'Sir Michael Caine, one of Britain’s best known actors, has publicly backed exiting from the European Union as he lashed out at “faceless civil servants” making decisions for the UK.
The star of The Italian Job and Zulu told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he is now “pretty certain” that Britain should be outside the EU.
He dismissed arguments that the country could be hit economically by saying Britons would “work harder" and "try harder” until life on the outside improved.
The comments are a coup for the Out campaign, which has called for leading non-political figures to reveal their Euroscepticism but with little success to date.
It comes with an In/Out referendum on Britain’s EU membership due by the end of 2017 but with a vote likely to come as early as this June.....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Britain is going to have to decide whether the UK stays in the European Union by the end of 2017 – and for the first time ever, in my view, the arguments for us breaking ties with Brussels are looking more appealing.
Britain exiting the EU – "Brexit" – wasn't something that I've ever thought was a good idea, either financially or politically.
After all, each of the 28 nation members are in it together, working under a single market ideal, where policies and laws are enacted for the good of all countries and do not give a distinct advantage to one more than any other another. Right?
Well, I don't think so anymore.
Seeing how the markets and politicians have dealt with the eurozone sovereign debt crisis, the worst refugee problem since World War II and constant squabbles over EU lawmaking that wrecks national sovereignty, I've become fully unstuck from the mud of the pro-EU camp and will sit on the fence until we vote.
The EU referendum is not the same as the Scottish referendum
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron gestures as he delivers a speech at the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre in Aberdeen, Scotland September 15, 2014. Cameron appealed to Scots' emotions on his last visit to Scotland before this week's historic referendum by warning them on Monday that a vote to leave the United Kingdom would be irreversible. The referendum on Scottish independence will take place on September 18, when Scotland will vote whether or not to end the 307-year-old union with the rest of the United Kingdom.REUTERS/Dylan Martinez
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron .
Naturally people will ask why I believe that Britain should potentially leave the EU but still believe Scotland should be part of the UK.
Mainly, as with most of my arguments, it's the economics – cold, hard numbers. Scotland had a much better case decades ago for breaking off from the rest of the UK without cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Scotland massively depends on oil for revenue, and in the 1980s it would have probably been able to argue that the country's economy was strong enough to sustain jobs and its own balance sheet.
However, the landscape has changed and the resource that the Scottish National Party highlighted as a jewel in the country's crown doesn't shine anymore. The North Sea oil industry is in dire straits. OPEC statistics show that average oil output in 2013 from the North Sea clocked its lowest level since 1977, and prices have plunged.
Scotland depends on the rest of the UK for its pensions, its welfare and for jobs. Leaving the UK would've been horrific.
However, Britain is not in the same boat as Scotland, and we shouldn't treat both referendums the same way. The political and economic situation is far more complex.
No single market
We are meant to be operating under the bloc's Single Market mechanism as an EU member.
The EU describes it as "one territory without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles to the free movement of goods and services." It's basically meant to stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, and helps cut prices.
We are meant to operate as one. Basically, it only works if all countries are identical and work as a hive, like the Borg in Star Trek. That sounds like a Utopian ideal, and it has not worked at all.
Take a look at the complete schism between the economic growth of the UK, Germany and the rest of the Eurozone.
Britain's performance has more in common with the economic recovery in the US than the Eurozone. It doesn't really look like we need the EU. It needs us.
Britain is sitting pretty at the moment regardless of the political camp you hail from. Unemployment is just 5.5%, which is pretty much as close to "full employment" as we can get. Inflation is low, real wages are rising at a solid pace, and more people are able to get on the housing ladder. We are also one of the key financial centres in the world.
Now compare it to the unemployment rate in these countries and the rest of the Eurozone as a whole:
Doesn't really look like a Single Market right? Certain countries are propping up Europe's economic figures, while others are still stagnant or practically in recession.
At the beginning of September, my colleague Oscar Williams-Grut pointed out that the so-called Single Market has a massive problem – Germany.
German manufacturing is a booming behemoth, while almost every other nation bar Greece is at some sort of low. Britain's manufacturing sector is not he same as it was back in 1950s, and we now depend a lot on imports and exports (I will come to this later).
Greece's rebalancing towards exports has been achieved simply by imports collapsing. All you need to do is take one look at that country and realise there is nothing about that nation that is rebounding at the moment.
At the mercy of Germany
Concerns over the Single Market being a whole load of poppycock are more relevant than ever, especially since the eurozone debt crisis of 2009.
First and foremost, even though we are meant to be part of one big unit, we have no fiscal union to address underperforming areas.
In Britain, for example, London may generate greater amounts of wealth than certain regions in the country. If somewhere like Nottingham was struggling, the money is redistributed to pay for welfare or prop up the local economy. Infrastructure, like new railway lines, could be installed to link cities and create greater connection for people working or looking to expand business.
In the EU, we don't have this. Just look at Greece and the sorry mess it is. Sure, we lend money and force them to gut their country from the inside out, but a loan is not a re-distribution of wealth. Countries that need to devalue their currency to spur exports can't. The bloc is not a "single" anything.
The EU isn't doing as well as it used to and it's really down skewed economic reporting that suggests the eurozone is doing great. As demonstrated before, Germany is propping up manufacturing growth figures.
Take a look at how the EU really isn't as well-positioned as it was when Britain entered the bloc in 1973:
The EU's economy is "shrinking relative to other countries across the globe" and its population is ageing. In 2020, the ratio of working-age people to pensioners in the EU will be 3:1, while in 2050 it'll be 2:1. This is according to a Business for Britain report published in June, which had Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs, John Mills of JML, and fund manager Helena Morrissey of Newton on its editorial board.
They added that tax payments to the EU, the level of bureaucracy, and the changing population are all contributing to greater cost for the nation.
Destroying national sovereignty
Relinquishing national sovereignty sounds a lot like right-wing hooey, but having a look at how the EU has operated in the worst of times hasn't resolved any of these concerns.
Sovereignty is meant to be when a state has the absolute power to govern itself, make, execute, and apply laws, and impose and collect taxes.
Of course, being part of a union means we should all technically share that burden and have a say in what laws are enacted, while also making sure others aren't penalised to the advantage of other nations. It shouldn't be all bad.
Take a look at Greece again. The country has teetered on the brink of collapse so many times, it might as well jump off the cliff. But it can't because it's stuck with loans it doesn't want, that seem near impossible for it to pay back.
The one time it did show some semblance of sovereignty or power was at its referendum on the bailout. The public voted against the extremely harsh (and arguably necessary) conditions in exchange for emergency cash. And we all know how that turned out – an utterly pointless exercise.
All that happened is that Greece wound up owing its creditors so much that they used it against them in their next round of negotiations.
Angela Merkel glances at British Prime Minister David Cameron during a State Banquet at the Schloss Bellevue Palace on the second day of a four day State Visit on June 24, 2015 in Berlin, Germany.
German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said radical left-wing Greek finance minister Yannis Varoufakis "strains the solidarity of European partners" shortly before his departure from the government.
And what happened to Greece – well the referendum didn't make a difference and it still had to go back to its creditors with its tail between its legs.
Renegotiations look impossible
There are a few things that Britons are getting really tired of, and a growing mountain of examples to show how the UK doesn't really have much of a say in what happens within the bloc.
Since 2010, the EU has introduced over 3,500 new laws affecting British business. Business for Britain highlighted in its report in June that the sheer volume of red tape that affects the UK is costing billions.
"The British Chambers of Commerce has shown that the total cost of EU regulation is £7.6 billion ($12 billion) per year," said the report. "Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force in December 2009, it has cost British businesses £12.2 billion ($19.3 billion) (net) in extra regulation."
Furthermore, Britain doesn't really as much of a say as I thought.change or go 4Business for Britain
"The Commission proposes new laws in the EU, but the UK’s representation has declined dramatically and many officials are adamantly opposed to the sort of changes that the UK seeks," says the report.
