Friday, 22 July 2011


£96 billion, that is the staggering sum of money that will be found to bail out the terminal Greek economy – again.

In a big pow-wow of European leaders it was resolved to allow Greece to have a controlled default on its loans and a bailout package, which like so much done in the European Union was not really based on practical economic terms, but done with the sole intention of saving the EU’s euro and, very conveniently, giving the EU even more control of the nations within the eurozone.

In what has been described as a bit to prevent contagion seeping out across the EU, the suits in Brussels have been granted some quite radical new economic powers which will help to create the original aim of ‘Ever closer union’ as laid down in the EU’s founding document, the Treaty of Rome.

From that viewpoint this Greek tragedy has been very convenient for those whose aim it is to build their single nation of Europe, for the Greeks and the rest of us it comes as bad news, as do all power grabs by the EU.

This now means the taxpayers in the richer nations of the EU will have open wallets to constantly bailout and prop up the basket case economies. The EU’s leaders described it as a ‘”significant step towards financial integration in Europe.”

Writing in the Daily Telegraph on Friday 22nd July 2011, Peter Osbourne warned the crisis will give Germany the empire it always dreamed of. It seems where bombs and bullets in two World Wars failed; Germany has succeeded with the euro and bailouts.

He points out that the eurozone has taken the decisive step becoming a fiscal union. This he considers is the “witching hour” when Europe will have “one economic government, one currency, one foreign policy. The integration will be complete.”

This surely must place even more pressure on David Cameron regarding the UK stressful relationship with the EU. The people of Britain have become ever more sceptical and as spending cuts bite here, at the same time other household costs spiral, there will be increasing calls not to bailout Greece or any other EU nation and to get the UK out.

As the EU heads towards it destiny of a single nation Britain must take many steps back, in fact all the way back to the starting line and leave the EU to the great disaster which is inevitably coming. The EU’s leaders may be patting themselves on the backs and smiling today, but the people of Europe who are paying for this through their taxes, by having to work more years before they retire and by cuts to any government benefits, will be muttering darkly – when they rise the current Greek riots will look like a Sunday School outing.

Wednesday, 20 July 2011


John Mills, on right, with Lords Stoddart and Tebbit.

The Labour Euro Safeguards Campaign (LESC), which has been campaigning against the EU for many years, produces a regular bulletin and sent out by LESC secreatary, John Mills, who has given permission for their latest bulletin to be reproduced below.


1. What is happening to the true costs of Britain’s EU Membership.

Britain’s membership of the EU never came on the cheap. We have made substantial net budgetary contributions almost every year since we joined, now totalling over £100bn. We have had a cumulative balance of payments deficit with the other EU members of almost £400bn. We have been inundated with regulations from Brussels, with heavy net costs to our economy. We have lost more and more powers as they have been transferred from Westminster to Brussels. These are familiar problems, however, to which the public has become – albeit reluctantly – largely inured. Now, however, there are further radical changes in the cost of our membership which are all becoming increasingly apparent. At a time when our economy is in poor shape and when we already have a huge public sector deficit – one of the highest in the EU – enormous additional costs are looming up. It is when these are all considered together that the scale of the problem we now face in the costs of our EU membership really becomes apparent.

2. What are the relatively easy to identify net transfer costs?

The costs which ought always to have been easiest to identify are our net budget contributions. It has, however, never been easy to get a firm grip on what these are and governments of all persuasions – no doubt embarrassed by what they would show - have done nothing to help to clarify the position. Payment statistics between Britain and the EU have been notoriously difficult to disentangle. ONS summary tables, however, present an extremely alarming picture. It appears that our net contributions on all counts may have already reached a much as £9.2bn per annum,, on a very steeply rising trend. These big increases are caused by a number of factors, of which the partial phasing out of the abatement agreed by Mrs Thatcher in 1984 and rising EU expenditures are particularly important contributors. Further increases are very probably on the way as pressure to get rid of our remaining rebate mounts and EU budgets continue to increase. Some estimates have put the net total budget transfer costs as high as £12bn by 2013. All this net sum has to be raised in taxes in the UK and all the net benefit goes to people in other countries in the EU

3. What are the costs of EU policies on Agriculture and Fisheries?

Although their costs overlap to some extent with our net budget contribution, it is also relatively easy to identify the direct costs to the British economy – and particularly the consumer – of two pernicious EU policies, neither of which has any significant support in the UK. The Common Agricultural Policy, which still consumes nearly 40% of the EU budget, raises food prices by some £20 a week for every family of four in the country compared to what they would be if there were not sky high tariffs to keep out food imports. The Common Fisheries Policy, although smaller, is arguably even worse. It has allowed our rich fishing stocks to be decimated by over-fishing, bad management and corruption, in what is very widely recognised to be an ecological disaster. Both policies also have heavy costs on the Third World, more than offsetting all the aid programmes which the EU runs supposedly to help them.

