In the Heart of the Beast

I’ve been doing some reading this week as I’ve been off with the flu. With the biggest talking point being the triggering of Article 50 and the final days before Brexit officially starts, I decided to read about the origins of this hideous institution. I came at it from the angle of the Remainers who cling so dearly to this ideology of ‘freedom’. I’ve already been down the road of attacking the EU as a system and for having poor democratic value. I’ve attacked the individuals in charge, the fear-mongering, the poor displacement of funds, the links with Goldman-Sachs and the Schengen Area. So I’ve decided to go back to the very beginning and attack the root core of this whole thing.

I start with a name unknown to me until now but after reading most of what I can about him, it is obvious he was the mastermind behind the EU all the way back in the 1920s. I’ve talked about Robert Schuman before who I thought was one of the ‘founding fathers’ of the EU, which he was. However, the real mastermind that i’m talking about was Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (from now I shall refer to him as RVCK). He was the original driving force behind European integration, the failed project we see today. His name might be recognised by those of you that enjoy conspiracy theories, as he was a member of the Freemasons and also had links with the Rothschild Family.

A short summary is that he was the opposite of Hitler but had the same end goal. Mein Kampf was released in 1925, as was Kampf um Paneuropa (RVCK’s vision of a unionised Europe). It’s well known of Hitler and his fear of the Russian Bear which is why throughout the 30s, anti-Russia rhetoric was at it’s most volatile and eventually why Nazi Germany expanded East in it’s search for Lebensraum. However, RVCK played on the same fear-mongering (much like the EU is now) warning of a Russian invasion if they didn’t come together and create a European defensive alliance. This, I feel is the last obstacle for the EU. You only have to look back a matter of months in the aftermath of Brexit when there was talk of a European Army. He also states the other two reasons behind a European Union.

“The danger of European war of extermination can only be averted by a pan-European agreement to arbitrate; the risk of Russian rule can only be averted by a pan-European defensive alliance; the risk of economic
ruin can only be averted by a pan-European Customs Union.”

He was right in a sense. Little did he know that inside 20 years, a war of extermination did break out, but it was his opposite number Hitler who was the aggressor. But rather than an extermination of Europeans, Hitler targeted Jews, Gays, Gypsys etc… The last point ignites the humorous and cynical side of me, ‘the risk of economic ruin can only be averted by a pan-European Customs Union’, if he was alive today i’d like him to visit Greece or Spain and tell me how it works so well for them. I know the Euro has a lot to do with it as well but it seems so ironic. Hitler knew of RVCK and famously branded him a ‘bastard’.

One of my favourite parts that i’d like to share with the Remainers is this passage.

“Russia and England are Paneuropa neighbors. These two empires are viable even without Europe – while the remaining States of the Hemisphere are connected by their geographic location common destiny; condemned, either jointly basis to go – or resurrected together.”

There is my case for our self determination. We were never in the plans for the EU from day one, they recognised us as a self sustaining nation.

“From many sides, the inclusion of England is required in the future Pan. This claim fails because of the construction of the British Federal Empire. Never the Dominions would tolerate that England swing to another state system into closer relationship as to them; so that is the connection of the English kingdom of Pan-Europa obsolete. The connection of the British Empire Federal Pan-Europa to lapses by the impossibility to transform Canada into a European state. The consequence of this challenge
in America would be the connection of Canada in the Pan American Union and the disintegration of the British Empire.”

It was only after the fall of the Empire and Ted Heath tricking the public into thinking it was in our common interest for us to join. Plus he raised a good point that members of the commonwealth wouldn’t have accepted our involvement, which in relation to one of my previous posts ( https://gunnerlukey.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/the-movement/ ) should lead to us building a good healthy relationship with the remaining commonwealth nations, that the Queen is still a Head of State of. Once we finally leave of course.

There’s a few more things i’d like to brush upon. The most revealing point in my eyes is his affection for world domination and trying to create a Europe that vies for power as a 5th world power. No matter under what banner, whether it be for peace or freedom, if the writer is pushing for more than that then he’s just power hungry, much like Hitler. The similarities between RVCK’s description of Europe and Hitler’s of Germany after the Treaty of Versailles are close. They both felt that they were wounded and weak and both feel the desire to convey prosperity through unified work. Albeit on two different ends of the scale under different banners, yet still so remarkably the same. The only difference is RVCK is asking for it, Hitler wants to take it aggressively with power. Hitler did what he does best and banned the PanEuropa Movement when he came into power, thus eliminating any opposition to his plans. I can’t help but feel if the shoe was on the other foot and PanEuropa gained momentum earlier like Nazism that we’d still be looking back at a catastrophic war. You know what they say though, once a massive evil is banished it only leaves behind a vacuum.