"When the UK joined the EU in 1973, we had 20% of the votes. Today we only have 9.5% of the votes. British MEPs voted against 576 EU proposals between 2009 and 2014, but 485 still passed and became law."
While the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has publicly said that he and George Osborne would prefer to stay as part of the EU but under renegotiated terms, genuine reform seems highly unlikely to happen.
He is reportedly being repeatedly snubbed.
Zero say over policies
Migrants pass under a highway security fence as they try to find a new way to enter Hungary after Hungarian police sealed the border with Serbia near the village of Horgos, Serbia, September 14, 2015.
Britain shouldn't leave the EU and shut the borders because of fears of immigration, but the position the country has been put in is an extremely uncomfortable one.
As demonstrated, Britain's economy and society is unique. It doesn't fall into a hive mind of Europe. No country within the European Union does, that's why a Single Market doesn't actually exist.
However, the way Brussels has handled the worst refugee crisis in over half a century is not making it easy to bat away concerns over sovereignty and understanding of the different needs of a country.
The United Nations said on October 1 that it was expecting 700,000 migrants and refugees to reach Europe via the Mediterranean sea this year. The same amount again in 2016.
Britain, as well as the rest of Europe has to tackle this but by forcing countries to blanket quotas, which is what was bandied around over the last month, it is only making it even more apparent that there is one way – their way or the highway.
Economically, take a look at the financial transactions tax (FTT) proposal. The FTT, more commonly known as the Robin Hood Tax, places a 0.05% on trades involving stocks, bonds, foreign currency, and derivatives.
However, the European Commission is aiming to launch the FTT in January 2016 with slightly different tax calculations — 0.1% on shares and 0.01% on bond transactions where at least one of the parties was based in the EU.
The Conservative government, the financial sector, and various business groups are heavily against the FTT. The Tory-led government hates the tax proposition so much that UK Chancellor George Osborne even had to go through the length of launching a legal suit against the FTT plan which was adopted by 11 EU states.
Basically, even if Britain doesn't sign up for it, the UK would be still financially penalised if it does business with other countries that sign up for FTT.
Now, I am still not fully up for Britain leaving the European Union – there are still a huge amount of advantages of staying in. But the argument for leaving is not looking as scary as I first thought.
We are a nation that depends on imports for energy and goods and in turn of being part of the EU we have a decent mechanism for trade. Severing links could easily make it more expensive to import or ship goods.
But, at the moment, if Cameron is unable to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership under the EU, I fear I may have do the previously unthinkable and vote for a Brexit. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
The Brussels Business - Who Runs the European Union? - which puts the spotlight on the power of the lobbying industry in Brussels - is to have its Belgian Premiere at the Millenium Documentary Film Festival in Brussels on Thursday 19 April 2012. Corporate Europe Observatory was approached by the filmmakers at the start of their project and our early work features prominently in the film, which tells the story of how industry lobby groups heavily influenced the EU's development from the 1980s onwards.
Since that time, the presence of industry lobbyists in Brussels has grown – as has their influence and the corporate agenda is clearly visible in the EU’s policies – including in its response to the crisis. This year, CEO celebrates its 15th birthday – and in May this year we will be marking the event with a conference that highlights the corporate influence on the current crises facing the European Union.
Here’s how the film-makers introduce “The Brus$els Business” movie:
“In the early 1990s two young men come across the huge influence of lobbying on the EU decision-making in Brussels. One starts to investigate and fight it and becomes the EU’s leading lobby-watchdog, the other becomes a high profile lobbyist for 40 multinational companies.
The film dives into the shadowy world of lobbying, the secretive networks of power and big business influence on EU-policy-making in Brussels. It tells the non-official version of the European Integration since the 1980s, the story of the neoliberal take-over in European politics.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep crisis that can bring the world economy to collapse this film tries to answer one question millions of people ask themselves: Who runs the European Union?”
You can find more information about the “The Brus$els Business” on the website and more information about the Millenium Documentary Film Festival here.
The movie will enter cinemas in other countries over the coming months, while the TV version will be showed on ARTE, Belgian, German and Austria TV in the autumn.
“The Brus$els Business” features a number of important cases of industry influence over the last 15-20 years which Corporate Europe Observatory has researched and documented. Here’s a selection of recommended reading:
Europe Inc. – Regional and Global Restructuring and the Rise of Corporate Power, 2000, Pluto Press, London.
The 2nd edition (2003) of Europe Inc. can still be ordered on line from Pluto Press.
Here you can download pdfs of three chapters:
Writing the Script: The European Roundtable of Industrialists
Polishing the EMU: The Association for the Monetary Union of Europe
Doing Business in Amsterdam: The ERT, UNICE and the Treaty of Amsterdam
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2564 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:44 pm Post subject:
Wondering if The Pope will issue a papal decree for all UK Catholics to vote to stay in. Don't think he likes our sovereignty _________________ JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16851 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:10 am Post subject:
Britain and the EU - "In Out In Out Shake It All About"
by Cris Pothecary
BRITAIN TODAY faces a myriad of contentious and complex issues that have arisen as a result of a long drawn out loss of identity and culture.
Of course what the British Isles represent to the people that live in them varies greatly and depends on many factors individual to the, by now, varied ethnic and ideological groups that live here so it is hard to paint with broad brush strokes a picture that will appeal to and satisfy all tastes and inclinations.
According to the latest from the never ending political merry-go-round of debates, talks, TV programs, negotiations etc. on 23rd June this year the population will get the chance to participate in a referendum on EU membership and this will no doubt lead to many heated media exchanges but what is plain to see is that generally speaking most of us get our information almost 100% through the media…. People talk about UK sovereignty and our cherrished independence and way of life but the question arises therefore - Where is the evidence that we still actually have a way of life and a culture that goes beyond the more basic material elements of "The Englishman in his castle" with his private garden and all the add ons that go with the sense of "Britishness" that typifies the widespread conservative (with a small c) viewpoint.
South West Britain is full of lovely old buildings, cottages, houses etc and the ruins of still older remnants of the era of castles. There are also rural life museums and ancient monuments, old churches, stately homes and landscaped estates all of which in some way or another pay their homage to what is termed as "Britishness" - this idea that we have of a natural character.
To many perhaps this concept of Britishness or perhaps better to say English Britishness is under threat from the immigration of a variety of ethnic groups since the end of the second world war and the demise, more importantly, of the British Empire. There have been various waves of immigration from the arrival of West Indians who were encouraged to come over in the post war years in order to drive our buses and empty our bins, through the arrival of many folk from the Indian sub-continent to the latest influx of eastern europeans and middle eastern refugees and this by no means exhaustive list intends to do no discredit to some of the earlier immigrants from across the Irish sea.
In truth England and Britain as a whole has ever been a land of shifting populations and immigration as even our oldest ancestral groups, those known as the Celts, where said to have come from other climes and after were followed by Romans, Vikings, Anglos Saxons and Normans so absolute definition of what is the indigenous British folk can never be too precise and yet, perhaps it is in sifting through these shifting sands and tides of travellers and their stories that we can find a real sense of who we are.
Many of our stories and racial memories are held by place and the way in which, through a sense of place, we can come into contact with that dimension where the land and the people meet… the land of legend and myth, the land of mystery and revelation that lies untouched beyond the realms of day to day comings and goings. It is in being still and listening in these ancient places that we can get a deeper sense in our bones and the blood that runs through us of the stories that the land and her inhabitants tell us. There are trees that have been witnesses to hundreds and even thousands of years of history and stones that have been around even longer. The cycles and seasons of nature have repeated in circular motion far beyond the reaches of our ways of measuring linear time and through immersing our souls in these worlds a while we can recharge ourselves with the spiritual force of our land, the land that is our Mother and at once our sister, lover, grandmother and friend.