4. What are the costs of government from Brussels?

The costs of government from Brussels are not, however, just these budgetary charges. Much of the activities of the EU involve other costs. Excessive regulation certainly counts among these. Of course not all regulations come from Brussels but a lot do and the net cost of all regulations in the UK – i.e. with the costs subtracted from the benefits – come to at least 2% of our national income – i.e. about £30bn per annum. Some of these rules, such as the one which regulates the amount of hours which trainee doctors can work, have had particularly serious effects. It is not only generally excessive regulations which hit the UK, however, but also a number of initiatives which have a much more serious impact on the UK than they do on the rest of the EU, particularly those to do with unhelpful and burdensome regulations on financial services which few people think will help to avoid another financial melt down.

5. What risks does Britain now face from bailing out the crisis in the Eurozone?

Much the biggest new cost threat from the EU stems from developments in the eurozone. While Britain very wisely stayed out of the Single Currency, the problems in Greece, Ireland and Portugal have already involved Britain acting as guarantor for large sums which are going to be at risk if there are defaults in the eurozone. Some of these contingent liabilities have arisen because of our involvement in the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, which was set up by Qualified Majority Voting – entirely improperly as the clause used to authorise this development in the Lisbon Treaty was not intended for this purpose. Others have materialised as a result of our commitments to the International Monetary Fund, which in turn has offered guarantees to eurozone countries. We have also provided a large unilateral guarantee to Ireland. Britain’s total exposure under all these headings is about £12bn, and may well increase if lack of confidence continues to spread to Spain, Italy and possibly Belgium or even France. In addition, British banks are at risk of losing substantial further sums if eurozone countries, particularly Ireland and Spain, devalue their currencies. British banks lent large sums to help finance property booms in both these countries, leaving themselves exposed to risks both of devaluation of the currencies in which the loans were made and losses as a result of insolvencies among developers.

6. Are there additional risks on top of these direct costs?

Unfortunately, the impact on the UK – and the rest of Europe and indeed the world economy – of the eurozone collapsing are all too likely to stretch well beyond the costs of the guarantees which will then crystallise and the debts which will not get repaid, at least not in full. Potentially much more serious is the slump into which Europe is likely to be plunged if there are really wide scale defaults. This is because the scale of the financial losses in prospect may be so large that they leave EU governments with insufficient creditworthiness to enable them to stop major banks becoming insolvent. At the moment, the EU authorities are buying time by extending more and loans to the weaker economies in the hope that they will recover sufficient creditworthiness to be able to stop needing further support. It seems increasingly unlikely that this policy will work, but the consequence, if it fails to do so, will be more and more guarantees falling in and the accumulation of more and more huge loans which are never going to get repaid. Some reports suggest that the total sum involved in underwriting the eurozone may already be as high as €1,000bn. The really big costs to the UK from the EU would come from the financial crisis which would engulf Europe if the EU fails to come to grips soon enough with the scale of the eurozone problems. At the moment, there is little sign of EU leaders recognising that the only long term solution is a radical restructuring of the Single Currency, allowing countries which are now hopelessly uncompetitive, to devalue. This process would no doubt be expensive and very disruptive in the short term but would provide hope for much more favourable long term prospects. By refusing to contemplate this kind of action and by remaining in a condition of denial as bigger and bigger loans and guarantees stave off the need for immediate action, EU leaders run a heavy risk of facing eventually defaults on such as scale that they would be unmanageable, as the sums of money became so large that they became too big for even sovereign EU governments to underwrite.

7. What are the longer term economic prospects for the EU?

There might, perhaps, be more of a case for putting up with all these problems resulting from our EU Membership if the longer term prospects of the EU as a bloc were favourable. Unfortunately, this is a long way from being the position. On the contrary, mainly as a result of extremely adverse demographic factors – not shared to anything like the same extent by the UK – most of the economies in the EU are projected to become more and more unbalanced over the coming decades as the ratio between those of working age and those who are retired continues to fall. The consequences are bound to be slower growth and all projections show a steep fall in the significance of the EU in the world economy over the coming years. Does it really make sense for the UK to tie itself more and more closely to one of the least dynamic economic blocs when the prospects are so much better in most other parts of the world?

8. What is it costing Britain to be pulled in so many directions in which we do not want to go?

Britain’s role in the EU has been fraught with problems for a long time. Tensions over the big gap between the aspirations of most continental political leaders and those of UK politicians have had a baleful influence on the British political environment ever since we joined what was then the Common Market in 1973. The reality is that the vast majority of the British people and their elected representatives do not share the aspirations for closer and closer integration which motivates so many politicians on the continent. Britain has always paid a heavy net cost for our EU membership and as the way the EU is developing becomes less and less in tune with what most people in Britain want, support for our membership is steadily dwindling. Erosion of support has certainly been exacerbated by a rash of poor EU decisions and leadership in recent years, particularly over the Single Currency, the handling of the proposed EU Constitution which morphed into being the Lisbon Treaty, the EU democratic deficit and much too much lack of accountability shading into fraud and corruption. We therefore need to take stock of the position and to decide whether we really want to continue to be part of the EU as it is now developing. Perhaps there is still a majority in favour of doing this, but surely the time has now come when we need to test public opinion to see whether this is now the settled view of the British electorate. We need an “in-out referendum” to see whether all the costs of Britain’s membership are really worth the rapidly rising price we are now paying. Are our political leaders going to allow this to happen?

