The cards are finally on the table......

For many years, British politicians have been stringing the public along with grandiose ideas about the EU being a group of sovereign nation states, engaged in deep level cooperation and trade. The EU was an economic project, and there was no risk at all to British sovereignty. Even the layman with the faintest idea about the EU now knows that to be false, seeing as our lives are affected each day by EU legislation, and increasingly in more and more visible ways.

But even though we are all conscious of the loss of British sovereignty, those who dared speak the truth of the EU mission - political union and a European state (I politely decline to use the word "super" in relation to the project) were labelled as "little-Englanders," just plain stupid, scaremongers, and one of the most disturbing recent terms I've seen is "domestic extremist" - no joke!

Now that these bunches of extremists - those who plan to lead us all to war just because they don't want to be part of a political union - have been vindicated, nobody can be found to defend the status quo. They've gone and jumped on the bandwagon of "more Europe" - precisely the blind way of thinking that got us in this mess in the first place. I am all for those who want more Europe, but I do not want to see it for the United Kingdom.

Now the extremists have been vindicated again. This time, there is no denying that they were right; there is no trying to avoid the truth by interpreting it in a different manner, or playing politics with words. The extremists told us that the plan is political union - this has been denied constantly and constantly. Many British ministers know the truth, but I also accept that some of those ministers who have spouted this lie over the years genuinely believed they were right - Margaret Thatcher for example. I think she genuinely wanted to see Europe as a group of nations that cooperate. She even made sacrifices to try and ensure that her interests shaped the Union. (I'm thinking of the Single European Act) But in the end her idealism was just too idealistic.

Why can't the truth be denied now? Why are the cards truly on the table? You might think it's because of what's just happened in Greece and Italy - the instalment of two EU puppet technocrat governments, but it's much simpler than that. And it's simplicity that is the hardest thing to deny. The cards are on the table now, and we must wake up, simply because of what Germany has been saying over the past couple of days:

1) As reported in the Telegraph on 17th November: (click here)

"The six-page German foreign ministry paper (A leaked German foreign office memo; my italics) sets out plans for the creation of a European Monetary Fund with a transfer of sovereignty away from member states. The fund will have the power to take ailing countries into receivership and run their economies. Even more controversially, the document, entitled The future of the EU: required integration policy improvements for the creation of a Stability Union, declares that the treaty changes are a first stage “in which the EU will develop into a political union”. “The debate on the way towards a political union must begin as soon as the course toward stability union is charted,” it concludes.

Is it still not rubbing in yet? Is there a way to deny these words? Is it just "enhanced cooperation?" Let's try some more....

2) Referring to treaty change, the Guardian reported almost a MONTH AGO (click here) that:

“The drive for this is coming, however, from Berlin. This is the real story of what is happening in the EU: Germany is emerging, unstoppably, asprimus inter pares. The dissension with Paris arises because Merkel simply won't or can't tolerate many of Sarkozy's ideas for resolving the sovereign debt crisis on political and constitutional grounds. The one-time "economic giant, political dwarf" is no longer afraid of exercising its political clout.”

3) Is it still not rubbing in yet? Let me cite one more interesting piece of information, this time from David Cameron. He's still taking the positively stupid line that this is a "great opportunity" to reform the EU, and the rather intensely stupid idea that he can reform it and mould it to British lines. Please cut the crap as of now. The plan is decided. It's political union. To be or not to be, that's the question? Thankfully we know the answer: No for the UK. The referendum will surely come when the necessary treaty changes to create this union are made - as it is now locked into British law. How will Cameron escape that? (Article here)

“Senior figures in the German government proposed radical changes to European institutions. In an interview with Le Monde newspaper, Germany’s finance minister Wolfgang Schauble called for continent-wide elections to vote in a president of the European Commission who would be head of a “European government”.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. From talk of treaty change a month ago, to the plans for political union this week, things really do move quickly, and it's impossible to keep up with them. But I have spelled out my case - the cards are truly on the table. If anyone would like to refute these quotes, I'd like to hear from them. Otherwise, to me it's really clear - a European Commission at the head of a European Government, and German plans to change its own constitution (after bailing out the euro was deemed illegal) to create a stability union that will evolve into a political one.

Let's not forget of course, that with all these wonderful plans on the one hand, Cameron just reminded us (the same link as above) that:

“It’s the pointless interference, rules and regulations that stifle growth not unleash it,” the Prime Minister said. “The sense that the EU is somehow an abstract end in itself, immune from developments in the real world, rather than a means of helping to deliver better living standards for the people of its nations.”

