Checking if people are eligible for benefits is illegal

The EU Commission has decided that checking if people claiming benefits are actually allowed to live in this country and claim benefits is illegal.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of state for the DWP EU administrator for social security, said:

[This] could mean the British taxpayer paying out over £2bn extra a year in benefits to people who have no connection to our country and who have never paid in a penny in tax.

The EU settlement is supposed to protect the right of member states to make their own social security arrangements.

But we are now seeing a rising tide of judgements from the European institutions using other legal avenues to erode away these rights, and we should be gravely concerned.

So what's he going to do about?  Is he going to tell the EU Commission to bog off?  Is he going to tell them it's up to us who we give our money to?  No, he's going to tell the media how damaging it is to our economy and how the EU is damaging our country and then continue representing the pro-EU Conservatives in their pro-EU government.

Another Tory defection: Janice Small

Former Conservative PPC for Batley & Spen in Yorkshire, Janice Small, has defected to UKIP.

UKIP didn't field a candidate against her in the last election because she was deemed to be sufficiently eurosceptic to be given a free run against the europhile Labour candidate.

Small says that she was taken in by David Camoron's claims to be eurosceptic and has since realised that actually he was a raging europhile all along so she has left the Conservative & _٨^European Unionist Party and joined UKIP.

Small is also a writer on Con Home (although I suspect not for much longer) and a director of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform (again, I suspect not for much longer).

What people really care about - and why UKIP is the answer.

Recent polling identified 4 public priorities - in order of importance they are:

1) Economy and Jobs (66%)
2) NHS (44%)
3) Immigration (38%)
4) The Deficit (32%)

At 32% it seems the deficit is almost an irrelevant technicality to most... its the impact that matters to people - much like 'the EU' itself not being an issue, just everything it does!

So UKIP's messages on these issues are:

'Economy and Jobs' - Becoming an independent country once again will give the UK huge new opportunities... We don't have to let the Germans make all the trains or let France make all the cars - we can make these things for ourselves and can have a potential export market of the whole world. As an independent country we can also ensure the jobs created in the UK are first offered to UK citizens - increasing employment opportunities and cutting the national benefits bill.

'NHS' - one reason the NHS is creaking because of unfettered immigration stretching it too thin - we can't afford to treat the whole EU - only as an independent country can we start to address this. Ensuring our resources are first applied to our own citizens.

'Immigration' - while in the EU the UK government has no power to do any thing about immigration - EU citizens can come and go as they please, and the EU is also signing agreements specifically to open UK borders to people from other non-EU countries. As an independent country the UK can ensure that immigration and migration is controlled so it only occurs where it benefits the UK and its people.

'The Deficit' - well fix the previous three by becoming an independent country again and the deficit will be gone in no time... as will the national debt (and its massive interest payments)...

The EU is at the root of most of the UK's problems - only one party is unreservedly dedicated to putting the UK and its citizens first, and the first step towards that is returning political power from Brussels to the UK.

Video of UKIP conference Day 2 - Bob Crow(!), English Parliament, Jeffrey Titford, Nigel Farage

Nigel Farage on Bob Crow

Panel on an English Parliament

Jeffrey Titford Made Honorary Life President

Nigel Farage Closing Speech

Boundary changes: a former MP's view

I had to go to Telford Central train station yesterday to pick up some tickets for a colleague and bumped into Chris Gill.

Chris was the Conservative MP for the Ludlow constituency between 1987 and 2001 and is now a UKIP candidate.

Proposed Bridgnorth & Telford South Constituency

One of the things we talked about was the proposed change to the Telford constituency which will see Albrighton, Bridgnorth, Broseley, Much Wenlock and Shifnal become part of a Bridgnorth & Telford South constituency and Oakengates and Trench move into the Wrekin constituency.  Brookside will be part of the Bridgnorth & South Telford constituency.

The new constituency (assuming the boundary changes go ahead as planned) will see David Wright lose his seat if previous elections are anything to go by.  His majority last year dropped to just 981 and none of the five towns that will join the constituency are Labour-voting areas whilst the two areas that are being moved into the Wrekin are.

There were some aspects of the proposed changes that I hadn't considered but which Chris, having been an MP, has.  The main one was the problems the new MP would have dealing with two different local authorities, especially when one is largely a rural local authority (Shropshire Council) and the other a predominantly urban local authority (Telford & Wrekin).  How can an MP properly represent the interests of his or her constituents (as articulated through the councillors) when those interests are conflicting?

When I get hold of a polling district breakdown for last year's election I will have a better idea of how the proposed changes will affect our constituency.

