The argument put forward by many in the remain camp is that it would be better to stay within the EU and change it from the inside

However, one only has to look at history & more recently David Camerons attempt only a few months ago to negotiate with the EU on the topic of change from within - we have all seen how well that went, so why should their stance change in the future?

Based upon the EU's track record why on earth does anyone think that the EU is either willing or able to change - even assuming there is a wish to do so - which clearly does not curently exist

Quite frankly those 'in charge' in the EU are set upon an all-encompassing Federalist agenda and anyone who believes otherwise is deluded

Therefore, why should the UK be shackled to an EU, run by an elite whose ideology is totally alien to our own, purely for the benefit of other countries & the rest of the world?

Furthermore, this magnanimity expected of the UK does not come cheap, with an increasing expectation that the UK will provide ever more funding and help solve all the EU's self inflicted problems, where the UK had no say in the original decision (witness Germany unilateral recent open-door policy over migrants) - sometimes to the detriment of our own population as in the case of many decisions by the ECJ (European Court of Justice)

How interesting that according to all the 'remain' pundits the UK is deemed to have little global influence or power to go it alone, and yet at the same time, there seems to be a huge worldwide attempt to prevent the UK population from exercising their vote in favour of Brexit - something simply does not add up!

Does this concerted effort of bullying, threats and persuasion by the 'remain' lobby, by drawing in all manor of supporters from the entire spectrum of ghastly celebrities right through 'captains' of industry and culminating with ex US Secretaries of State, really make any sense?

After all bearing in mind the claims that the UK is a spent power, why should anyone outside the UK care - unless of course there is more to this than meets the eye?

Everyone wants the UK to remain in the EU as a stabilising/moderating influence - but at what price to the UK in terms of Sovereignty, migration and additional financial contributions to a failing EU. Moreover we have an EU that has no intention or will to change despite having had the 'writing on the wall' for a number of years already. The EU simply produces one 'fudge' after another to provide stop-gap solutions, rather than addressing the issues properly with a view to permanent solutions. This must surely the result of woefully inadequate leadership, paralysed by the concept of decision making - i.e. not one statesman amongst the lot of them!

Perhaps a more pertinent question should be - how long will the EU last if the UK does leave and other countries decide to follow suit?

Naturally if Brexit should come about, then the UK will remain willing to step in and help the Europe in times of trouble, as we have done in the past with previous conflicts - but there is really no need for the UK to be part of the unfolding train-wreck of the EU, just to demonstrate commitment to world peace

As for America - clearly they have short memories because they seem to have forgotten the reasons behind their own War of Independence (1775–1783). Why is the wish for Brexit any different?

Anyway does the UK really care about all the US threats over the 'special relationship' because quite frankly we all know that this is a very one-sided arrangement to serve the US only and any assistance to the UK always comes at a price. Let us not forget history and the Anglo-American Loan Agreement, the USA Cash & Carry policy (WWII) or Lend-Lease because the USA refused to enter the war and only engaged after Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941. Preferring instead for their 'allies' to do the fighting for them. All this seems rather like deja-vu with the European migrant crisis - America distances itself & Europe picks up the pieces

Whilst we are on the subject of the US, could someone please explain what their contribution has been towards solving the European refugee/migration problems currently being encountered. This is especially poignant bearing in mind that the US were instrumental in being one of the root causes of these issues in the middle east in the first place and now seem to have 'ducked' responsibility

So guys, before standing on the sidelines telling the UK what to do, any advice you offer would probably have more credibility if you started taking your fair share of Syrians, Iraquis, Afghanis and other displaced people that you have helped make refugees in the first place

However, what is hugely disappointing with this entire episode, is the manner in which David Cameron has conducted himself over the referendum, by displaying nothing more than privileged 'bully boy' tactics in an attempt to get his own way.

Considering the office he holds, his obsession and kowtowing to celebrities has always been rather demeaning to the British people, especially as this was not what he was elected to do. Neither is his coterie of Chipping Norton cronies particularly edifying and only brings him into disrepute when favours are handed out

Tags: , | Categories: Economics | European Union

What a very stupid statement made by Damian Draghici, an advisor to the Romanian Prime Minister

'.. Britain should be far more worried about bankers taking billions of pounds than Roma begging on the streets ..'

Clearly Mr Draghici has missed the whole point of the UK's concern (probably deliberately) - which is lack of control over our own affairs.

The UK can chose whatever measures it wants to take against bankers or anyone else; the fact that it has not done so is an entirely different matter - the choice is available. However, this is not the case with the UK borders where EU rules prevent countries managing their own immigration policies.

It doesn't really matter whether 1 migrant or 1 million gain entry, the principle is the same; countries want control of their own borders and not to be dictated to by the EU as part of their goal for a political power base. Migrants are generally regarded as bringing all manner of advantages to the receiving country, but only if they have the suitable qualifications and not because of an attractive welfare system (Romania £8 per week - UK £80+ per week)

Additionally, it is generally recognised that the UK has a growing element of generational dependency on welfare amongst some of the indigenous population. Bringing migrants in to work at low rates of pay thereby taking the jobs that could be used to wean generational dependents back into work is perhaps not the best approach. Obviously employers would prefer the work ethic of migrants in preference to some of the work-shy native population, but is that the best way to address encouraging existing welfare claimants back into work and off benefits?

Furthermore, these EU edicts fly directly in the face of the basic concept of Subsidiarity - which has been acclaimed as one of the fundamental cornerstones of all aspects of the EU, to prevent members being dictated to by unreasonable central policies

‘.. decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union in accordance with Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty ..’

Why is Subsidiarity not working in the EU - the EU seems intent on breaking their own rules & guidelines to get their own way (now there is a surprise)

The Romanian argument seems to have progressed from - 'large migration will not occur', through 'only qualified migrants will move' and now finally we get to the nub of of the matter where they are acknowledging the probable reality of the Roma population migration and trying to downplay the issue with distractions, such as bankers (who by the way are net contributors rather than recipients)

Yet another red herring from a new entrant attempting to justify free borders, and just as weak as all previous arguments on this subject. Although, it is as good as an admission that one is likely to get about massive free population migration across uncontrolled borders for the hope of a better life in another country.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with these aspirations provided the 'better life' includes contributing to their target country and not just taking (welfare in all its forms). Anyway surely the underlying question has to be why has their country of origin not been able to provide this life for them in the first place, because this raises a far more fundamental issue that the EU does not wish to address?

The UK has enacted laws in order to benefit the population and in this respect let us just begin with an easy one. Local Authorities in the UK have a duty to house the homeless, which raises the question of whether this is the case in Romania.

Do the authorities in Romania have a duty to house their homeless? If Romania (or any of the other countries) do not have the same basic enshrined obligations as the UK then there is no level playing field and consequently the UK is expected to provide better conditions than the migrants own country, which is an absurd situation with mass migration.

The UK's resources are finite, quite apart from that fact that the existing population density in the UK is one of the highest around and allowing a greater influx will only make matters worse.

Tags: | Categories: European Union