Conservative Manifesto Run Through

This is the first of 3 Manifesto Run Throughs that I will be penning before the election, as ever I will endeavour to stay unbiased as to give a representative and balanced view of each Manifesto, to give credit where credit is due and to pinpoint inaccuracies in them. I shall begin with the Tories as they’re the governing party at this moment in time.

Their first main point is Strong and Stable leadership, as I’m sure you’ll have heard this slogan by now. This has received plenty of negative press so I shall give a balanced outlook, what I think they’re trying to get across is that in this massive transitional period for our country, we need stability and certainty, this would only be achieved (in their eyes) by keeping the status quo and re-electing the Conservatives, so that the negotiating team in place can get to work as soon as possible in securing an amicable split from the European Union.

The next points they make are the big challenges that face them. The first being a strong economy, which to be fair the Conservatives have done a fairly good job at creating. Unemployment figures are down, economic forecasts are positive and investment post Brexit looks to boom. This is not to say that massive cuts have had to occur and hit some demographics hard and increased the need for food banks, but on balance the public spending of Labour was unsustainable and needed cutting as the Tories were left in a ridiculous amount of debt.

Their second point is about Brexit and the need for a smooth and orderly exit from the union. Also to try and create a deep and strong rooted relationship with the remaining EU nations, which personally I think there has been a massive irreparable rift caused, this spawning from our own interests and the jealousy of the other nations who secretly crave self determination. They also make a good point of stating we need to stay strong and united, aimed at the United Kingdom as a whole, in contrast to the Republican views of Corbyn who would like to see the split of the UK. Now is definitely the time to stay together and I like to see this message staged in this point.

The third point they make is to fight enduring social divisions. This is mainly made out to be about social mobility and making sure people aren’t held back by where they come from or where they’re born. I think it’s also aimed at second generation immigrant votes, the Tories try to include them as historically they don’t pick up those votes. I also think it’s aimed at people who will be here post Brexit and saying that as long as you work hard you have a place here. Even though they haven’t given a guarantee on it yet, I think this will be one of the easiest bargaining chips we have in the negotiations.

The fourth point acknowledges the ageing population and people with long term health conditions, expressing the need to find a solution and accepting the reality of it.

The final big point is looking at innovative technology and being at the forefront of the technological wave. I think this is wise as there’s a lot of wealth to be created from this industry and is still in its infancy (relatively) in the grand scale of things. It points out the need to staying safe and secure in regards to privacy, which is quite contradictory, being that civil liberties and privacy in regards to technology have slowly eroded under the Tories and so much privacy has been lost online. This was overseen by the Tories and it’s a slight slap in the face to include that.

The Manifesto then goes onto separate sub headings outlining viewpoints and the direction of the party and what they expect to achieve. They start by stating they want to govern from the mainstream, they believe they can be the central party and govern on behalf of the majority of the electorate, by making decisions in the interests of everybody, which in itself gives off a conflicted viewpoint. You can’t please everybody and not everyone will agree on things, I understand we live in a divided nation currently and maybe this is their way of trying to combat this but by contradicting yourself is not a good start. They believe they can bridge the gap between left and right, which is a risky statement as you can end up alienating your core supporters, whilst losing the undecided voters by sounding wishy-washy. They say they’ll reduce and control immigration, which yet again is a risky pledge considering Cameron made the same one and failed on a monumental scale. They want to defend our nation from terrorist threats which is a double edged sword, as on the one hand yes I fully believe them but on the other, funding has steadily been cut to our police over the period of Tory rule. Yet they were cuts that needed to be made, I return to my earlier point of labour’s massive budget of public spending (and borrowing) and having no way of paying it back. Whilst I understand the police forces of this country are stretched, you can only spread out the funding you have. Yes they could free up extra capital by scrapping the foreign aid budget but lefties won’t accept that or the notion that in order to pay for something you have to take money away from something else. Our budget is finite. Unless you borrow money like Labour and then you get stuck in the cycle all over again.

They wish to protect workers rights and develop industrial strategy to work better in favour of the economy. Finally in this section they state that they won’t drift to the right and make decisions based on what works, which is refreshingly realistic.