The inhabitants of this land are not only us, the human people. There are also deer people, badger people, rabbit people, fox people, robin people, buzzard people, owl people, oak people, ash people, thorn people etc etc. all with their stories and their feelings, their spirit and their resistance, yet the large majority of us ignore those beings that perhaps have an even greater claim than any of us to be part of the indigenous, i.e. original populations of this land.
We turn the badgers from their sets, we cull the deer in their forests, we cut the Oaks if they are in the way of one our roads and we criminally ignore the plight of many of our native trees such as the ash that has become victim to a scourge called die back.
Perhaps many of the people from UKIP or hard line tories, even the left wing euro sceptics should reflect that their desire for independence and sovereignty is something that has long been given away given that our ancient native land has long been under the power of usurpers that have taken away the common rights of the tribes and peoples of what seems like another dimension outside modern time.
Those that call themselves the monarchs for example came from outside and imposed a system of castles and controls on the land, gradually depriving the humble farmers and forest livers the access to our common treasury, the land that bonds us all together and through whom we live, eat, shelter and meet.
The knowledge of our natural world and all the possibilities contained within her womb of generation that brings forth all that which is necessary for food, clothing, medicine has been lost to many and is ignored by the majority who know next to nothing of the history and lore of the land in which they live.
So how can we truly talk of sovereignty and independence if we do not practice the art of being sovereign in ourselves and acting with understanding that to be independent means to be self reliant, resourceful and knowledgeable of the world around us.
The fact is that as a nation Britain is dependant on many things from outside and beyond her waters. We do not grow even half of the food we eat and much less can we grow many of the items that have now become part of our daily consumption and cosmopolitan tastes.
We do not digest the impressions we receive from the media and so that we may cultivate our own criteria now that we have fallen victims to the regurgitation of the diet of sound bytes and force fed public opinion.
We do not meet together and consciously share experiences, views and the wisdom of the lives we have lived in order to form a collective understanding between us as to how we may proceed.
Our society has become, to coin a term used in social behaviour studies, "atomised." That is to say each human being lives within a relatively reduced sphere of meaningful human and social contact (I mean facebook doesn't count as being social contact, it is an artificial replacement) and plugs into the "group mind" as manifested in the cyber internet dimension where disembodied opinions float around looking for a mind to lodge themselves in…. This atomisation is and has beeen for a long time a strategy used by social engineers to steer us toward a disassociation from the nuts and bolts of reality, from relating in here and now terms to the world that we actually live in in a way that gives us direct contact. Thus we work away from where we live, we have friendships with people dispersed in different places and in this sense a "feeling of community" has become something virtual because in reality we have but a partialised sense of community in the form of numerous interest groups or "social sects" but we don't actually speak to our neighbours, we don't engage in local conversation and we have no peoples assembly in which we can speak about what is going on… Indeed, to the establishment any degree of graass roots peoples organisation would be seen as a threat to their imposition and hegemony.
The voice of our people and our ancestors has and is being strangled. Some of those that represent, for example, the out of Europe option look like not much else other than a controlled opposition, a bunch of throw backs to a kind of idiosyncratic English eccentricity peppering sometimes rational observations of the way that world finance functions through the Central Banks with their "colourful" and pompous views on other subjects that seem designed precisely NOT TO APPEAL to the younger generations and to paint a picture of Euro sceptics as being traditionalist nutters that are out of touch with the modern world etc etc…. so its all a merry-go-round, a media orchestrated theatre show ddesigned to give the appearance of being "real discussion" within a "democratic society" and this is what people spend their spare time watching and reading instead of getting together in a local community centre or other gathering point and actually speaking together as a community about what is going on and developing their own understanding that is not just a cut and paste combination of disparate views that they have taken from the media and the party political ramblings, arguments, compromises and behind the scenes deals.
Whilst all of this goes on of course there is very little real debate on the real issues that affect our nuts and bolts day to day reality….
The ever prevalent web of electromagnetic force fields related to all the instruments of this replacement for real culture and exchange that mean that we have to plug into a machine in order to communicate and in order, more significantly even, to be monitored.
Smart this smart that and smart the other to make us more mechanised, infantile and dumber…¦.
An education - in very big inverted commas - system - (which is the operative word) - that is now designed to churn out little conditioned "repeat all they hear and see clones" that will just accept the pro european and new world order jargon because they are trendy, outward looking, catwalk orientated, modern, up-to-date and integrated operating systems that look like human beings but suffer from severe hormonal malfunction and difficulties with thinking without first looking up what Google has to say.
A "Health Service" that for all its sophistication is not designed to actually help people get really well but more to keep them functioning and buying pharmaceutical products…
And yet, as we are told repeatedly "we should be grateful" that we are not in Syria, or any one of those poor countries that are actually in the process of going through that phase of being violently subjugated to the designs of the New World Order and have their social structures, ancestral wisdom, language, cultures and resourcefulness destroyed by force, a stage that we have already gone through some time ago, before proceeding to the step of having any feral inclinations weaned out of us through a succession of cleverly designed psychological attacks designed to isolate any individuals that have somehow managed to conserve in their genetic makeup a positive force that directly links them to the strength of the ancient peoples that lived in and with the elemental forces of the land and nature…. So yeah we should be grateful for the small mercies given to us by experience and take the opportunity therefore to once and for all learn a lesson or two about the significance of life and the fact that, if we allow ourselves the space to breathe a little deeper we can still comprehend and continue to resist in our soul and in our spirit the onslaught of this strange negative force that incessantly attacks life, nature, humanity and our Mother Planet.
Meanwhile ---- to return to the point of departure --- BRITAIN OUT OF EUROPE --- you bet….. Britain out of a Europe that is not an independent or sovereign Europe but rather an instrument for social, economic and military control designed by the cabals of Global elites that get together in their private club meetings in order to divide the spoils between that criminal and parasitic class of overlords who believe that they are destined to preside over the "rough" and "uncultured" masses who are here only to serve and perpetuate what they believe to be their Divine Right.
The peoples of North, South, Eastern and Western Europe are variously divided and set against one another under the umbrella of apparent unity and furthermore taught to look upon the victims in the latest stage of humanities subjugation to the agenda for human enslavement as a potential threat to their comfort and well being, hence we have the rise of white supremacists who want to combat the influx of migrants and yet neither the "right" not the "left" can see that they are but elements of a scheme that divides humanity against itself from within and without. That tiny group of sinister behind the scenes Satanists use many and varied black arts in order to create an illusion that has got everyone confused and fighting against each other but even though there is plenty of evidence to underscore the notion of this manipulation there seems to be little will to actually make an organised and concerted effort to do something other than peruse the latest intrigue down an endless conspiracy theory rabbit hole whose conclusion by now should be fairly well grasped… i.e. that DIVIDE AND RULE HAS EVER BEEN THEIR GAME and thhe use of any badge, identity, ideology, party, religion etc. to achieve those ends is fair game, as was insinuated in that bible of how to get hold of and keep power by means of political manipulation and intrigue, "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli with the phrase "The end justifies the means."
To those that are intelligent and have good understanding few words are necessary in order to grasp the essence of the problem and the fact that the solution starts with each of us right here and right now for it is only in the here and now that we can reclaim our natural and essential spiritual essence, that which is truly capable of change and a conscious revolution, of a transformation of our values, a reconnection to our vitality, our inner strength and love, for the transcendental questions about human existence and life itself are here placed before us in these times and the question is not whether we win or lose here in this material body but whether we stand up to be counted for in the end it is a question of basic human dignity.
With each step that is taken towards a faceless technocratic monolithic and dehumanised political and economic system another piece of human dignity is stolen.
With every person trampled on by a seemingly endless book of rules that insult our intelligence and rest from us the opportunity to come up with our own common sense human solutions, our the significance of life is stolen from us so why is it that most of us just sigh and do nothing?
