The Benefits Of Ignorance Can Be Rewarded By Personal & Corporate Gain

The Benefits Of Ignorance Can Be Rewarded By Personal & Corporate Gain

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

Asylum: the wages of ignorance

Saturday 22 August 2015  

000a Telegraph-022 migrants.jpg

Any respect we ever had for The Daily Telegraph long drained away, to be replaced by a slow-burning contempt for the editors and proprietors who let a once-proud title degenerate in the way it has.

A milestone in its descent to the bottom, however, must be its latest editorial on the asylum crisis, with the accompanying authored piece by Nigel Farage which jointly and severally demonstrate the profound ignorance of the newspaper team and the Ukip leader on this issue.

Addressing first the Telegraph piece, we have the editorial note that Germany is now expected to receive 800,000 asylum seekers in 2015, describing this as part of “Europe’s migrant crisis” which, it says, “has reached astonishing proportions”.

Although not technically wrong, it is not helpful to call this a migrant crisis. We are dealing here with asylum seekers, many of whom after processing will be declared refugees. Some others will be afforded leave to remain on human rights grounds, while the others will be considered economic migrants. Some of those will be deported. Others will disappear into the population and become illegal immigrants.

Effectively, therefore, there is a refugee crisis. And within that is an exacerbating factor of economic migrants piggy-backing on the refugee flow, making two separate but linked problems. But neither of them are migrant crises as such. To define them in this way is completely to misrepresent the problems – and therefore obscure the solutions.

This, though, is the least of it, as far as the Telegraph goes, for it then goes on to assert that the arrival of these people is precipitating in Germany a greater awareness “of the desperate flaws in the way that the EU handles its utopian promise of the free movement of people”.

Such an assertion is bizarre – bizarrely wrong. The flow of asylum seekers to Germany has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU’s treaty provision of free movement of people, which applies only to citizens of the EU Member States (and EEA states), and then within the external borders.

What we are dealing with here is something completely different – in law and fact – the effect of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, and the 1967 Protocol, together with the adoption of its provisions in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also makes asylum seeking a human right.

No sensible or knowledgeable writer could possibly consider an information piece without mentioning this. But then this is the Telegraph, whose task in life seems to be to misinform its readers and parade its own ignorance.

Free movement, it asserts, “seemed attractive and logical during the Cold War, when western Europe was more isolated from the world’s poor by the Iron Curtain”. It then tells us: “But in the 21st century, poverty and war have driven millions to seek a new life within an expanded EU”.

The irrelevance of this is obvious – “free movement” isn’t the problem. Except the Telegraph says it is. Then building on its error, it declares: “The problem has been exacerbated by two policies. One is the Dublin Convention which states that the responsibility for asylum seekers lies with the country in which they first arrive”.

As a small aside, the Dublin Convention ceased to be in 2003 – to be replaced by the Dublin Regulations. But the problem, the newspaper argues, is that in recent years those countries have been Italy, Hungary and Greece – and they have simply been overwhelmed.

But this is an over-simplification to the point of distortion. One of the first receiving countries was Spain, which has evaded its international obligations by building fences and virtual barriers, then to divert the flow elsewhere. As Greece, then Bulgaria and now Hungary follow suit, EU asylum policy has become a grotesque game of “pass the parcel”, with Italy, Malta and Greece ending up having to deal with the bulk of asylum seekers.

What then happens is that these countries are failing to fulfil their EU responsibilities. Instead of registering and processing the incomers – and deporting those who do not qualify as refugees – they are allowing them to pass on to other member states – and especially Germany and Sweden, where they are applying for asylum de novo.

The Telegraph claims that, in so doing, the receiving countries are exploiting “the second flaw in the EU’s approach: the Schengen Agreement, which commits its signatories to passport-free movement across borders”.

Italy, Hungary and Greece, we are told, have been permitting, or even quietly inviting, their asylum seekers to relocate to other countries. Enormous numbers have gone to Germany. The Germans have embraced refugees as atonement for the sins of the Second World War. But 800,000 is a figure to trouble even the most bleeding-heart liberal.

Once again, this is completely to misunderstand the nature of the problem for, even before Schengen, border controls had been removed. Were they to be reinstated, all that would happen is that – as we’ve already pointed out, those seeking recognition of their refugee status would simply apply for asylum at the border posts. Schengen is a complete red herring.