(Thanks to Shropshire Live for pointing me in the direction of the maps)


Cross-posted from: Stuart Parr for Brookside

Rushmoor Tories defect to UKIP

Two Conservative councillors on Rushmoor Borough Council in Hampshire have defected to UKIP after attending the UKIP Conference at the weekend.

Cllr Staplehurst

Councillors Mark Staplehurst and Steve Smith have both cited "petty politics" and the Conservatives' abandonment of the armed forces as reasons for defecting.

Cllr Smith

The defection won't have any material affect on the Conservatives' control of Rushmoor Borough Council as it still leaves them with 28 of the 40 seats on the council but every defection not only helps UKIP but sends a message back to Cast Iron Dave™ that he can't get away with riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate and his own party members.

Councillors Staplehurst and Smith are very welcome in UKIP and I'm sure they will continue to represent the people of Rushmoor in a professional and productive way.

UKIP Lawyers Association

During my speech at the Eastbourne conference defending the importance of special interest/affiliate groups I proposed a UKIP Lawyers Association.

The EU and ECHR are guilty of  abusing the legal systems of member states. In the UK, they have penetrated the English Legal System by overiding the previouslly unsurpassable doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. However, this accomplishment was also made with the help of europhile legal academics, judges and lawyers who used bizarre and illogical legal arguments to hand sovereignty to Brussells and Luxembourg.



As I said at conference, that the legal professions are biased towards the EU became evident to me in a law class at University where a teacher said to us: "some  little Englanders dont want to be part of the EU...but if you want to be rich lawyers with fancy offices all over Europe, you must support the EU. "

A UKIP Lawyers Assosiation could work to fight the Europhile forces in the UK legal system by bringing together lawyers who oppose the EU and ECHR.

The Conservative Lawyers Association is very active, and I feel that as UKIP grows as a party, UKIP must compete.

I am going to try to contact lawyers who are members of UKIP before the next conference to see if they will support me in putting plans together for a "UKIP Lawyers Association".

If interested in this please email me, Julian, at ukipfriendsofisrael@gmail.com

Leaked Bilderberg Document Exposes EU Plan in 1955

Before I begin I'd like to point out that I take a pragmatic view towards the Bilderberg group, a view that sticks to facts rather than conspiracy-based claims. The facts are pretty clear. Each year, a powerful elite group of peoples from around the world meet in secret to discuss political issues around the world. The simple act of doing so counts as treason in several countries.

Whether you believe in the conspiracy based views that the Bilderberg group is a shadowy group which controls the world depends on your own cognitive dissonance, but the facts are the facts. It is no conspiracy theory that the group exists, nor that the group meets in secret and nor that the group can spearhead major political and foreign policy without the consent of the public.

Just two decades ago, to suggest that the European Union was preplanned since the second world war would lead you to be accused as being a conspiracy theory nut. One who must, automatically by default therefore also believe that the moon landings were faked. Now though, it has become explicitly obvious that these people were indeed right all along.

Part of Wikileaks' catalogue of leaks included Bilderberg documents from the 1950's and 1960's. The earliest one being from 1955 is by far the most eyebrow raising for those interested in the European integration project. In the 1955 document a whole section is dedicated to 'European Unity' whereby the need for higher powers than a simple coal community were discussed as well as the need for a Euro currency.

Remember, this is from over 55 years ago. It was in the 1970's when we were promised by our political leaders that the European Economic Community was purely only about a trade economic agreement and had no intention of becoming a political union with a common currency. We were lied to by our politicians in the 1970's, they knew precisely what they were letting ourselves into.

Edward Heath in 1972 stated:

there is no question of eroding national sovereignty, there is no blueprint for a federal Europe..

there is no danger of a single European currency

Barely a decade later, Edward Heath admitted in an interview that he lied to the British electorate, that he knew that the Maastricht Treaty was a passport for a federal Europe with a single common European currency.

The leaked 1955 Bilderberg document is further evidence that we have been lied to for decades about the European Union. It has gotten so bad that people are no longer bothered or surprised. I think even we in UKIP are guilty of this.

That Tory "eurosceptic" myth again

UKIP in their heart, Tory
in their pockets

Tory MP, Heather Wheeler, has signed up to the cross-party Better Off Out campaign.  She is the tenth Tory MP to sign up and publicly oppose our membership of the EU.

Some Tories are optimistically calling them "eurosceptic" MPs but of course no LibLabCon MP can genuinely earn the title "eurosceptic" until they defect to UKIP, the only mainstream eurosceptic political party in the country.

