Total Visits

Sunday, 26 January 2014

ENGLAND - "Better off OUT"

Occasionally an article appears which is so excellent that it deserves to be quoted in full.  Below is such an article by Daniel Hannan the Eurosceptic Conservative MEP on the topic of EU membership.

There is of course the faults of his insistence on referring to the UK and his indifference to England!
On the latter point I met Daniel Hannan a few years ago.  I wanted to see if he might be a convert to English nationalism in due course, but his family background is such that I do not think that that is very likely.  However I don’t know where his allegiance would lie in the event of the dissolution of the United Kingdom. 

In any event here is his excellent article:-

"Eurocrats secretly admit that countries are better off out.

The world, we keep being told, is coalescing into blocs. No single nation can afford to stand aside. The future belongs to the conglomerates.

It’s hard to think of a theory that has become so dominant with so flimsy a basis. The story of the our age has been one, not of amalgamation, but of disaggregation: empires have split into smaller and smaller units. Fifty years ago, there were 115 states in the United Nations, today there are 193. What’s more, small territories are generally more successful. The wealthiest states on Earth, measured by per capita GDP, are Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, Switzerland, Macau, Australia, the UAE, Kuwait, Sweden, San Marino and Jersey.

So why do Euro-integrationists keep telling us that we’re heading towards a kind of Nineteen Eighty-Four carve-up, in which massive Asian, European and American superstates will call the shots? (In Orwell’s classic novel, the British Isles were part of the Anglosphere rather than Europe, but let’s leave that aside.) In truth, the claim is pure propaganda. Eurocrats don’t believe it themselves.

How do I know? Well, I’ve just been reading the EU’s report on relations with Iceland, marked “for internal use only”. Although its tone reflects the official line – looking forward to a resumption of accession talks if and when Iceland comes to its senses – the details tell a very different story. First, the paper acknowledges the main reason that Iceland has bounced back from the banking crisis:

The small Nordic country has largely recovered from its deep economic crisis, thanks to a devaluated [sic] currency and a strong trade surplus — a turnaround that was made possible in part by the country’s distance from the euro area.

Then comes the really telling passage. Discussing Iceland’s trading profile, the report notes that that frozen lump of volcanic tundra has the twin advantages of small size and few “defensive interests”. Defensive interests is a term used by trade officials to mean “sectors which a country wants to shield from competition”. In trade talks, negotiators distinguish between offensive interests (areas where they want the other party to open its markets) and defensive ones (areas where they want to prevent liberalisation). Iceland, being an open economy, has relatively few protectionist sectors. As the report notes:

This has made easier to conclude free trade agreement with bigger trade partners. The most recent FTA concluded on 15 April 2013 between Iceland and China, is expected to boost exports to China while eliminating tariffs on import of manufactured goods. It is the first free trade agreement concluded by a European country China. A second one was concluded by Switzerland in July.

There you have it. The Eurocrats may bang on in public about trade blocs but, in private, they admit that small is beautiful.

Now ask yourself this question. If Britain were not bound by the “defensive interests” of the EU as a whole, from French films to Italian textiles, is it conceivable that we would not by now have signed comprehensive trade deals with the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets, such as China and India?

We sit on few natural resources in this mild, green, damp island of ours. We depend on what we buy and sell. Yet, crazily, we have locked ourselves into a customs union with the only continent on the planet whose economy is shrinking. Ça suffit ! as we Old Brussels Hands say. ¡Basta ya!"

(Here is the link to the original >>>


  1. robin

    notice the house of lords have not blocked the coming scottish independence referendum. this is because holyrood is not scrutinised by the house of lords.

    so the house of lords is now simply a mechanism to continue cultural marxism and keep us in the eu. when england gains independence lets abolish the upper chamber

    1. Excellent idea. The House of Lords is by far the more sinister and haved their own interests and goals that does nothing but harm to the English people in every way. Best to get rid of them.

    2. There was a letter in our local paper from a eurosceptic who had been watching the Lords' debate on the Euro referendum.The Labour peers most of all, especially the odious Peter Mandleson, said that the British people were too thick to reach a decision on such matters. I have no doubt that Lord Mandleson is being paid by the one worlders like the rest of them. Such arrogance. Well they have certainly done a wonderful job with this country over the last 60 years. If they had left it to the British, especially to the English people over the last 60 years we would still be living in a gentle, united, homogeneous, free, independent and much less overcrowded country rather than what they have planned a collection of rootless and powerless people from all over the world jammed packed together like sardines as part of their rootless one world dictatorship of low iq pawnsand slaves.