Needless to say, the Telegraph isn’t alone in getting things wrong. Politicians throughout the continent are failing to understand the effects of their own policies, but somehow one expects more from a pompous “know-it-all” newspaper which holds itself up as the authority on such matters.

Its pomposity knows now bounds, where it grandly but wrongly declares that the “EU essentially exists to regulate a free market”. Is failings, it asserts, “mock the grand claims that it makes for itself – betraying a reality of incompetence and, where it leads to humanitarian crisis, such as in the Mediterranean, moral failure”. But in this case, the ignorant speaks unto the incompetent, when the paper completely misdiagnoses the problem and ends up telling us: “The EU needs to get its borders in order”.

With the display of such ignorance, it is only fitting that it should then go on to give space to the malign bigotry of Mr Farage, who seems determined to drag us down to his level, and wreck any chances of winning the EU referendum, by declaring that “immigration” will be the defining issue of this EU referendum campaign.

There is no excuse for this quite deliberate elision of immigration and asylum – two entirely separate issues, with their own bodies of law and policy domains.

Alarmingly though. Farage is picking up on an Ipsos Mori poll which has half of the public identifying “immigration” as one of the biggest issues facing the UK. This is something which the polling company itself should not have recorded, as it too is mixing up disparate issues.

Needless to say, Farage exploits the confusion, as he has always done, associating the flood of asylum seekers and would be refugees with the European Union “open border” policy.

Despite the fact that refugees account merely for five percent of entrants to this country in any one year, we have the Ukip leader milk the publicity, building this entirely separate issue into one singularity – all under the heading of “immigration”. Thus he says:

We see the chaos in Calais, where thousands of migrants are risking their lives to get from France to Britain; we see refugees in their thousands risking life and limb as they cross the Mediterranean on ships sailing from Libya. And we see that the issue of open borders and mass immigration is no longer simply an issue of social problems and the impact on British workers, it is fast becoming one of national security.

To resolve this, the fool declares that the British people “want an Australian-style immigration policy that allocates work permits to those our economy needs, that says no to those whose skills we do not need, and that gives an emphatic denial of entry to those we have any suspicion want to do us harm” – as if that would have the slightest effect on the flow of asylum seekers.

Matching the Telegraph for its ignorance, he then writes of witnessing “the failed policy of the EU’s open borders, supported by the establishment politicians to the detriment of our nation”. When the referendum comes, Farage concludes, the British people will finally have their chance to reject these open borders by saying “no” to the European Union.

But all Farage is doing is holding us hostage to fortune. Despite his own manifest ignorance on the subject – and despite the lacklustre performance of the Telegraph, in the two years to the referendum, there is plenty of time for people to learn of the real issues behind the asylum crisis.

The danger for us is that they will turn against the likes of Farage, offering false nostrums and exploiting the misery of others for his own political ends. Elsewhere we have written of the hazards of promoting misinformation, citing Gene Sharp, who tells is: “Claims and reporting should always be strictly factual. Exaggerations and unfounded claims will undermine the credibility of the resistance”.

This is a lesson Farage is incapable of learning – and doubtless one of the reasons why he is such a failure as a politician. But there is no reason why we should let his ignorance drag us down.
Richard North 22/08/2015.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Below is the Telegraph article in full – showing just how self serving and lightweight the populism of the article is and just how misleading and lacking in solution such an approach can be when personal ambition and ego get in the way of competent journalism in what was once respected as a serious newspaper!

Clearly when Britain leaves the EU rthere will be little or no change to our border controls if we hope to continue trading with EU partners and the rest of the world. We must remember that in a fragile balance we, like every other nation on this planet, enter into grown up arrangements with eachother that have little or nothing to do with the EU who merely re-write them in the jargon of the ENARCHS and pass them on to the vassal states of the EU. The laws themselves are made by world bodies like the UN, WTO, CODEX, Davos and a raft more.

It is unsurprising that people have lost sight of this and rather childishly believe when we leave the EU all our ills will be solved but what is more concerning is that supposedly responsible newspapers are willing to pander to this populist and extrermely irresponsible myth!

One reason the media may well be peddling this level of misunderstanding may well be in a venal self interest to apease advertisers or in the likes of the BBC to apease their benefactors in the EU who provide them with free studios and journalistic access with the jam on their bread and butter provided by multi Million Pound loans to featherbed their grossly over generous incomes and lack of real imvestigative journalism beyond the knickers, vicars and the odd bent political or police figure level! grants they receive.