The "eurosceptic" Conservative Party has 307 MPs and only 10 of them have signed the Better Off Out pledge.  Only 2 Conservative MEPs are Better Off Out signatories, one of which is the turncoat David Campbell-Bannerman who abandoned UKIP when he lost the leadership election to Nigel Farage to join the pro-EU Tories.  The "mainstream eurosceptic" group of Tory MPs (whose opposition to the EU involves ... erm, staying in the EU) has apparently grown to over 100 but there is still no sign of action from Cameron, even  with up to a third of his MPs publicly disagreeing with his pro-EU policy.  Talk about being out of touch with reality.

But no matter what pledges these MPs take and how many meetings they attend, if they remain in the pro-EU Conservative Party, they are part of the problem.

You know UKIP's doing well when..

Criticisms of UKIP are getting more and more lame. Like, seriously lame. Take for example this latest criticism by the Daily Mail hickory dickery hack Andrew Pierce:

The eurosceptic leaders of UKIP, which held its party conference in Eastbourne at the weekend, have come up with a vote-wooing wheeze. The party’s online shop, under the heading ‘special offer’, has a ‘Happy 18th birthday from UKIP card’ for the princely sum of 10p. A word of caution. The party warns prospective buyers of the following: ‘Please note — envelopes not supplied.’

Wow. If this is all political journo hacks can come up with, then I'd say it's safe to say UKIP's doing pretty well, wouldn't you say?

UKIP now supports devolution

The big thing to come out of UKIP's conference in Eastbourne this weekend for me was the release of a policy paper entitled "A Union for the Future".

The policy paper, written by Paul Nuttall MEP, is a complete rewrite of UKIP's badly written, unworkable devolution policy which basically involved abolishing the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales (but not NI) and replacing them with Grand Committees of British MPs.

This new policy paper has no such retrograde suggestions in it.  The current British House of Commons would be replaced with an English Parliament with English MPs, an English Executive and an English First Minister.  The House of Lords would be replaced by the British Parliament with British MPs, the British Executive and the British Prime Minister and will scrutinise legislation for all four home nations.

There are a couple of gaps in the policy paper but then it is only a two-page précis.  One question I would like answered is what changes would be made to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly?  Will the powers they have be equalised with that of the Scottish and English Parliaments?  The policy is very anglo-centric so some questions need answering about how it will affect Scotland, Wales and NI when the policy paper is expanded upon.

Since this policy was announced there have been a few threads on the UKIP members' forum on it with the usual suspects scaremongering about devolution, claiming that it's the same thing as devolution, expensive, creates more politicians, etc.  So here is a list of devolution myths peddled by Big Britishers (the opposite to Little Englanders) debunked:

• Devolution means breaking up the union
  Breaking up the union would be independence. Devolution is inherently unionist because you can't devolve power from the union government if the union doesn't exist to have a government. Devolution can only exist for as long as the union exists.
• Devolution means more tiers of government
  The policy paper written by Paul Nuttall sees the regional tier of government in England being abolished when the English Parliament is created.  The two tiers of the British government would also be replaced by one.  That's a net reduction of one tier of government.
• Devolution means more expense
  Paul Nuttall has clearly used the paper Chris Gill submitted to a House of Lords committee when he was Conservative MP for Ludlow as a base for his policy paper.  In that paper Chris detailed the basic cost savings that could be realised by making these changes.  Adjusted for current salaries and numbers of peers, the cost savings amount to almost half a billion a year.
• This is playing into the EU's hands
  The EU has divided the UK into 12 euroregions.  Three of them coincide with national borders - Scotland, Wales and NI - but the other 9 are a dismemberment of England.  Establishing a national Parliament for the whole of England and doing away with the EU's regional government goes against what the EU wants.
• There is no support for devolutionIndependent opinion polls consistently put support for either banning MPs not elected in England from voting on English laws or for creating an English Parliament at 7 out of 10.  As the former is an unworkable mess that doesn't actually address the core problem of having no politicians elected to represent English interests, the latter is the only option.
  