  2. If the UK would be better 'out', a smaller state such as England would be even better 'out'. Hanna should follow the logic of his own argument.

  3. Well said with regard to 1984. There was a sad irony about Manuel Barroso saying last night that the EU must stand behind the people of the Ukraine wanting to join the EU. For a start it is not all the Ukraine but only half of its people, if that. The EU will undoubtedly - with American backing - try to force an election in the Ukraine and insist that the people keep on voting until they come up with the right result which will be a government sympathetic towards EU associate membership. After all the EU's commissioner for expansion has been talking about the Ukraine as well. The EU just wants to keep on expanding. Of course it does as the ultimate aim is one world government when all the various blocks will be joined together as one. Russia is resisting this and Russia must be brought down.

    Nigel Farage has said that the EU is about big business, big banks and big bureaucracy. So the Marxist bureacracy is really the bastard child of the former. But some of us knew that all along; that the Marxist useful idiots were really doing the dirty work for the big banks and big business. He could have added a fourth bb namely big brother. The EU is wedded to multiculturalism as per the UN's determination - no doubt on behalf of big business and the big banks - to destroy the homogeneous nation states of Europe and anybody who speaks out against multiculturalism and wants to retaine those homogenous nation states - or what is left of them is to be slapped in jail.

    The irony with regard to Barroso is that his own people, the Portuguese, are queuing up for soup kitchens and reliant on food banks thanks to the failure of the EU and the euro. But that does not mean anything to Barroso. The ideology for this Marxist is everything and the people don't count, no more they did for Lenin or in 1984.

    By the way, one reason why Iceland has signed a trade agreement with China is that she has a toehold in the oil under the Arctic and is planning to let China exploit it. Sadly, the Arctic is no going to be the new Middle East where there will be a rush for oil with possible conflict.

    I have reached the conclusion that the people really behind all this, that plutocratic elite, want to create anarchy everywhere just as they have with the Arab Spring. They think we will be easier to control that way, a sort of divide and rule. Homogenous nation states - like Iceland - are much more likely to be stable and to resist.

  4. As we all know it is the centenary of the start of World War I this year and I managed to catch the first episode of Paxman's new programme to mark the occasion, which got me thinking. One of the most influential books I have ever read is, 'Chaos', by James Gleick. In the book he describes what he calls, 'non linear systems'. These could be anything from weather systems, animal population cycles, social attitudes, politics and economics.

    You've all heard of the, 'butterfly effect'? Well, essentially, in an idealised version, it states that one small occurrence or event (I.E in this instance the beating of a butterflies wings) can perturb the particular system in question, grow and expand in the series of subsequent events - which in the example of the butterfly wings eventually grows to create a hurricane. Like I said this is a simplified/idealised example to help understand the theory.

    What relevance does WW1 have these days? Well applying this theory to 20th/21st century politics, are we entering the period of a perfect storm, generated 100 years ago from the first wing beat that was the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand?

    From that one event war was declared on Serbia, thus unleashing a catastrophic sequence of events that still builds today. Are we about to enter the hurricane phase?

    From that one event war was declared which killed and wounded approximately tens of millions of people; suffering, more death, hyperinflation; utter desperation; national socialism; hitler; WW2 and further millions of war dead and injured followed. This ignited the plan for a European union, followed by what we see today with the eradication of national currencies and the start of the end for the nation state.

    As you maybe able to see that the initial perturbation is still propagating. Now, I can't decide whether the storm has already raged (WW1 & WW2) and is dying out, with the end game being, like has been alluded to above, an Orwellian political configuration of superstates, control, subservience, slavery and a dystopian future (pick a book of your choice) or whether the real storm has yet to rage at maximum. I think that to stop it more death is inevitable and in this case Chaos theory is still well and truly in motion.

    I realise that this is quite a simplified version of events but I think the general framework applies. What do you think? Are we living - embedded - in a period of time generated by one sole event 100 years ago? Where will it go in the future; when will the storm, if still raging, die out and to what?

    We are quite obviously on the cusp of something, what exactly that is, I'm not too sure. Interesting times.

    1. Serbia was Europe's bulwark against the Ottoman Empire. Now NATO has let the Ottoman Empire win in the case of Kosovo. Ironically Austro-Hungary, which was another defender of European Christian Civilisation against Islam sided with Turkey and the result is the Islamic problem in Germany today as Germany maintained that alliance.

      As I have posted many times, some of us have clung to Russia as the only hope of stopping the one world borderless multicultural mish mash which those who hold ultimate political and financial power seem to have condemned us to.

