Category Archives: Uncategorized

BREXIT – THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

“The will of the people shall be the authority of government” Article 21, The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

On the 23rd June 2016 a clear majority of the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in a parliament authorised national referendum. That democratic vote determined the will of the people – to leave the EU and return control of the United Kingdom and its borders to a democratically elected Westminster government.

One year on, during which various vested interests attempted to derail the will of the people, we have triggered article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the exit negotiations have commenced. At every turn, the Remain supporting media, especially the TV tax financed BBC (in direct breach of its charter),  has aggressively pursued a negative agenda using every available opportunity to decry the elected government’s Brexit policy and team.

In the midst of all this negativity, we are at risk of losing focus on the plain facts and it’s worth reminding ourselves on a regular basis of the reality of the situation:

  • We are returning democratic control of the UK to its elected government – the will of the people.
  • A free trade agreement between the EU and the UK would be very beneficial to both sides; but more so to the EU – ask any German car manufacturer.
  • The financial benefits to the UK of leaving the EU are huge and the global opportunities waiting to be grasped by the UK will have a major positive impact on our GDP and living standards.

The current blitz of anti-patriotic sniping by the “liberal elite” should be overridden by the loud message that leaving the EU represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the UK back where it should be; a leading nation in a fast developing world. A definite vote winner for an exciting future.

Advertisements

BREXIT – OUR INDEPENDENT FUTURE

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people…” Abraham Lincoln, President of the USA.

Government of the British people, by the unelected Brussels people, for the Washington people – Barack Hussein Obama, President of the USA

We will create more wealth and more jobs by being outside the EU. We will be in control of our destiny. And control, I think is the most important thing in life and business” James Dyson, entrepreneur and inventor (Dyson is the No 1 brand leader in the German vacuum cleaner market)

As EU referendum day approaches, many voters are still undecided and feel there is little impartial information available to help them decide whether to vote Leave or Remain. With less than one week to go, the debate has come down to a few key issues and the Remain campaign sees our future as either keeping the status quo or “a leap in the dark”. The overview below provides an at-a-glance summary of the issues and factual commentary on them.

IMMIGRATION – The Remain camp is silent on immigration although 250,000 EU immigrants arrive here every year. David Cameron cannot explain how he reconciles his promise to cut immigration with his support of the EU’s freedom of movement zone. Mr.Cameron has committed himself to the acceleration of Turkey’s membership of the EU as well as visa-free access to the EU for all Turkish nationals from the end of June. Based on previous experience following the accession of new EU members, Britain can expect an influx of millions arriving in this country, the impact of which seems unimportant to Remain supporters

DEMOCRACY – Again, the Remain camp is silent on this fundamental issue. The stated objective of the EU (as per the Five Presidents Report) is ever closer union. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government” but the government of the EU as a whole has never been submitted to the will of the people. For the euro to survive, its users must become one country with a single economic, fiscal and legal framework determined by its government in Brussels. The minority non-euro countries such as Britain will either have to abandon their currencies or be completely sidelined. “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties” Jean-Claude Junker, EU Commission President. 

TRADE & JOBS – Remain states that EU membership means a stronger economy with 3 million jobs linked to our trade with the EU and this would be put at risk if we vote Leave. But why should it? The free market, cosmopolitan, pro-globalisation economic case for leaving is stronger than ever. Research shows that nearly 70% of small and medium sized businesses feel that the EU is a hindrance rather than a help. The Adam Smith institute says “leaving would be a journey, not a big bang. In the short term a Brexit would almost certainly mean the UK remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway.”  Over a subsequent period, the UK would negotiate a more appropriate British free trade agreement. Britain imports nearly £300 billion of goods and services from Europe each year therefore it is imperative for Europe to reach a satisfactory trade deal with the UK to safeguard millions of mainland Europe jobs. It can be argued that in fact, the EU as a free trade entity is passed its sell-by date as global traders can operate under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation, the ILO (labour regs),the UN (standards) and the WHO (health).

SAFER – Remain claims that the UK is safer by being a member of the EU, essentially because of the existence of the European Arrest Warrant (which can be used to deport people) and because there’s strength in numbers. The evidence on the ground confirms the opposite is the case. “The greatest threat to our social stability at the moment is the fact that we have weakened our border controls at a time when they should have been strengthened. As a result, much more serious organised crime, controlled from abroad, is operating in the UK. And as the EU increases its membership, the situation can only worsen.” Anthony Stansfield, Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner. The EU is also intent on forming its own army and foreign policy (as declared in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty). Nato is the most successful military alliance in history because of the deterrent effect of US membership but the EU is planning to revert to the uncertainties of the pre-Nato era; look no further than the Ukraine situation. “If the Euro-oligarchs get their way, sooner or later we shall find we no longer have the freedom to deploy our Armed Forces as we choose” Major General Julian Thompson, Royal Marines.

As 23rd June Referendum Day approaches, it becomes increasingly clear that the status quo is not an option. The EU is facing an ongoing economic and social crisis and is desperate to accelerate it total political integration agenda. The disastrous misgovernment of the eurozone has resulted in a huge economic downturn which shows no signs of ending. Southern Europe and Italy in particular are on the verge of social and financial meltdown which will necessitate further gigantic bailout contributions from all the northern EU membership. No-one can predict the future, so how best to deal with the inevitable uncertainties of our ongoing relationship with the EU and protect the interests of the British people? Is it to remain in the EU and let Brussels carry on with its United States of Europe mission, its political experiment aimed at creating an empire whilst ignoring the destructive consequences of its actions? Or is it to vote Leave and return self government to Britain thereby saving the British people billions of pounds which can be used to to focus on what’s best for the future of Britain? Brexit is not a leap in the dark, it’s a logical and necessary step for Britain to realise its full potential in the global economy – VOTE LEAVE for a bright future.

Way out leave

 

 

BBC CHARTER REVIEW – PUBLIC OR SELF SERVICE ?

” To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” Voltaire

” In a liberal society, the government should provide only “public goods” that the market cannot or will not provide if left to its own devices … Arguments for public broadcasting now rest on emotion or self-interest ” Adam Creighton writing in The Australian about the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The BBC’s charter review is under way but why should we have a public broadcaster in the 21st century? What is its purpose? And if the decision is to keep the BBC, what form should it take going forward and how can it be effectively controlled and regulated?

These are the current six purposes of the BBC in its Royal Charter: 1. Sustaining Citizenship 2.Promoting Education 3.Stimulating Creativity 4. Representing the UK 5.Bringing the UK to the world and vice versa 6. Delivering to the public the benefit of emerging communications.

This is an extremely comprehensive remit for an organisation with no accountability to the electorate and with no control over its political bias.

” The BBC is a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large ” All this he said “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC” Attributed to Andrew Marr in the Biased BBC website

There appears to be no prospect of returning to the fair minded and non-partisan ideals upon which the corporation was founded as is there no sign that it wishes to empathise with the UK’s silent majority’s views, loyalties or concerns. There’s talk of developing more personal, audience focused content in its programmes but when on air, current affairs viewers and listeners are “educated and informed” as per the ruling BBC ethos, e.g.  global warming is not up for debate, Israel is always a villain, remaining in the EU is essential (as was joining the Euro), public spending cuts mean austerity, political parties other than Labour and the Lib Dems are the enemy, etc., etc. The in-house attitudinal problem also includes a history of arrogance coupled with a total disregard for loyalty to the UK. For example, it was recently revealed that during The Falklands campaign, guidelines issued to BBC staff by management required that reports were to remain neutral because “We are not Britain. We are the BBC”

” They were sometimes reporting as if they were neutral between Britain and Argentina. At other times we felt strongly that they were assisting the enemy by open discussions with experts on the next likely steps in the campaign. My concern was always the safety of our forces. Theirs was news” Margaret Thatcher

There’s also the unhealthy relationship with The Guardian, a loss-making left-wing newspaper with a rapidly diminishing circulation. The paper is used as a reference point for news stories; its journalists regularly appear on BBC programmes and it’s the publication of choice for advertising BBC job vacancies.