• We already have an English Parliament: Westminster
  Westminster is home to the British government which is made up of British MPs elected in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Being elected to an English constituency doesn't make a British MP an English MP.  There hasn't been an English Parliament since 1707.
• There's no votes in it
  Being the only party opposing membership of the EU hasn't got us an MP elected but it doesn't mean there are no votes in it, it means that voters think their vote will be wasted if they vote for UKIP or we don't offer enough policies they can support.  The reason the English Democrats haven't seen any real electoral success is because they are a tiny party crippled with debt and an ineffectual and toxic leadership and are being over-run with BNP members, not because their core message doesn't resonate with voters.
• It will alienate Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters
  How could anyone object to making England equal to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  If it does then that says a lot about the people we're supposedly united with and UKIP has never retained a deposit in any Westminster or devolved election, should we discriminate against the 50m people who vote for us in large enough numbers to retain deposits so as not to upset the 10m who don't?
• Our current policy is good enough
  No, really it's not.  There are so many reasons why it's wrong.  Here are a few ...
• The Scots would declare independence if you tried to take their government away from them.
• A Grand Committee of British MPs elected in British constituencies in Scotland and Wales to the British government is several retrograde steps back from Scottish and Welsh politicians elected in Scotland and Welsh constituencies in Scotland and Wales to a Scottish or Welsh government.
• What happens if a British MP elected in England votes on something good for Britain and bad for England when they're sitting as the British Grand Committee and then it comes up when they're sitting as the English Grand Committee?  Do they denounce themselves and censure their own vote?
• What happens when a bill is presented to the British Grand Committee that requires a change to the law in England, Scotland, Wales and NI?  As the British MP introducing it will also be a member of one of the national Grand Committees it's highly likely it will occur.  Will part of it be voted on by the British Grand Committee and then part of it be voted on by each of the four national Grand Committees who may suggest amendments that contradict each other?  That type of bill would take years to steer through all five Grand Committees, if ever so all that will happen is that the British Grand Committee would exercise its prerogative to vote on "devolved" issues and ride roughshod over themselves with their English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish hats on.  And presumably complain to themselves about it to themselves over their boiled eggs.
• Will the Chair of the British Grand Committee be banned from being Chair of one of the national Grand Committees?
• Will the whip apply to both the British and national Grand Committees?  Will the whips be the same people or will the parties have whips that are whips one week of the month and not the next three?
• The value of devolution is that it allows priorities and needs to be met when they are different to those of the other home nations.  Parties will impose the same policies across the UK on "devolved" matters because that's what they believe in nationally.
• Grand Committees will only exist for as long as the British Parliament decides to tolerate their existence. They will have no constitutional basis, no executive powers, no dedicated politicians, no real legal basis.
• Without a clearly defined (in law) list of what is and isn't devolved to another executive, MPs elected in one country will be able to claim an interest in a bill appearing to affect only one of the other county's if it involves spending money on the basis that money spent in one home nation means less to be spent in another.  An MP elected in Scotland made this claim the same day the Tories originally announced their (now abandoned) English Votes on English Laws policy.

If this policy paper makes it into the manifesto (and I would hope and expect it to do so) then it's not going to be a magic pill that suddenly gets UKIP into government but it's another string to our bow and another reason for people to vote for us.  Almost every supporter of devolution that I know is a eurosceptic but until this policy paper was announced, most of them wouldn't vote for UKIP because of our anti-devolution policy.

We won't get elected based on one core populist policy of leaving the EU - we have to offer more in exchange for peoples' votes.  The Hansard Society Audit of Public Engagement a couple of years ago showed that "Scottish MPs" voting on English matters was the biggest complaint voters had.  The EU came surprisingly low down the list of complaints (most likely because they don't understand how many of the things that annoy them are because of EU directives).  We have a flat tax policy with increased personal allowances - a great policy but how many people understand it or are turned on by it?  Not many.  We have a policy of Swiss-style Referenda which is another great policy but only two petitions on the British government's ePetitions site have achieved 100,000 signatures which suggests people either aren't motivated enough or don't think it will make a difference.

Devolution is different though - the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish already know how it works and the English are increasingly aware of it as well.  It's expressed as dissatisfaction with the way "Scottish MPs" vote on English laws and the amount of money "they" get compared to us but it's an awareness nonetheless.  An English Parliament is something that people rarely ask for until you ask them if they want it and then they get passionate about it and passion = votes.

The genie is out of the bottle where devolution is concerned and it's not going back in.  Devolution is here to stay so it has to be made to work.  Since devolution was introduced in Scotland and Wales support for independence in those countries has decreased but over the same 13 year period it has increased from basically zero to 36% in England.  What does that tell you?  It shows that devolution delivered (as unexpected as it may have been) on its promise to kill separatism in Scotland and Wales.  It has also, as predicted, resulted in a backlash against the union and in particular the Scots, in England.

The union will break up within my lifetime, it's a matter of timing now.  I'm not anti-union, I'm agnostic towards it - I won't shed a tear when the union breaks up but then I probably won't throw a party either.  It would be fair to say most people in UKIP are unionist and I think that on balance most of the population of the UK is too and that's why UKIP should support devolution.  If we carry on as we are the union will have broken up in less than a decade.  If power is devolved equally and meaningfully to national parliaments then it will last a lot longer.  Big Britishers and Little Englanders alike should support UKIP and this policy.

