Thursday, 30 March 2017

We're On Our Way Out

Now that Article 50 has been triggered, there is an audible squeal of pain and fury from the contingent who have done so nicely for the past few decades with their noses in the EU trough. Prominent among them is the Green MEP Keith Taylor. It would be nice if we could sack our worse-than-useless LibDem and Green MEPs and use the money they cost us for some more constructive purpose.
It is impossible to get yourself off the mailing list of that dim, garrulous blob Keith Taylor. I have never asked to be on it, but anyone who has ever sent him an E-mail on any topic automatically gets put on it and kept on it no matter how often they request removal. This means they get his newsletters full of twaddle and self-important witterings. He is one of those who, unwilling to accept the outcome of the Referendum, resorts to inventing jargon such as "Hard Brexit" and "Soft Brexit". He claims that in voting Leave we didn't vote for "Hard Brexit" (meaning actually leave) but may only have meant "Soft Brexit" (which means stay in, pretend the Referendum never happened and shut up).

Like so many people he does not understand the difference between belonging to the EU "single market" and having access to it. The EU has actually got free-trade agreements with 50 nations that are NOT member-states but which have agreed to do tariff-free trade with the member-states. Why shouldn't the UK be added to that list? When we leave we will have freedom to re-negotiate any details of those agreements for ourselves but there is no reason why the countries that found it beneficial while we were in the EU should change their minds when we leave. If they plonk on tariffs we will do the same. Their politicians may talk about it, but their business community is dead against it, and knows how much harm it would do to them. 

Keith Taylor's idea of having a vote on the deal is a naive one - what would happen then is that the EU, which is desperate for us to stay in, would offer the worst possible deal in the hope that a second British referendum would reject it.

He does not even discuss the possibility that the UK will re-join EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, of which it was a founding member. It has access to the single market. This is not without some membership fees, but they are far smaller than those of the EU and members retain sovereignty and significant powers to make their own laws about control of the seas, their borders and free movement. Currently the EFTA states have 27 Free Trade Agreements covering 38 countries around the globe, and they have already signalled to us that they would welcome our return to membership.

Image result for eu free trade agreements countries
Currently, the EFTA States have 27 free trade agreements (covering 38 countries) with the following partners:
  • Albania.
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Canada.
  • Central American States (Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama)
  • Chile.
  • Colombia.
  • Egypt.
  • Georgia.
EFTA member states are not subject to unlimited huge fines imposed in a dictatorial way by Brussels.
As for co-operation in matters of education, we should be trying harder to escape it. The Council of Europe (to which we still belong) has barmy plans to make all degrees into five-year courses. Those people who lament our withdrawal from the Erasmus programme (which benefits only a handful of British students per year) are the very same people who made degree courses here in the UK unaffordable. Nick Clegg, whose voice the BBC never tires of broadcasting, infamously broke his promise to prevent any rise in university fees. He totally failed to meet the challenge of funding Higher Education here for our own sons and daughters, but makes a song and dance about the loss of a very minor and incidental programme in which few participate.

If we value international education the first thing we should do is address our abysmal performance in language learning in schools. After that, leave it to the universities to arrange their own exchange programmes - and make it clear that we wont accept any crackpot ideas put forward by the Council of Europe at its endless conferences and talking-shops. After leaving the EU, escaping tyranny from the Council of Europe should be next on our agenda.

There are actually many drawbacks to so-called "free trade" especially if it is tied to free movement of all people, goods, investment, services etc. It is not free and it is a mixed blessing. Nevertheless I envisage that in ten years time, most of the countries of Western Europe will belong to some such community as EFTA or the EEA and the EU may well have collapsed. Greece desperately needs to leave. Italy has problems that can only be solved by leaving and escaping the €uro currency. France is tempted to follow our example. It has always had exemptions from a lot of EU legislation and even so, it is suffering in the straitjacket. Eire is restless. The Czech Republic leaders are increasingly critical of German domination. Poland and Hungary are defying German and EU dictatorship in a feisty way that is most refreshing and indicates that they will not accept political enslavement as the price of economic inclusion.