One of the reasons for that is certainly that four letter word FEAR... so now, in Britain at least we have the opportunity to vote on EU membership... It is not by any means the only step we need to take in order to start to reclaim and give real meaning to the much abused words freedom and democracy but it is quite possibly the last reasonable opportunity to decide whether we are going to give away the ultimate say over our own destiny to a bunch of unelected people whose names we don't know, whose faces we have not seen and whose agenda is the control of our minds, hearts and spirits.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16851 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:31 pm Post subject:
In the span of this 12 minute interview with Charlie Rose on Brexit and the EU, The Economist, Bloomberg Bilderberger Micklethwait opens with “I am delighted to be associated with any erosion of democracy”.
He harkens to the Ken Clarke pro-EU glory days, recalls Ed Balls’s story about Jacques Delors getting EU buyin, credits George Osborne’s tight money policy as effective versus for the UK versus a Larry Summer loose policy, admits that the EU was and is a project of the elites in the face of populism, and admits that globalization has fueled populist anger at the elites.
What BBC won't tell you about Brexit: Why leave EU? Decline of Britain since 1973 EEC Tony Gosling
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16851 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:28 am Post subject:
Revealed: Queen backs Brexit as alleged EU bust-up with ex-Deputy PM emerges
EXCLUSIVE: Her Majesty reportedly let rip at Nick Clegg during lunch at Windsor Castle
Brexit - The Queen has been hailed as a backer of Brexit
EXCLUSIVE by TOM NEWTON DUNN, Political Editor
20:54, 8 Mar 2016
THE Queen has been hailed as a backer of Brexit tonight after details emerged of an extraordinary alleged bust-up between her and Nick Clegg over Europe.
Her Majesty let rip at the then Deputy PM during a lunch at Windsor Castle, The Sun has been told.
The 89-year-old monarch firmly told passionate pro-European Mr Clegg that she believed the EU was heading in the wrong direction.
Her stinging reprimand went on for “quite a while”, leaving other guests around the table stunned......
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16851 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:58 pm Post subject:
Ah, all denied - now there's a surprise
EU referendum: Palace complains over Queen 'Brexit' story
23 minutes ago
Nick Clegg called the Sun's story "nonsense"
Buckingham Palace has complained to the press watchdog over the Sun newspaper's article claiming the Queen backed "Brexit" from the European Union.
The Sun quotes anonymous sources, one of whom claims to have witnessed a "bust-up" between the Queen and pro-EU former Deputy PM Nick Clegg in 2011.
It says the Queen told Mr Clegg the EU was "heading in the wrong direction".
Earlier, the palace insisted the Queen was "politically neutral" over the EU referendum.
Joined: 31 Jan 2007 Posts: 296 Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:55 pm Post subject: 2016-04-05 – London – KT: The EU: A Corporatist Racket
Keep Talking meeting: Tuesday 5 April 2016
On 23 June we will be asked to vote in a national referendum on the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". Many people are complaining that they are not being given the facts. This sounds like a rerun of the 1975 referendum on the EEC, when I nearly abstained for that very reason. I later heard on BBC Radio 4 that avoiding the facts had been deliberate policy in the 'remain' campaign, as recommended by the CIA. So I have pleasure in announcing this talk by Dave Barnby, who has written a book, providing some of the facts.
Topic: The EU: A Corporatist Racket
Speaker: Dave Barnby
Date: Tuesday 5 April 2016
Times: 19:00 for 19:30 till 21:30 (room booked till 22:00)
This presentation is based on David Barnby's book 'The EU: A Corporatist Racket. How the European Union was created by global corporatism for global corporatism', published in 2015 (http://www.junepress.com/book.asp?BID=917). It relates the story of how the Heath Government from 1970 to 1972 suborned the UK into an unaccountable and undemocratic bureaucracy based in Brussels, using the corporate controlled European Movement to infiltrate the public (Part I). Part II is intended to provide a broad account of events following WWII that took Europe and Britain, with the active involvement of the United States, down a federalist path regardless of the wishes of its populations. It includes an account on how Britain's space programme was scrapped to appease French space interests (in exchange for waiving the veto on admission), one on Bilderberg and how they secretly worked to establish a federal Europe and another on how Britain's place in this Europe was consolidated through the 1975 referendum and a series of treaties in the years following. The presentation also briefly looks at untimely deaths and at the upcoming referendum on leaving / remaining in the EU.
Location: The Pimlico Room, St Saviour's Church, St George's Square, Lupus Street, London, SW1V 3QW (http://www.stsp.org.uk). There's a good pub (The Gallery) half way between Pimlico Underground Station and the Pimlico Room, for those who want to meet up beforehand or after the meeting. They serve food after 5pm.
The Pimlico Room is a 2 mins walk west of Pimlico Underground Station (Victoria Line, one stop from Victoria Underground, southbound), and 8 mins walk from Victoria Bus Station. The Pimlico Room is the building to the left of the church (if you're facing the church), running along the main road (Lupus Street). It's not the church hall, which is on the other side.
The room is outside the congestion zone, and I understand that street parking is free on single yellow lines after 6pm. The room is fully 'disabled accessible', and a tea / coffee point is also available - and so will a collection box
If there are any problems on the night, please ring my mobile.
DID THE CIA CREATE THE EU AND IS TTIP THEIR “COUP D’ETAT”?
BY TOM STEELE · 13TH JANUARY 2016
The Scottish public have always been spoon fed the idea the the EU was formed to end warfare and promote economic growth between countries by making it easier to trade with one another after WWII, but is the truth more sinister in that the EU was created by the CIA and the undemocratic and secretive TTIP agreement is their final “coup d’etat” in the takeover of the EU?
There is evidence to support this in the declassified documents released by the US government that reveal that the US intelligence community funded and directed a campaign after WWII to build momentum for a United States Europe that would be a vassal to the US Empire and it’s plans for global hegemony .
The truth behind the origins of the EU and it’s ultimate purpose could not be more crucial to Scots at this time with the EU Referendum just around the corner, and the conundrum the SNP may face is finding itself on the wrong side of public opinion as Scots vote to leave the EU once it’s structure and operations come under intense scrutiny during the campaign.
Thee list below represents the main treaties signed that now makes up the EU, and clearly shows the “thin edge of the wedge” beginning in 1948 with a few countries only linking up for “peaceful and commercial” reasons they claimed at the time, to the full “thick end of the wedge” that is the sprawling EU visible today,
Brussels Treaty 1948
Paris Treaty 1952.
Modified Brussels Treaty of 1955
Treaty of Rome 1958.
Merger of Treaties in 1967 this was called the Common Market or the European Economic Community (EEC).
The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 laid the real foundation stones of the EU
Amsterdam Treaty 1997
The Nice Treaty of 2003
The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009
After WII the biggest threat from an American perspective was the communist powers of Russia and China, and of course the emerging markets of European countries rising from the ashes of war, but they also saw an opportunity to reshape a war devastated Europe based on the American federalist model of politics and in essence creating a vassal super state full of well placed puppets that would allow them the control to manipulate the global money markets and of course access to a vast European army of “cannon fodder” as buffer from Russia and China.
In 1948 the American Committee on United Europe was formed and was directed by senior figures from the intelligence community, including Allen W Dulles who at the time was forming the CIA at the behest of the National Security Council and William J. Donovan, former head of the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) the organisation that eventually morphed into the CIA. They were helped by the Council of Europe whom Winston Churchill was a leading member, and who’s main aim was the rapid unification of Europe.
An interesting memo from the State Department European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”. This exposes the duplicity of the EU, if monetary union was such a good thing for the people of the EU then why plan it in secret behind their backs?
The Americans also funded and directed the European Movement and used both covert and overt operations to undermine communist influence but also to guide public perception in favour of unification. Operation Gladio was probably the worst of their operations, were they used their own agents left behind after the war to commit acts of false flag terrorism in cities all across the European continent, killing hundreds of innocent citizens in order to induce a state of fear and make the public more mailable and receptive to European integration.