To contact or join the Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign
72 Albert Street, London, NW1 7NR
Tel: 020 7691 3800 * Fax: 020 7691 3834.


While all eyes are on the saga of the hacking scandal, the grilling of the Murdoch’s and fun with foam, the major economic disaster taking place courtesy of the EU and its folly known as the euro, continues to create major problems and concerns on a global scale.

On the verge of a meeting of EU leaders, The IMF has urged the EU to rescue Greece to prevent global shockwaves – or rather the taxpayers of Europe to bail out Greece. Ex Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lamont, pointed out that “Greece, Ireland and Portugal have already received £240billion of bailout loans from the EU and the IMF – including £12.5billion from Britain, or £500 per family.” This has been paid by UK taxpayers alone and now we are being told to stump up more.

Sadly, as the EU and its mono-direction leaders will inevitably plan to impose even more EU upon us to dig themselves out of the hole entirely of their making, the only real answer to the problem is an orderly dismantling of first the euro – which was massive error they were warned of but ignored, followed swiftly by the complete dismantling of the EU itself and all its institutions.

As the EU is being dismantled as a overly grand experiment that has gone badly wrong, a return to sovereign nation states can be restored along with their own currencies, full control over their own laws, economies and borders. All Europe has ever needed are pacts to ensure free trade across independent sovereign nations with relatively easy passage for the people of Europe to visit each other, and with a system of national work permits governed and controlled by each nation to suit their own needs.

The original plan, as laid down in the early fifties in the Treaty of Rome to create the “Ever closer union” of the nations was a solution to a problem of warring nation over sixty years ago. By being a solution to a problem that has not existed for around half a century the EU has become a major problem in itself.

Chaos, anarchy, riots (now taking place because of the euro) will increase and mass upheaval and major loss of life will be unavoidable if the EU and its blinkered leaders continue on the path to their federal Europe – the hell they walk into at the end of this path will be of their making and the very thing the EU and its followers have always said it has prevented, which is war, will come about through its own action.

Be warned, the road to hell is paved with euros.

Monday, 18 July 2011


UKIP MEP, Trevor Colman, warns of plans for an EU Coastgaurd service.

For those who go to sea it must always be reassuring to know that the RNLI and Coastguard services are always there, should you get into problems – the last thing any mariner would want is to jeopardise these vital services. This applies too for holiday makers who often get into problems due to being washed out to sea on strong tides in inflatables or small dinghies.

To see a Coastguard station being manned on a vantage point with a Coastguard officer looking out to sea making sure all is well is one of those things we all take for granted, and thank God for when we hear of how they save many lives. Sadly, thanks to our long, sad involvement in the EU all this could come to an end.

Trevor Colman, one of UKIP’s MEPs from the South West of England, a place which relies heavily on our coastal rescue services, has uncovered EU plans to remove our British Coastguard to be replaced with its own, including its own uniform emblazoned with the EU’s flag of occupation.

Using the word that Trevor Colman heard from the EU’s own officials: “A European Coastguard service would contribute towards the single European state we dream of and that member states need to contribute to these structures and relinquish some of their power.”

At no time during the announcement of this new EU power grab did anyone talk about the importance of local knowledge, or the use of volunteer Coastwatch personnel, warned Trevor. It looks as if safety will be way down on the agenda regarding this initiative and EU expansionism at the top.

At the moment all this is going through the early stages, but if it follows normal routine the denial stage has been passed, we are currently into the UKIP warning everyone stage with Tory indignation and mutterings of standing firm. This will be followed by talks and meetings with Government Ministers informing us they stood up for Britain and struck a good deal, followed by: ‘It’s too late to change it now’, then the total cave in and our Government stating, submissively, it has to comply with the EU, then finally as disaster happen and lives lost because the EU Coastguard system was too bogged down in red tape and rules, UKIP reminding everyone that it warned them in the first place and if they stopped voting for the pro-EU Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties and began voting UKIP –they will be voting to put a stop to this madness.

Voting Lib-Lab-Con could literally be putting your life at risk if the EU is allowed to continue governing Britain.

Thursday, 14 July 2011


There we are then, this is why I like beer, according to my local Walsall newspaper, the Express & Star, I have evolved to enjoy only the finest produce malt and hops can provide.

Cheers, beers good for you and as the summers get colder we have to drink more! Mine's a pint of Abbot if you happen to be passing the Lyndon House Hotel.