Their next point is the age old adage of governing in the interests of ordinary, hard working families which has become a catchphrase for all political parties as trying to project an air of caring for Joe bloggs and his family, and aiming themselves at a majority of the electorate. Boring, NEXT! The next passage just rearranges and reiterates all of the previous points to try and drum it into the reader, which is understandable if you want to learn what they actually stand for as most people you ask on the street wouldn’t be able to tell you the differences of what the major parties even stand for anymore.

The next section is entitled Our Principles, where they try and rebrand what it means to be a Tory, which is a massive turn off for people with traditional conservative views. They establish a notion that people owe a debt to the community and society which I’m at odds with, whilst I understand they’re trying to convey an expectation of a strong work ethic, I don’t think we’re born into debt with our nation. We’re born free.

They then set out how they’re going to achieve these goals in greater detail which I have no desire to deconstruct as I’m currently on my honeymoon, so I shall simply bulletpoint these with a brief explanation and whether it’s a pro or con for voting.

Keeping taxes as low as possible – freezing VAT (pro – goods and products won’t increase in price for consumers), increase personal allowance to £12500 (pro – relieving £2500 taxable income for lower earners), local residents can opt out of high increases of Council Tax via a referendum (con – too vague, if they slowly increase it, it won’t be classed as high increase so no basis for referendum), Corporation Tax to fall to 17% (pro – actively seeking inward investment from overseas post Brexit is a good think ahead however, Con – Labour have applied pressure to big corporations and called them out for not paying their fair share, so won’t sit well with low earners or students who don’t understand basic economics).

Increasing Trade – Lodging new schedules for the UK with WTO (pro – looking ahead post Brexit we’re going to need trade schedules in place to ensure a smooth exit and to strike free trade deals around the world and become a stronger trading nation BIG PRO), Creating a network of 9 trade commissioners to promote trade abroad and increase trade between the members of the UK (pro – self explanatory), push forward with UK export finance (pro – ensuring that no viable UK export fails due to lack of finance or insurance).

Wages – Increasing the National Living Wage to 60% of median earnings by 2020 (Con – this will back fire massively, as wages increase so will the number of redundancies as companies can’t afford to employ as many people, which in turn increases workload for workers, unsustainable).

Modern Business Strategy – Freeing up funds for research and development in fields of future technology e.g batteries for electric cars (pro – this will keep people on side who believe in renewable energy, Con – we don’t know where these funds will come from, most likely through Green levies or taxing the current motorist more. Which I can’t get behind!), A modern technical education for everyone (pro – any education made available can create social mobility, Con – being traditional I’d prefer that people are still taught in the old school way, as we can’t be reliant on technology for everything).

National Productivity Investment Fund – £23bn set aside to enhance certain infrastructures, £740m on digital infrastructure, big increase in spending on railways (no figure attached provably because of HS2) £1.1bn on local transport and £250m on productivity skills enhancement (pro – I believe that the money is well spent in this venture as the Tories are trying to keep with the times, you can guarantee part of the digital infrastructure includes rolling out super fast broadband everywhere in the UK).

Future Britain Fund – holding investments of the British people to go towards future funding of infrastructure and the economy, made up of profits of shale gas extraction, dormant assets and the sale of some public assets (Pro – if they can research shale gas and it doesn’t harm the environment then good, Con – selling off public assets automatically makes you think of parts of the NHS like buildings and equipment).

Support for industy – After Sir John Parker’s review of shipbuilding there will be a push for modernising and revitalising the shipbuilding industry (massive pro – we used to be world leaders in shipbuilding, creation of jobs all over the country E.g Clyde, Barrow, Portsmouth).

Support for Farming Industry – Grow more, sell more and export more post Brexit (Pro – on the face of it the notion is great as I live in the countryside and support our farmers, Con – yet they expect more but state they’ll give the same amount of cash to aid development, you can’t expect more for the same amount of investment, it’s unrealistic).

A Free Vote on Fox Hunting (Pro and Con).

Clearly setting out to leave the Common Fisheries Policy and exercise our control of our sovereign waters (Biggest Pro on here! No legal uncertainty will be made during negotiations, this is not up for debate! Preserving and increasing the fish stock which has been overfished under the EU’s common fishing policy, which introduced quotas and have depleted our fish stock, massively looking forward to our thriving fishing industry in the future).