Finally, I would like to say well done to UKIP's Paul Nuttall, Annabelle Fuller and Gawain Towler for dragging UKIP's stance on devolution kicking and screaming into this millennium and to Eddie Bone and Scilla Cullen from the Campaign for an English Parliament for making sure the new policy doesn't end up a constitutional abomination.

UKIP may soon have 10 MPs - if they are sincere!

David Cameron has made it 100% clear that he would never take the UK out of the EU - and has also made it clear that he doesn't care whether the people of the UK agree with him or not (isn't there a name for leaders like that?).

However some of his MPs seem to be a bit more in touch with public opinion - these ten for a start

Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire)
Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
Douglas Carswell (Clacton)
Phillip Davies (Shipley)
Richard Drax (South Dorset)
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
Phillip Hollobone (Kettering)
David Nuttall (Bury North)
Andrew Percy (Brigg & Goole)
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

All have publicly declared that they are believe Britain would be better off outside the EU. They have done this by supporting The Freedom Associations' Better Off Out campaign (BOO).

If they really believe what they say, then they have two options - the first is to replace David Cameron as Conservative party leader with a fellow BOO supporter the other is for them to join UKIP and start a movement in this country to put parliament back in touch with the people.

Members of UKIP, and anyone who wants an Independent UK - run by the British people, for the British people - should be writing to their MP urging them to join BOO and urging them to join UKIP.

UKIPs first MPs will have significant influence in the party - and will be part of the biggest revolution in UK politics in living memory.

If your MP is listed above - send then a UKIP membership form - if not send them one anyway.


(Link: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2011/09/heather-wheeler-mp-signs-up-to-the-better-off-out-campaign.html)

Chumbawumba can go tubthump themselves

Chumbawumba performing at their sell out gig

For those who were unable to go to the conference this month Nigel Farage was complimented with his walk on to stage to the sound of Chumbawumba's one hit wonder song 'Tubthumping'.

A very apt and tongue in cheek song of choice for Farage, where the lyrics talk about being knocked down but always getting back up again as well as 'pissing the night away'.

The Guardian, in true guardinsta fashion found out about this and decided to stick their oar in to start stirring. They contacted Chumbawumba for their 'thoughts', despite knowing pretty well that the band (that no longer exists) are a poor man's version of anarchistic musical pioneers the Sex Pistols.

The comments from Chumbawumba were the standard drivel you'd expect from 'anarchists', accusing UKIP of being a vile racist party and the like as well as their strained outrage. As far as I am concerned, the only genuine outrage they may have is receiving no money from UKIP, particularly when accepting money would go against their 'principles', thus being found to be in a situation where all they could do is feign the moral high ground.

Bizarrely, the anarchist band also threatened 'legal action'. Let me repeat that. The anarchist band, threatened legal action. The irony is sweet.

Their only hit Tubthumping was followed up by the lyrically complex track 'Amnesia' which went something along the lines of "do you suffer from short term memory loss.. ..I can't remember". Funnily enough, the latter part of these lyrics pretty much sums up the mark they left on the music world.

German Commissioner wants EU to take over Greek ministries

Any advance on €5m for the Greek
Finance Ministry? Going once ...

A Germany EU Commissioner by the name of Günther Oettinger has suggested that eurozone governments that  aren't doing enough to collect taxes and sell off assets should be forced to have officials from other eurozone countries parachuted in to do it instead.

Oettinger also says that "deficit sinner" countries should have their flags flown at half mast outside EU buildings as "a deterrent".  This is an unintentionally appropriate suggestion as one of the reasons for flying a flag at half mast is to signal distress and being members of the EU is certainly a reason to be distressed.

According to Der Spiegel, a growing number of politicians and German lawmakers are openly talking about kicking Greece out of the eurozone. On this, Oettinger said:

That would divide Europe and would be a disastrous signal. Then investors and markets wouldn't trust us at all anymore for the future.

Now I'm not an investor and I certainly don't profess to be an expert on macroeconomics but I'd say it was pretty obvious that investors and markets don't trust the euro already.  But Oettinger doesn't need to worry about the prospect of Greece leaving the eurozone and dividing the EU, the EU Commission has already said it would be illegal for any eurozone member to leave, even if all the other eurozone members want to give them the boot.

Another second place for UKIP

UKIP had an excellent result in the election to fill expenses thief, Lord Hanningfield's vacant seat on Essex County Council.

The seat was, unsurprisingly, retained by the Tories as you would expect from a "true blue" seat with 1,820 votes but the UKIP candidate, Jesse Pryke, came second with 736.