It’s always the little giveaways that make you realise just how powerful the EU is, how much it affects each and every one of us and how subservient all British Governments are to it.

There was an article in the Daily Telegraph (Thursday 14th July 2011) about the indignities we all have to go through before being allowed at airports into the departure lounge. Shoes have to be removed, people have to unpack laptops as we all line up and go through this degrading ritual due to a few religious and other nutters whose hobby it is blowing up aeroplanes and all those on-board.

The Telegraph article, by David Millward, informs us “airports are forced to go through a checklist of security measures by rote.” There is a reason for this which, it seems, is soon to change. The reason become obvious when we are informed: “The Government has been lobbying the EU to ease its insistence that every passenger must pass through a metal detector.”

So, once again, our lives are made a misery thanks to rules made in the EU , which has not been elected by the people of the UK, and the total submission and subservience to it by our own Government, which has been elected by the people and should be accountable to them.

It is always these little things that drive home the EU’s undemocratic grip over us. If we were not in the EU the British Government could deal with threats of terrorism in the way it considers best for us rather than follow the dictates of this unaccountable body which usually gets it wrong anyway.

As more and more people begin to put two and two together and see the bits in the EU jigsaw take shape, and begin to realise how it dominates our lives, then increasing numbers will quite rightly clamour for withdrawal from the EU.

Already increasing numbers of people are stating they would vote in a referendum, if in the unlikely event one was given to us, to leave the EU. In a poll released in the Daily Mail showed that in a vote 50 per cent would vote to leave the EU while an uneducated 33 per cent would vote to remain shackled to it. However, caution always has to be shown over such polls, if a referendum was called all sorts of lies and devious mechanisms would be used to ensure the people would vote to remain imprisoned in the EU.

The pre 1975 referendum polls were showing remarkable the same figures but the people were conned into staying in the Common Market, as we called the EU then. This was done by threats of job losses and isolation for Britain, which would be exactly the same ruse the pro-EU, anti-British campaigners would apply today.

So, if you are preparing to jet off to some exotic climes for your annual holiday, be prepared for the usual long queues and degrading ritual of security – the EU enjoys seeing you subjugated to its will. Me, I’m off to Walsall airport to watch the model planes – much less hassle.

Wednesday, 13 July 2011


Everyone who manages the household budget and juggles the bills know all too well what a tricky business making ends meet and keeping the books balanced is. There are some bills which are constant which can be budgeted for in advance, such as regular standing orders, direct debits and the weekly shopping bill, then there are others which are not planned. If the car breaks down and the garage presents a large bill, or the telly packs up halfway through Coronation Enders and a replacement is required – these situations can push the budget way over limit.

In such cases for most families the only option is to wave the bit of plastic or negotiate an overdraft agreement with the bank, which means borrowing money and incurring interest. The sooner the loan is paid off the better and the interest accrued may not be too much, but if disasters keep happening and more money needs to be spent than is coming in, then the loans get bigger and the interests begins to stack up. Finally, a point is reached where the money owed becomes unmanageable.

When this happens there are three options. One is to go and talk to those owed money to see if an arrangement can be made to pay off the debt in stages, the other is to consolidate the debts into one repayment loan over a period of years with set payments and interest, then live within your means, and most drastic of all is to default on your debts which will bring bankruptcy and the possible loss of your home and possessions.

Finally, if you are fortunate enough to earn more than you spend, you are one of those lucky ones who can save money and always have a reserve to pay the unexpected bills. The nice thing about this situation is you may have money to invest which then means you benefit from the interest made on that money.

All over the world families are dealing with these situations every day, go to any ordinary street and some families will be coping, some struggling and some doing very nicely thank you. Other than looking at how well maintained their properties are and the age and condition of their cars, it is hard to know who are doing well and who is struggling as each family manage their own affairs in the best way for them.

If you look at a continent of separate nations they are like that ordinary street, each country is a family which balances its borrowing, saving and spending in its own way. Like good neighbours they all get along with each other, possibly visit each other and do things together from time to time, but at the end of the day they all deal with matters that affect them in their own ways until one day some of the neighbours start to discuss ways they can get closer together.

Now think of that street if they remove their fences so they can all wander from garden to garden unhindered, they all decide together their homes should have the same colour schemes and their furniture should all be up to a certain standard and style. Suddenly their homes don’t quite feel like their own as much as they used to.

Next the neighbours decide that they should all make decisions that affect them collectively and all comply. A new bank account is set up and a system of payments into the account is devised so the richer families pay in the most, while the poor families are beneficiaries from this account allowing them to spend money they would not normally have. All well and good so far.

However, some families are not too happy with the colour scheme for their homes that has been decided by the group, they begin to grumble as they are forbidden to make changes. They are not happy with the furniture but are told they have to stick with it. The kids from the larger families begin to run riot over the now fenceless gardens of other families, who complain but are informed those kids have the right to go anywhere they like within the community. Bit by bit each family begin to feel their homes are no longer theirs.