Completely ruling out a divisive Scottish referendum and pointing out that regardless of the devolved powers given to Scotland, they’ve squandered growth potential and have lagged behind (Pro – nothing else needs to be added!).

As part of infrastructure investment, bringing Welsh railways up to speed (Pro – massively overdue, Con – Plaid Cymru will say money better spent on Welsh NHS, which is a fair observation).

Look to re-brokering a power sharing deal in Northern Ireland as soon as possible (Pro).

UK Shared Prosperity Fund – Replaces the funding sent from EU (which was our money in the first place) and redistributes it accordingly with consultation between Westminster and other devolved powers (Big Pro – shuts up all the Remainers moaning about ‘lost EU money’).

The Great Repeal Bill – EU law will be enshrined into UK law, so no rights are lost overnight, yet it gives parliament the right to amend, repeal or improve any piece of these laws. It also gets rid of the ball ache of sorting out 41 years worth of laws, we can slowly over time strip all the unsavoury laws out of our law. (Pro – get overall power of our legislature back and Human Rights Act will be reconstructed after formally leaving the EU, Cons – it’s a time consuming exercise, we’d still be signed up to ECHR for the next parliament, which I oppose massively but it’ll be reviewed in 2022).

In conjunction with our Overseas Territories, create a Blue Belt and aid conservation by creating the largest marine sanctuaries in the world (Pro for anyone in the world).

Continue commitment of 2% of GDP to defense as part of NATO obligations (Pro – normal humans like to be safe, Con – if you’re a Stop The War supporter or pacifist), (lol).

£178bn spread over a decade on strengthening our depleted Royal Navy, by building new vessels in conjunction with rejuvenated shipyards up and down the country (Pro – Brittania rules the waves).

An introduction of no payment of employers contributions of National Insurance for a year, if they take on an Ex-serviceman/woman (Pro – finally beginning to look after our serviceman upon leaving the forces, Con – too little too late).

Reducing the number of MPs to 600 (Pro – the chamber is far too crowded, Con – this lends itself more to the FPTP ‘first past the post’ system).

They promise to retain FPTP (Con – Proportional Representation is a more realistic and representative system and ensures as many people’s views are heard, it would also end the monopoly of the two party system, which is why the Tories and Labour will never back it, as it’s not in their interests).

The reintroduction of Grammar Schools (Pro – increases social mobility immensely so that kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get a better education based on their skills and attainment, Con – funding for the education system is already poor so it begs the question where is the money coming from, it also leaves behind the children in state schools of mixed abilities, where they won’t mix with smarter children who boost attainment figures of state schools, meaning a drop in ofsted standards nationwide).

Cutting student loan repayments for teachers in their first year to encourage them to stay in the profession (Pro – it’s a start, however looking at the research, teachers in general can find easier jobs for more money elsewhere so aren’t incentivised to stay anyway).

Centralising all teaching jobs to a single jobs portal much like NHS jobs (Pro – it increases the effectiveness of getting current teachers into vacancies, Con – there is already a teacher shortage and I reiterate my previous point about teachers finding jobs elsewhere).

Cutting of free school lunches to most children in the first three years of primary school (Pro – they will receive free breakfast instead and low income students still receive free lunches, Con – very reminiscent of the ‘milk snatcher’ Thatcher!).

Introduction of T-levels, a technical qualification equivalent to A-levels will most likely replace BTEC, which includes three month work placement as part of the course (Pro).

Breaking down barriers to public sector jobs based on attainment E.g teaching assistants can become teachers through an apprenticeship degree, healthcare professionals can do the same to become nurses (Pro – it eliviates the shortage of teachers and nurses, Con – have you ever had to live off apprentice wages?).

Reintroduction of pledge to decrease immigration to tens of thousands (Pro – After Brexit we should have full control of immigration and should for once be achievable, Con – Cameron made this pledge and failed massively with net migration ballooning, troublesome waters for Tories).

Further cultural integration through schools (Pro – forcing schools with one predominant race, culture or religion to teach basic British values regardless, to ease social cohesion, Con – too little too late, why hasn’t this been the pre existing building block to interracial cohesion for the last 60 years, since mass immigration started?).

There is a section regarding combating Islamic extremism which doesn’t outline how to root out and defeat it (Con).