Another great snag is the fact that the halls of academe are seeded with many 100s of so called ‘Erasmus’ professorships and student scholarships all in real terms funded from the propaganda budget of the EU. It is from amongst these EU funded organisations that much of the spin is provided, not least by quotes supplied to businessmen by their EU employers and founded on little more than the dirst aim to keep the entire, largely failed, EU project staggering forward – Let the Greeks or for that matter the Portuguese, Irish, Italians and Spaniards, or even in rare moments of honesty, the French tell you of the success of the EU economic policy and membership of the EUro which is crippling EUrope as it slithers forward on a bed of lies, bribes and bullying!

In very simple terms the EU is not even prepared to admit the fact that all are aware of Greece will NEVER be able to pay off its current debts let alone interest and essential future borrowing their GDP can not and never will sustain such debts. When you consider the levels of dishonesty that have created this misery is it any wonder that politicians working in that system will say almost anything to hang onto their grossly inflated incomes, bribes and expenses – as you will note in the Telegraph article below!

The EU will have to control its borders

Telegraph View: The arrival of 800,000 asylum seekers in Germany makes a mockery of the EU’s immigration policies. Free movement without passports will,

Syrian migrants board the ferry Eleftherios Venizelos at the southeastern island of Lesbos, Greece
Syrian migrants board the ferry Eleftherios Venizelos at the southeastern island of Lesbos, Greece. Photo: AP
 
6:30AM BST 21 Aug 2015

Free movement seemed attractive and logical during the Cold War, when western Europe was more isolated from the world’s poor by the Iron Curtain. But in the 21st century, poverty and war have driven millions to seek a new life within an expanded EU. The problem has been exacerbated by two policies. One is the Dublin Convention which states that the responsibility for asylum seekers lies with the country in which they first arrive. In recent years those countries have been Italy, Hungary and Greece – and they have simply been overwhelmed.

 

To alleviate this problem they have exploited the second flaw in the EU’s approach: the Schengen Agreement, which commits its signatories to passport-free movement across borders. Italy, Hungary and Greece have been permitting, or even quietly inviting, their asylum seekers to relocate to other countries. Enormous numbers have gone to Germany. The Germans have embraced refugees as atonement for the sins of the Second World War. But 800,000 is a figure to trouble even the most bleeding-heart liberal.

German politicians have called for greater integration of asylum policy across the EU, including higher refugee quotas among all members, though how that would work with open borders is a mystery. Some regional officials have called for controls between nations to be reinstated. France and Austria have tried closing their borders with Italy, sending those without the right papers back. In Calais, after weeks of chaos, a deal has been signed between the French and the British to deal with a sometimes violent crisis. Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister, has acknowledged that the very principle of free movement is suddenly up for debate. “We want free movement of people,” he said, “but… the question is what does free movement of people mean in Europe?”

A Polish lorry driver opens his vehicle to find migrants from Eritrea hiding inside at a lorry park at the port of Calais A Polish lorry driver opens his vehicle to find migrants from Eritrea hiding inside at a lorry park at the port of Calais in September  Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph

The answer is probably that free movement will remain for citizens of the EU but that there will have to be a much tighter enforcement for anyone who falls outside of that definition. This belies the EU’s self-image as a liberal, internationalist project. In reality, it is protectionist and will probably have to engage in the variety of conservative policies normally associated with Australia. There does need to be an aggressive crackdown on people smuggling. Asylum applications ought to be lodged and processed in countries outside of Europe. And those seeking asylum from within the EU will have to be swiftly deported if their claim is rejected.

The EU essentially exists to regulate a free market. At Calais it has failed: the free movement of people has been stymied by the migrant crisis. In Germany, poor control of the continental border has led to a population explosion that may prove grist to the mill of extremist parties who want to destroy the EU altogether. In other words, the failings of the EU mock the grand claims that it makes for itself – betraying a reality of incompetence and, where it leads to humanitarian crisis, such as in the Mediterranean, moral failure. The EU needs to get its borders in order.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
number witheld calls are blocked
& calls are recorded.