The EU is not improving living standards. It is just interfering; it is immune from developments in the real world - well said. Political union is just another representation of this fantasy world. The truth is that people just don't want it. But the EU and most politicians are just not listening. It's only a matter of time until revolution and when European history is likely to repeat itself. Let's see for how much longer British politicians want to continue to string us along, as even the layman opens his eyes to the effective loss of sovereignty of the United Kingdom, without a single shot being fired.

Taxpayers are in debt because of their stupid Governments! Brown admits to "socialising the liabilities."

The problem I have with what's going on is that to ultimately save the Eurozone, it's taxpayers that will foot the bill. This has been the whole injustice all along. If anyone thinks that's dramatic, then look at what Gordon Brown just said at the World Economic forum. He stated that in his view this is still a banking crisis at its root, but if it has become a debt crisis it's because "we socialised the liabilities" - Let me find the full quote.........

""The European banks as a whole are grossly under-capitalised: they have liabilities far in excess of American banks. We have now got the inter-play with sovereign debt because we socialised the liabilities"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8768575/Gordon-Brown-fears-euro-crisis-worse-than-Lehman-as-1930s-beckon.html

To imply that there was no debt crisis before the banking crisis is misleading, and wholly incorrect. Brown also completely proves to us how taxpayers are paying the bill (socialising the liabilities) but now claims that is the reason for debt! What? I think the truth is closer to the idea that when you pile more sovereign debt onto countries that were already living in a debt bubble (most of the Eurozone since they believed that the € was their saviour and the end of all economic bust cycles, were offered cheap credit, and once you throw a socialist government into the mix you usually get indebted) then of course governments end up in the same mess as banks, who were only responding to lighter regulation by taking more risks.

Illegal Bailouts!

There you have it! Even the Bundesbank know that the EU bail outs are illegal, and are simply a way to bring debt union (fiscal union) in through the back door!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8716783/Bundesbank-questions-legality-of-EU-bail-outs.html

Economic Government might have just finally arrived

So, I’m sitting here watching Sky News Live, and they’ve only just switched to the Euro Summit (or better said Franco-German summit to save the Euro) in Paris, as the news conference currently goes on. Breaking news it seems – “Merkozy” (coined this word from what I saw in today’s Telegraph) seems to have decided that the solution to the euro’s woes are “collective government for the Eurozone led by the EU President.”

So there you have it. The EU President comes into office in grandiose style post-Lisbon, with supposedly lots to do but in reality very little other than chair a few meetings a year, has a power struggle with the Commission but loses, so he needs something to do to legitimise his position. I seem to remember him shortly after taking office speaking about “economic government for Europe” and the furious reaction that his statement created.

Look at these links: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-presidents-secret-bid-for-economic-power-1894549.html and http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/summit-economy.2l4 - couldn't get it more from the horse's mouth than through EU Business.

But if instead you're interested to know how an economic government might be run, just take a look at what the head of the Eurogroup said back in April - http://euobserver.com/19/32222

So, here we are, a few steps down the crisis line, and wow, suddenly the solution seems to be precisely what the EU President proposed, because he now has something to do by being put in charge of it. Sounds like an outcome that was pre-determined to me (I just don’t trust the way some of these Eurocrats think, and yes, Presidents and Chancellors of sovereign countries are just part of the Eurocrat machine) and it was just a case of finding the right “opportunity” to bring the idea in. What better time than when the crisis really is at the end of the line, and enough panic has been created, and the markets are jittery? Anything can be forced through in the name of economic stability, regardless of political consequence.

I’m upset with Sky News and the BBC – both are just reporting it as a moving ticker underneath their broadcasts – and carrying on reporting other events like it is not important. Sky claims its source as the Associated Press but I can’t even find an article yet on their front page either. It really is amazing how the UK press is completely under control – I trust economists’ blogs now more than news reports.

Political union is well and truly alive, and whereas economics were cast aside before in the name of political union, now it is the mechanism by which political union will be achieved. I suppose that all you had to do was to create the economic crisis by forcing the creation of a single currency for political purposes, ignoring all the economic advice, and then when that advice turned out to be right, suddenly you could focus your attention on the economic problems and advance your political agenda through them. What a con – and everyone is in on it.