Audit of gender and racial pay gaps in the workplace (Pro/Con – can lead to disharmony in the workplace and start on down the slippery slope of quotas rather than merit based advancement, which doesn’t help anyone).

Over the next parliament extend funding to mental health by an extra £1bn (Pro/Con – throwing money at things doesn’t automatically fix them, they need to improve diagnosis and speed of people being seen and treated, too many people suffer in silence in fear of not being believed, I have seen this first hand).

Ban letting agents fees (Pro).

Increase in NHS spending by £8bn over next 5 years (Pro).

In negotiations with EU try and ensure the 140,000 NHS workers from the EU can stay post Brexit to continue their essential work (Pro).

Government building new homes on its own property as part of its plan to build 1 million homes by 2020 (Pro/Con – it’s good they’re addressing the issue but it could include building on NHS land, the sooner they can address the real root cause which is immigration, the better).

30 hours of free childcare for every 3 and 4 year old (Pro – it’s a start, Con – we’re so behind other nations in this aspect, looking forward at the ageing population and the eventual need to replenish the population, the government need to be making childcare almost free until school age, we need to reward the people adding to our society by making having children affordable, they wonder why birth rates are so low!).

By the end of the year, 19 out of 20 premises will have access to super fast broadband in conjunction with their detailed digital plan (Pro – I’m still waiting at home for this, one of the last areas on the list I’m guessing!).

Introduction of comprehensive relationship and sex education to primary and secondary school students to include cyber bullying and online grooming (Pro – a realistic and important step in protecting our children online and in the real world, Con – weirdly still a hotly contested subject, some parents still don’t feel comfortable with their primary school age children learning about sex and needing to protect their innocence, maybe a minimum age should be introduced maybe 8 or 9?).

A random one but one with great potential, the digital amalgamation of HM Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, Valuation Office Agency, Hydrographic Office and Geological Survey to provide the most comprehensive map of the UK (Pro – can be used for more efficient planning of housing and creating digital maps of our land, this also creates an innovative tool for video games developers in making real world UK games, GTA London remake anyone?! Big Pro).

Overall I rate this Manifesto a very modest 8 out of 10. Very comprehensive and set out a detailed plan for governing our country. I felt it could have been shorter than 88 pages, as on more than one occasion it felt like they were repeating the same points. I also felt that on balance their Cons were easily avoidable but like I said, you can’t please everybody!

I hope this cuts through media bias and gives you the basic outline of what the Tories wish to achieve, parallel to this I will now write up the run through for the Labour party. Thank you for reading!

 

Advertisements

Looking Forward

It’s the end of the year. I’ve luckily got some time off and have had some time to reflect on this year and everything that has happened. I feel a good place to start is clearing some nonsense up before we take in the new year.

Fascism- An authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government and social organisation.

Racist- A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

These are the exact definitions in the Oxford Dictionary. I want to put these automatic shutdowns to bed. It disgusts me that these words are thrown about with no thought of the meanings on an almost daily occurrence by a jilted demographic of the population. I’m also going to flip to the other side of the coin and do what you can’t, get offended by something and rationally think about it and how best to go about the outcome. So I have decided to take these ‘slurs’ and use them to defeat the argument in it’s entirety. I hate that this country is divided and it doesn’t help that the recovering defeated are taking stabs in the dark and banding about words because they’re hurting. There is nothing more child like in nature. Grow up. Take it on the chin and move on.

I’d like to address the first slur, Fascist/Fascism. Take a look at the second word of the definition. Authoritarian. Where in this country do you see support or even utterings of the need or desire of an authoritarian government. You are getting the notion of self governance and a military dictatorship completely muddled up. The reason you’re berating people with these slurs is because they took part in a massive democratic exercise, something not usually found in a Fascist society. So therefore your slur is incorrect and invalid. Can it not be that there is a place on the right wing of politics for normal people who hold nationalistic views and NOT want to murder people of different ethnicities? Much like there’s room for modern liberals on the left wing of politics who’re more biased to economic and ‘compassionate’ views, that doesn’t automatically make them Communists! There’s a difference between satirising political figures in this fashion for comedic purposes and attacking someone’s character for their political beliefs. This is supposed to be a free and open society, where freedoms are supposed to be championed. Instead, this shutdown culture of the left is very dangerous and must be stopped. I’ll tell you why. If you don’t let these views be aired and engage in the time old tradition of debate and discussion, then you will force them underground and THAT is where the REAL Fascism starts. When you debate you can reach a level ground of at least understanding a viewpoint and begin to grasp why this opposition have come to their conclusion. Take heed to my warning, we saw this on a monumental scale in the US when Trump supporters were shutdown instantaneously in every situation. Forcing them to keep quiet and not air their views, it was easy to see to those of us that pay attention to the political world. But you all saw the ‘landslide’ effect. Anyway, enough of the US this is about our country!