Third place went to Labour with just 273 votes, fourth to the Lib Dems with 160 and the communist Green Party candidate received just 80 votes.

Obviously a win would have been a better result but second place in an election contested by all three of the LibLabCon is still an excellent result.

Former Chumbawamba band members whinge about UKIP

According to the Guardian, Chumbawamba have thrown their teddies out of their prams over UKIP using their song, Tubthumping, at the conference today.

Apparently they reacted with "total and absolute outrage and horror" when they heard that it was used.  One of their former band members, a mega-rich far left "anarchist" called Dunstan Bruce, called UKIP a "grubby little organisation".  Another former band member, another mega-rich far left "anarchist" called Alice Nutter, called Nigel Farage "an arse", UKIP members as "bigots" and said UKIP policies are "racist".  She also mis-spells "Farage" throughout her quote.

Two former band members having a whinge doesn't exactly justify the Guardian's headline "Chumbawamba go Tubthumping crazy over Ukip's use of No1 hit" but you wouldn't expect a far left rag like the Guardian to report on a UKIP conference objectively would you?

EU Commission says leaving eurozone is illegal

The EU Commission has said that eurozone countries are not allowed to leave the Euro. Ever. No matter what the circumstances, no matter whether they are bankrupt and bankrupting the whole continent, no matter whether other member states want to throw them out. It's a one way street, membership is forever.

Neither exit nor expulsion from the euro area is possible according to the Lisbon Treaty under which participation in the euro is irrevocable.

It's funny how you can't leave the Euro if you want to or if everyone else wants you to because that's not allowed under the Lisbon Treaty but if you want to give illegal bailouts to bankrupt eurozone countries that's ok even though it's not allowed under the Lisbon Treaty.

Leaving the eurozone is as simple as a national parliament passing a law saying that the country's currency is no longer the euro.  The EU Commission will find out soon enough how easy it is.

Hat-tip: PJC

Cameron refuses EU referendum again

Cast Iron Dave has refused to hold a referendum on leaving the EU once again because he doesn't agree with the majority of the electorate that we should leave.

He says there is "no case" for a referendum on leaving the EU because we had a referendum on 1975.  I wasn't born in 1975 so I didn't get a vote.  My parents weren't old enough to vote in 1975 so they didn't get a say either.  All my grandparents have died apart from my nan so she is the only person in my immediate family still alive to have had a vote on the EU (and it wasn't even on the EU, it was on membership of a common market).  In fact, I can't even think of a single person in my extended family (and it's a big family) that had a vote in the 1975 referendum who is still working and paying for membership of this bottomless pit of fraud and corruption.  That argument just doesn't wash Cameron.

It gets better though.  He also says ...

I want us to be influential in Europe about the things that matter to our national interest - promoting the single market, pushing forward for growth, making sure we get lower energy prices. Those are things we will be fighting for but I don't see the case for an in out referendum on Europe.

Interesting.  Very interesting.  Membership of the single market doesn't require membership of the EU, only EFTA which is the modern-day version of the trading bloc we joined 38 years ago and not the political union we have been taken into by treasonous politicians.  Our economy will continue to struggle while the €uro struggles because of our association with the EU.  And as for energy prices - the reason gas and electricity is so expensive is because of EU "green" taxes and the amount of money energy suppliers have to spend complying with EU "green" directives.

There's the traditional broken Cast Iron Guarantee™ ...

[There is] no immediate prospect of major treaty renegotiation

Um, someone needs to pass the message on to Tory MPs because they're all peddling the same rubbish about repatriating powers from the EU which of course requires a renegotiation of treaties.

And then there's this frankly astounding comment from the "very practical eurosceptic" ...

The Chancellor and I have both said that the logic of monetary union is a greater fiscal union and we see the eurozone countries moving in that direction. I don’t think we should stand in the way of them making some progress.

There is no way - not even the remotest possibility - that in pursuing fiscal union, non-eurozone member states won't be subjected to a power grab.  It's just utterly inconceivable that the new treaties or amendments to existing treaties won't involve stealing sovereignty off all member states.  More EU financial regulation for all member states would be rolled up into the new treaty and/or treaty amendments required to establish a fiscal union.

There are apparently around 80 new self-styled "eurosceptic" Tory MPs banding together to pressurise the pro-EU ConDem coalition to ...

promote debate about creating a new relationship with the EU and reversing the process of EU integration

Presumably this is the same group of new "mainstream eurosceptic" Tory MPs that defined their "mainstream euroscepticism" as staying in the EU and reforming it from within - the same lies put about by all the "eurosceptic" Tories.  There is no such thing as a eurosceptic MP because they all represent parties that support continued membership of the EU.