Fast forward to today and you can see the fruits of their labour as every EU country including Britain do exactly as the Americans tell them, including fighting their wars in the middle east and elsewhere in the world, and helping to facilitate the corporate and banking scams that have destroyed the integrity of the financial systems whilst surrendering the sovereignty of their own people. The secretive and undemocratic TTIP Agreement due to be signed between the EU and the US is the final coup d’etat and corporate takeover of Europe and will give corporations legal power over democratically elected governments with no appeal process.
The people of Scotland have suffered the subjugation economically, socially, and culturally from being in a union dominated by a London centric establishment, why on earth would be want to remain in an ever larger undemocratic and corrupt US “vassal union” that is in a state of perpetual war with the rest of the world at the Americans behest, and only serves the interest of the corporate and banking oligarchies that protects US hegemony?
We at ATIS are open about our opposition to Scotland’s membership of the EU and will be supporting No to the EU in the referendum. Over the next few weeks and months we will be providing evidence in support of why we believe Scotland should be a truly independent nation and free from the control of all unionist institutions put in place to restrict our freedom and self determination.
John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is also Yale Graduate but he wasn’t ‘tapped’ for Skull & Bones; although he is apparently a member of Phi Beta Kappa. According to Ian, Phi Beta Kappa is a nationwide fraternity, second only to Skull & Bones in the hierarchy of secret societies in the U.S. Both Bill & Hilary Clinton are members of Phi Beta Kappa but Bill’s election campaign was funded by the Harriman family, who have strong links with …….. you guessed it, Skull & Bones! Talk about incestuous!
By John Bolton7:02PM GMT 14 Mar 2016
The United States has an important national security interest in British voters supporting withdrawal from the European Union. In fact, contrary to conventional wisdom on both sides of the Atlantic, Britain’s exit from the floundering EU would immediately create the potential for a more coherent and effective Western security posture globally.
President Barack Obama embodies the conventional wisdom, unabashedly supporting continued construction of a European superstate. Obama’s fascination with Brussels, however, reflects his own statist inclinations. His lack of international leadership perfectly mirrors the EU’s timid, ineffective defence of its own interests and values. Of course Obama loves the EU.
Arguing that today’s EU is collectively stronger than a continent of free nation-states misreads history, distorting it through a quasi-theological lens. The EU is less than the sum of its parts. Its politico-military “unity” is purest symbolism. Flags and anthems not only do not embody unity, but instead mask a poisonous, paralysing disarray.
Nor is unity reflected in incessant affirmations of Europe’s economic size, as if it were truly integrated. Indeed, if Europe had single-mindedly pursued a single market, abjuring political abstractions, it could have achieved more economic integration and broader political consensus together, rather than getting wrapped around the axle of “ever closer union”. And just as symbolic gestures do not ensure unity, reversing those symbolic gestures does not forestall Britain’s ongoing descent from representative government into Europe’s bureaucratic oligarchy. David Cameron’s proposed changes to London’s relationship with Brussels in no way addresses, let alone cures, the systemic failures inherent in EU decision-making structures
merica is partially at fault for the EU mirage because Nato, largely a US creation, has been so successful. For decades, sheltering under Washington’s military umbrella, Europe, including Britain, has recklessly shrivelled defence budgets and increased social-welfare expenditures. The results are not pretty. The EU has not only retreated from the world stage, it is becoming incompetent in ensuring security within its own “borders”. Europe’s loss of defence capabilities, as well as will and resolve, are deeply inimical to defending the West against today’s increasing global threats.
"Britain’s escape from the EU Titanic, combined with America emerging from eight years of folly this November, could revitalise the West as a whole"
Radical Islamists, following their perverse ideology, have struck across Europe and America, and our collective response has been pathetically inadequate. Even Obama’s own intelligence officials have testified before Congress that the global terrorist threat from Islamic State, al Qaeda, and others is today greater than before 9/11. North Africa and the Middle East are descending into chaos, state structures are collapsing, post-First World War borders are disappearing, and large swathes of territory are slipping under terrorist control. Iran is on a clear path to deliverable nuclear weapons, a Middle Eastern nuclear-arms race is under way, and Israel is imperilled. That is without even mentioning expansionist Russia, nuclear North Korea and rising China.
If advocates of Britain remaining in the EU haven’t noticed, America’s international commitments are under attack from several populist directions in our ongoing presidential campaign. Some, especially among Democrats, simply do not value national security, preferring to focus on domestic issues, hoping – God forbid – to make America look more like social-democratic Europe. Others, especially among Republicans, think America’s allies have got a free ride, don’t appreciate US efforts, and should be made to fend for themselves. If Britain votes to stay In, this view may prevail across Washington. So be careful what you wish for.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 16851 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:31 am Post subject:
Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday, Philip Hollobone, a Conservative backbench MP, said: “How can it be in any way acceptable for members of Her Majesty’s Government from the Prime Minister downwards to encourage foreign heads of state to comment on the EU referendum?
“Is this not demonstrative of the fact that the international Bilderberg Group is ganging up against the British people?”
EU referendum: Bilderberg group is ganging up against British voters, claims Tory MP
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-bil derberg-group-is-ganging-up-against-british-voters-claims-tory-mp-3453 9641.html?
Foreign leaders intervening in the EU referendum campaign is evidence that the secretive Bilderberg group is "ganging up" against British voters, a Tory MP has claimed.
The international group of politicians, business leaders and academics is known for holding an annual conference behind closed doors.
One of the more outlandish theories about the group is that it is run by a race of humanoid creatures descended from lizards.
Philip Hollobone, the Tory MP for Kettering, believes the group is seeking to influence the referendum. Meanwhile, Eurosceptic minister Chris Grayling warned foreign leaders not to get involved.
Mr Hollobone said: "It is quite right that Her Majesty, our sovereign, should have no views on important issues such as the EU referendum.
"How can it be in any way acceptable for members of Her Majesty's Government from the Prime Minister downwards to encourage foreign heads of state to comment on the EU referendum?
"Is this not demonstrative of the fact that the international Bilderberg group is ganging up against the British people?"
Mr Hollobone made the point during an urgent question in the Commons on whether the Government should launch an investigation into claims the Justice Secretary Michael Gove revealed details of Eurosceptic comments reportedly made by the Queen.
Bilderberg Group meeting: Big business set to lobby politicians on the future of the EU
Bilderberg Group: Four things we know about the secretive meeting of the global elite and one thing we'll never know
Bilderberg 2015: George Osborne and Ed Balls attend meeting of global elite in Austria
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 5895 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:00 pm Post subject: EU Referendum
Here is an online petition re Government promoting IN vote with taxpayers money:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/116762 _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
NATO is the anti-Russia military club of nations, even after the communist Soviet Union and its military club against the U.S., the Warsaw Pact, ended in 1991 — NATO didn’t reciprocate that by ending itself, as it should have done (and would have done if the U.S. President at the time, George Herbert Walker Bush, had had any basic decency; instead, he said in private, “To hell with that; we won, they didn’t!” but he continued telling Gorbachev that NATO wouldn’t move “one inch to the east” — which promise he was planning to violate, and which his successors have been violating).
With the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact gone, NATO’s claimed raison d’etre was also gone, but NATO shamelessly continued on, and it even has expanded right up to Russia’s borders (just try to imagine what John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have thought if it hadn’t been Soviet nuclear missiles merely in Cuba in 1962, but all surrounding the U.S. — and that’s the situation today but reversed: today’s Russia is in the situation of 1962’s U.S., but even more so, though NATO has the audacity to accuse Russia of ‘aggression’ for, essentially, defending itself from NATO — from the enemies that are increasingly surrounding it!). (Yes, what America has been doing, really, is that bad.)
On April 6th, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (son of Norway’s Defense Minister) said that NATO must now expand outside Europe and North America:
Millions fleeing the region in a humanitarian crisis of a magnitude not seen since World War Two. Terrorist groups like ISIL taking hold of ungoverned spaces. And spreading violence across the region and beyond. Inciting attacks on our streets. From Brussels to Istanbul, Paris to San Bernardino. These are attacks on our open societies. On the values we share.