That brings me to the other definition. I’ll put it simply first then elaborate after. You can’t be racist to your own race. We are Europeans, are we not? So us leaving a union of states, not that actual CONTINENT is not racist. We aren’t discriminating towards them, in actual fact you can’t call yourself a true believer of equality unless you back Brexit. As giving preferential treatment to European migrants over migrants from everywhere else might be seen as discriminating based purely on where someone is from and not their skill set. I jest. You already know my views on immigration, we are too densely populated and i’m still yet to receive an answer to the question ‘how many is too many?’ from either side. As for supremacy, I think everyone inside the EU is equally fucked so why would we pass up on a chance to enhance and better ourselves. Once we’ve actually left and done something with this country then yes, supremacy could be your argument, apart from the fact that we’re the same race…?

As for the Islamophobia aspect which I haven’t given any airtime to because it’s a pathetic argument which doesn’t warrant a response, yet i’m here writing this to clear things up. It’s a separate entity to racism as Islam isn’t a race, it’s a faith/religion. In the definition it states dislike politically, which isn’t possible as it’s a religion not a government, unless you’re basing it on the Islamic State? In which case then you should dislike it…also I think the definition has been skewed. Originally, putting phobia on the end of a word would be seen as having a fear or irrational fear of something, or scares/frightens you. Which Islam shouldn’t, all religions are outdated and we shouldn’t fear any of them. Society as a whole would benefit from the abolition of religion, however that goes against everything we stand for. I think that people look backwardly at Islam, in fact yet again I think they’re muddling Islam the religion and the culture associated with the religion. I’ll explain, say a Christian was to move to a Muslim country, they’d be expected to integrate and any other religion is publicly shunned in any Muslim countries. Yet when Muslims come to this country they aren’t asked to respect and integrate into our culture. The problem stems from Islam not having a proper reformation like the Christian faith has. That’s why they’re still stuck in the Dark ages with stoning of gays, etc… and we’ve got a liberal democracy based on Christian values that incorporates both genders, all races and religions. The argument i’ve seen against this is, the reforms are there but it doesn’t suit Muslims because of social and psychological needs. So basically they’re saying because it wouldn’t be acceptable to their peers and it goes against what their mind is telling them, so it’s fine not to reform. Which is where the problem lies. We can’t have thought police. Which brings us back around to one of my first points, don’t push them underground, we need to tackle them head on. It’s all part of the divide in this country.

We’ll see much more change in the coming year. Some good changes though, depending on which way you look at it. I think that Le Pen winning the French Presidency is the best thing that can happen to that poor country. Hollande is a wet lettuce, he showed just as much when he announced that he wouldn’t even bother trying to stand for re-election. There have been too many wishy washy leaders over the past 10-15 years in pretty much all European countries. The reason stems from the continent being divided, the leaders don’t stand for anything in particular. They care about trying to please as many people as possible and in doing so have helped create two sides. The one thing that was created to stop wars in Europe is brewing one up. The EU, came out publicly with their plans of a European Army, a very scary thought. If their argument is so that all the little states can all come together under one banner then that is as retarded as it is scary. What could they possibly need an army for? Nato is there for a reason. I can just see it all ending horribly when all of this posturing turns into an actual war. You can just tell the Russians won’t think twice about steamrollering a European Army and you know what, i’d be behind them. Europe needs to go back to being Europe. The EU isn’t a policing state. If it was created to stop war in Europe then it failed as the Balkans war in the 90s was handled by Nato and Ukraine recently was handled by no one. That’s what I envisage, Europe has become too soft and lovey dovey, none of the Ukrainians fought back and just let Russia invade. That’s why people feel endeared to strong leadership and leaders that stand for something or usually against something. Hollande stood and watched France get ravaged by Islamic extremism, which is all Germany’s fault for their shameful immigration policy and the mess that is the Schengen area. Watch me get called racist in 3-5 years time when the fighting has stopped and I say these ‘refugees’ should go back to their home country. I’ve gone over the definitions of refugees and migrants before no need to delve into it again.