Suddenly hard times begin to fall on all of them, the poor families, who by now are used to being helped out begin to complain when their budgets are cut. The rich families try to negotiate a cut in their payments as they are struggling to make ends meet themselves and are having to borrow money to keep up their payments, and a debt accrues collectively against all of them. Before they know it they are all in the mire together. Some of the poorer families, despite being the beneficiaries of the collective budget have still gone and borrowed money, which then becomes a debt for all. This means the richer families have to borrow even more money to pay the debts of the poor families and the misery for all steadily grows.

What began as a way of keeping good neighbours together and to prevent fights and arguments between them, which never happened anyway as they all knew their own boundaries (which have now gone), begins collapse as arguments, fights and squabbles break out as they all blame each other for the mess they are in.

Finally, each family in turn begins to default on their debts and the bailiffs move in, foreclosures are put on them and each and every family lose everything. Had they remained as individual families some may have gone down during the recessionary period, others may have struggled but stayed afloat and some may have coped without too many problems. The end result would have been the bankruptcy of a small number of families but the rest would have survived. But because they all decided to pool their household sovereignties they all go down together with the end result of everyone losing everything.

This piece of fiction is all basic stuff, the old adage about good fences make good neighbours is as true today as it has always been. Sadly, the fences across Europe have been coming down and each country has had its powers to self govern removed and handed to the collective in the European Union as they all pooled their sovereignty.

With the introduction of the single currency, just like those poorer families, some nations which relied on bailouts they had not earned, or paid for, have borrowed money and got everyone into debt. The snag is none can deal with their own debt problems individually – all are in a sinking ship called ‘SS Federal Europe’.

If the meddling bumblecrats of the EU had not insisted that along with all the other vanity trappings of a nation, such as a flag, Parliament, laws and of course, a currency, the mess the nations of Europe are in today could be quite different.

Each nation would have had its own currency and interest rates. As the poorer countries such as Greece experienced problems their interest rates could have been cut and the value of their currency lowered. This would have been good for those nations’ exporters as their goods would then look cheap on world markets allowing them to compete globally. Their companies being able to borrow money at low interest rates would be able to do so to invest in new products and machinery, thus creating jobs and preventing a downward spiral eventually helping their nation to recover. Having their own laws and sovereign government helps too as overbearing and restrictive legislation that stopped growth and job creation could have been eased.

Sadly, those nations trapped in the eurozone all have one currency and one interest rate – which they are not allowed to change – neither can they change many of the laws and restrictive bureaucracy which spews forth from the EU too. The interest rate is set mostly for the benefit of Germany and France and as Germany is a powerhouse of Europe, its economy helps to keep the value of the euro high. For Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal and other nations – including Italy, this is bad news. Their products, due to a high valued euro are too expensive to compete on foreign markets and even though the interest rate in the eurozone is not that high, it is still too high for these nations and prevents investment. What a mess.

At some stage, which is inevitable, each and every nation within the EU is going to sink under a mountain of debt, regulations, bureaucracy and overbearing legislation – this is now inevitable.

In reality those who can should be seriously considering emigrating to anywhere that is not in the EU. There is little point in having loyalty for your nation as it no longer exists – other than a name on a map. Since the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty we are all European citizens and we are all in it together – right in it! We are passengers on a doomed vessel that headed for the iceberg without our consent due to the decisions of an elite few who thought they knew better – sadly – they still do even now. We are all screaming and warning them of the crap we are heading for, and like Nelson they reply: ‘I see no shit’!

Tuesday, 12 July 2011


The European Union has operated by stealth all throughout its history from its spawning as the Coal and Steel Pact, through to a Common Market and now the EU - its final destination is a single nation called 'Europe'.

The people of Europe did not want this, they did not vote for it and most would like to be shot of it. The EU is now over regulated and its single currency has created massive fiscal problems in most of the Eurozone countries.

So, what is the EU's answers to the problem? Is it give the people what they want and scrap the whole lot? No. Is it a steady wind up of the EU and its institutions? Again no. Are there any plans to scrap the EU's vanity currency, the euro? No. The answer to all the problems which the EU has created is not less EU, but more. What's that old saying, if you are in a hole then stop digging. Not according to the "damp rag" "low grade bank clerk". Be warned, life is about to get even worse if Herman and his cabal have their way.

Monday, 11 July 2011


Even as a callow youth I considered the News of the World to be a pretty useless newspaper, full of gossip, naughty stories of vicars running off with their comely female parishioners, title-tattle and gossip. It was beyond me why my parents had a copy delivered every Sunday, other than the fact it was useful for lighting the fire.

Sunday 10th July 2011 was its last day of publication and Sundays from now on will be News of the World free for ever more, and to be honest I am not quite sure what to think about it. As I have never paid good money for this rag it is not something I will miss on a Sunday, in fact I am beginning to wonder if my investment each week in the Mail on Sunday and Sunday Telegraph is worth it. The only real journalists of value in either of these publications are Christopher Booker – who I rate highly, and Christopher Hitchens who is excellent against all the political correctness crap that infests our lives.

