we could move on to banning private businesses and have everyone working for the state!

Europe, including the UK, is in the midst of a recession and what is the response of governments?  To impose further costs and regulatory burdens on struggling businesses.  If you took such a script to Hollywood they would throw it out as 'too fanciful and too unbelievable'.

If you were the owner of a small business and had the potential to pick-up some extra work but it required you to take on agency/temporary staff, would you now do so?

This smacks to me of yet more fiddling while Rome and of course Athens, burns.

Is there any chance, do you think, that the politicos will ever get around to addressing the real and pressing issues that face all of the economies in the EU?  Re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic, comes to mind.

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.

Gus O'Donnell interview

The UK Cabinet Secretary (a Civil Service post) retires on December 31, 2011 and has given an interview.

In this, he highlights the three key issues facing the UK;  The EU, The Economy and the Union.

The EU - If you believe some, the UK is isolated and so can expect to have little influence.  Reality though, is we are still a member and as such need to continue to push for reform of EU institutions in spite of what some petty Euro MPs think of us.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100124965/time-for-britain-to-make-the-great-escape/

Click on the above and Open!

The Economy -  Everyone (except Ed 'I think we should borrow more' Balls and Ed ' does my voice sound funny and whiny to you' Miliband) agrees that 2012 is going to be a hard year, and 2013 doesn't look great either!  However, stopping the austerity measures isn't really an option.  Indeed many say the cuts should be deeper and more immediate.

Also, the fate of the economy is inextricably linked to the actions (or rather, non-actions) taken by the EuroZone members.  At some  point, fairly soon, I expect (not wish for) that the financial markets will lose patience and will attack one of the Eurozone members.  I would not be surprised if they took a tilt at France.  The exposure to sovereign debt for French and German banks is worryingly high.

The Union - I have posted before.  Have a referendum in Scotland and one in England and go with the wishes of the people.  No more delay.  I see that Alex Salmond and the Welsh leader, Jones have requested a meeting with Cameron to discuss his handling and us of the Veto at Brussels.  They both full well know that Foreign Policy is a 'reserved' policy and falls outside the ambit of the devolved administrations.  Their comments are posturing such as only petty people can manage.  Time Cameron slapped them down and sent them scurrying back to their Celtic palaces.

I have just re-read the paragraph on The Economy.  Why is it that in the case of Labour, two Eds are not better than none?

Incidentally, Gus O'Donnell is retiring aged 59.  Presumably on a sizable pension linked to his final salary of around  £235K and index-linked for life!

Tax Collecting and MPs

A House of Commons Committee of MPs has criticised the settlements that HMRC, the UK Tax authority, has reached with some companies, as cosy.  They have also asserted that they believe there are more than £25 billion of outstanding tax issues with companies.

So, let's look at that.  HMRC reached agreements with Goldman Sachs and with Vodaphone that settled long running disputes on their complex tax affairs.  That is, supposed experts reviewed the evidence and submissions and then decided that the best deal for the tax payer was the one that was on the table.  This presumably was less than they might have got for us if they had gone to court (and lined the pockets of lawyers) but more than the cost of incurring additional expense. 

Of course, this then frees-up those investigators to examine the affairs of other companies and so perhaps overall get more money flowing in?

As for the £25 billion of outstanding tax issues with companies. 

This is a typical ploy.  Think of a number, make it bigger and add the word billion after it.  Why doesn't, the still biased, BBC and other media, ask these MPs from where this number comes?  Which companies are evading this amount of taxes (that is clearly the implication)?

Could it simply be that this is the amount of tax that is in dispute between HMRC and companies?  If yes, then what would we expect - nothing to be in dispute?  Nothing outstanding?

Here is a quick question - How many of the MPs on this committee do you think actually have real world business experience?

And another one.  How many of them understand that it is common that a company's tax issues can stretch out for a number of years before they are resolved?

And yet one more - doesn't under paid tax accrue an interest charge?

And a final question - do you think that the committee was miffed because the HMRC head, stated that he would not discuss or disclose details to the committee on the grounds of the long held position of confidentiality of tax affairs.

