Copyright © 2015 - 19 All rights reserved.

​22nd January, 2017

EU Army RIP?

It looks like President Trump could be sounding the death knell for an EU Armed Force controlled by Germany - you know the EU Army that was denied by Clegg and E.Miliband; dismissed as a fantasy or was not on the cards, during the EU Referendum debate - and even though it has been in process by stealth since at least 1963, and the Elysee Agreement (1963) between Germany and France - and an EU ambition consistently blocked by the UK (at least so they say).

Actually, the problem is that President Trump is concerned about the fact that the US is funding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), and only five EU countries are contributing their agreed 2% of GDP to the upkeep of NATO; instead they are diverting funds to their own EU Army - Germany, the richest country in the EU, at the expense of the other member states, and which plans to lead and control this army is only contributing about 1% of GDP. Apparently, Juncker had in mind that NATO should remain in place, but come under the EU flag, in which case the EU would have control over its "own" armed forces by proxy, without paying anything at all, since the funding would still come from the USA.

The problem for the EU is that, in its ambitions to become a superstate, it has to acquire its own army; how else could it claim to be a superpower? So there is a disagreement as to how the defence of the EU, and the wider Europe should be maintained (see Quick EU Summary). It is clear that NATO has prevented outright war in Europe since 1955, but a massive EU Army, led by Germany is the last thing any sane person in Europe would think is a good idea -  it is worth remembering that the Russian Warsaw Pact only came about in response to West Germany being re-armed and joining NATO in 1955.

The desire for an EU superstate is central to the EU project; driven by ambitions of creating an Empire to outshine anything previous even dreamt about (500,000,000 people is only the beginning), with the largest armed forces that  the world has ever seen, necessary to secure an such an Empire, projected to extend from (or including) Russia to the southern Sahara and into the Middle East - where have we seen that before? 

​How can this be reconciled? If the EU member states refuse or simply abstain from a commitment to NATO, and the USA refuses to carry the burden, then the chances of real conflict in Europe escalates - a German led EU Army is not the answer to peace keeping in the EU, nor in the wider world, however much the EU might pretend that it is - the EU still needs NATO or its replacement to ensure peace and security.

Attempts to Block the invocation of Article 50 (TEU)

Where to begin? Essentially anybody who wants to see the end of Democracy in Europe, the instigation of a Totalitarian EU Police State and the destruction of the UK would wish to stop EU-exit or "Brexit" - although some are not even aware of the ambitions of the EU or the ramifications of the UK remaining in the EU.

Those who certainly subscribe to the destruction of the UK, as prescribed in the Lisbon Treaty (2007), are on the Marxist (or its variants) political Left, and include Clegg, Farron and their ilk who, evidently, have no interest in the wellbeing of the UK; are simply reviving the economic fear mongering seen in the run up to the EU Referendum, by conflating "Access to the EU Single Market" with "Membership of the EU Single Market", and can only be described as looking after the interests of the EU, at the expense of the UK. 

More than 190 countries have Access to the EU Single Market without being Members, and the EU's Four Freedom do not apply to them, which includes the United States; whereas the countries who are Members of the EU Single Market are required to accept the EU's Four Freedoms, including: unlimited, unfettered immigration, the sale of their infrastructure, through the free flow of capital and the privatisation of their public services, through the free flow of services. The purpose and result of Membership of the EU Single Market is to take apart the UK (and the other members state) divide it up and asset strip it; destroy its National identity and make it a subservient part of a German Federal State.

Access to the EU Single Market, may or may not include tariffs - depends upon the negotiations - if it does then it is a two way street and the UK income from tariffs on EU goods would be greater than the income which the EU would derive from tariffs upon UK goods. More than 190 countries make such a system work well and so can Britain. 

The only reason that the EU apparatchiks are concentrating on economic fear mongering is because they know that it scares a lot of people - most of the 48% in fact, it was their number one reason for voting to remain in the EU.

Rather than accept the word of those who have interests in the EU, think for yourself - better still start asking them about the Terms and Conditions in the Lisbon Treaty (2007) which was enacted, by Gordon Brown, through Royal Prerogative, in order to deliberately bypass Parliamentary scrutiny- then watch them squirm and prevaricate. 

Feminist Anti-Democracy Demonstrations

Feminism is supposed to be about equality of the sexes, but it does not manifest that in these demonstrations, in fact the demonstrations displayed the exact opposite.

President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in a fair contest under the established political system - there was no bias in that system, either to females or males - participants did not receive two vote if they were male, and only one vote if they were female.

As far as we know all the vote counting was gender neutral - so what are the demonstrations really about - obviously they wanted a woman to win and they did not care how that happened - what hypocrisy. 

Clearly feminism isn't about equality, it is either about the hatred for men or a desire to make women more equal than men - which is it?

Perhaps they should speak to the 42% of women who voted for Donald Trump - they were able to vote and choose their candidate, without reference to gender bias - something that the feminists clearly do not want to be allowed.

Stop using excuses about sexual equality to try and overturn a Democratic vote - no-one stopped feminists from voting for their candidate - if you don't like the system, then demonstrate to change the voting system for next time. Better still demonstrate against religious misogyny around the world - the problem is that the feminists dare not demonstrate against real misogyny in the world.