An update on what your MEP is doing for you in the European Parliament and the South East of England.
View this email in your browser

Greens will continue fighting the Prime Minister’s extreme Brexit vision

We don't have to accept our fate, the fight against an extreme Brexit continues 

Keith Taylor writes:-
"Article 50 has been triggered and Theresa May is marching Britain one step closer to an extreme Brexit cliff edge, [ding-ding-ding-ding inflated rhetoric alert] but we don’t have to accept our fate, [the majority decision] there is still time to avert disaster.[ding-ding-ding-ding panic alert!] We must and we will fight on.[Meaning: I am desperate to keep my well-paid prestigious job and don't want to go back to being a nobody]
The Government’s proposals will send the country hurtling towards an extreme Brexit that will see Britain as the ultimate loser [because we in the Greens have the ability to foretell the future] in a global race to the bottom on everything from environmental regulations to workers’ rights.
Almost 80 percent of Green Party supporters, the majority of voters in Surrey, and East and West Sussex, and Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire and 48% of my constituents across the South East voted to Remain in the EU.
That doesn’t mean I am blind to the fact that a slim majority of Brits voted to leave the EU. [Well actually it does.] But it does mean that I won’t allow the voices of those who didn’t to be silenced.[In other words he simply will not accept the outcome of the Referendum].
The narrow referendum victory does not give Theresa May a mandate for an extreme Brexit. [Wait a minute - Leave doesn't really mean Leave does it?] The Prime Minister is attempting to conjure a phantom majority [so real people are ghosts now] in support of ejecting Britain from the single market; [He doesn't understand the difference between membership of the "free market" and access to it] sacrificing our economy at the altar of ending free movement.[Ha ha ha, Green of all people talking about sacrificing our economy. Their entire manifesto is designed to close it down]
We deserve better than this. Which is why I am fighting in the courts, through the so-called ‘Dublin Case’, for the British people [meaning the minority who agree with me] to be given the choice they are being denied. The EU referendum should have been the start of a democratic process, not the end of one [meaning we are angry we lost and we won't accept any outcome until it goes our way].
As Greens, we believe voters should have the final say on the Brexit deal, once it is clear what the outcome of the negotiations is.[meaning that we don't regard anything as final unless we win the vote] If people have changed their mind, they must be able to stop the process.[Really? So in that case at any point after ANY election if people don't like the result they should be able to say they've changed their mind and rescind the outcome? In that case can we all rescind the election of Keith Taylor himself - and of Tony Blair in 1997?]

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Conference: What Are We Teaching the Children?

When:       Saturday, March 25
Time:        10.00am – 5.00pm
Where:      The Emmanuel Centre, 9-23 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3DW

Cost:          Single ticket                                                          £35
                   Students and non – waged                                  £15
                   Double Discount                                                   £50  

Special offer for organisations, schools and churches:

buy ONE ticket and get two more accompanying persons FREE

Of Particular Interest to:  
Head teachers, Teachers, School Governors, Educationalists, Academics, Church leaders.  And of course parents.
Come to Voice for Justice UK’s important conference examining the ideological reframing of education, and find out why you should be worried.  Get the tools you need to help shape future policy and safeguard the nation’s young.
(Resource pack, including complimentary copy or our latest book, retail price £12, What are they teaching the children?) 
Topics covered will include:
  • What is education? 
  • What, how and why do we teach our young?
  • How has education evolved in different societies, and what are the implications for us today?
  • What is the role of the family in education?
  • How does current education policy fit with the basic human rights of freedom of conscience, belief, and speech?
  • How is education being subjected to ideological pressure?
  • Detailed analysis of the impact of SRE (Sex and Relationship Education) and so-called ‘inclusivity’ on children and young people.
  • CHIPS – education or indoctrination?
  • Should daily worship in schools be mandatory, optional … or abolished?

For more information and to register go to 



Petition: Remove Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London

The terror attack of 22nd March 2017 proves that Sadiq Khan has failed to protect London.
He has made unacceptable remarks that "terror attacks are just part and parcel of living in a big city" indicating that he condones terrorism and has no will or intention of opposing it.
We demand his removal  - now.

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Labour keeping up its Tradition of Applauding Terrorism Corbyn and Leftwing Media Mourn Mass Murderer Martin McGuinness

Are you an aspiring terrorist who wants to get into government and be enshrined as politically-correct? Then join the Labour party, they will always be on your side. Jeremy Corbyn writes this week "Martin McGuinness played a huge role in bringing about peace in Northern Ireland. He was a great family man and my thoughts are with them." 
If being a great family man means murdering families, that makes perfect sense.

Labour's so-called peace process brought terrorists to power, gave respectability to mass murderers and rewarded those who rely on violence to attain their ends. McGuinness should have been jailed for his crimes. He never expressed any remorse, regret or contrition. Nor do any of his colleagues, Corbyn's chums.

The whole of our leftwing political establishment is determined to enshrine terrorists and applaud them, whether they are IRA or any other brand of thug. 