With an avg. 1.2M voters per MEP & Britain having only 8%, if united, say. The EUropean Parliament has no ability to make policy and has a Commission of unelected bureaucrats, thus clearly the EU is not even a pretence of being a democracy; yet it is willing to slaughter people in Sovereign States to impose democracy on them!
The imposition of a Government and policies upon its vassal regions such as the peoples of Greece shows just how far from being a democracy the EU is.There will be little or no change in Britain’s economic position, when we leave the EU and by then being a part of the Eropean Economic Area all will benefit, as we secure trade relations with the EU vassal regions and can trade and negotiate independently on a global stage.
One huge benefit will be that we can negotiate with bodies like the WTO, UN, WHO, IMF, CODEX and the like, directly in our own interest and that of our partners around the world in both the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere at large; rather than having negotiations and term imposed by unelected EU bureacrats.
The greatest change and benefit will be political, as we improve our democracy and self determination, with the ability to deselect and elect our own Government, which with an improved Westminster structure, see >Harrogate Agenda<.
How we go about the process of disentangling our future well being from the EU is laid out in extensive, well researched and immensly tedious detail see >FleXcit< or for a brief video summary CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP:
http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH<
& >Side Bars<
& The Top Bar >PAGES<Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

.
Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
& To Leave-The-EU  
 

The City Has Nothing To Fear From Britain Leaving The EU

.The City Has Nothing To Fear From Britain Leaving The EU

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

Hi,

.

The City has nothing to fear from Britain leaving the EU

Britain would continue to enjoy access to EU capital markets, but at a priceAerial night view of Liverpool Street on August 6, 2007 in London

The regulatory assault on the City has been an escalating drama since the Lehman crash in 2008 Photo: Getty Images

EU regulation has had a substantial impact on the UK financial sector, dictating the way that financial firms conduct themselves, the products they can sell, and the standards they are expected to meet. The EU’s role in setting such rules has grown exponentially over the last few years and is set to increase even further. While the EU has provided some benefits for some UK firms, a number of problems have begun to arise. These include the growing burden of EU regulation, the restrictions imposed on an increasingly outward-facing City of London, and the threat of the UK being constantly out-voted on relevant issues.

Were Britain to leave the EU, European companies and organisations would still come to the City of London to get the best financing options and terms. Centres such as Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam have attempted to build markets that compete with the City in the past and have failed; Britain departing the EU would not make those less-competitive centres any more effective. Threats to the effect that the UK would lose access to EU customers fail to recognise the global reality of how both EU and non-EU companies (and other organisations) finance themselves.

Claims that Britain would lose its ability to set up local branch offices for sale of financial products (such as insurance) within individual EU countries fail to recognise that in key respects, the Single Market in financial services is not yet started and may never be completed – and in any event UK companies are nonetheless finding way to set up local EU subsidiaries without financial passporting – again, this will not necessarily change if Britain were to leave the EU – we would be just like US or other companies that are outside the EU now, but which are managing to find ways to have local subsidiaries.

The UK financial sector is deeply interconnected with the EU’s financial and capital markets, currently enjoying – as one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU – complete free movement of capital. However, because many of these rights appear, at least on paper, to be dependent on EU membership, leaving the EU raises questions about the extent to which access to the EU’s capital markets would be compromised, and whether the rights that UK financial firms currently enjoy would expire. While some rights may disappear without the UK first securing a ‘special deal’, there is little doubt that Britain’s financial services sector would continue to enjoy comprehensive access to the EU’s capital markets regardless.

Some pro-EU groups, such as the Centre for European Reform, have argued that, if Britain left the EU, some banks would leave and the UK would end up with “more limited access to European markets than it currently enjoys”. However, it is very unlikely that the EU would try to deny the City access to European capital markets: the EU itself would be harmed if it cut ties with the City of London. Further, the appeal to large multinational financial institutions of settling in the City is not simply Britain’s EU membership. The UK has a range of attractions to these firms.

However, even if the EU refused to engage with the UK in this, the UK could still continue to have access to EU capital markets anyway. Access to EU capital markets is not dependent on EU membership or even on a ‘special relationship’; a commitment to allowing access to capital markets is enshrined in the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS).

Should Britain stay in or get out of the EU? Polling since 1977

IN or OUT 1977 to Jun-2015 Ipsos Mori

Ipsos MORI

But while the EU does permit access to its capital markets from third parties, there is a cost: for certain transactions, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) must deem the third country’s financial system as ‘equivalent’. ‘Equivalence’ could be retained by the UK deciding to replicate EU financial laws as they are produced. Considering the sheer lack of UK influence over EU laws this would not be materially different to the situation we find ourselves in today. In fact, by reclaiming a seat at key international [financial] institutions, the UK may gain a more significant role in drafting the international rules that the EU then transcribes into its own laws.

There are other reasons to be optimistic about the likelihood of the UK retaining access to EU capital markets if it leaves. Given London’s enormous financial market, Britain would have a great deal of clout in any negotiations. In addition, given that it has been a member of the EU for so long, it is extremely likely that ESMA would, initially at least, determine that the UK complies with European law and thus deem its financial regulatory system to be ‘equivalent’.

Leaving the EU need not compromise regulatory standards or lead to a ‘race to the bottom’. The UK could – if it wished – mimic EU standards, retaining much the same position it has now. It could also continue to engage with the EU to discuss how to share and develop best practice. UK-based financial firms would certainly continue to lobby Brussels and Strasbourg in any case.

As noted previously, if the UK wanted to retain full access to EU capital markets, it would have to emulate several of the EU’s financial policies to ensure its regulatory system is considered ‘equivalent’. Absolute equity will not necessarily be required, however. It is not even a condition for EU membership; divergence is already taking place. In March 2014, the EU reached an agreement on Banking Union – however, the UK chose to remain outside it, with no question about this compromising its terms of membership.

Meanwhile, leaving the EU would offer the UK a chance to develop new rules to cater for its financial industry. Parliament would have the power to make the UK even more welcoming to foreign firms and a far better place to do business.

Today, the EU has a substantial remit over financial firms and the wider financial markets. However, the UK’s influence over financial laws has declined dramatically since the 2008 financial crisis. The European Commission has made it clear that it is moving away from traditional UK views on financial regulation.

The UK lacks the constitutional power to block harmful rules because the vast majority of EU financial law is based on the Treaties’ Single Market articles, which means that the laws are decided via Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers. So the UK lacks a veto over financial laws. By contrast, France has a veto over any changes to the Common Agricultural Policy, allowing it to protect its premier industry: agriculture.

UK influence within the EU’s institutions has declined dramatically. In 1979, the UK had 20 per cent of the seats in the European Parliament. By 2015, that had declined to 9.5 per cent. Likewise, while the UK had 17 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers in 1973, that has declined to at least 12 per cent.

The problem the UK faces can be seen even more clearly when one compares its share of EU wholesale finance to its Council voting weight as shown in Chart 1

In 2012, George Osborne was able to secure a ‘double majority lock’ in the European Banking Authority, which forced laws passing through that institution to go through two rounds of voting: Eurozone states and non-Eurozone states. This allows a majority of non-Eurozone countries to effectively vote down laws that would harm their interests. But it has subsequently emerged that – were the number of non-Eurozone states to fall to four or lower – the ‘double majority lock’ would expire. Considering the likelihood of the number of non-Eurozone states falling to four or fewer in the coming few years, the life expectancy of the double majority lock seems short.

If the UK leaves the EU, the most important change that would take place is that the British Government would once again be put in charge of financial regulation. The scope for action may be limited if the UK decides that its priorities are to ensure unfettered access to the Single Market.

It is clear, however, that the UK would be able to opt out of the EU’s ‘mission creep’ in financial services – a power it doesn’t have today. There would be costs, but it would be a decision that the UK would be able to make by itself.

Were it to leave the EU, the UK would immediately gain the power to re-evaluate existing laws and to determine how to incorporate future EU financial laws. This offers the attractive prospect of the UK being able to introduce its own consultation mechanisms, able to better mitigate the harmful impact of future EU rules. ESMA does not demand complete uniformity of financial laws for a third country to be deemed ‘equivalent’. So even if the UK were to decide to incorporate EU laws, it would still have the power to make changes to them.

Conclusion

Exiting the EU does not mean losing access to the EU’s capital markets, or sacrificing the principle of free movement of capital. Immediately after leaving the EU, the UK would retain all of the EU directives and regulations that it has already signed up to – by definition, the UK’s regulatory system would then be considered equivalent to the EU’s.

UK policy-makers should have little difficulty in engaging with EU counterparts about how to ensure that our two financial systems are ‘equivalent’ as time goes on and new policies are introduced. However, the UK would now have much greater say over the detail of its ‘equivalent’ legislation, and could work towards discarding provisions like the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive.