So our response must be strong.
Who caused those refugees? The U.S. and other NATO nations did. The American White House had been seeking to overthrow the Russia-friendly leaders, specifically in Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, but also elsewhere. And now, the refugees from those invasions are flooding into Europe. Oblivious to this reality, Stoltenberg continued:
To protect our territory, we must be willing to project stability beyond our borders. If our neighbors are more stable, we are more secure.
There was stability (and peace, and remarkable and remarkably evenly-distributed prosperity) in Libya under Gaddafi, whom the U.S. and some of its NATO allies killed. There was stability, peace, and moderate prosperity, also in Syria under Assad, whom the U.S. and some of its NATO allies tried to kill. (Gaddafi and Assad were the two non-sectarian national leaders in the Middle East; NATO downed one, and still tries to down the other.) (The U.S. plan to overthrow the secular government of Syria and replace it by a sectarian, specifically fundamentalist Sunni and Saudi-allied government, had actually been drawn up by the CIA in 1957, but couldn’t be carried out until 2011, and Obama has been putting it into practice ever since.) There was stability throughout the Middle East before the U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign
enabled the chaotic opposition forces to capture and kill Gaddafi, and before the U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE, organized the intended overthrow of the secular (non-sectarian) Shiite leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, in order to replace him with imported fundamentalist Sunni jihadists, passionate to establish a fundamentalist-Sunni Islamic state there (a terrorist-state, it inevitably would be, but NATO likes that fine, because it produces yet more of a market for its ‘defense’ contractors such as Lockheed Martin — you scratch my back, Lockheed; I’ll scratch yours, NATO).
NATO is the biggest hoax in the history of the world: it’s an extension of a fascist CIA takeover of the formerly democratic nations, of the United States and Europe, by infiltrating fascists into NATO, and its associated propaganda organs: the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, USAID, Open Society Foundations, Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, and other Establishment (i.e., Western aristocracy-controlled) organizations.
Specifically regarding Russia, Stoltenberg said:
About Russia, we don’t see any imminent threat against any NATO allied country, including the countries in the Eastern part of the Alliance. But what we see is a more assertive Russia responsible for aggressive actions in Ukraine and willing to use military force. Not only invest in Russian military capabilities but also the willingness to use those capabilities to intimidate neighbors, to change borders in Europe, annex Crimea, destabilizing Eastern Ukraine and having troops in Georgia and Moldova and so on. And this, of course, is of great concern and that’s the reason why we are responding and when I say we I mean the United States and Europe together. Before we didn’t have forces in the Eastern part of the Alliance and now we have forces there on a rotational basis. And we have substantially increased our readiness to redeploy forces if needed. So again I’m concerned but as long as we are able to adapt and because we are able to adapt we are in a way responding to those concerns and making sure that the Baltic countries, all NATO allied countries are safe because NATO is there… Russia is trying to re-establish a sphere of influence around its borders and that’s why they are behaving as they are in Georgia and Moldova and Ukraine. And that’s not acceptable because they are violating international law, they are not respecting the sovereignty and the territorial integrity — the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of independent Nations, countries in Europe and that’s also the reason why it’s important that we respond. At the same time — and we are responding by the biggest re-enforcement of collected defense since the end of the Cold War. But at the same time I always underline that NATO is not seeking a confrontation with Russia. We will avoid a Cold — new Cold War. [Later he said this:] after the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea in 2014 NATO decided to suspend all practical cooperation with Russia [but he was saying that there was no ‘new Cold War’, even though he’s surrounding Russia by new enemy countries, which, according to “The Debate on NATO Expansion”, are now to include: Ukraine, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia; and, possibly also Kosovo, which “will probably be admitted to the Alliance as well.”]
When he said, “Russia is trying to re-establish a sphere of influence around its borders and that’s why they are behaving as they are in Georgia and Moldova and Ukraine,” one can think rationally about that by reversing sides and considering what one should think of “America is trying to re-establish a sphere of influence around its borders and that’s why they are behaving as they are in NAFTA (with Mexico and Canada), and behaved as it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis.” To Stoltenberg: for Russia to think like that is “assertive” and “aggressive.”
Here are the facts regarding specifically “Crimea” there — the NATO club’s current excuse for demonizing Russia (and for Obama’s economic sanctions to crush Russia):
Back in February 2014, Obama overthrew (please click on the link if you have any doubt about anything that’s being said here) the democratically elected President of Russia’s neighbor Ukraine, in an extremely bloody coup, which was at least a year in being set-up, and the rationale for this ‘democratic uprising’ was that that actually democratically elected President was corrupt — but no one mentioned that all of Ukraine’s post-Soviet leaders have been corrupt. Obama’s agent Victoria Nuland had instructed the U.S. Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to take over control of Ukraine as soon as the coup would be completed, and that person did become appointed — and top officials of the EU were shocked to find out that it had been a coup. The “armed militias in ski masks” that Obama referred to in the coup (and in the ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ afterward), were actually his, not Viktor Yanukovych’s (the President whom Obama overthrew); they were America’s mercenaries, not either Yanukovych’s or Russia’s operatives as he pretends they were. And, now, after the extremely bloody civil war that resulted in Ukraine when the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the President whom Obama overthrew rejected Obama’s coup-regime and refused to be ruled by it, Ukraine is even more corrupt than it ever was, but, for some mysterious reason, the United States isn’t overthrowing the post-coup government. Obama had gotten what he basically wanted out of his coup: Russia’s ability to pipeline its gas into the EU is now severely hampered by the necessity to establish alternate pipeline-routes. Ukraine is crucial to strangulating Russia, because most of Russia’s gas-pipelines into Europe run through its formerly friendly neighbor, Ukraine, which now is rabidly anti-Russian. So: the coup and ethnic-cleansing and all the rest have been just a part of America’s effort to strangulate Russia; and all of the maimed and dead people are merely collateral damage — no concern of Obama (nor of his NATO).
Furthermore, on 20 February 2014, the peak day of the coup, Crimeans who had been in Kiev demonstrating against overthrowing the President for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted, commissioned a number of buses to take them promptly back to Crimea, especially because the rabidly racist anti-Russian fascists whom the U.S. had hired to carry out the coup terrified them. These buses en-route back to Crimea got stopped by those fascists (from the very same organization that was headed by the man who actually led the coup), who beat the escaping Crimeans bloody and burned at least one of their buses. Some undetermined number of these victims were killed, and many were injured, but there was no official investigation of this event, which became known in Crimea as “The Korsun Massacre” and “The Pogrom of Korsun”; consequently, the Obama-installed coup-regime — which was soon to produce massacres far worse, such as this and this — denies that it happened, but those videos caused Crimeans, who already were against the coup, to be determined to separate from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, of which Crimea had been a part for hundreds of years until the Soviet dictator in 1954 transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine (without even asking the Crimean people). (That’s the same dictator, Nikita Khrushchev, whom U.S. President JFK faced down in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962; but, now, U.S. Presidents treat Khrushchev’s arbitrary action in regard to Crimea as presenting a bigger argument for Crimeans to have no right to determine what their government will be than the Scotts do regarding whether it will continue to be par of the UK, or the Catalans do regarding whether it will continue to be in Spain. We’re not bombing the Catalans nor the Scotts for demanding the right of self-determination — just the residents of Donbass for their rejecting the coup that overthrew the man, Yanukovych, for whom they had voted 90%.)
So: NATO and the U.S. regime know that what they are accusing against Russia are lies. They aren’t deluded, nor merely mistaken on the facts. They created the problems; they know they created the problems; and, now, they blame Russia (and leaders who are friendly to Russia) for having caused the problems by Russia’s ‘aggression’, which is simply Russia’s necessary efforts to defend itself against U.S. aggression.