Sadiq Khan, Labour Mayor of London, has close links to terrorist groups. Not only has he several times chosen to defend Islamic terrorists in court, but in a letter to the Guardian in 2006 he publicly excused and justified terrorist attacks such as the 7/7 London bombings by blaming them on British government policy.

‘It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,’ it said.

Khan chose to act as defence lawyer for Zacharias Moussaoui, who later confessed to being a member of Al-Qaeda.

And today's terrible events in Westminster confirm that Khan is a useless Mayor who has failed to protect London from terrorist attack. How soon will he and the rest of the Labour party send their warm greetings to the terrorist?

Read more:

Begging is a Criminal Offence - But Only if British People Do it

Homeless people who sleep or beg in the streets can be fined £100 by the local council under regulations passed as recently as 2014. 

The offenders can be served with a PSPO
(Public Space Protection Order) because of course it is a crime and a nuisance to be homeless or to beg. Unless of course you come from a distant foreign country in which case you are a "refugee" or "asylum-seeker" and entitled to generous state benefits, and free housing in a hotel with three meals per day and a free mobile phone. 

Most of the people begging in Oxford are begging for the money to stay in a night shelter, but even those are over-crowded and in this freezing weather there are still people sleeping rough. I wonder how this young man I photographed recently in Oxford would pay the £100? Presumably he has to beg in order to pay the fines for begging.

Friday, 3 March 2017

It is Time to Abolish the Westminster Drones Club

The silly performance of the House of Lords, messing around with the Brexit bill, has woken up a lot of people to the need for reform.

Why should anybody get paid £300 per day for sleeping? The term of a "life peerage" should be defined as lasting as long as you can stay awake while on the benches. Anyone caught dozing should be stripped of their peerage. Why not? It would happen in any other job. The House of Lords was reformed under Tony Blair but the result was as big a mess as everything else done in the Blair era. The Lords is now just a racket for rewarding retired politicians or donors to political parties who have never even stood for election.
They constantly complain that they don't get enough money when what they can claim in expenses is far above the average salary.
We cannot vote them out, which means that the LibDems are vastly over-represented in proportion to voting patterns, and Brexit supporters are vastly under-represented.

The Lords behaved irresponsibly by passing an amendment in favour of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens working in the UK without yet having a signed agreement to guarantee the rights of UK citizens living and working in EU countries. It is a foolish and thoughtless thing to do. Over and over again the people who pushed it repeated the mantra that "EU citizens are not bargaining chips". 

But no one is saying that they are "chips". The point is that both groups involved in this situation must be considered equally and simultaneously. When you negotiate a deal, whether it is for importing goods, or for investment, or for employment, or even just for booking a holiday, you ensure that the interests of both sides are taken into consideration in a balanced way before any binding commitments are made. That does not mean the people are "chips" to use the idiotic phrase that keeps on and on being bandied about. It means they are people involved in a BI-lateral negotiation. The Lords want to make a UNI-lateral (or Loony-lateral) agreement that leaves our own citizens stranded, at the mercy of EU bureaucrats who will undoubtedly use them as bargaining chips. The people who have wrung every penny out of this long-suffering country for thirty years and bled us dry, cannot be trusted.
I am happy to hear that the Government does not have to accept the Lords' foolish and perverse amendment. I hope it is binned as soon as possible. The House of Lords is less useful now than it was when peers were hereditary. The hereditary peers never did anything I disagreed with. Now the Lords is full of horrid specimens like Peter Mandelson, the Kinnocks times two, Cathy Ashton, and so on, who all pocketed multi-millions from the EU. They are also contractually bound never to criticize or oppose the EU, on pain of losing their fat pensions. They don't need the handsome expenses the Lords pays them - they are already filthy rich - and their loyalties are not to this country. There are plenty of others getting subsidies, salaries, and backhanders from the EU in one way or another. They should not be allowed to vote on the Brexit Bill. They have got too much vested interest. 

Behind their lordships' ermine robes lurk some very unsavoury and corrupt people such as Grenville Jenner who should have been in jail, not Parliament,

The House of Lords has been described as the most expensive geriatric care-home in England. I don't agree with some of the anti--elderly language I have heard about them, but I do think it is time to kick most of them out. They will probably have to be replaced with an elected body. As a matter of fact, there are arguments for having a hereditary peerage, but that is another question altogether. It is not the policy of the English Democrats, and most people in this country would probably prefer to force members of the upper house to seek election. Whatever else, we must stop paying them £300 per day for just dozing on the benches. That is a scandal.