However, there is still a great sadness when something such as the News of the World, which has been part of British journalism and a way of life for so long, has gone. It has been around for 168 years and if that was a treasured building or monument campaigners would be working to save it – sadly it and the jobs of many have gone. One part of me is saying this is a terrible end for something that is so old while another is saying it was a bloody awful publication which I never read and won’t miss – odd really.

As we all know the reason for its demise is down to a number of its journalists overstepping the mark by phone hacking, what would be interesting to know is how many Members of Parliament have celebrated its demise over drinkies in the bars of the Palace of Westminster. That is one troublesome tabloid gone and less concentration on their odd little ways, such as fiddling Parliamentary expenses.

The love hate relationship between the press and politicians is also another facet of our history. Both sides are always trying to find ways to outflank each other, yet at the same time they both need each other. Politicians want to be in the press – only for the good things of course, at the same time journalists need tales of scandal and corruption in order to flog their daily rags. MP patting a dog on the head is not news, MP kicking a Labrador is.

As a UKIP activist I am on the fringes of this, I rely on my local press in Walsall to cover local issues to promote UKIP in the town and keep my name known so when I stand in local and Parliamentary elections people know who I am and the fact I have campaigned on local issues, not being in the news means you are invisible. However, the last thing I or anyone in politics wants is for the press to tell politicians what it wants before it gives coverage – that is blackmail.

Sadly, this sort of thing went on in the higher echelons of the press and the political world. The support of Rupert Murdoch – or not, could make the difference of who ends up governing the nation – which is far from good. It is the job of the press to report but not distort, and it is the job of our leaders to do what is right for the nation not the whims of a press baron.

Now the Murdoch press has been hammered by this hacking scandal many in the world of politics are, no doubt, thinking they now hold the upper hand and may try to get away with things they should not. What the people of this country needs is for a fair balance – will we get it? That is hard to predict.

Goodbye the News of the World, you had a long run. I won’t miss you but no doubt will notice the hole left where you once were.

Friday, 8 July 2011


Walsall art gallery, the ugliest building in the town and a distraction from the subtleties of the local chip shop and pubs.

When it comes to art, I would be classed as a fully paid up member of the philistine club. Those such as me versed in the ways of Philistia believe artist should be skilled, their talents should show in their works. Wonderful carvings such as Michelangelo’s David is art – a lump of stone with a hole in it such as those produced by Henry Moore is just that – a lump of stone with a hole and not art.

If Tracey Emin is an artist, then so is every single teenager in the world who leave their unmade beds in the same state as she – teenager are just lazy – what’s Emin’s excuse? True artists have produced some great pieces of art over the centuries; there are still people who can carve and paint with great skill, the problem however, is the art world is stuffed full of artists who should have the word ‘Con’ attached who sadly drown out and push to the side the truly talented artists.

Here in my little town of Walsall we have an art gallery – its just about the ugliest building in the town which for most of the so-called art in it, apart from a few paintings by real artists, seems very apt. Naturally this edifice to the revolting comes fully equipped with the EU’s noose of gold stars and the fallacy that: “This project has been part funded by the European Union”. As we all know the funding is just a bit of small change from some of the vast sums we give the EU, tossed back to us – and not even for something of use.

So, now you know my thoughts on the world of art – or rather ‘con-art’, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at the news the EU is now sticking its unwanted snout into the world of art dealing.

The EU, which can’t leave anything alone, has come up with what it considers to be a great idea to cream money out of the art markets – this will have serious implications for the London art market which has, to say the least, a substantial turnover and employs around 60,000 people and is now under threat by the EU which wants to implement a European Union sales tax.

The idea of this tax is, as you would expect from the EU, a strange one. Consider this, every time a car is sold the deal is between the seller and purchaser, you would not expect the car manufacturer to receive a percentage of the fee each and every time. The same applies for just about everything that is bought and sold second hand. However, the EU thinks artists, if most of them can be called that, have their works sold they should get a percentage. This means that Tracey Emin who has made a fortune from an unmade bed will make even more every time it is sold on to yet another person daft enough to buy it.

These royalties would continue for 70 years and would be payable to the artists family or estate after their death. This means that those seriously distorted nudes of Picasso with eyes and tits in the wrong places would accrue royalties for his offspring every time one of his daubings was sold on.

Any piece of art worth £900 or more would incur this levy on a sliding scale from 0.25% to 4%. The British art world is mortified at the prospect of this art tax which is due to be inflicted upon the UK from January 2012. This means major works of art such as a piece recently sold at Christie’s for £1.8 million would have had a £10,000 bill added to the US based sellers bill. Such a move would mean that person would not go to London but in the future sell any works of art outside the EU, business and jobs will be lost in London.

The art world may be full of charlatans, con-artists and crooks, but they are about to encounter the biggest con-artist and crook of the lot – the EU.


UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage in action once again in the European Parliament giving the Euro federalist the truth with both barrels. He, like the rest of us, wants them all fired.

Wednesday, 6 July 2011


A couple of comments by a person who wished to remain anonymous were posted on the previous posting to this, this person obviously thinks that somehow or other the EU is democratic. Sadly, like so many, this anonymous person doesn’t seem to understand how the EU works and its ultimate aims hence the reason they support it. As they say, ignorance is bliss; our anonymous friend has been well and truly conned and sadly is not alone in this misconception.

There was a time when we had a full working democracy here in the UK, back in the days before we joined the Common Market when the British people could vote for their Government, which would then govern without having to obey the rules and edicts of a foreign power. Like so many anti-EU blogs we all look at what is going on in the EU, and report on its devious and Machiavellian ways, but forget to remind the less initiated, like our pro-EU anonymous friend, why it is wrong, why the EU is not democratic and why membership is such a bad thing. So, in homage to John Major, the man who finally destroyed any vestiges of faith I had in the Conservative Party and ensured I would become an active anti-EU campaigner and member of UKIP – its back to basics.

How the EU works and why it is not democratic.
Here in the UK every four to five years we go to the polls to vote for who we want as Members of Parliament and ultimately which political party we want to Govern. If the incumbent Government has made a hash of things and we all feel badly served by them, we can kick that Government out and elect another.

Once elected our new Government can take a look at all the legislation the previous Government put through and under the principal that no Government can bind its successor, the new administration can start to unravel everything the last Government put into place or amend certain laws to improve them. Under this system no Government is tied, other than by the laws of the land and the rules of Parliament.

This may not be absolutely perfect, but to quote Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

So, what happens when we go all continental and hop over the channel to the seats of what is now our real masters in Brussels and Strasbourg - we get a real odd old assortment. In the EU there is a Parliament but no government; however, there is a President – in fact three of them. None elected of course.

We have the President of the Parliament which is the equivalent of our Mr Speaker, there is the President of the EU Commission who in reality is a jumped up and glorified civil servant, then least but not last is the fairly new position of EU President, which was a position that came about thanks to the Lisbon Treaty. This treaty of course is a constitution for the EU but we are not supposed to call it that. The only elected body in this lot are those with the least power and the least say, these are the MEPs, there are 736 of them of which only 72 have been voted for by the British people – that is 10 per cent of the vote in the EU Parliament. Don’t forget 100 per cent in our Westminster Parliament have been voted for by the people of the UK.

All clear so far? Next we have the Council of Ministers, these are the ministers from each nation within the EU, they represent their nations regarding various areas such as finance, justice, transport and so on. If the Council of Ministers meet on finance matters then off trots our Chancellor of the Exchequer, another meeting may be on justice so off goes our Home Secretary, then of course when the Council meets for the leaders our PM trots along to have his two pence worth.

Now you may say what is wrong with that, all these fine upstanding souls are there to represent their nations and stand up for the people who elected them. No, wrong, they are there to represent the EU to their people; all EU meetings are for the interest of the EU – not the people.

At one time when the Council of Ministers debated proposals which may be harmful to the interests of one nation, such as the Withholding tax or new rules on banking or the finance industry which would destroy the City of London as one of the world’s most important trading centres and cost thousands in the UK their jobs, we used to have a veto which meant any harmful stuff could be killed off before it did any damage – but not now. Our veto is almost gone on most issues and all voting at these meetings is done by qualified majority voting (QMV). This means Britain usually loses out and we cannot stop the EU legislation that is going to wreck British jobs and our interests. Once the Council has voted upon it we are obliged to comply even if it is suicidal to our national interests – so no democracy there for the British electorate.

So where does most of the nonsense come from which is placed in front of the various Council of Ministers to debate? The answer is the EU Commission who no one anywhere elects. And where does the EU Parliament and MEPs come in? They are there to look pretty and pretend the EU is a democratic institution.

The MEPs have no power to legislate, they do not debate matters of great import as they are not allowed. In our Westminster Parliament MPs who want to speak catch the Speakers eye, who then calls them. There is little restriction on the length of time they speak and others can intervene, as long as the MP speaking is happy to ‘give way’. When the debates are over the MPs go into the lobbies where their vote for or against is noted. This is open, honest and quite straightforward.

Now let’s pop back across the Channel. When an MEP wants to speak on a topic he or she has to apply to speak and will be given an allotted time. Depending on their group and status they may be given as little as ninety seconds or up to three minutes. When they are called they say their little set piece and if they are unfortunate enough to overrun their microphone is switched off and the next speaker is up and into their brief timeslot and the army of interpreters, which costs a fortune to translate all the various languages into things like Gaelic, Maltese and other languages for countries that understand English anyway, begin to jabber away leaving the previous speaker talking to themselves.