      Hence, it was with some alarm that I heard on Russia Today last night that there has been a Russia-EU summit in Brussels with Putin and Lavrov present. With alarm as the discussion turned of course to the situation in the Ukraine. Putin's suggestion was a joining up of the EU with the Eurasia Free Trade Area as a way of stopping the Ukraine splitting in two between the pro-EU west and the pro-Russian east. Have we, I wonder, been hoodwinked once again as we have been ever since voting in the Common Market referendum in the 1960s? Was the situation in the Ukraine engineered from one world hq so as to bring about the joining up of this two free trade areas. All of a sudden we have NAFTA and a Pacific Rim Free trade area as well. Is the aim a federation of these blocks ruled from the UN?

      And as we discovered yesterday from Edward Snowden, GCHQ has been using our phone apps here to pass information to the NSA. I am sure that each of my words is heading that way also. Are we rapidly approaching the ultimate 1984 nightmare of a borderless multiculturalised mish mash world controlled by big business and the big banks where we are constantly surveyed by Big Brother. Nationalists who want a return to the old independent nation states of Europe and elsewhere now seem powerless against these people, unless there is a total breakdown of law and order everywhere. Our police have ordered water cannon from Germany in anticipation of this. But is this just want they want? Is freedom now to be something which will only have existed in history books? As I said to a friend, although I didn't explain why, "Just keep praying" for the days of the ballot box may well be over.

    2. Watching Dan Snow on the Winter Olympics last night we were told what I already knew namely that NATO ultimately succeeded in turning Sarajevo into a wholly muslim city with the Jews and the Christians being ethnically cleansed.
      The Sochi olympics also seem to be the opportunity for the American controlled western media to have a go at Russia.

      I should have added, with regard to the chain of events, that history seems to be a constant repetition of the creation of empires and alliances and their collapse. The First World War brought about the collapse of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire and gradually the European colonial empires. The Versailles settlement was vindictive towards the Germans, mostly on the part of the French and led to the rise of an aggrieved Hitler. But there was another contributor to World War 2 and that was the banking deregulation of the 1920s which created the Great Depression which so affected Germany and led to the communist threat and the Third Reich.

      Nazism was seen by the great and the good as a "nationalist" phenomenon and the answer was to be the obliteration of the nation state, especially the homogeneous nation states of Europe. The First World War had already seen off most of the European monarchies and their replacement by republics.

      Most of us have nothing against European countries working together and even some form of free trade area like EFTA. However, I was surprised to hear a British gentleman on Russia Today describe the EU as a customs union. It has gone far beyond that towards a federal state or another multi-ethnic Holy Roman Empire, all the previous ones having collapsed.

      This has been followed by a banking deregulation and a financialisation of the world even worse than that of the 1920s. This makes you wonder who was behind that fatal shot in Sarajevo as it led to a chain of events which would ultimately result in the one world empire they now seem to be creating, probably those same bankers and industrialists.

      The speaker on Russia Today was linking nationalists in Paris demonstrating with the neo-nazi anti-semitic nationalists who seem to be preventing any settlement in the Ukraine. Nationalists of any persuasion are now to be viewed as the enemy of mankind. It seems that those financial interests wanted the collapse of old Europe so as to create a world empire that they could control. When this collapses it will be very bloody and will be a civil war type Third World War covering the entire planet. So that fatal shot has led to this but not in the name of the freedom and democracy which the Serbian gunman hoped for. It has led ultimately to the total removal of both. Never before in the history of mankind has a group of psychopathic megalomaniacs been in a position to reduce the whole world to slavery. As I have said, these are the people who met the devil in the desert as Jesus did; but who accepted what Christ rejected.

  5. Further to my last comment, I have just realised the connection with my final paragraph and 1984 again. Daniel Hanna is right with his 1984 analogy. It makes me wonder if Orwell had found something out as well. Certainly we know that the Societ dissident, Vladimir Bukovsky, had read in the Kremlin archives that the ultimate aim of the EU and other such "trade blocks" is one world United Nations government. But he was of the opinion that they will never get it to work. Let's hope he is right.

    However, returning to 1984, if you remember rightly, the various blocks were in a permanent state of warfare with each other as people were much more easy to control under such circumstances rather than in a state of peace, union and homogeneity where we would all, as would all other Europeans, gang together to resist. I am sure I am right in assuming that spreading the Arab Spring world wide rather than leaving people to be united either under a single leader or under a true democracy is the way in which they hope to control us all from their evil New York hq. It also makes me assume that the UN hq is in New York, which seems an odd choice, for the reason that it is next door to the evil corridors of power, the hqs of the world's biggest banking cartels.