In the late 1990s, pro-EU organisations claimed that the UK’s financial sector would decline if Britain failed to join the euro. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now to suggest that the UK financial sector would not cope outside the EU. With the right policies there is no reason the UK cannot still trade with the EU while better developing links with countries globally. So long as access to the EU’s capital markets continues, there need not be any reason for financial firms to move their headquarters.

The UK lacks influence within the EU already. Having a seat at the table has not allowed the UK to effectively challenge any of the EU’s new financial rules. Britain and its financial services industry have nothing to fear from separating from the EU’s institutions.

Extracted from Change, or go, published by Business for Britain. The editorial board: Jon Moynihan (Chairman); Andrew Allum of LEK Consulting; Matthew Elliott of Business for Britain; Luke Johnson Risk Capital Partners; Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs; John Mills of JML Ltd; Helena Morrissey of Newton; and Viscount Ridley. Telegraph Media Group helped fund the study.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU  
 

Will Nigel Farage’s Ego & Self Obsession Be Allowed To Aid The EU!

.

Will Nigel Farage’s Ego & Self Obsession Be Allowed To Aid The EU!

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

It Will be a tragedy for these United Kingdoms if Nigel Farage’s Ego & Self Obsession and his Ukip cult are Allowed To Aid The EU & deliver a YES vote in the Referendum!

JUST SAY NO to EU Membership

Hi,in 22 years the Ukip cult has delivered virtually nothing towards getting Britain out of the EU – it was Jimmy Goldsmith and his £29Million intervention with his political party that secured Britain’s position outside the EUro.
Nigel Farage’s total failure of leadership led Ukip to obsucurity with absolutely no effort made to oppose the imposition of the EU’s new constitution in the form of the Lisbon Treaty.
Nigel Farage and his clique firmly rejected any efforts to hold a responsible petition other than to swindle funds out of the EU and donors, which was never accounted as they gathered funding and new leads for membership and begging letters under the malign guidance of David Lott, Nigel Farage & Mark Croucher.
Nigel Farage took an active role in trying to sabotage the actual petition which gained us all the debate in Parliament which resulted in David Cameron’s promise to deliver an IN/OUT Referendum on EU membership, which was achieved by the 250,000 signatures obtained by Nikki Sinclaire’s  cross party campaign, which was delivered to Downing Street.

DOWNING St 08-09-11 01 Getty Image
Ukip had so lost the leading role in the battle to liberate these United Kingdoms from vassal status in the EU that even todate they still, after 22 years have absolutely no responsible costed ethical EU eXit and survival strategy relative to the EU – Being rude to EU officials is no substitute for hard work and has made Ukip the derided clowns of EU politics, the comic relief sector, with their childish stunts and posturing without any gravitas or achievements.Ukip has shown it is willing top prostitute itself to the lowest common denominator to try to pick up votes, pandering to the racism and xenophobia present in between 10 and 20% of the population of any major Country the very same sector tapped into by Oswald Moseley and Adolf Hitler before him – botjh, like Nigel Farage presented as the man of the year, in their respective times!

There is little doubt that Nigel Farage in his incompetence indubitably knows how to make enemies and has never won a domestic election having stood 8 times for Parliament and like General DeGaule repeatedly threatening to resign and abandon his cult followers if they do not bend to his will and his fiddling of internal selections, elections, policy, appointments and obfuscation of Ukip accounts!

That Ukip has had the philipe of the collapse of the BNP at just the right time for Ukip to pick up their votes, even so Nigel Farage’s utter incompetence as a leader ensured they lost a seat in Westminster rather than gain them at the General Election! Ukip had so crassly misunderstood British politics that despite obtaining almost 4 million votes they only had ONE MP elected, an ex-Tory with a personal following and policies at loggerheads with Farage and his cult.

Meanwhile by reading the UK electoral methods the SNP with a fraction of the votes ensured they had almost 50 MPs elected – clearly the SNP had the more competent leadership as there is no denying the aim was to have MPs elected. a task at which Nigel Farage totally failed his Ukip cult where the SNP were brilliantly led.
It can nor be denied that Nigel Farage is very much a ‘Marmite’ personality with easily as many reviling or at least holding him in contempt as there are his fan club who support the Ukip cult.
For Nigel Farage to have any role in the referendum is the most direct single step to ensuring the YES vote will win and we will be locked in as a vassal state of the EU for another generation or until the EU experiment collapses, whichever is the sooner. Nigel Farage and his cult followers in Ukip have shown all too clearly their lack of gravitas, their lack of leadership, their lack of political common sense and their divisive competence!If the EU Referendum comes up and Nigel Farage’s name is put forward – IF you have any wish to Leave_The_EU

JUST SAY NO

EU Referendum: a turning point to defeat

Saturday 6 June 2015

000a Telegraph-006 lead.jpg
A day after we see a report that Blair is the least trusted figure in the EU debate, with Farage the second most distrusted figure, up pops the Ukip leader telling us he is going to lead the “out” campaign. 
 