If you oppose the EU and support the Tories then no matter what you say, you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Every member of the Tories is another person giving David Cameron a mandate to pursue ever closer union, to break promises and to ignore the wishes of the electorate.

English Parliament? No Thanks.

I am a citizen of the UK. Parts of the UK are now run by government/assemblies that I have no say over. As I travel around my country, I becoming subject to laws that I have had no say over, laws that have absolutely no democratic mandate from me.

This is simply wrong.

Just because I don't actually live in Wales or Scotland there is no reason that I should have no say over how I am treated when I am there.

As a citizen of the UK I should be treated exactly the same as all other citizens and treated exactly the same where ever in the UK I happen to be.

I only want one parliament - and that is a UK parliament at Westminster. If there is to be a different parliament, an English parliament, then it has to replace the UK parliament - no one needs two.

If this does come about, and we have an English parliament, then I would expect the English parliament to take full advantage of the superior size/wealth of England as compared to the other 'home nations'.

Just as Germany sucks all the wealth out of the smaller, poorer Eurozone countries and takes it to itself, I would expect England to drain as much wealth and power from the other 'home nations' - all English state funded services, functions, employees etc would be repatriated as would all military functions, bases. And as far as possible financial services should also be sucked into the City of London - no Scottish banks, building societies, insurance companies etc should fail to feel the red hot breath of fierce competition from England.

As I say - I prefer a United Kingdom, but if the home nations are to go their own way, England must show no mercy...

First published at: http://free-english-people.blogspot.com/2011/09/english-parliament-no-thanks.html

Fate of Euro in hands of German Constitutional Court

The Telegraph says the future of the EU and its failing currency is in the hands of the German Federal Constitutional Court which is reviewing the illegal €uro bailouts.

If the Bundesverfassungsgericht rules that the bailouts are unconstitutional then a new EU treaty will be required.  If it rules that the bailouts themselves are inherently unconstitutional then it could rule that Germany has to leave the EU.

In all likelihood the Court will capitulate like they did when they reviewed the Lisbon Treaty first time round but I bet they can hear the squeaking bottoms in Brussels all the way up in Karlsruhe.

Neil Hamilton joins UKIP

Former Tory MP, Neil Hamilton, has come out in support of UKIP in the Daily Express.

I have become active in the fight to restore democracy and self-government to the United Kingdom.

The Conservative Party has long since abandoned these beliefs and UKIP is now the only credible means of getting Britain out of the EU.

Christine in UKIP colours, even at
the most intimate of times!

Hamilton is standing for election to the UKIP National Executive Council which seems to be par for the course for any "celebrity" joining the party.  Personally, I would ban new members from standing for election to the NEC until they have been members for 12 months.  I would also ban new members from standing for election as MPs or MEPs until they've either been a member for 6 months or are already an MP or MEP to weed out carpetbaggers and egotists.

That said, I'm glad yet another well known Tory has seen sense and joined UKIP.

Could this be the end of the Conservatives in Scotland (finally)?

The Scottish Conservatives could wind themselves up if Murdo Fraser MSP is successful in becoming leader of the party north of the border.

Fraser realises that the Tory brand is toxic in Scotland and wants a clean break.  He has made it clear that if he is elected leader of the Scottish Conservatives he will hold a ballot of the membership to disband the party there and reform as a new party with a different name.  His intention is that the new party would be federated with the British Conservative & Unionist Party with elected members taking the Tory whip as used to happen before the Scottish Unionist Party merged with the Tories in England & Wales to becomes the Scottish arm of the British Conservative & Unionist Party.

I don't imagine the "Not the Tories because we've got a different name" Party in Scotland will see a significant revival of its fortunes just by changing its name and cutting some of its ties with the British Conservative & Unionist Party but let's face it, they've got nothing to lose.

The right has been in serious decline - terminal decline - in Scotland for decades.  It's why the SUP merged with the British Conservative & Unionist Party in the first place and it's why the Tories now have just one British MP elected in Scotland.  It's also why (along with pledging to abolish the Scottish Parliament) UKIP has never retained a deposit in an election in Scotland.  The state accounts for 24.9% of everyone in employment in Scotland, what incentive is there for anyone in what is rapidly descending into a communist state to vote for a party that advocates a small state and low taxes with the cull of public sector workers that will ensue?