Image result for marine le pen

I’d also like to take this chance upon looking back to say I told you so about all of the scaremongering about Brexit, as the country has already benefited in so many different ways, with increased investment and a strong economy in place. Even the previous Governor of The Bank of England, Lord King has stated that we would be in a good position without any kind of customs union (Hard Brexit) should we need to go down that route.

And finally to end on a good note, Merkel’s administration is coming to an end in 2017. So many good things to look forward to in the coming year. My message for the coming year would be to better yourselves and do your bit in bridging the gap between the masses, as we need to be a strong unit as one so we can take on anything thrown at us in the tail end of this decade. When things get hard during negotiations with the EU, just remember the end goal and what it’ll mean to the future generations. We get too wrapped up in the present, that we sometimes forget what we do now echoes through time. We’re forever being judged for our actions, by ourselves in the future. Happy new year!

Refugee Crisis: The Blind Leading The Blind (Warning Graphic Content)

I have waited for a long time to write this article. Many reasons account for this, the main one being that I have learned from previous experience it’s best not to voice opinions on a fresh subject. It’s better to wait for it to fully unfold and you can give a more thorough and formed opinion on the state of events. Another one being the picture of little ‘Aylan’ washed up on the beach. Any article written opposed to the migration across Europe of Refugees was surely designed to fall on deaf ears if released at that time. Liberals were screaming left, right and centre about ‘how can we let this continue?!’ when in fact they were being blinded by a largely opinionated left wing press who had carved out an elaborate story of ‘the poor refugees’. As always there are two sides to every story, yet the other side has not been viewed to the public almost as if it has been censored.

I shall start with the tragedy of little Aylan. Now let’s start with the ‘left’ side of the story of a brave little boy trying to escape the clutches of a war torn country and doing everything he can to get to ‘safety’. That all sounds fine. But let’s switch the onus onto his father. Let’s say for example I took my little boy on a rubber dinghy and tried to sail across the Irish Sea to Dublin as I was trying to escape the disgusting corrupt government and countless paedophile rings in high society and needed to cross into the safety of Ireland as my reason? (Not too bad of a reason!) What would the ‘left’ side of the story be for that? I can see the headlines now “FATHER ENDANGERS CHILD’S LIFE IN DINGHY NIGHTMARE” I would have my child taken away from me as he is clearly not safe under my supervision and I would have completely put his life in jeopardy, in doing so I would probably be tried and convicted of gross negligence for my actions. I’m not saying what happened isn’t bad, what i’m saying is if the father really cared about his son, he would have thought a bit more about his life and taken a different route, maybe across land through Turkey? I understand the desperation and what it does to people but your kids come first and you have a responsibility for that child. Not at one point should you put them in danger just to get to your ‘end goal’.

Next I would just like to brush on the subject of who is actually trying to claim asylum. Now checking on the latest figures for % of refugees that are men, it says that 49.5% are male of that 29% are aged 18-59. Bearing in mind that these figures are for the registered refugees, which as we’ve seen a large share of them haven’t been properly documented and registered. Stories of ripped up passports and faking passports are rife as refugees pass on the word that Syrians are getting treated differently. Going by these statistics it’s astonishing that whenever I see any footage on any of the major networks, the majority of refugees I see are men. The ones always causing trouble, men. The ones breaking police lines and rioting, men. The ones pouring away water and throwing away food kindly given to them, men. The ones travelling all the way to Denmark & Calais trying to get into England and Sweden, men. It’s a slightly alarming trend. It’s also a trend that will come back to bite the liberals in the arse when the next up to date statistics are released. We are lucky in the UK having the opt-out clause for the relocation quota set by Brussels. I’m slightly concerned that these aren’t genuine refugees at all, they’re just opportunists. I’ve got a question that will anger and ensnare the lefties, if these men are willing to go to such lengths and to fight all of the forces across Europe like in Hungary & Denmark, why are they not fighting ISIS and trying to gain control of their country back?