“The old Europe had world domination. Outwardly sure it could afford the luxury of internal wars without danger to life. In the twentieth century that European world domination collapsed. Asia awoke under Japanese leadership. America outperformed all European states, Russia has been solved by the introduction of the Sovietism of Europe, England has come from a major European power to head an intercontinental world power whose focus is in the Indian Ocean. This growing organization of the non-European world into mighty empires is the growing disorganization of the European World over. Here the fragmentation has made further progress by the war. In Central Europe, two Great Powers fell to a number of smaller states to make room. So Europe is forced out of the center of the world, once the subject of world politics – it has become their object: weakened, wounded, destitute, torn. A recovery of European world domination is impossible; but it is possible, by combining the European
States to unite this continent, as a fifth world power and save the peace, freedom and prosperity of Europeans”

RVCK played the long game. His movement started to gain real momentum after the war when his idea was given lip service by notable people, Einstein and Churchill to name a couple. Yet again though, Churchill never saw the UK as part of that in his Zurich speech but conceded that we needed to have good relations and work together. It seems to me after reading the whole thing, that it’s rather anti-british, almost like he’s jealous of what we had and if you carefully look back through the history of the EU/EEC (which I have), from De Gaulle through until now with Juncker. There’s this overwhelming feeling of disdain and lack of respect for the UK coming from the EU. I’m not surprised after reading what I just have, if the mastermind behind the whole project had negative feelings towards the UK, then it has transcended throughout the generations of EU luvvies.

I think it’s entrenched in the mindset of all that hold it dear. Even in another one of his points “No Europeans will be able to dodge this decision. Before making that decision neutrality is treason. Who is not Pan-European – is anti-European!” the notion that if you’re not with them you aren’t European. It’s a phrase I hear a lot of Remainers using in the wake of Brexit and it bugs me because the EU and Europe are two different things. Something that I think a lot of people have lost sight of, yet they will soon realise their mistake.

I also want to pull out this extract from the PanEuropa propaganda: “For this struggle for Europe, I call on all, in the possibility and the necessity of the United States of Europe, believe; but a program – for the Pan-Europa is no utopia; not a dream – but a demand! Against this great goal disappear the contrasts of the nation, religion and party: first must be a house built before the dispute over the wallpaper begins!”

This was his attempt at creating a nationless entity easily controlled without politics or religion. He wanted to create a slave race. Without party politics or allegiances you have no direction or power and nothing to stand for. With no specific religion to guide your principles, you’re nothing but a pawn. That’s the most important thing we should take from this. Our years in the wilderness have passed and on the other side of Brexit we need to reclaim our identity. The EU starves nations of identity and cultural heritage. They have slowly eaten away at our history because they’re scared of what we would or could become. They have eroded the powers of the nation states because they can’t be trusted. If you read that and thought that’s a good thing because historically Europeans just start wars with each other, then I ask you, does that make the EU a policing state? If so, then why is it okay? We have the right to self determination, we make the rules not them. We all grew up thinking of 1984 as a dystopian nightmare, well we’re living in one massive policing state. It’s not just going to stop when we leave.

*I want to take time out here to explain that i’m not a massive loon and not a Nazi sympathiser or anything untoward. I have just tried to awaken people to the world we live in and the danger the EU poses to EVERY single European country, not just our own. I have tried numerous different ways like I stated at the beginning. Now bear with me whilst I go on one of my almost conspiracy theories (I don’t believe most of them!) and then conclude my article, I promise there is a message in there for all of us somewhere!*

The reason it won’t stop is because (deep breath please don’t think i’m crazy) we’re part of the biggest experiment known to man. Multiculturalism has never been experimented with on this scale anywhere in the world EVER. You’ve read my articles before about demographics and how densely populated the UK is, have you ever wondered why we’re the most watched country in the world (cctv wise)? Why our security services go through absolutely everything (GCHQ) and rival that of the US and Russia? It’s the notion that we can’t be trusted again. It’s because we’re unpredictable because we don’t have a national psyche anymore. You go anywhere else in the world and pretty much you know what a country is going to be like because of their culture. There may be subtle differences in different regions (Texas isn’t the same as New York) but they all bleed the same blood and share the same core values. We don’t. That’s why there is a divide among our people. Culturally, the UK doesn’t know where it stands.

I’ve noticed it more and more recently and i’m controversially going to come out and say it, they don’t want white europeans to procreate anymore. (That’s it this guy is off his rocker) It’s not just white people either, it’s aimed more at young people in general. It’s being drummed into us now that ‘it’s fine for women to have careers and not children’ or ‘having kids in your forties is fine’ no and no. Women create life full stop. That is what they’re put here to do, I don’t mean that in a condescending way but to ensure survival of our species (the human race) we procreate, all lifeforms for that matter are the same. Plus having kids in your forties presents all kinds of risks and problems. I’ll explain what I mean about the first bit now if you’re still reading.

Have you noticed people are only having 1 or 2 kids nowdays? No, okay. A sweeping general statement I know but I shall continue. They make it so that we can’t afford to have anymore than that, then over time you see that birth rates are declining. Rather than fixing the problem and promoting the idea of having kids and giving parents help or make it easier for them, they’d rather just bring people in from outside to mix the gene pool up. That’s what has happened with the massive influx in Germany.