Notes

1) Even David Cameron knew the economic government idea was coming: http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/Britain-wins-opt-out-on-economic-government-news-495370)

2) 10 minutes later....Some news articles just being posted to the net: http://www.newser.com/article/d9p59i2g0/merkel-sarkozy-propose-eurozone-economic-government-amid-debt-crisis.html

3) Anyone for a secret debate? http://euobserver.com/19/32222 It's precisely because of this way of thinking, which pervades the EU to its inner core, that I cannot support the European project.

There's your EU

Love the way too that a German court now has the right to ban sales of Samsung's new tablet throughout the EU (except the Netherlands) Did anyone notice? And there you have it - I don't want to digress from the issue of this board but a German court in Dussledorf has now decided British law as to the sale of a product. The EU doesn't even bother transferring the obligation to enact the same law to the British legal machine, to give the EU credibility and legitimacy - they just do it from another country, and we comply. There's your EU.

50% hike in British rail fares? Thanks EU!

Below is the comment I made on the following Facebook post, from the EU Referendum Campaign:

https://www.facebook.com/eu.campaign/posts/124688387627241

Comment:

There are some really interesting comments being made here, and it makes a change to see a intellectual discussion that doesn't descend into name-calling, as can so often happen to comment threads of newspaper articles. I would like to state that BR was just another tragic case of an industry (and jobs) being destroyed because of EU rules, and let's not even mention the most criminal of policies - fisheries, and what it has done to the UK. I stand in agreement with the points that the destruction of our trade links with the Commonwealth was the prerequisite of entry (as was the subsequent domination of France in agriculture, because it suddenly became cheaper to buy from France than import from the Commonwealth) but that was always part of the plan. The beauty of it is that the French built their dominance on the back of subsidies AND by having the rest of Europe as their customers, not out of choice but because high tariffs made everywhere else expensive! Neat trick. I also agree wholeheartedly with the same-old European attitude, in particular France (and other countries) where they constantly disregard the rules without fear of consequence. In turn, they then abuse the law-abiding UK as they fearlessly buy up our companies. (Surprised EDF wasn't mentioned - remember when they charged us more to subsidise cheaper bills in France?) It's not protectionism I support, but a fair playing field - and that just doesn't exist! As I always tell my students, just try to buy a French supermarket or bank, and let's see what happens! Would love Tesco to go to France and sell apples from New Zealand or South Africa more cheaply than French ones! In conclusion, if the EU can't get it right economically, and then we consider the fact that politically it is corrupt and void of democracy, the case is getting stronger by the day to leave and reestablish our relationship with those countries that DO choose to be part of the EU, as people finally realise the Brussels effect on their lives. For years I've seen the way things were going, as I'm sure many of you have - and if someone would pay me to write about the EU I gladly would(!) but I leave you with a lovely link from yesterday's papers - pay attention to what the Italian Prime Minister is reported to have said. Thanks for reading.http://www.telegraph.co.uk​/finance/comment/ambroseev​ans_pritchard/8700782/ECB-​is-eurolands-last-hope-as-​bail-out-machinery-fails-t​o-resolve-crisis.html

England 1 – Germany 4

My official response to the match:

I will begin by quoting Andy Murray, when asked about the match at half-time:

'I would like to see England win, but Germany did look pretty good. But you never know in a knockout. England have got the players to win the match but they just need to play well.'

He's absolutely right. But we just didn't play as well as we could have done. I agree with the pre-match analysis that man for man, the English team is better, but when on a field under pressure the team cohesion just did not come through. The Germans were well coordinated and had options. I also completely agree with the post-match analysis that we were weak on defence - the worst defence ever known! The Germans shall receive credit for a convincing win, as I would expect the same if the positions were reversed.

The only factor I think that needs to remain in consideration is that if it wasn't for the disallowed goal that would have equalised the score before half-time (and it WAS a goal; nobody in their right mind could say it wasn't) then I think our team spirit and hope, and MOTIVATION would have carried us into the second-half with an optimism that could have improved our chances.

Instead I believe that the anger over the disallowed goal affected the team's performance and clouded our judgement. It's like one of the commentators here said during the break "If we allow anger to enter the field we are going to make bad decisions in the second half" - and we did make awful decisions. However, although important that this point remains in consideration, the Germans played very well and we must be fair and give credit where it is due.

To close, I am in a fortunate position tonight in contrast to other England fans because I can now turn my hopes and attention to my second country Mexico this evening. For me it's not all over yet! Good luck Mexico!