Banking "Reform"

So here we go. 

We will 'reform' the UK banking sector and add between £7 billion (Government estimates) and £10 billion (industry estimates) of cost.

Three guesses who will actually pay this.  No clue?  Well, no surprise it's me and you, UK bank account holders.

Oh and remember that we are to put this in place and it will be more draconian than in any other country as will the capital requirements we set for the banks that remain here, before any other country, including our major competitors are even contemplating such restrictions.

You could call it madness but that might upset the Lib-Dems and we mustn't do that!! 

Now if we could get the Lib-Dems party members to pay the  £7 -10 billion, I might not be so angry!

Scotland the brave?

Scotland the brave? 

Or

Scotland the coward?

We hear time and again that Alex Salmond will decide when to call a referendum on independence. 

We also hear much about the SNP mandate for governing Scotland.

So what is stopping the SNP calling a referendum?

Lack of courage or belief that they will get an answer that suits them?  Or, that once called, whatever the outcome, they will have lost their major, indeed only, bargaining chip with the UK Parliament?

I don't know how the Scots would vote.  I sense that they would want to stay with the Union, if given the choice but we may never know because I believe the SNP don't really want a vote.

However, I am not sure that the English would say the same if they were given the choice.  And surely when the question is to break or keep a long-standing union is posed, both parties to the union should be consulted - that is, the Scots and the English.

I think it is time for Cameron and the UK Parliament to 'lance this boil' and call a referendum on both sides of the border and not wait on the whims of the wily Alex.

Then once that is out of the way, if Scotland votes for 'freedom' to quote Mel Gibson, they can go on their merry way to a socialist oblivion and the English can remain the conservative and prosperous nation it always has been.  (Please, if you comment, do not prattle on about 'Scottish oil' and I promise not to give a lecture on Maritime Law and ocean boundaries)

The interesting thing might be, what if Scotland says no to independence and England says yes? 

Scotland decides it wants to stay part of the UK and receive the benefits it now does and England says no we want to have an equal Union where the spend per head in Scotland is equalised to the amount spent in England.
Oh Dear! What then?

Perhaps that's why Alex doesn't want to ask and David is too nice to push him into a corner.

But Alex.  Take care, last week Cameron shows he has 'a pair' when needed so either put up, and call a referendum or shut up and stay in your overpriced Edinburgh palace.

Triple A

Public Sector Salaries

On a previous post, I commented on the salaries paid in the private sector.  My view is that it is not the business of Government to tell a private company what it can pay an employee.  That is the job of the owners of the company.

However, the Government can and indeed must set the tone for Public Sector salaries.

Using my previous example, I would set the maximum compensation payable to a public sector official be capped at 6 times the UK National Average, so, £150K.  Again 'compensation' covers, base salary and allowances and pension contributions.

• Any public body, local authority etc., that pays compensation to individuals, in excess of this amount, would be fined £10 for every single pound that they pay, over and above the £150K limit.  
• This fine to be in the form of reduced funding.  
• This fine to rise to £20 for every single pound, if the offence extends into a second year.  
• Again, this fine to rise to £50 for every single pound, if the offence extends into a third year.  
• The public body would be required to notify its constituent audience of the total reduction in funding that it is seeing as a result of its over-paying of staff.
• The monetary value of the 'fine' can be mitigated or eliminated  if, in the same year, the cost of a Local Authority's Community Charge is reduced by 5% or more
•  

Allied to the foregoing:

• All new public sector employees are to be hired on the basis of the only pension package being available being that of a Money Purchase Agreement - that is, no further Final Salary Scheme entrants.
• I am not advocating the abolition of the Final Salary schemes, just no new entrants.

Public Sector seems to include so much these days.  For me this includes, Civil Servants or any employee of a UK Government ministry, Local Authority employees, All NHS employees (Doctors, Nurses, Managers and ancillary staff, all employees of a QUANGO, the police, fire and ambulance service and anyone else that gets paid directly by funds that derive from UK Taxation or National Insurance Contributions.  For me, it does not include active members of the Armed Services

Comments?