There are those who will see this as an opportunity for other hard unionist parties to mop up Scottish Tories who want to belong to a pan-union party but it's not going to happen.  This is little more than a rebranding exercise - they will still be Scottish conservatives, they will still take the Conservative & Unionist whip and they will continue to tell Scottish people that whatever their views on independence, they will never be granted independence on their watch.

If the Scottish Conservatives cease to exist as part of the British Conservative & Unionist Party, it won't make any material difference to their electoral success (or lack thereof) in Scotland but it will make it very difficult for the British Conservatives to claim a mandate to govern the whole of the UK when it doesn't even have a party in Scotland, let alone an MP.  It will also make it very difficult for the Tories to maintain the illusion of the union in England where they are fighting a losing battle against the decline in unionism that has come about as a result of the institutional discrimination against the English.

Cross-posted from: Wonko's World

Buy a house, get a passport

Companies are exploiting badly-written Bulgarian residency and citizenship laws to get Bulgarian passports for wealthy non-Europeans which will allow them to gain free access to the UK and other EU countries.

Companies like Key2Europe and Arton Capital are guaranteeing to turn an investment in Bulgarian property into an EU passport in 5 years and the "customer" doesn't even have to set foot in the country at any time in those 5 years.

These companies will broker the purchase of property in Bulgaria and rent out the property for you.  The investment is very tax friendly and you can even claim back VAT on your purchase.

Bulgarian law allows owners of property to apply for a permanent residency permit and there is no requirement to actually reside in the country.  After 5 years the owner can make an application for a Bulgarian passport and can reasonably expect to be successful as the owner of property and a business in the country.

The holder of a Bulgarian passport has a right to live and work in any EU member state, including the UK and the right to free movement between Schengen countries.  They can also expect much easier travel between Bulgaria and non-EU countries as over 100 countries don't require a visa for Bulgarian citizens.

I am told that this convenient arrangement is being used by organised crime gangs - especially in Russia - to help them expand into Europe.  They have already bought the property and are biding their time until they qualify for passports.

The ConDem's tell us they are going to limit non-EU immigration.  Quite how they plan to do this when you can effectively buy an EU passport by buying rental property in Bulgaria is anyone's guess.

EU bans 60w light bulbs

The production and import of 60w incandescent light bulbs is banned from today by order of the EU.

The 100w bulb has been banned for a while now and many turned to the 60w bulb as an alternative to the expensive, dim energy saving bulbs that were supposed to replace the 100w bulb.  Now these have been banned and the only option once stocks of incandescent bulbs have run out is expensive mercury-filled inferior energy saving light bulbs or LED bulbs which are prohibitively expensive for most people.

Just a quick reminder of what's wrong with the EU's "environmentally friendly" energy saving bulbs:

• Expensive
  They are many times more expensive than incandescent lightbulbs, thanks in part to protectionist EU tariffs on imported energy saving bulbs to help (expensive) German manufacturer, Osram, compete with companies in the far east
• Poisonous
  They contain mercury which is highly toxic to humans and animals
• Poor light
  The energy saving "equivalent" of incandescent bulbs give out a dull, washed-out light
• Safe disposal
  You aren't supposed to throw energy saving bulbs in your ordinary rubbish bin because of the poisonous contents
• Health risks
  Energy saving bulbs can induce fits in people with photosensitive epilepsy, they can cause skin problems for people with photosensitive skin and they can cause problems for people with ME
• Dimmers
  They generally don't work with them and those that do are expensive
• Heat
  They don't emit any - don't underestimate the amount of heat an incandescent light bulb can put into a room, cutting heating bills by a tangible amount
• Less electricity?
  They use less electricity than incandescent bulbs but because they're so dim you often need to put more lights on to light the same area, wiping out the savings

Evening of Political Spice

UKIP Stourbridge

Present an evening of ...

POLITICAL SPICE

Enjoy a meal in the company of a leading politician/political speaker talking about issues of the day with added wit & repartee.

Date: - 19th Sept 2011, 7pm for 7.30pm start
Speaker: - Paul Nuttall MEP, Deputy Leader of UKIP

An evening for people of all political persuasions or none

Choose a meal of either Bangladeshi or English Cuisine

At
HARRY’S of Lye



Price £15. Price includes a choice of any starter and main course including naan bread or rice. Popadoms and salad are complimentary. Please note: Fusion dishes are not included in the price.

Harry’s is unlicensed but you are welcome to bring your own drinks. Soft drinks, tea, coffee are available.

178-179 High Street, Lye, Stourbridge, DY9 8LH (Opposite Christ Church)
Parking is available at the rear covered by 24hr CCTV



Contact: - Glen Wilson 0784 5556723 or e-mail arkwrightwilson@blueyonder.co.uk for further details