If you go by the UN’s figures there are currently 3.8 million Syrian refugees, predicted to rise to 4.2 million by the end of this year. Roughly 1/4 of these are men, that means almost 1 million. You’re telling me that 1 million men couldn’t join up to defeat ISIS? They are weak minded cowards. That’s what sets us apart, they expect everything on a plate and to take priority in the world as they’ve been effected. No strength of character, no fight. The only thing I see is intelligence, they have identified the EU as an easy picking. Good healthcare and benefit systems and a ‘safety net’ because of the EU’s left leaning. Also because of the left leaning there is no integration plans or lessons to refugees as we can’t tell them what to do, which is disgraceful in my eyes. All these people know is war, uncivilised society, raping and pilaging, if that’s all they’ve seen and are angered about it, who are they going to take it out on if they haven’t stayed to fight ISIS? It will be the nice appeasing west who try and be nice and give them a life. There is no structure in place to explain they need to live by our rules now they are here, any uncivilised action will not be tolerated and they should be taught how to live as we do and how to properly integrate. Instead all you will see is more and more crime in the built up refugee areas, a higher % of rapes in these areas (already seen in large numbers in Sweden) more violence between them and the native population. Now as I say this i’m not tarring them all with the same brush, a lot of this doesn’t represent about half of the refugee population, the nice law abiding women and children most likely. The problem with this being they get away with it as there is a fear among the EU states that they will be seen as racist if they act accordingly.

Here’s a quick history lesson for you nice folk reading this, the EU was designed at the fall of the Second World War to be the end of all wars in Europe between France and Germany as they had fought relentlessly for the past few centuries back and forth. An ‘ever closer union’ was envisaged. It was only created to work for about 8 states, not the 28/29 that we have now. In an age where the EU is no longer called for and has been seen to be failing and crumbling for last few decades, it is not designed to be a Union of States that can cope with such an influx of immigration from an ever expanding Asian, Arabic & African populations. If it wasn’t working before then why are we even beginning to think it’s possible to deal with this crisis while the very same infrastructure is at breaking point? The whole time people are saying ‘why can’t we help them?’, what about us? Surely we should be concentrating on fixing our own broken system first before taking these people in. This very same point has infuriated me for many years, take Libya for example. The public were saying we need to do something to help these poor people under Gadaffi’s tyranny. We take action and take the fucker out, then the public blame the government saying we shouldn’t have intervened and it’s our fault all these refugee’s are displaced. I call it the two-headed monster of Liberalism. To be fair we have seen it coming for a while, being a supporter of UKIP I have expressed my concern of our open borders policy before any of this started.

Then you look at the open arm policy of Germany & Merkel, failing to take into consideration the massive overwhelming number of refugees that would actually turn up. The only problem with this being that once they have come to Germany and find out there is no room for them as they’re full up (which has happened now) they’re then stuck in the EU with no place to go. Merkel has politically shrugged her shoulders and gone well they’re here now, my solution is to offload the burden onto the other member states who never asked for it through a refugee quota that is soon to be enshrined in EU law. I will literally have no sympathy for Germany if there are any terrorist attacks inside their borders from now on, in my eyes they have brought that on themselves. They haven’t properly checked and registered all of these refugees flooding through their borders and haven’t got a fucking clue who is now in their country. I’ve seen lots of different figures so far but the average is about 420,000 already in Germany with Merkel citing that they should expect up to 800,000 by the end of the year. I think yet again she’s highly underestimated the number of people being displaced, and with her publicly saying they are all welcome she doesn’t have any idea how many hopeless refugees this will attract. The number I quoted of 3.8 million from Syria is for now. It is thought that half of Syria’s 22 million population will be refugees by the end of next year. Meaning that the figure of 4.2 million by the end of this year will be more than doubled by the end of next year. So I ask Mrs Merkel, where are we going to put the other 6-7 million next year? The fact is she hasn’t even looked that far ahead, she is in reactive mode not a proactive mode. She’s giving a temporary solution to a permanent problem.