Then, Stoltenberg said that NATO intends to make more official its alliance with the people who sponsor jihadists throughout the world:
I very much believe that we can expand and enhance our cooperation with the Gulf Cooperation Council. I visited the United Arab Emirates a couple of weeks ago and and I think that in a way by helping countries in the region to stabilize the region we are of course also making the countries more secure. The whole idea is that if our, NATO’s neighborhood is more stable they are more secure and we are more secure so it’s not in a way -security is not you get less of if you share it; you get more security if you create security together. So I strongly believe in us working together with the GCC.
The GCC is run by Saudi Arabia, just as NATO is run by the United States. GCC consists not only of the royals of Saudi Arabis (the al-Sauds), but of the royals of Qatar (the al-Thanis), of Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), of UAE (six royal families), of Bahrain (the al-Khalifas), and of Oman (the bin-Saids). All of them are fundamentalist Sunnis. They are the main competitors against Russia, the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. They, like the U.S. and its allied aristocracies in the various European nations, want to cut Russia out of the world’s largest oil-and-gas market, the EU, and to cut in the GCC royals. The GCC royals also are the main funders of jihadist groups that commit terrorist acts in both the U.S. and Europe — all of which groups are likewise fundamentalist Sunnis, just like their royal paymasters are. The top funder of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 was — and at least as of 2009 it still remained — the Saud princes and their business-partners. But NATO is allied with them. This is how NATO intends “to project stability beyond our borders”: by becoming even tighter-allied with the funders of international jihadist groups.
So: the refugee problem in Europe is caused by the enemies of the European peoples, and these enemies are the aristocracies of the U.S., the EU, and the GCC.
Stoltenberg was arguing possibly to expand NATO to include the GCC.
He was also asked there about Turkey, which — under Tayyip Erdogan’s dictatorship — is the Saud family’s representative in NATO. A Brookings Institution scholar inquired:
“General Breedlove said recently that he felt the Russians were weaponizing the refugee situation with the aim of destabilizing Europe, and I know NATO has sent some sea patrols in the Aegean recently. But my question is why did it take so long for NATO to respond to such a serious security threat to the European continent when Greece and Turkey, both frontline States, are members of NATO?”
Turkey participate in the coalition fighting ISIL. Turkey provides military assets but in addition Turkey provides infrastructure, bases, the Incirlik Base and other facilities for the efforts of the coalition fighting ISIL. So without Turkey it would have been much more difficult to, for instance, to conduct many of the air strikes and so on fighting ISIL. Second Turkey is the NATO ally most affected by the influx of refugees. They host more than two million, close to three million perhaps refugees and so Turkey is heavily affected by the crisis in Iraq, Syria, ISIL.
Here are the facts on that:
Turkey supplies ISIS. (ISIS is called “ISIL” by the Obama Administration in order to mislead people to think that ISIS wasn’t started by someone who had been enraged by the U.S. invasion and destruction of Iraq in 2003. But ISIS is the usual name, and the second-most common name for it is Daesh, which is the term that the Saud family prefer to use for it. “Daesh” is the Arabic version of “ISIL”: the Sauds are merely deferring, but in Arabic, to U.S. President Obama’s preferred name for the group. However, the actual group, ISIS, hearing the term “Daesh” in Arabic, find it insulting, and have “reportedly threatened to ‘cut out the tongues’ of anyone it hears using the term’.”)
The GCC, those royal families and their retainers, are the funders of international jihad, not only of ISIS, but of Al Qaeda, etc. However, almost all the money that comes into Al Qaeda is from the Sauds.
When asked specifically about Libya, Stoltenberg said:
One issue we have discussed and also discussed during my visit here to Washington this week and also with Secretary Ash Carter was the possibility of NATO providing AWACS support, our surveillance plane. And that is on the table now and it’s going to be addressed in NATO and then we will be able to provide you with a more precise answer but AWACS support in one way or another is now an issue which is discussed in the Alliance.
He put that forward as being part of a necessary response, by NATO, to the infestation of Libya by “ISIL.” He made no mention of the fact that neither ISIS nor any other jihadist groups were allowed in Libya by Gaddafi, nor present there — that the military campaign there by the U.S., France, and Britain, had enabled the ISIS-infestation of Libya, because what the U.S. and its allies had done had turned it into a failed state.
NATO’s chief propaganda-arm, the Atlantic Council, put it this way about that part of his presentation (where Stoltenberg was talking about the need to bring about closer ties with the GCC):
“Laying the ground for a potential NATO role in Libya — where ISIS has put down roots in a dysfunctional environment that has until recently seen the country divided between two rival governments — Stoltenberg said Libya will need all the help it can get and that the Alliance is ready to step up.” In other words, NATO’s propaganda-arm said: NATO needs to assist the West’s governments to finish the job of taking control over Libya.
That’s a perfect example of: bomb a formerly Russia-friendly country into a failed state; then claim that because it’s a failed state, we’ve now got to take it over — for the benefit of U.S.-dominated international oil companies and the international corporations of aristocrats in countries that are allied with America’s aristocracy. (As regards the publics in any nations, their interests don’t count, according to the people who do count.)
Of course, it makes sense, then, that the GCC royals will now be NATO’s allies in this grand campaign to ‘protect the Western World’.
The enemies of the European peoples are those royal families, and their own and America’s aristocracies. These are the authentic enemies not only of Europeans, but of the American people, too.
But it’s not only those fundamentalist Sunnis. There is also the ceaseless propaganda, and the surging military buildup by NATO against Russia in the nations that border on Russia. For example, see this.
US Assaults British Sovereignty by Paul Craig Roberts
https://t.co/4WtLITap8t _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
The near-hysterical propaganda war currently being waged against the UK population in the run-up to the “Independence Day” referendum on June 23rd has had no parallel since the pathetic attempt to frighten us out of going to war with Nazi Germany in 1939.
In the run-up to Germany’s decision on September 1st 1939 to start the Second World War by invading Poland the British people were subjected to lurid propaganda, mostly about the effects of strategic bombing. Ghastly-looking gas marks for babies were issued to mothers, in the hope that their morale would buckle and that women would apply pressure not to abandon Neville Chamberlain’s shameful policy of appeasement.
German assets in Whitehall, co-ordinated by Sir Edward Bridges, the notorious pro-Axis Cabinet Secretary, pushed out ridiculous official estimates of bombing casualties. Timid officials made sure that air raid sirens were sounded over wide areas on the first sight of a Luftwaffe plane, bomber, reconnaissance or seaplane. Much credence was given to the absurd claim by pompous German asset Stanley Baldwin, when Prime Minister, that the “bomber would always get through.”
Baldwin didn’t know one end of an airplane from another. What he meant was that he hoped that enemy bombers, i.e. his side, would always get through. To help make it happen he starved the RAF of funds and tried desperately to block the development of modern monoplane fighters like the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire, and cannon-armed fighters like the Westland Whirlwind. The prospect of facing the Spitfire in particular scared the pants off the Luftwaffe, since it was better than anything they had. (The Peregrine-engined Whirlwind, which had huge potential as a bomber-destroyer and long-range fighter, was held back).
What none of these scaremongering idiots was prepared to admit was that the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force. In 1939 it did not possess a single strategic bomber, indeed the first modern German strategic bomber, the seriously flawed He 177 Greif, did not enter service until 1942, when it gave its unfortunate crews a lot of grief. When the French surrender brought southern England within range of the Luftwaffe’s small, twin-engined light and medium bombers the “bomber would always get through” theory was shown for the nonsense it always was.
The green fields of Kent were soon littered with the wrecks of downed German bombers. Baldwin wasn’t completely stupid, even though he was Prime Minister, and probably knew that what he was telling the House of Commons was complete and utter gibberish. Whether he was a liar or just an idiot, developments in sensor technology, in particular ground-based radar, radios, in particular VHF, fuels (permitting more highly supercharged and higher compression ratio advanced piston engines like the Rolls-Royce Merlin) and fighter technology were making a mockery of his words even as he spoke them.