After this, usually a week or two after these so-called debates, the voting begins. Now this really has to be seen to be believed. This is legislation being made on an epic scale, Henry Ford, the man accredited with the introduction of mass production would be mighty pleased to see the EU Parliament at voting time. Legislation and amendments are put into blocks, if an MEP is supportive of one thing in the block he/she may have to also vote in favour of other items in the block they do not support in order to vote for the one thing they do.

Even though the EU Parliaments (don’t forget there are two of them run at a vast cost) have electronic voting systems votes are done by a show of hands at a rapid pace. I have sat in the Brussels Parliament and to my dismay observed this shambles. The legislation or amendments number is read out, votes for, against and abstentions are called within split seconds of each other while the army of translators are jabbering away into the ear pieces of the MEPs who in turn raise their hands at what should be the appropriate time, but may actually be voting on the previous item due to the speed it is done and the lag in translation time. It literally is a case of the President saying for, against, abstentions, passed. Crash bang wallop and it is done and on to the next one.

Every now and then an MEP may shout “Check”, the vote is then done electronically by the pressing of buttons. More often than not the result is different to that which the President announced. This system is so fast the Parliament can usually plough through hundreds of pieces of legislation in an hour or so then its off to lunch and who cares about the trail of wreckage this legislation is going wreak on the various EU nations. As stated, Henry Ford would be a great admirer.

When you stop and consider that all law made in the EU, all of which overrides British law, and only 10 per cent of those in this process are under the control of the British electorate, it is not just worrying but truly frightening.

Of course there are the odd time the people in the EU, who no matter where you live are now classed as EU citizens, despite not one person anywhere in the EU has requested this change of national status, actually are given a say. Sadly, as far as the EU is concerned, when such anomalies occur the people usually get the answer wrong and have to repeat the whole thing again to ensure they give the response the EU wants. The Danish voted against the Maastricht Treaty an had to do it again and make sure they voted ‘Yes’ the second time. The Irish voted ‘No’ to the Nice Treaty and had to do it again and give the EU the answer it wanted. The French and Dutch voted ‘No’ to the EU constitution, which was then magically transformed into the Lisbon Treaty and despite it being 98 per cent the same as the constitution, the French, Dutch and just about everyone else were told it was completely different and no vote would be given, apart from the Irish who once again got it wrong and had to do it all over again. Once the people vote ‘Yes’ they are not given the same opportunity to change their minds.

Now, for anyone who has read this and is still under the delusion the EU is democratic, either think again or see your shrink as soon as possible– you are in urgent need of treatment!

Friday, 1 July 2011


It is hard to believe that it was 20 years ago that I first became aware of the undemocratic power and influence the European Union held over our nation.

I always had great pride in my Parliament and democratic system, even though I was not always enamoured with some of the politicians and Governments we elected – but there was always the safeguards that those Members and Governments we elected could also be deselect. We also had the principle that no Parliament could bind its successor. Sadly, thanks to EU membership those principles had long since gone and it was not until my eyes were opened to the fact that the Governments we elect were in thrall of a foreign based power which none of us had voted for, nor could we deselect this power either, that my concerns were set in place. From then on my campaigning began.

Now, all these years later after standing in four General Elections, one for the Referendum Party in Walsall North in 1997, and three more for UKIP in Walsall South – as well as countless local elections, it is satisfying to see the press begin to come our way. It has taken them a bloody long time to catch up, but at last they are beginning to get the message the EU is bad for Britain.

In recent times there was much euphoria about the Daily Express coming out in full support of Britain leaving the EU, and yesterday (30th June 2011) another Express, the Express & Star newspaper which serves Wolverhampton, Walsall and all the Black Country in the Midlands, came out in full support in its editorial column.

The brilliant things with this editorial, anyone in UKIP or one of the other campaigning organisations such as the CIB, Freedom Association, Democracy Movement, Bruges Group and many more could have easily penned the exact wording – it was Eurosceptic message through and through and a wonder to read in my local paper.

It bemoans the fact that thanks to Greece “teetering on the brink of bankruptcy”, which is a problem created by the EU’s vanity currency the euro, could as the paper reported, result in Britain having to stump up a whopping £100,000 million to help out this EU made disaster. This of course comes on top of our normal EU contributions which already amount to £billions, and of course, all the EU fines we have to pay for not dancing to the EU’s tune to their satisfaction.

The E&S also pointed out the same fact we in the growing EU-sceptic campaign have been stating for years, none of us have ever voted for any of this – in 1975 we voted for a Common Market which was sold to us as a ‘Free trade area’ and the promise there would be no European currency, no loss of sovereignty and no laws made on the continent that would override British law. The likes of Ted Heath and other traitors must have had their fingers crossed when they spouted those damn lies at the time.

So, well done my local daily paper, I suspect that Nigel Hastilow who writes for the paper had more than a hand in that editorial. As it concludes about the disaster the EU has created: “Is it any wonder that so many people look at what the European Union has become and believe the only way is out?”