The only bit of good that has come from this is the Egyptian(?) billionaire i’ve heard is willing to buy an island in Greece to home the refugees until the conflict has finished. He’s even planning on calling it Aylan Island, what a nice touch. But for me this begs an even bigger question, what have Saudi Arabia done? The richest of the OPEC states, which is roughly 150km from the Syrian border and a lot closer than the EU! It is also a muslim country so no integration needed. When the conflict finishes, if it ever does then it isn’t far for the refugees to relocate back to. Also having all that oil money means they could facilitate all of these refugees, in fact i’ve seen stories of the tents that millions are using for their annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Why can’t they house the refugees there? They have the money and resources to do so, why is the pressure on us to look after them. We are not a neighbouring country, we are not muslim states, we don’t have the money or facilities, we are already overpopulated and definitely don’t have the space. Whereas Saudi Arabia has all of this plus endless desert to create new towns to accommodate these refugees? Before anyone tries to shoot that down saying ‘how can you house them in the desert?’ Look at a fucking map, it’s almost identical to Syria’s landscape and climate so it’s not unreasonable. It’s not like it’s not ‘safe’ either considering it’s spending on defence is through the roof, buying up US jets and weapons. People citing their poor human rights record as a reason are the same people standing up for ‘Islam the religion of peace’, surely then they would open up their arms for their muslim brothers and not lay a finger on them? Islam is flawed and outdated, and in the wrong hands/eyes is a dangerous ideology. Maybe what happened in Mecca the other day was vicious karma for Saudi Arabia’s short comings and failures? Make your own conclusions from what happened, that’s just my cynical view of it.

This moves me onto alternative routes of migration. Until this quota came out Finland, Spain & Portugal have received hardly any asylum applications. This points directly to my earlier sentiment that they are literally just going to Sweden, Germany and the UK for the healthy benefits packages. If you’re prepared to go all the way to Sweden which is possibly the furthest away nation in the EU to travel to from Syria (apart from Norway) then why can’t you make the distance to Spain or Portugal? Or even closer Finland? Simple answer they have nothing to offer. Maybe they weren’t brought up with the saying ‘beggars can’t be choosers’. Which is one thing I hope they begin to learn from us! I’m sorry but if you are ‘fleeing’ to safety then you shouldn’t get a choice as long as you get to safety. They are abusing the laws in place for refugees that give them free passage. To me it’s outrageous as the whole point of free movement between EU states is that you are from a EU native state. Yet these people from outside the EU are getting the same rights making it void. Also due to the number of them, passport checks are few and far between and also not very well documented, so anyone could get through potentially even from other countries like Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The only EU leader that is speaking any sense is the Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, he’s the only one who has stood up against Germany in what he calls their ‘moral imperialism’. Which draws an interesting parallel, if you think about it Germany has in effect taken over Europe without a single shot being fired. They impose their ideas on the smaller member states that don’t have any clout and Germany has the biggest voice so it drowns out all opposition to it’s ‘solution’. The Eastern European members of the EU are mainly not in favour of the relocation program but are having it imposed on them as they are finally realising the downside to the ‘ever closer union’. The EU is on it’s knees in so many ways and I for one am watching closely for it’s downfall and i’m hoping this is the catalyst. Luckily, the UK is in a unique position where we already have a referendum coming on the exit of the EU and it wouldn’t rock the boat as much as a full member leaving. I’m disappointed that Greece hasn’t left the EU yet, same as Spain or Italy as it will kick start the domino effect. It’s better to be on the outside than inside, especially at a time like this. It perfectly highlights the constraints of being inside the EU, I want us to take back control of this country and fight for what is right! Then we take back the small things like control of our seas where the EU has been over-fishing and depleted fish populations and destroying underwater eco systems.

It doesn’t matter where you sit in this whole debate, only time will tell who is right and I hope for all your sake’s it’s me who is right. Mainly because if we carry on blindly behind Germany there will be nothing left to fight over. There is no one safeguarding our countries, institutions, traditions & cultures. We are at risk of losing all of this through overpopulating and excessive integration. Use your head and at least go into this with your eyes open and understand the severity of the situation that faces ALL of us. We have a right to be cautious and shouldn’t accept everyone willingly at the drop of a hat because some fat old woman in Germany says we should do so. We make our own choices and decisions and we think for ourselves. It doesn’t all add up and that should scare the absolute hell out of you, if it doesn’t then you’re already lost to their cause.