Prime Minister Cameron, who is so historically illiterate that he thought that the US Air Force participated in the Battle of Britain, which ended over 14 months before America entered the war and just over 7 years before the National Security Act of 1947 created the USAF, seems to have ignored the lessons of the last attempt to scare the British public on the scale now being attempted in “Project Fear.” In 1939 the great British public gave a collective ‘up yours’ to German-controlled Whitehall and our community partners Adolf Hitler and Herman Goering. They were confident that the boys in blue would soon have terrified Heinkel pilots weaving all over the sky in desperate efforts to avoid hot streams of British lead. So it proved.
As we approach another great decision point in our national story the slide in the polls for the pro-German or ‘Stay’ side continues unabated, and that’s just the published polls, all of which are underestimating the ‘Go’ vote. Indeed not all the people they are polling may actually be British – none of the main polling organisations seems to correlate the people they are polling with the published electoral registers. With over 3 million European citizens working in the UK, around 10% of the working population, that could make an appreciable difference.
The much hoped-for ‘Barack Bounce’ in the polls bounced about as high as an Edsel dropped off the side of the Empire State Building, i.e. it was more of a splat than a bounce. As I predicted in last week’s column there was strong resentment of ‘von’ Obama’s blatant interference in our internal politics, not least since he was trying to ram a treaty down our throats his Administration wouldn’t dare try to sell to Congress. If America isn’t opening her border to Mexico why should we continue to keep open our borders to Spain, Portugal and Poland, never mind Turkey? (I am not saying that you guys should open your border to Mexico, or, more accurately, open it further – I’m with Trumpy on the Mexican thing).
As its contribution to Project Fear HM Treasury trotted out a 200 page piece of propaganda nonsense entitled “HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives” (Cm 9250). Even by the standards of Whitehall this is an hysterical document. As a paper it’s up there with the Defence White Paper of 1957, which solemnly asserted that manned combat aircraft were obsolete and the notorious Beeching Reports, which asserted that the best way to make the railways profitable was to shut them down.
The paper is gibberish from beginning to end. It recycles the government’s propaganda claim that “44% of UK exports go to the EU” without mentioning the Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect (i.e. it counts exports to South Korea as exports to the EU), mentioning the Republic of Ireland or acknowledging that exports to the EU are counted on a different basis. It repeats the government’s mendacious claim that the UK now has a ‘special status’ in the EU and states that the Brussels Agreement is binding, without explaining how.
It goes on to assert that the UK has significant influence in decision-making in Brussels when we are constantly outvoted and haven’t been able to get a single EU regulation lifted in 42 disastrous, wasted years of membership. It even claims that withdrawal would be bad for the UK automotive sector. In a particularly egregious piece of official deceit it concentrates on potential loss of exports due to tariffs without once mentioning that there is a massive trade deficit in vehicles with the EU in all categories. There isn’t a single reference to import substitution, i.e. the extra home sales which would be generated by the reduced competitiveness of European imports.
It confuses access to EU markets with tariff-free access and seems to imply that you have to be in the EU to trade with it, then contradicts itself by referring to Canada. It assumes continued mass immigration and treats that as an effective way to build GDP, without calculating the long-term costs, impact on public services and the countryside, and effect on GDP per capita.
It introduces a new and unnecessary concept, of GDP per household, without explaining why this is a better measure than GDP per capita. It barely refers to the manufacturing sector, concentrating on services as though manufacturing didn’t matter. It makes no attempt to quantify the massive cost of complying with burdensome EU regulations and seems to assume that EU workers currently exercising EU Treaty rights in the UK will continue to enjoy them even after UK withdrawal (huh?).
Its calculation of the effect on tax revenues in the event of trading with the EU under WTO rules doesn’t include the additional income tariffs would generate. To whom does HM Treasury think that EU importers would be paying tariffs? The Church Commissioners? Dover District Council perhaps?
In a betrayal of classic Treasury thinking on tax, if thinking is not too strong a word, it actually asserts (please read it if you don’t believe me) that if you want to increase the tax take you have to increase taxes. No, dummies. If you want to raise more tax you cut the tax rate and grow the economy – it’s called the Laffer Curve, after the great economist Arthur Laffer, and it was proved in practice by another great man, President Ronald Reagan.
Punishment of the Civil Service
The Treasury paper is so bad it seriously calls the Treasury’s economic competence into question. One thing is clear – after withdrawal the new government cannot rely on the Treasury for economic advice. It is simply incapable of giving it, just as the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser is incapable of giving serious scientific advice he actually believes in man-made global warming – I don’t mean that he just spouts it as the official line, the rumor is that the poor man actually believes in the drivel he is uttering, no offense intended.
When a democracy is as poorly served by its central bureaucracy as the United Kingdom is served by the Home Civil Service it becomes legitimate for those concerned about the governance of a country to think in terms of legitimate means of inflicting collective punishment. As with all methods of collective punishment this can be hard on the innocent as well the guilty, but as dear old Bomber Harris used to say, you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs (his bombers got through, by the way).
Many, albeit a minority, of civil servants, particularly in the IT field, are honest, hard-working and sober. They actually perform a public service, unlike the overpaid, underworked, intellectually lazy bureaucrats in Whitehall (the civil servants who wrote the Treasury paper on the EU must have been drunk).
The easiest way to make the Civil Service more economically efficient is to hit them through their pensions. Instead of being index-linked, civil service pensions should be uprated in line with benefits, at the same rate.
It will be many decades before the Civil Service can make up for the disastrous mistake of joining the EEC, a policy it pushed for and has sustained with dishonest advice and bent statistics, like those phoney EU export figures.
The Shindler Case
A few months ago a strange case called Shindler entered the list, no pun intended. Plaintiffs wished to challenge the decision of the British Parliament to limit the electorate for the referendum to those entitled to vote in General Elections, which was a pretty fair decision, you might think.
What plaintiffs wanted the Administrative Court to do was to set itself up as a court of appeal from Parliament and revoke the Act of Parliament setting up the referendum, using EU law as pretext. Both nominal plaintiffs emigrated to Europe more than 15 years ago, outside the time limit for voting rights established by Parliament.
Quite how the great British public would have reacted to a tight ‘Stay’ result vote dependent on foreign-based voters is unclear. Fortunately, for only the third time since we applied to join the EEC by my count, the courts actually got it right (the first time was a VAT case in the 1980s called Smedley, argued by my good friend the late Leo Price QC, and the second was a similar case in the Court of Appeal establishing the precedent that the courts should not interfered with the 15 year limit, a precedent which bound the court in this case). Plaintiffs intend to appeal, but should not get leave, even though Mr Justice Blake was one of the judges (no offense intended, Nick!).
This week’s review: The Americans
The Americans is an outstanding television spy drama, now in its fourth season. Going out in the States on the FX cable network it stands comparison to any drama produced by the more established networks like CBS. For those who are not fans, it is set in the 1980s and centers on two KGB illegals, using the aliases Elizabeth and Philip Jennings (Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys).
The ‘heroes’, who have to do some pretty villainous things, are ably supported by a strong cast, led by Noah Emmerich as unsuspecting FBI agent neighbour Stan Beeman, Richard (‘John-Boy’ Walton) Thomas as his boss and the excellent Frank Langella, as the Jennings’s KGB handler.
It is a gripping human as well as a spy drama, as the couple have two kids, only one of whom knows that their parents happen to be KGB officers. As part of their intelligence duties the Jennings have to seduce and recruit US citizens, hilariously including Richard Thomas’s unsuspecting secretary.
Production values are generally very high, although the writing team, led by former CIA officer Joe Weisberg, and cast deserve a higher budget per episode. Even I know that some of the ‘Washington’ scenes have been shot mostly in New York and some of the green screen work is obvious on the rare occasion it has been used. Maybe the excellence of the series as a whole makes the one or two errors across all three and a bit seasons stand out more – I find them jarring, which I probably wouldn’t with a series which engaged me less.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum