You may link to my blog but if you want to copy my article to your own blog, please give the following credit: From "Ampers' Rants" at Thank you.

Fill in a one question questionnaire - it only asks how you arrived at my blog. Thank you. Just click on this link.

If you like what you see, why not subscribe to the blog? You can follow Ampers' Rants by adding your email address in the box below (right) Notifications are also shown in my Twitter account: @AmpersUK.

Thursday, 31 March 2016

Africans for Britain: Why do I back Brexit?

 Ms Youma is a bilingual Pan-Africanist & Anglophile, she believes no one else but Africans will power up her renaissance. Free trade fanatic.

Follow her on Twitter: @youmajamilaNAN

This has also been posted on Conservative Home. I have had permission from Youma to publish this on my blog.

First of all, I am neither British nor from a Commonwealth Nation. In fact, I was born in France and should Britain exit the EU, my countries of origin in Africa: Burkina-Faso and the Ivory coast are unlikely to benefit directly or immediately.

Some argue my Euroscepticism is misguided, since I benefited from free movement of people within the EU, in order to move to Britain. I am also a Pan-Africanist, and believe that in the next century, the African continent will inevitably merge into the political Union which I think is pernicious for Britain, and also for the rest of Europe.

I wasn’t always a Eurosceptic. I was educated within the French curriculum, which is extremely enthusiastic about the EU, or still was in the 90s when I was in High school, and the early 2000s when I was living in France. I remember withdrawing my first Euro notes. I felt European, as I was not yet aware of what the European Union really embodied. I saw it as this beacon of European peace, an economic bloc which had guaranteed the European economic miracle of the after war, the way to go.

Yet, if today, I am a Eurosceptic, it is for Britain, the land which welcomed and transformed me in the past 10 years. It is also for my continent of origin Africa, whose relationship with Britain, once free from the EU, I see as being rekindled, and whose treatment by the EU I find appalling.

I am also a Eurosceptic for France, strange as it may read. France’s elites have an almost unconditional commitment to the EU across the political spectrum, and despite a recent poll published in Le Monde suggesting the French would also welcome a Frexit, I still believe that France is overwhelmingly committed to the European project.

It therefore needs dissidents from its own mould to campaign for Brexit.  The youth of France needs to be inspired to challenge the status quo within the EU, even if France stays a member going forward.

I see Britain as one of the greatest Nations on Earth, having a little bias towards the Ivory Coast and Burkina-Faso. I believe this nation’s ability to embrace different cultures and to make them feel welcome to the point of creating a sense of citizenry and loyalty is unparalleled in an increasing culturally challenged Western world. Once free of a political project to which she does not subscribe, she will rediscover her global trading soul. She will proceed to formally sign mutually beneficial trade deals with her Commonwealth bloc as well as the EU, and I believe that Britain will aim larger.

She once had the largest empire in the world, she will once again go into the world, but with an agenda aimed at cooperating and trading with the seldom heard nations, whose voices are quashed by the kind of super structures which dominate the EU. This situation threatens social cohesion equally in Britain, Uganda or France in an interconnected World.

By trading her way with the World which is growing, she will look after future generations and make sure they are not burdened with unnecessary debts, the kind currently amassed especially in the beleaguered economies of the eurozone. It will be a truly powerful leap of faith, the kinds which this nation throughout her history has shown herself to be capable of.

This is how Britain stayed ahead of the curve, especially when it came to facing the less glorious parts of her history such as slavery and colonialism. Any wonder that the three nations predicted to lead the Word in the 21st century are all former British colonies? That the fastest growing conomies in Africa or its best governed nations, are former British colonies?

This is the critical look which the Pan-Africanist in me takes at British history and its legacy in my land of origin. It does not absolve Britain of the darker moments of its history.  I believe there comes a point when this nation will have to acknowledge publicly its responsibility as part of a global system, which stripped away Afro descendants of the soul which in the 21st century they are trying to piece together.

Yet, the legacy of Britain in Africa is also a culture in the African Anglosphere, which many of us in the Francophone block envy. We wish we had greater entrepreneurial instincts, less red tape, a culture less based on state dependency, and the strong institutions and civil societies which the African Anglosphere exhibits. This is the positive legacy of the passage of Britain in Africa, as a coloniser. Brexit is about the future, and over half of the Commonwealth Nations are either in Africa or the Caribbean. Those nations are bound by a common struggle: self-determination. The EU, through her protectionist practices such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and her so called “free” trade deals imposed on Nations with little bargaining power, stands in the way of this self-determination.

I have read a number of reports on the policies pursued by the EU in Africa and their economic impact, and far from me the idea of rubbishing completely the relationship between the EU and Africa, as having been a complete disaster.

It was an article about the impact of the Common Fisheries Policy which made me click, and like it always is with politics, it became personal. I was reading about the plight of communities in Senegal depending on fishing for their livelihoods, and who faced with the unfair competition from the big European vessels had to stop trading. I will not go into the details of the environmental damage caused by this over fishing, but I now had a big clue to a question whose answer I had looked for in recent months.

Why do so many Senegalese young men need to migrate? Senegal is a country I love. In the past couple of years, I have paid the school fees of a young Senegalese boy met during a trip 6 years ago. I hoped to help him be able to support his family thanks to his education. A Senegalese young man whom I introduced to the Tony Elumelu Entrepreneurship Program put together a business plan which made him abandon his project to come to Europe as an economic migrant. I have got friends and family in Senegal, who have to support their less fortunate family members, and whilst I am sure that what pushes young Senegalese men to leave their country in search of a better life in Europe cannot be only blamed on the Common Fisheries Policy, its contribution to the devastation of entire coastal communities is morally reprehensible.

The resulting pull towards migration, the brain drain away from Africa is a tragedy for this continent whose wealth will help other regions of the world in the future. That is my plea as an African to British citizens of African and Caribbean descent to consider what the EU has done to their lands of origin.

Now, I am sitting at a brasserie watching the French news reporting, day in day out. What do I see? One company closing down after another, potential redundancies, cosmetic reforms of the Welfare state pompously announced by the Socialist administration, which has been unable to deliver the program it was elected on.

I see the crisis with France’s feisty farmers, I read about employees of a council locking down their Mayor and threatening him. I see Smart, the car company asking some of its employees to accept to work for 40 hours paid 35 for the next 5 years in order to not lose their jobs. I look at the deepening migration crisis and its ramifications for social cohesion in France, this country and its Republic and her contradictions, when it comes to embracing diversity.

I think about the African diaspora, the biggest one outside Africa living in France, usually in low paid employment, or small business owners, struggling to break even, even though on balance in 2016, there are improvements to the fortunes of French citizens of African descent compared to when I left in 2005.

I think about the country in which I was born, in which I used to spend my summer holidays, in which I first got married and divorced, in which I still have my best friends and members of my family.

I look for its Eurosceptics, and I cannot ever see them working together. I therefore believe that once Britain is free from the EU, she will inspire the youth of France to be more audacious, and more challenging of the European project. All those reasons are why, in a nutshell, I am a Eurosceptic even if I have no vote on the 23rd of June and might not live permanently in Britain afterwards. This is why I founded Africans for Britain.

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs/Maltesers

An incredibly interesting lecture on the futility of helping people through immigration.


Sunday, 27 March 2016

The truth about Crusades, were they evil or wonderful?

Here is a history lesson from the 7th Century to modern day times about Islam, told by someone who, if he had been my teacher at school, I'd have excelled much more in History, which was always my worse subject. Not so much now though.

I watched through this 33 minute video, completely enthralled. And beg you to watch it right to the end.

Stefan is an American version of Pat Condell, our own gem, although just a tiny bit less abrasive.

See what I mean, don't you really feel you've learnt something? Helps to have it on full screen, and watched on a desktop if you really want to learn the history.

From a (very recently) educated Ampers :-)

Who made this brilliant video of Trump? I hope the Brexit Movie people are as good!

There are two abilities you need to be a President or Prime (First) Minister of a country:
  1. To be able to pick your best advisers.
  2. To know when not to follow their advice.
When you've seen this video, I think you'll agree, he picked the best professional video maker in the USA to make it.

Do I want him to win? I live and vote in the UK so can't have a vote. Am I for or against Donald Trump? A very difficult question to answer.

First of all, out of all the nominees for the Republican nominee, he is definitely the only one not owned by the Establishment. So yes, my leanings would be towards anyone not in the pocket and controlled by the Establishment.

Secondly, if he wins the nomination and is put up against Billary Clinton (no spelling error here) who would I want to win. Reading all I have about Hillary Clinton, I can see she will continue all Obama's policies. I am convinced Obama has set out to ruin America. Just as our own Prime Minister has set out to ruin what was once "Great" Britain. So, therefore, the answer must be "yes" I want him to win the Presidency, And if I were a religious person, I'd pray to God he can rescue his country. And if I were also an American, I would pray I had made the right choice and interpretation of his motives.


Saturday, 26 March 2016

Trident Facts by @afneil

@afneil: Some facts about Trident, whether you're for or against:

1/6 Only the PM can authorise the use of British nuclear deterrent

2/6: UK deterrent is assigned to NATO but can be used without NATO sanction in "supreme national emergency".

3/6 The US cannot prevent, veto or forbid use of Trident if situation deemed by PM to supreme national emergency

4/6 UK draws Trident missiles from commingled US/UK missile pool.

5/6 If use contemplated for NATO purposes, allies must be consulted.

6/6 US can't thwart deployment by "switching off" GPS. Trident not satellite guided. Uses stellar guidance ie stars. US can't switch them off

Thank you for this Mr Neil.


Climate Change - Fact or Fiction

Here is a thirty minute speech by Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize Winner in physics, at a Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, explaining with data, on why Global Warming is a false premise. Ivar is Norwegian and is a New York resident.

Ivar produces charts showing how statistics have been manipulated to get the results the Pro Global Warmers want to use to hoodwink the public.

The question you must ask yourself after watching is, what is the real objective of the pro Global Warming camp.

Knowing how the establishment works, I will tell you what I think is the reason. Naturally I don't expect many will agree with me but here goes:


It's as simple as that. The only result I can see from global warming is that it will drive money out of poor people's pockets, into the bank accounts of the very rich. Think about it. The poorer the public are, the easier they are to control, and the less trouble they can be to the establishment.


Friday, 25 March 2016

Everything you need to know about the EU but were afraid to ask.

Gerard Batten, a London MEP has but together thirty-three questions, with detailed answers, about exactly how the EU affects us. I have known Gerard for over twenty years and can vouch that he's one of the hardest working MEPs in Brussels. He is also one of the founding members of UKIP. Number 32 is the most scary.

1) Would leaving the EU endanger jobs and trade, and could the EU put up trade barriers against the UK?

When we leave the EU it cannot put up arbitrary trade barriers against the UK as that would against World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, which all EU countries agree to and which govern world trade. And even if they could why would they want to? We have a massive trade deficit with the EU - they sell us far more than we sell them.

Britain currently exports goods and services to the EU to the value of £228.9 billion, whereas their exports to us amount to £290.6 billion: therefore we have a trade deficit with the EU of £61.7 billion. Germany, Spain, France and Italy etc.will still want to sell us their cars, wine and holidays etc. Trade will continue as normal. [i]

And remember, Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world and we are a world trading nation: and while we have a trade deficit with the EU we have a trade surplus with the rest of the world.   Our trading success lies in four hundred years of experience; English being the international language of business and science; and the trust that foreign companies put in the English legal system and contract law. 

2) OK, but what about the EU's Common External Tariffs? 

The EU was formed as a Customs Union, not a Free Trade Area; it erected certain trade barriers against non-EU countries known as the Common External Tariffs. However, the World Trade Organisation has been negotiating down trade barriers internationally for many years, and these are now generally low. The pro-EU organisation British Influence states that "UK exporters would still have to pay 15% on average for food and 10% on cars to trade with the EU", [ii] but this just scaremongering.   Since the EU sells Britain far more than we buy from them it would not be in its interests to impose these tariffs even if they could, since we could impose the same tariffs on the goods they sell us.

The 'Eurosceptic' organization Business for Britain issued a report that says that the tariffs borne by British exporters if we were outside the EU on exports to the EU itself (even if they were applied) would only be an average of 4.3%. Business for Britain calculates that the total costs to business would be lower than the current UK net contribution to the EU budget (which is of course is rising).   Outside the EU it would be cheaper for the British government to pay exporters' tariffs for them than rather than paying into the EU budget. Even so, it would not be in the EU's interests to impose the Common External Tariffs on UK exports since it if we did the same thing it would damage their trade more than ours.

3) Would leaving the EU exclude Britain from the Single Market?

The EU and the Single Market are not the same thing. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are members of the Single Market but not the EU. The EU has 28 members, the Single Market has 31. But even so, we don't need to be in the EU or the Single Market in order to trade with it. . Many countries trade with the EU without finding it necessary to join the EU or the Single Market, for example China, India, Japan, the USA, the list is endless. World Trade Organisation rules prevent the erecting or arbitrary or unilateral trade barriers. Outside the EU Britain could negotiate a trade deal with the EU from a position of strength.

4) But what about the international trade deals that the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world - would we not be excluded?

Britain is the fifth biggest economy in the world, and a major trading nation. Outside the EU those countries who signed the trade deals with the EU would surely want to continue mutually beneficial trading arrangements with the UK. They would have a great incentive to quickly agreeing a continuation of trade on the same terms. When Britain regains her seat on the WTO and control of our own international trade policy we could also no doubt negotiate better trade deals for ourselves - as we did it for hundreds of years or more before we joined the EU.

5) But isn't 50% of our trade with the EU?

No. This figure is exaggerated: it only refers to international trade: exports and imports. According to the Government's Pink Book (2014) [iii] 44.4% of our total exports in goods and services were to EU countries. This figure is reduced when we take into account the so-called 'Rotterdam effect'. Exports first landing in Rotterdam are counted as exports to Europe even when they are destined to pass on to other countries outside the EU such as China. Even a conservative estimate says the Rotterdam effect reduces the total figure to about 42.8%.   So it is fairer to say that just under 43% of our international trade is with the EU.

Office of National Statistics figures show that only 15.6% of UK businesses are concerned with exports and imports. Of these no more than 5% trade with the EU. [iv] While approximately 20% of our economy is concerned with international trade approximately 80% of the economy is purely domestic within the UK. Of the 20% concerned with exports only approximately half of that goes to EU countries - and yet 100% of our businesses have to comply with EU laws and regulations.

Britain's trade with the EU has been declining over the last twenty-five years. In 1999 54.7% of our international trade was with the EU. By 2014 that had reduced to 42.8%   And again, to repeat, while this trade is important to Britain it would not be endangered when we leave the EU as it cannot put up arbitrary trade barriers against the UK.

6) Is it true that 3 million jobs depend on trade with the EU?

This old chestnut continues to raise its head despite being discredited long ago. It arose from a study by the National Institute of Economic & Social Affairs in 1999. The report calculated that 'three million jobs' are associated with trade with the EU.

This report has been repeatedly misrepresented by various people, including former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP, who said that three million jobs are "at risk" if we left the EU. The Institute's Director, Martin Weale, has repudiated the claim describing the misuse of the report for propaganda purposes as "pure Goebbels". [v] These jobs depend on the continuation of trade, not on continued EU membership.

Using similar assumptions that arrived at the figure three million jobs in the UK being associated with EU trade we can arrive at a figure of 5 to 6.5 million jobs in the EU being associated with trade with the UK. [vi] Millions of jobs elsewhere also depend upon trade with Europe, for example in China, India and Japan, but those countries do not find it necessary to join the EU in order to trade with Europe.

7) Outside of the EU what would happen to UK citizens living in Europe, could they be deported?

About 1.3 million British citizens live in EU countries, while about 3 million EU nationals live in the UK. The top ten locations for Britons living on the continent are:

Spain 319,144 * Ireland 249,392 * France 171,346 * Germany 99,909 * Italy 65,975 * Netherlands 47,297 * Cyprus 38,844 * Poland 35,829 * Belgium 24,915 * Sweden 20,839 [vii]

Most British people living in Europe are usually working in skilled jobs, or often property owners and retirees living on their pensions. People who are established and living legally in a country are not going to be expelled; least of all because many retired British people are living in European countries that are either poor or suffering from the Euro-zone's austerity policies (for example 18,067 living in Greece) and the income they provide is highly valued. People with an established legal residency are not going to be expelled. This prospect is just another example of the scaremongering by the Remain side.

8) But if I own a property in an EU member state will it be safe?

When Britain leaves the EU its member states will still have to respect the property rights of individuals living there. This is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. The governments of countries cannot take some kind of revenge on British property owners out of pique at a British decision to exit the EU. And of course, there are millions of Europeans who own property in the UK.

9) Outside of the EU would I lose free access to their health services when I travel to Europe?

Britain has reciprocal health benefits with those European countries that have comparable national health services, e.g. Germany, France, Holland etc. There is no reason why such reciprocal arrangements could not be continued on a bilateral basis when we leave the EU. Many other European countries simply do not have a comparable public health service; to use their health services British citizens either have to pay or have private health insurance.

The current system does not work in Britain's favour anyway. Department of Health figures published recently show that while Britain paid European countries more than £674 million for treating British citizens abroad received only £50 million back in payments for European citizens treated here. For example: France received £150 million but paid Britain £6.7 million, Spain received £223 million but paid Britain only £3.4 million, while Germany was paid £25.9 million and paid Britain only £2.2 million. Labour MP John Mann said, "Sorting this scandal out would transform the financial situation of the NHS". [viii]

10) Hasn't the EU helped to keep the peace in Europe?

This is pure mythology. From 1945-1949 peace was kept in Europe by the British and US armies stationed in Germany; and from 1949 onwards by NATO and the continued presence of predominantly US and British troops to counter the threat of the Soviet bloc. France left NATO in 1959 and did not fully rejoin until 2009. The disintegration of the old Soviet Union in 1991 removed the main military threat to Europe but new risks have arisen. These can best be countered by NATO and co-operation between democratic nation states, not by European political and economic integration.

Democratic nations tend to settle their differences by diplomacy not war. The biggest threat to peace in Europe is posed by the creation of an undemocratic centralised 'United States of Europe' and the removal of democratic accountability and control from its citizens. The EU intends to create its own armed forces by merging those of its member states' in order to enforce its Common Foreign and Security Policy. The safest future for Europe lies in democratic nation states co-operating with each other and in an alliance of independent states such as NATO to counter external threats. Abdicating control of four foreign, security and defence policy to the EU will be unpredictable to say the least and a recipe for potential disaster.

11) Are we not we stronger on the world stage as part of the EU, and would we lose influence outside it?

The opposite is actually true. The more centralised the EU becomes and the more power we surrender and the less influential we become in the world. Britain still has a seat on the UN Security Council,, and we still have a seat on over 100 international organisations. However, we lost our independent seat on the World Trade Organisation in 1973 when we surrendered it to the EU. The EU's ambition is to have a seat in its own right on the UN Security Council, taking over those of Britain and France. Being a part of the EU makes Britain less influential not more so.

12) But would Britain be 'isolated' outside the EU?

Do you mean isolated like countries such as the USA, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Singapore, Japan, Mexico,Brazil, and all the other countries not members of the EU that we could name? There are almost 200 sovereign counties in the world but only 28 are members of the EU. Are all the others isolated? No. But do they make their own laws, trade and prosper outside the EU? Obviously they do.

13) Should we remain in the EU in order to influence its decisions?

If you think that then consider these facts. In 1973 Britain had 2 of the 13 EU Commissioners or 15.4%, this has now reduced to 1 out of 28 or 3.6%. 

In 1979 Britain had 81 out of 410 Members of the European Parliament or 19.8%. We now have 73 MEPs out of 751 or 9.7%. Most decisions in the Parliament are made by a simple majority vote. Even if all the UK MEPs of all parties were to agree (which never happens) we can be outvoted: British MEPs cannot ultimately protect Britain's interests.

In 1973 we had 17% of the vote in the European Council (Heads of Government) this has now reduced to 8.2% (29 out of 352 votes). Each Member State is allocated votes according to the size of its population. Most areas of domestic policy are now under the control of the EU and are decided by in the Council by a Qualified Majority Vote. Again, we are outvoted when trying to protect our national interest.

The Lisbon Treaty introduced a revised system of QMV. A qualified majority is reached if 55% of member states vote in favour (in practice 16 out of 28), and if the proposal is supported by member states representing 65% of the total EU population. This so-called 'double majority' is obligatory as from 1st April 2017. A 'blocking majority' must include four Council members representing more than 35% of the EU's population. Under this system we are forced to accept laws we don't want because we are outvoted.

If you still think Britain has the ability to influence decisions or to protect our own interests then consider this fact: since 1996 when records began Britain has objected to 55 new laws in the Council of Ministers - we have been defeated 55 times and the offending measures have become law. [ix] If that is 'being stronger in Europe', and 'defending our national interests', then it obviously not effective.

14) Why do more countries want to join the EU, such as Turkey for example?

The six countries that set up the European Economic Community in 1957 were Germany, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. These were countries that had been devastated by the Second World War and the driving force was the need for an economic and political pact between Germany and France, historical the main instigators of European wars.

Since then 22 more countries have joined, many for less idealistic reasons. Only about three or four countries are net contributors to the EU budget in any given year. Germany is always the top contributor with UK usually in second or third place. Apart from the top three or four contributors to the EU budget most countries take far more out than they put in.

To illustrate the point, 2004 saw an accession of ten smaller, mostly poor Eastern European, countries to the EU. They joined for the financial and other benefits they could get. And the same is true of those countries waiting to join such as Macedonia, Turkey, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova.

The countries lining up to join are certainly not doing so in the hope of making massive donations to the EU budget. They want cash handouts, and to be able to export their excess populations and unemployed to Europe. Turkey for instance is not even geographically part of Europe. It has a population of 77 million, and if it joins it will be the second most populous and the poorest country in the EU. You can work the rest out for yourself.

15) But if we left we would we not lose millions in EU grants?

Firstly, there is no such thing as EU money. There is only taxpayers' money, and the UK is always a net contributor to the EU budget - we pay in far more than we get out. Germany always pays the most with Britain usually in the top four. The only year we got more out than we paid in was 1975 - coincidentally the last time we had a referendum on EU membership.

The European Union's own figures [x] show that out of the 37 British regions (as classified under the EU's system for Regional Aid), 35 are net contributors to the fund. Only two regions, West Wales and Cornwall were net beneficiaries.   In total the UK gets back £1 for every £3.55 we pay in.   Over the budgetary period 2007-2013 the UK paid in about £29.5 billion but received only £8.7 billion. Some of Britain's poorest and most deprived regions are subsidising regions of other EU member states.

Neither is this money well spent: between 2007-2013 the European Regional Development Funds payments to Wales totaled £2 billion, yet the effect on unemployment in Wales was insignificant. We would be better off not giving the money to the EU but deciding how to spend British tax-payers' money ourselves to best effect.

16) How much does EU membership cost?

A simple question which unfortunately has a complex answer: even the British government doesn't quite seem to know exactly how much it hands over to the EU each year. The Government's current forecast for payments to the EU Budget for 2016-2017 is:

1.      £19.228 billion gross contribution to the budget.
2.      £4.444 billion is held back as the British Rebate
3.      £4.606 billion is spent in the UK by the EU.
4.      This gives an estimated a net contribution of about £10.178 billion

However, bear in mind that the gross contribution is rising, the rebate is declining (thanks to Tony Blair's 'renegotiations' of 2006) and that the EU spends £4.6 billion of our own money in our own country on projects they deem fit. A British government should be able to make better decisions on how to spend tax-payers money than the EU.

The indirect costs on the economy are much higher. These include the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, and over regulation on business, to name just three. Professor Tim Congdon has calculated that the direct and indirect costs on the economy for 2015 to be 12% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or £190 billion per annum. [xi]

17) How many of our laws are made by the EU?

Most areas of domestic policy are now under the control of the EU and legislation takes two main forms: Directives and Regulations. Directives must be transposed into UK Acts of Parliament. The British Parliament has no choice in the matter, even if they may tinker with the details in some instances. Regulations automatically become law without our Parliament even debating them.

The amount of law coming from the EU will vary year to year. In 2006 the German Parliament carried out a study under former President Roman Hertzog that put the figure at 84%. When he was Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry in 2005 that "European regulations account for 50% of new rules for business".   In the European Parliament, EU Commissioner Viviane Reding said that "70% of British laws are made in the EU". So a reasonable estimate in any given year is anything between 50% to 80% in any particular year. 

The rate of legislation passing through the European Parliament has slowed down somewhat in the last eighteen months, and it is believed that a large amount of legislation is being kept back by the Commission awaiting the result of the British referendum. If we vote to remain in the EU then the legislative floodgates will open once again.

18)  But other sources, like Nick Clegg MP, say that a much smaller number of our laws come from the EU. What is the truth?

You will sometimes see the figure of only 9% or perhaps 13% of our laws coming from the EU. That is a misrepresentation of a House of Commons Briefing Paper that said about 13.2% of our laws come from the EU. But the paper warns that the figure does not take into account the large number of EU Regulations that automatically pass into UK law. The 13.2% figure refers to Acts of Parliament required to transpose EU Directives in to law. Taking Regulations into account the recalculated figure looked more like 65%. That is within the range described under item 14) and which would be 50% to 80% in any given year - depending on the EU's legislative output.

19)  Haven't measures such as the European Arrest Warrant made us safer from criminals and terrorists?

The simple answer is, no it has not. The European Arrest Warrant is just one part of an EU system of criminal justice being created which supersedes the English legal system. Britain was one of the first countries to pass an Extradition Act back in 1870. That Act required prima facie evidence to be presented to the English extradition court for it to satisfy itself that there was sufficient evidence against the accused person to justify their surrender to a foreign judicial system.

The 1870 Act worked well until the then Conservative Government replaced it with the Extradition Act of 1989, the small print of which allowed the European Convention on Extradition to be ratified in 1990. This removed the requirement for primate facie evidence to be presented to the English extradition court.

The Extradition Act 2003 removed any further safeguards for the accused person. Under the Act 'extradition' became 'judicial surrender'. It allows a British citizen to be removed to any other EU member states purely on the strength of a form completed by the relevant foreign authority; this can be purely on 'suspicion'. No prima facie evidence is presented to the English court, and indeed they have no power to prevent 'judicial surrender'. This goes entirely against the centuries old English legal protection enshrined in Habeas Corpus which prevented anyone being imprisoned without evidence against them and without a charge being laid for a specific offence in English law.

This is because of the EU doctrine of 'mutual recognition' which says all EU legal, judicial, and penal systems are of equal standing - which is palpably not so. British citizens can be sent abroad purely at the request of a foreign examining magistrate and locked up for months or years while investigations take place; whereas, the British police cannot request extradition of a suspect unless they have fully investigated and amassed sufficient evidence for a charge to be laid against them.

This highlights the fundamental difference between continental legal systems and the English legal systems: under continental legal systems people may be imprisoned for long periods while accusations are investigated, whereas under the English system people may only be imprisoned (on remand) after a specific criminal offence has been fully investigated and charges laid. The English legal system evolved over 800 years as much to project the innocent as to convict the guilty and those principled are being sacrificed in favour of an EU system of criminal law.

20) But I have heard that the courts can prevent extradition if the accused person's human rights are at risk?

Theoretically that may be the case but in practice it does not work. All EU Member States have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The English court will take the view that because EU member states have signed the Convention then under the doctrine of 'mutual recognition' they cannot then be deemed to be in breach of it - even if all the known facts contradict this.

For example it is well known that countries such as Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and others, are frequently in breach of the Convention, because of their institutionalised corruption or because of the conditions in their prisons; nevertheless suspects will be 'judicially surrendered' in spite of this. The author has been present in the English appeal court where such judgements have been made.

21) Don't we need to be in the European Union to help protect us from organized crime and terrorists?

The EU's open borders policy has put us at more risk from criminals and terrorists. Open borders has meant that Europe's criminals have migrated to where they think they can most lucratively operate, and that means countries like Britain. The EU's Freedom of Movement Directive (Directive 2004/38. Article 27 (2) ) says that 'previous criminal convictions are not enough to justify exclusion'. So even if we know someone to be a criminal we have no power to prevent their entry to our country. We have seen previously convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles come from Europe to the UK and commit more appalling crimes.

Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe revealed recently that 29% of the Met Police 250,000 arrests in a year were of foreign nationals (not all being EU citizens admittedly), but of these only 13% resulted in a charge or summons [xii]. The excuse for not being able to bring them to justice was because it was not possible to check their DNA, fingerprints or previous convictions, and they were released.

Open borders also aids terrorists. We have seen terrorist attacks in a number of European capitals made by terrorists who can easily cross borders under the EU's Schengen open borders system. Britain is not in Schengen but any EU citizen has the right to come to Britain if they wish. Europe has plenty of its own home-grown terrorists who have free access to the UK, but we also saw how in the Paris attacks of November 2015 at last one of the terrorists was operating on a forged passport. Whenever these terrorist attacks occur the EU uses it as an excuse to call for more power over police and judicial matters and to create the EU's own security and intelligence services.

Writing in the magazine Prospect, a former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove (1999-2004),has saidBritain wouldbe safer outside of the EU. He said that leaving the EU would make it easier to deport terrorists and control our borders. He added that Europe would not turn its back on Britain because our intelligence services because, "Britain is Europe's leader in intelligence and security matters give much more than they get in return". [xiii]

Outside the EU the organized crime and terrorist threat will not go away but we would be free to control our own borders, and we can continue, as we always have done, to share our intelligence with our allies, but allowing our intelligence services to be merged with an EU intelligence service would be a tremendous mistake. 

22) Why does President Obama want Britain to stay in the EU?

Back in the 1970s Henry Kissinger is reported to have said, "When I want to speak to Europe whom should I call"? The story may be apocryphal but it highlights the fact that USA foreign policy wants to deal with one central authority in Europe rather than have the inconvenience of dealing with individual independent nation states.
After the Second World War the USA funded the European Movement (which secretly worked towards creating a United States of Europe) to the tune of millions of dollars. The release of declassified documents in 2000 showed that that the American Committee for a United Europe was in fact a front organisation for the CIA. The USA wanted a bulwark against the Soviet threat, and as stated above, the convenience of dealing with one central political power in Europe. There is evidence that the CIA also clandestinely funded the 'remain' side in the 1975 British referendum. [xiv]

America is concerned with its perceived national interests not Britain's. We know that the USA has interfered in the domestic politics of many nations around the world so why would they not interfere with ours?   We should also recall that President Obama has called for Turkey to become a member of the European Union, which would invite another 77 million potential migrants to come to Britain if they wish. That is not in the British national interest.

23) But why are big businesses calling for Britain to remain in the EU?

Some big business are, some aren't. In February 2016 representatives of 36 FTSE 100 companies signed a letter for the Times calling for Britain to remain in the EU. But that means 64 of the FTSE 100 companies did not sign. About 200 companies have committed to the Remain campaign but that is a miniscule proportion of the 5.4 million companies in the UK.

Some big businesses like the EU because they want to deal with one central regulatory. They can lobby for the kind of regulation they want and can comply with but which their smaller competitors cannot. They also like the endless waves of cheap migrant labour that EU open borders bring.

Other representatives of big businesses are equally vocal on wanting Britain to leave the EU. For example Peter Hargreaves co-founder of FTSE 100 company Hargreaves Lansdown. Writing in the Daily Mail on 25th February 2016 Mr. Hargreaves said, "(EU) red tape and regulations have stifled enterprise in the UK, not helped."   And that Britain should be, "forging trading links with nations that have fast growth rates and dynamic economies. While we are in the EU we must wait on unmotivated, overpaid Eurocrats". He concluded by hoping that the electorate would, "decide to leave this disastrous and stifling union". [xv]

Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMEs) are even less enthusiastic about the EU. 200 bosses of SMEs signed a letter calling for Britain to leave the EU because of a "constant diet of unnecessary regulations" from Brussels that raise costs, cut profits and force up prices. The letter concluded that, "We believe that our economy can do better without being held back by the EU, thus we should vote to leave". The establishment is desperate to stifle any dissent - in March the British Chamber of Commerce's Director General John Longworth was forced to resign for stating his personal opinion that we should leave. No one has so far been forced out of a job for saying we should say in.

24) Haven't some big businesses threatened to leave the UK if we leave the EU?

In February 2016, 36 of Britain's top companies signed a letter to the Times arguing for Britain to stay in the EU. But two thirds of the 100 top companies did not sign. Those that declined to sign included, Barclays, Sainsbury's and Tesco.

Other companies, Toyota, General Motors, BMW, Volkswagen, Airbus, Jaguar, Land Rover, Honda and Ford, have all stated their ongoing commitment to UK manufacturing, whatever the result of the Referendum. John Mills the millionaire Labour donor and founder of John Mills Ltd (JML) supporting Brexit, along with Joe Foster and John Caudwell the founders of Reebok and Phones 4U.

On 17th February 2016, 80 business leaders, including Pasha Khandaker, President of the UK Bangladesh Caterers Association, Moni Varma, owner of rice suppliers Veetee, and Tariq Usmani, CEO of Henley Homes, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that Britain's 'was damaging trade with the rest of the world'. They continued, "As long as Britain's trade policy is controlled by the EU, we cannot sign bilateral free trade agreements with Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, or for that matter any other non-EU state". They added, "Vested interests on the continent sustain a relatively protectionist policy. We have apply the EU's common external tariff to exports to Commonwealth countries - hurting customers and consumers here".

Aircraft maker Boeing chose Britain for its new European headquarters in March 2016. Sir Michael Arthur the President of Boeing UK and Ireland said that "The prosperous partnership between our country and our company goes from strength to strength". Boeing employs 2,000 staff in the UK and has invested £1.8 billion.

Interestingly in 2013 Jim O'Neill, the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs' asset management business said, "We should not be scared of leaving it [the EU] and exploring a without it. The opportunities that arise from a dramatically changing world are huge and I don't think that a lot people in our area, never mind in Brussels, are that interested or understand it".

25) Haven't senior members of the British armed forces said we would be safer in the EU?

A letter orchestrated by 10 Downing Street in February 2016 was signed by a number of senior former members of the armed forces: however it spectacularly backfired when it turned out that one of the signatories had not in fact signed at all. General Sir Michael Rose had not only not given his permission to be included but said that, "sovereignty and security are intrinsically linked and in the recent years we've seen the EU erode our sovereignty". [xvi] No. 10 was forced to issue a humiliating apology to Sir Michael.

Other respected figures have come out in favour of leaving the EU, including Colonel Richard Kemp, former Army Commander in Afghanistan who wrote an article in the Sunday Express (28th February 2016) that, "NATO is our military alliance not the EU. By leaving the EU we will gain far greater control of our borders and better confront those challenges that have the potential to undermine the fabric of our society."

26) Some say that if we leave the EU we would be like Norway and Switzerland who have to obey most EU laws, pay a contribution to the EU budget, and have open borders. Is this true?

No. When Britain leaves the EU it is not obliged to follow the so-called 'Norwegian' or 'Swiss' models. The Norwegians chose to be members of the European Economic Area [xvii], and Switzerland had agreed over 100 bilateral treaties which mean adopting most EU law without being members of the EEA or the EU.

No genuine advocate of BREXIT would suggest this outcome is desirable. Instead we should adopt the 'Canadian', 'Japanese' or 'Singaporean' models: independent, nation states that trade and co-operate without being members of the EU. In reality we want a British Model which would mean we do obey their laws, pay them any money, or have open borders. We would be in a very strong position to negotiate our own trade deal with the EU - and indeed trade deals with the rest of the world.

Interestingly the Swiss Parliament recently voted to withdraw its 24 year-old application to join the EU because the costs of EU membership are too high. In 2006 the Swiss Federal Government carried out a study that calculated that full membership of the EU would cost up to six times that of their existing bilateral arrangements with the EU

27) Even so, surely we would still have to comply with EU rules in order to trade with member states?

Any country that trades with another country has to comply with its rules for exporting goods or services. For example, when we export goods and services to the USA we have to comply with their internal rules on specifications and laws. That is true of any country wishing to trade with another. And as has been said already, the rules governing trade are agreed under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. The WTO strives to bring trade barriers down internationally.

28) But outside the EU would we not lose our Human Rights?

After the atrocities on the Continent in the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was proposed by Winston Churchill. It was modelled on the protections enshrined for centuries under the English Common Law. We had perfectly good human rights under our own laws before we joined the EU and we will after we leave.

Under Tony Blair's Labour Government the Convention was incorporated into UK law by means of the Human Rights Act (1998). This has subsequently led to all kinds of abuses which led to it being described as a 'criminals and terrorists charter' because of numerous decisions by the European Court of Justice. The British courts have found themselves powerless to deport foreign terrorists, murderers, rapists and paedophiles because the European Court of Human Rights has decided that it might infringe their 'human rights' to do so.

In fact, leaving the European Union would not actually make any difference to our situation regarding the Convention or the ECHR. However, if a British Parliament decided to repeal the Human Rights Act, and remove our country from the jurisdiction of the ECHR, then we could return final power to Parliament and legal jurisdiction to our own Supreme Court, but that is a separate issue.

29) Hasn't David Cameron 'renegotiated our membership of the EU' to deal with all these problems?

Mr. Cameron's 'deal' is in fact 'no deal' at all. There is not sufficient space here to address each one of his 'reforms' but in summary, they do not amount to very much and they do not return any significant powers to the UK Parliament - despite Mr. Cameron's previous promises to do so.

The 'reforms' will require either changes to the EU Treaty (requiring the unanimous consent of all the other 27 member states), and amendments to existing Directives, which first have to be voted on by the European Parliament, as well as requiring the consent of the European Council (heads of the 27 other member states) by Qualified Majority Voting.

Martin Schulz MEP the President of the European Parliament has made it plain that how the Parliament votes cannot be guaranteed and that MEPs may decide to change the substance of the reforms. Likewise the European Council might decide to reject the changes and the proposed treaty changes. We simply do not know what will happen because although the Referendum will be on 23rd June 2016 the changes to the treaty and the directives will not happen until months or years afterwards. Mr. Cameron is trying to sell the British electorate a pig in a poke.

30) Aren't the Conservative and Labour parties both in favour of EU membership?

Not quite so. In fact both the Conservative and Labour parties are riven with conflict on this issue, and they have been since we joined in 1973. In the Referendum of 1975 major politicians from both parties campaigned on either side of the argument.

At least 165 (50%) Conservative MPs have already declared themselves as 'Leavers' in the coming referendum, with many more expected to follow. These include six cabinet ministers, and major figures such as Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith. Approximately two-thirds of Conservative Party members are believed to be in favour of Brexit.

The Labour Party is similarly conflicted, although they are not discussing it as openly. A number of Labour MPs have declared in favour of Brexit: Kate Hoey MP, Graham Stringer MP, and Kelvin Hopkins MP. A major Labour donor millionaire John Mills heads up the Labour Leave campaign group. Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to EU membership throughout his career but now nominally backs the Remain campaign.. While a majority of Labour MPs are in favour of remaining this does not reflect the feeling of a very large numbers of their members. Even Andy Burnham MP, a Europhile and a former contender for the Labour Leadership had to admit despite campaigning to stay in the EU that, "If I was to lay money on it...I would bet that Brexit is going to win". [xviii]

Even the usually Europhile Scottish National Party are not united on this issue. Jim Sillars, a major figure in the SNP and a former Deputy Leader has written an excellent pamphlet arguing why Scotland should vote to leave the EU. Mr. Sillars sums the issue up succinctly when he writes, "Should the Parliament we directly elect make our laws? If the answer is Yes, the coming out of the EU is a must. If the answer is No, then you must accept having laws imposed on your society with which your elected government does not agree".

31) Has any other country ever left the EU?

Yes, one, Greenland left in 1985. Greenland had joined the European Economic Community along with Denmark on 1st January 1973, the same time as Britain. However Greenland's politicians soon realized that the Common Fisheries Policy was destroying their country's fishing industry. In the 1985 referendum 53% of Greenlanders voted to leave, which the subsequently did on 1st January 1986.   The Greenland Treaty formalised its exit. 

Conventional wisdom might say that Greenland is too small to survive on its own, and that it ought to be grateful to depend on EU handouts. Reality is different. Greenland has a workforce of only 28,000 and fish provide 82% of its exports; but it had the courage to leave and free itself of EU red-tape, regulation, and from surrendering its fishing grounds to the Common Fisheries Policy. The average income of Greenlanders is higher than those of Britain, Germany and France. If may be cold in Greenland but life is sunnier than in the EU. [xix]

32) When we do leave, how can it be done? What is Article 50?

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty laid out, for the first time, the means whereby a Member State could leave the EU; however, were we to try and leave using Article 50 we might find it never actually happens. Under Article 50 there is a two year negotiation period which could be prolonged indefinitely by mutual agreement of all the Member States. Even if we did leave using Article 50 we could find ourselves with a 'deal' that still required us to pay contributions to the EU budget, having to accept a proportion of EU laws, and with open borders to EU citizens. We simply do not know what the deal might be, in two or more years hence.

Another great danger is that the British government could delay the whole process beyond the next General Election in 2019. Whichever party wins that election they could then set aside the Referendum decision (which is not legally binding) if they so wish on the basis that a general election result trumps a referendum, and we might never leave.

The only sure way for Britain to leave the EU is for our Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 192. This would immediately return supremacy of law to our own Parliament and courts, and free us from control by the EU. Chaos would not ensue because all EU Directives, which have been transposed into Acts of Parliament, would remain in place. These could then be gradually repealed, leaving what laws we might need to remain in order to interact with the EU (if indeed it continues to exist). The difference between Article 50 and the simple repeal of the European Communities Act is that the repeal of the Act puts the British government and Parliament in control and not the EU. A full and detailed explanation of how this strategy would work has been outlined in a book by Gerard Batten MEP entitled The Road to Freedom. [xx]

33) But it's all so complicated. I cannot make up my mind. How can I decide which way to vote?

You will indeed hear many arguments, facts and figures from the Remain and Leave sides in the referendum campaign. If you feel it is all a bit too much to take in then look at it another way.   If we had never joined the European Economic Community (Common Market) in 1973 would you now choose to join the European Union knowing what it has now become?

Ask yourself this: do you want to live in a democratic, self-governing country where the electorate can sack the government and elect a new one? Or do you want to live in an undemocratic, and economically declining, 'United States of Europe' (in effect if not yet in name) where the government (the European Commission) is not elected and cannot be sacked? Looked at this way it is a simple choice.


[i] For a detailed explanation read Lord William Dartmouth MEP's The Truth About Trade Beyond the EU.
[ii] BREXIT: What would happen if the UK voted to leave? British Influence.
[iii] United Kingdom Balance of Payments - The Pink Book: 2014. Showing inward and outward transactions, providing a net flow of transactions between the UK and the rest of the world and how that flow is funded.
[iv] Business for Britain. Change or go. How Britain would gain influence and prosper outside an unreformed EU. Pages 122-123
[v] Europe Doesn't Work. By Professor Tim Congdon..
[vi] The EU Jobs Myth by Ryan Bourne March 2015. Institute of Economic Affairs.
[vii] Daily Telegraph. Asa Bennett 2nd March 2016
[viii] The Metro newspaper. 3rd March 2016
[ix] Business for Britain, Measuring Britain's influence in the Council of Ministers. Briefing Note 3
[x] European Commission, Eurostat, ECB, Open Europe calculations. The author of the report, Mats Persson is now an advisor to David Cameron.
[xi] How much does the European Union. 2015 Edition. Professor Tim Congdon
[xii] [xii] [xii] [xii] [xii] The Evening Standard Friday 18th March 2016.
[xiii] The Daily Mail. Article by James Slack and Tamara Cohen. 23rd March 2016
[xiv] The Hidden Hand. Britain, America and Cold War Secret Intelligence by Dr Richard J. Aldrich. Published by John Murray
[xv] The Daily Express. Friday 4th March 2016
[xvi] Daily Mail, 25th February 2016.
[xvii]  The EEA (European Economic Area) comprises all EU member states plus Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway
[xviii] The Daily Express. 15th March 2016
[xix] Why is Greenland so rich these days? It said goodbye to the EU. Alex Singleton.. 28th November 2010
[xx] The Road to Freedom by Gerard Batten MEP, Research by Pavel Stroilov. Published by Betwalda Books Ltd.


Tuesday, 22 March 2016

Ten excellent reasons to leave the EU.

A fellow member of my Leave.EU Finchley Group wrote this to the local newspaper, it will be interesting to see if it is published.

The Editor
Barnet Times series
By email

Dear Madam/Sir


In or out? Here are ten reasons for not remaining in the EU

1 We will pay at least £50 million a day to keep up the unelected European Commission and the parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg if we remain in the EU

2 Our MPs will have even less power to make laws as 75% of laws are already made by the European parliament.

3 Decisions on who can enter the UK will be made by the EU not the UK – priority will continue to be given to unemployed people from EU countries (soon to include Turkey, according to Germany’s Angela Merkel ) over skilled people (and relatives) from Commonwealth countries such as India , Pakistan, Zimbabwe and  Australia.

4 If we remain we can’t negotiate our own trade deals with major world countries such as USA China India and Japan unlike independent countries such as Canada and Switzerland.

5 If  we remain, former (failed) politicians such as Lord Mandelson and Neil Kinnock will continue to collect fat salaries for sitting as ((unelected) commissioners in Brussels – on the ‘gravy train’!

6 We will no longer be able to control our legal justice system if we remain – our traditional court structures will change.

7 The Transatlantic trade agreement (TTIP) the EU is secretly negotiating with the USA means that if we remain, large USA pharmaceutical companies will have preferred status in bidding for NHS equipment contracts  at vastly increased costs and  our courts will have no jurisdiction over them.

8 Our children and grandchildren might well  be enlisted to join the planned European army.

9 We joined the original EEC (European Economic Community) in 1975 under  false pretences. Edward Heath, then prime minister, told us we were not signing up to political union. Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher warned us not to become part of a European state.

10 There is a ‘secret agenda’ by those who hold power in the EU to increase their hold and further marginalise the democratic decisions of individual voters – divide and conquer!!

Maybe someone could write in to state ten valid reasons for remaining in the EU?
Yours faithfully
David G*******

Name obscured to protect the guilty innocent.

If any pro-EU Remainers would like to reply with ten good reasons why we should stay, please feel free to comment below. Mind you, you'll be taken to task if you tell any Camerons. (Lies.)


Monday, 21 March 2016

The Commerce Department reported the following from the Consulate (Norway)

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and  in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. 

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and
make most coastal cities uninhabitable.


This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

It is so easy to manipulate polls

It is so easy to manipulate polls

If the managers of a POLL company gets a customer wanting a poll, and the manager wants future business from that customer, he attempts to find out what results the customer is looking for.

And attempts to give him that result.

And the gullible public believes, hook , line and sinker.

But this could never happen in Britain.

Supposing a party with a Moslem contender wants to be a mayor of that town, then the poll company sends canvassers out to ask the right questions, just making sure enough canvassers visit the Moslem parts of the town to skew the results.

Telephone canvassers can pick Moslem names in the phone directory.

And, guess what, the poll shows most of the inhabitants in the town are hoping the Moslem person would win. Even though the non-Moslems are 80% of the town, and want someone else to be mayor.

I have picked an easy case here, but as many types and classes of people have different names, for phone canvassers, and frequent different shopping areas, for example Old Bond Street in London for the upper class moneyed viewpoint (if you have to ask the price you can't afford it) or outside BHS for a different viewpoint entirely.

Naturally, British poll companies are as honest as all "establishment" owned companies are, and wouldn't dream of influencing the general public to enable their close friends to get the results they crave. Oh no. Never.


The real reason why Trump is storming America by Pat Condell

Probably one of the best Pat Condell videos, and well worth watching. The first half is more of the introduction but the second half is dynamite.

We, in Britain are also starving for the truth. Fortunately, Graham destroys the entire government myth of the Heath Government in another blog post of today’s date. (Its the next one down).


Why the working class are the salt of the earth.

I'll let the video do the talking, but this guy is brilliant. He might have been a docker, but certainly seems to be brighter than some of those who went to Eton and followed that up by a degree in Oxford.

OK, Graham, take it away...


Friday, 18 March 2016

Should you leave the toilet seat up or down, and why women are wrong.

A short tweet.

Now I have your full attention :-)

Men or women should not be concerned with the toilet seat.

You need to put the cover down. and before you flush the toilet as, if you don't, just imagine all those germs shooting into the air as the flushing water hits the... errr... pan.


Thursday, 17 March 2016

So you want to complain, and you want positive action?

Writing a complaint letter is an art. A postal letter is better than an email, especially for major complaints.

I'll cover letters and emails but, before I do, there are some ground rules.

1. Never write in an angry vein.
2. Keep the letter light and humour helps, but not too much humour.
3. Tell them, at the end what action you want them to take.

Point 3 is important in all business letters. Over the years, 99% of all the sales letters I received twittered on about their product and ended with Yours faithfully, never asking me to take any action. Naturally they went straight in the bin. Asking for action would have delayed going into the bin for a brief moment and that is all a salesman can hope for.

A letter of complaint:

First of all, send it as soon as possible by first class.

At the top of your letterhead, write: "Sent by first class post" and underline it.

This indicates that you wish the reader to take immediate action.

Start off with a short paragraph explaining the nature of the complaint.

If you have been a satisfied user of the company's services or products for some time, a brief paragraph explaining this here, saying how happy you've been in the past.

Then a paragraph or three detailing in chronological order everything that has happened concerning your dissatisfaction. Be factual, and as I said above, don't let your anger seep through to the letter.

Penultimate paragraph summarising the complaint in a very short paragraph, a sentence if possible. A busy executive may just copy this to the department head concerned, or highlight it if he is going to copy it to the manager. Better it is in your words.

The last paragraph should tell [not ask or suggest] the CEO exactly what you expect if he wants to keep you as a satisfied client. Adding the word "satisfied" gives you an out to return if you don't get what you want.

If you don't hear from the CEO within a week, send a copy of the letter, with a note saying "I'm a little concerned you never received this, please could you confirm receipt?" This will let him know that you aren't going to go away.

If a complaint detailing a minor item, you can send an email, but it is never as effective as a typed letter.

Keep the the same pattern as the letter, except change the part I call "A paragraph or three" above.

Here, itemise each part of the complaint with points as CEOs get hundreds of emails a day, and can't take in too much unbroken email text.

For example

Point One
List your first point here in detail but try to keep it to 140 characters (thanks Twitter).

Point Two
List your second point here in detail but try to keep it to 140 characters (thanks Twitter).

Point Three
List your third point here in detail but try to keep it to 140 characters (thanks Twitter).

Incidentally, using Point or Item or Question in the same format is always useful when writing emails to companies, especially when asking questions. Harassed executives usually pick the easiest point or question to answer hoping you'll go away. This way he's forced to answer them all.
I have used this method on many occasions and it normally
has very
positive results.

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

You'll never hear this on the BBC - or ITV - or Sky

And, I doubt it will make the top twenty, but wish it would! It's only three minutes.


Will Donald Trump be assassinated before he gets the Republican Nomination?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, a moving picture must be worth a hundred times more.

It is under eight minutes but it's chilling to see the power of the media over gullible Americans.


Monday, 14 March 2016

Hate him, or love him, why it is important for Trump to win.

The American circus - err... I mean election - is much more important than most can imagine.

It is not now about who becomes President of America. Neither Donald Trump, nor Billery Clinton (no not a spelling error) will be able to do everything they want. Remember, the Americans also have their own civil service.

It is about ordinary people. For the first time in living history, they will have fought the establishment and won. It will give encouragement, not only to their, and our, once great nations, but will give hope for the many democracies throughout the world.

There are many conspiracy theories concerning the establishment, in the USA, the EU and in Britain. Most of them are idiotic, but why should they all be false? One or more might be fact. We are too ready to "poo-poo" conspiracy theories.I'm not offering my views on any here, other than I am sure there are people above the White House, our Parliament, and the EU faceless commissioners, who really pull the power strings.


Wednesday, 9 March 2016

We have to be prepared, in case the Remainers win

Now that Turkey is being super-fast tracked into the EU, we could have Turks arriving as early as the end of June.

We must be ready for them, as Englishmen can...

OK, maybe a jest, but I am sure shotguns will be primed all over England, remember, we not only have to protect our womenfolk, and our daughters (from the age of nine), but information coming out of the Calais camps is the economic migrants are going after little boys as well.

We must start spreading the message that we will mobilise in 2020, and any constituency with a pro staying MP will be targeted, reminding people which way they voted. By 2020, the full scale of the horror will be well documented. We must ensure they lose their positions of power, and their livelihood.

We must be prepared to protect our loved ones in case we lose the referendum.

We must be prepared to protect our loved ones, in case we win the referendum, and Cameron finds a way to ignore the majorities wishes and keeps us in the European Union. He will if he can, he more then likely has a top job promised there in 2020!


Tuesday, 8 March 2016

The problem on social media for Leavers

The intellectual arguments aren't going to win this referendum.

The only way we have a chance to win is to mobilise the millions of younger working men and women who are more concerned with feeding their families and saving up for their own home, than whether we should remain in the European Union or not.

I spend a lot of time, on Twitter, fighting for the 'Leave' group. I see lots of tweets  mentioning how evil the bogey men are. To be more effective, you need to pick a subject that interests ordinary hard working folk and try and put it down without actually mentioning the EU or European Union.

A short message stating “There will never be a chance for young working families to afford their own home if we cannot control our borders” is more powerful than, we don't want all these immigrants flooding in. The latter is more important to you and me, dear reader, but not for the millions we need to mobilise.

Isn't one saying “It is estimated a family of four will save £906 a year if we can control our fish and our farmers grow whatever food is needed”  more powerful than saying what a bastard we all know Cameron is?

How much more fitting than harping on about the £13,000,000,000 net per year we pay to the EU. And, before you mention all the laws that come from the EU, ordinary working folk haven't actually noticed the huge changes that have occurred since the seventies, and don't believe stories that they consider wild – but which we know is the truth.

So, on twitter, keep your tweets to one point only. Don't mention the EU, and here is something I used to tell my 25 salesman when I was a sales manager which you should remember.
The customer doesn't care about our fucking company, he cares even less about you. He is not at all interested in the product, as such, that you are showing him. His only interest is “What's in it for me!”. Go tell him what he's going to get out of it. Sell benefits and not features.
Remember, all you 'Leavers' reading this. You are selling a product. The product is 'Leaving the EU'. Sell benefits, tell people what they will get out of it if they buy.

So we come to the KISS principle. 'Keep it simple, Stupid'. The 'stupid' bit refers to the person who makes it complex.

Leaving the EU will mean we are sovereign and free. Bollocks! So what? If we can trawl our own fish and grow food instead of grass, our food will be cheaper, leaving an extra thousand a year to put towards a mortgage. Ah! Sounds interesting!

Open up a document in your computer, or carry a notebook, every time you read something in the paper, write it down. Every time you think of something, write it down. Plan. Remember the seven Ps - an old military saying: Proper, Prior, Planning, Prevents, Piss, Poor, Performance.

Plan your twitter or your Facebook attack, be armed and prepared.


Sunday, 6 March 2016

Dear EU masters, this poem will help you understand why you'll lose.

The Secret People

by G.K.Chesterton

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.

Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget

Thursday, 3 March 2016

Why Immigrants with British Nationality should vote to Leave the EU

Not having an open door policy isn't racist, but common sense.

How can the government plan for the future with hospitals, the number of doctors and nurses needed? Or the number of schools required, and the number of teachers to man the schools? Because the government can have no idea of the numbers to cater for.

How can the government plan for housing, roads and general infrastructure if, once again they have no idea of the number of people coming to the UK.

How can British business, 85% of whom do not export, spend so much time on the red tape? They have to abide by the same rules as the 15% who export to the EU! They can't build their business up so that they can employ more of our unemployed, can they?

How will your children ever afford their own home when the government can't build enough houses as they have no idea of how many? How will your children ever afford their own home when wages are kept artificially low? There is so much labour now available that the employer can dictate wages.

Voting to stay seem to be very much like turkeys voting for Christmas to come earlier.

It's your life and your children's life as well, you know.