So well prepared is the man, though, that he doesn’t even seem to have realised that this is going to be a “yes-no” campaign and that he wants to be leading the “no” side.Displaying the same arrogance as other wannabes, he also fails to realise that the lead organisation is not going to self-nominate. The leads on both sides are for the Electoral Commission to designate – and that is not going to happen until after the Referendum Bill has become law.

The rather strange thing is that this is not exactly a secret. It has been a facet of all recent referendums, and is going to be a crucial part of this one, with a very substantial dowry – worth several millions – and other privileges awarded to the designated organisations.

But if Farage is even aware of this, he has given no sign of it, planning to make a speech today to his own activists, after claiming: “We are going to take the lead, we are going to get cracking”.

Then says Farage: “We will be launching a massive series of public events and meetings all over the country starting in September. These will be public meetings. They will be live web streamed”. Then, he adds: “We are going to be busy, delivering leaflets through the doors by the million. We are not prepared to stand around and wait”.

What is worrying the man – and he’s not alone in this – is prominent campaigners who want to wait to see the result of Mr Cameron’s renegotiation before they make a move. In response, he says: ” The No campaign needs to get itself moving. All this nonsense from very snobby Tories that we should not dominate the campaign and I should go on holiday for six months – forget it!”

Nevertheless, while expecting to be at the forefront, Farage is saying that “we will open our arms and be all embracing and welcome everybody”. We will “reach out broadly across Eurosceptic community and across communities in this country”, he says.

Bearing in mind that Ukip only represents eight percent of the total electorate, if it is to stand a chance of winning the lead designation, it will have to attract the support of others, yet there are no indications as yet of which other groups are prepared to throw in their lot with the party.

There are some indications that there may be at least one more and possibly two competitive bidders for the designation, with the anti-EU movement totally fragmented. This raises the spectre of the Electoral Commission refusing to designate a “no” lead, leaving the groups to fight it out between themselves, without the financial support or any official status.

Despite this, Farage is making it clear that he refuses to be treated as “the naughty boy of British politics, being told to go and behave and stay out of the way”. He says: “That simply isn’t going to happen”.

“It is time”, Farage says, “for those across the political spectrum, particularly in the Conservative Party, to put their cards on the table. No more endless waiting, political hand-wringing or excuses. The campaign must start now”.

He says he is prepared to work with anyone and everyone who is willing to help us win this referendum and get Britain out of the European Union. But, he adds, “Those who want to help rather than harm our campaign need to stop wasting time, get off the fence and get on with helping us get our country back. There is not a minute to lose”.

All this, however, is going to cause more than a little dismay in certain quarters. Ukip, as a party, is demonstrably unprepared to fight an effective referendum campaign. Under a leader who has toxified the debate and whose tactical acumen has halved his party’s Westminster representation at the general election, few outsiders any confidence that Ukip’s intervention is going to help the cause.

Certainly, it is far too early to start active high-level active campaigning, and especially as so many of the strategic issues have yet to be resolved.

Thus, when it comes to writing the history of this campaign, I suspect that this week will mark another of those turning points which led us down the route to defeat. And future historians may well remark at the determination of so many parties on the “no” side, not only to repeat the mistakes of the 1975 campaign, but to invent a few more.

Whatever else, those historians will be wondering how it was that people apparently so committed to leaving the EU we so determined to do everything they could to remain members.

They only other thing they may ponder at is why there was, in fact, any need for a “yes” campaign, when the “noes” were so determined to lose all by themselves.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

This entire article was first published at CLICK HERE

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337 – number witheld calls are blocked & calls are recorded.

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS, >SEARCH< & >Side Bars< & The Top Bar >PAGES< Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE General ‘Stuff’ archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General ‘Stuff’ ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.com

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: Greg_LW

.
 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN & To Leave-The-EU