“In the later stages of my career [at the BBC], I lost count of the number of times I asked a producer for a brief on a story, only to be handed a copy of The Guardian and told “it’s all in there”.” Peter Sissons, BBC News anchor for 20 years.

Then there’s the lack of commercial efficiency or competence. There was the Digital Media Initiative shambles which wasted over £100 million before it was scrapped (the executive responsible for it was paid £290,000 a year plus bonus). And what about the Top Gear fiasco? Worldwide revenue from this programme was reported at in excess of £150 million a year but management felt compelled to fire the Top Gear’s mainstay after an altercation, despite his global popularity. And of course there’s been the widely reported massive and unnecessary termination payments to managers caught up in the cross fire of BBC scandals. The list goes on. At the back of this is licence fee (television tax) income of over three billion pounds and there’s even a move to make it payable by people who don’t have TVs but who may watch BBC material on computers, iPads, etc. The fact that it’s mandatory and guaranteed makes it easy to understand why there’s no urgency within the corporation to (a) make sure that the majority of its subscribers are satisfied with the service and (b) increase efficiency and cut costs.

” …they [the BBC] are heavily overstaffed, there are too many jobsworths and the organisation is not run in a manner that a commercial organisation would be…” Lord Sugar addressing the House of Lords

Nobody denies that the BBC is a world class broadcaster and is exceptionally good at a broad range of programmes, especially in the natural history, drama and light entertainment categories. It just needs to re-set its priorities to avoid needless criticism.

The BBC’s mission statement is “to inform, educate and entertain”. In its adopted number one public purpose, Sustaining Citizenship, it intends to focus on “providing an in-depth explanation of the most significant issues facing the UK and the world (such as the Middle East, global terrorism, climate change, public service reform, crime and immigration). Rather than pursuing some kind of quest to disseminate its own agenda, the BBC needs to focus on its strengths and weaknesses. It needs completely restructuring. As Alan Sugar stated “There is a need for a more commercial approach with an experienced board of directors…” The first step should be to draw up a three year plan financed with the current level of licence fee followed by detailed progress monitoring and reporting. If the plan targets are not met then the BBC should be scaled back to a core entertainment and news service with a reduced licence fee and independent external supervision. In the 21st century, the future of terrestrial TV is under serious threat from entertainment services provided via the internet and the BBC must radically adapt if it is to be a key player in this new challenging marketplace.

Focused on its strengths and appealing to the majority of the population, an entertainment driven, non-biased, commercially disciplined BBC would definitely be a vote winner with UK audiences.

SYRIA – COMMON SENSE PREVAILS

Well, that was a near miss. Whatever possessed MPs to make them think that bombing Syria would solve anything. Recent experience in Islamic sectarian turf wars should have been more than enough to dissuade western governments from further involvement in such conflicts.

This near fiasco is superbly reviewed in these extracts of letters to The Telegraph.

“Well done my MP…who voted against… hostilities. Too many MPs think that once they are elected they can toady up to their leader and disregard the wishes of the people” David Blackford

“…Our soldiers have been at war for the past 12 years. They have lost many of the brightest and best but politicians have been unable to ensure that their sacrifice has achieved anything. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are not at peace… We should work with the United Nations to achieve peace.” Pauline Johnson

“David Cameron said that he “gets” the view of the British people over military intervention in Syria…Let us hope that he now also gets the majority view over EU membership, immigration and HS2″             Pete Taylor

The situation in Syria is dreadful but let’s hope MPs will now listen more attentively to the British people before pursuing further ill-conceived policies.