They want us to mix and they call it cultural enrichment, the mixing of cultures. Which is fine in small doses, what is slowly happening is cultural replacement where droves of different cultures and religions come into the country in unrestricted and unlimited numbers and they’re encouraged to ‘integrate’. Like I say on a small scale this would be fine, anyone can be with whoever they want these days and that’s fine. But in such high numbers it has fractured our culture. I’ll put it in a way it can relate with everyone, there’s nothing wrong with a Jack Daniels and Coke, what we’re ending up with is a dirty pint and we’re getting fucked! Say for example we have a Nigerian and a Korean immigrant come here and have a child, now if you ask that child what does it feel like is it going to say ‘British’? More than likely yes, but what British influence do they have in their lives? I’m not saying they have to go morris dancing or go to the pub and this is the exact problem, we don’t have a national identity to buy into anymore. This brings me back around to RVCK, as in another publication he wrote he stated this: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.”

It’s been a big masterplan from the beginning and that is why we need to come together now in the face of Brexit. I want to extend my hand out to the Remainers as from now on, we’re leaving whether you like it or not. But we need each other so that we can create a true British identity for when we rejoin the global stage as a REAL nation. We can’t do that when we’re divided and arguing. So I will take the first step in saying, even though i’m still enjoying the win of the referendum and will hold it dear for many years to come, i’m moving on. The next win is more important, I will enjoy beating the EU more than my fellow compatriots with getting a one off deal. If we pull that off then all of this will seem distant and irrelevant in comparison. The end goal is to tear down the EU, as for me they pose the same threat that the Nazis did to our country all those years ago. Only difference is, the EU has had some control of our country, something the Nazis never even got close too. It’s a financial & judicial war they wage, not one of a militaristic nature. The only problem being, when we eventually crush the heart of the beast, as always there will be a vacuum and we ALL need to be start thinking of what’s coming next.

*If you’ve made it here I commend you, thank you so much for reading my inner ramblings!

Answers Needed

The most divided fanbase is unquestionably Arsenal. For once though, i’m not entirely sure why? At the beginning of the season, in the transfer window we bought exactly what the Wenger Out fans have been screaming for. A strong CDM (Xhaka) who wasn’t cheap (Wenger Out fans cry about Arsene not spending), a world class CB (Mustafi) who wasn’t cheap either and finally a Striker (Lucas Perez) who even though he hasn’t featured much, has shown every time he’s on the pitch that he was worth every penny. Now to me, Arsene answered all the critics in this respect, by ‘splashing the cash’ and buying in every position that needed strengthening. I genuinely thought we had a chance to fight for all the trophies going this season and as a fan you have to believe that, otherwise you aren’t truly supporting your team. After a disappointing first game of the season, we then went 17/18 games unbeaten (I think). We then lost back to back games. Firstly, against Ronald Koeman’s Everton, who were well organised and every manager has a bogey manager, Koeman is Wenger’s as everyone knows. We then went away to City who have according to some, the best manager in world football and we only lost 2-1, away from home. Following that we went unbeaten in UCL group stage, even against PSG who have just showed Barcelona up.

Currently we are off the pace by 10 points in the league, which yes is an issue but it’s definitely not over. Bearing in mind we beat Chelsea and they beat us cancelling each other out, so nothing was lost at Stamford bridge which I think fans are forgetting. I understand that to win the league you have to beat the big teams, I don’t believe in excuses but Bellerin was knocked out, if that goal doesn’t go in then what might have happened you never know, the complexion of the game would have been completely different. Admittedly, Chelsea are good at home and we would have been lucky to get a win but to think we couldn’t have got at least a draw is disrespectful to our players.

We are still in a winnable FA Cup. The media are trying to downplay Arsenal’s chances and angling for a giant killing, especially in the wake of the defeat at Bayern but why are people stacking up the pressure against one of the most successful managers in the FA Cup full stop? Yes Sutton have home advantage and a shitty 3G pitch, poor facilities and low ticket allocation for away fans. Yet we will put out a 80% strength squad, probably close to the team that smashed Southampton 5-0. I have noticed so much non-news recently in regards to Arsenal and Arsene, it’s almost like the media is out to get us constantly and will make a story out of nothing.

Now in regards to the question that is floating around at the moment, should Arsene go? This poses a very difficult question for me being a Wenger In fan. In short I don’t think he should leave. Not right now, I think he should go at the end of next season. There are so many different factors involved to make a snap decision like the media and Wenger Out fans want. It’s reactionary and unnecessary, especially when it all hinged on a single game. I hear and understand fans frustrations, i’m a fan too. But do you really think destabilising the club at a time like this will help in any way? If anything we need to be together at the moment with important run ins coming up, the only thing that matters at the moment is a full stadium and to get behind the players so that we get back to winning ways.

The way it needs to go is at the end of the season Arsene Wenger sits down with the board and sets out a plan of devolution. It’s not as simple to just bring in a new manager. Arsene basically runs so many different bits of the club, a new manager coming in can’t take over every single aspect of his job as he’s been there for so long, there needs to be a transition period where Arsene slowly delegates his many jobs to other people. Get the right people in place to run the club so that he can purely focus on his final season as just a manager. Then at the end of the season hand over the reigns to another manager with the club in the best possible shape so the new managers job is easier and can take the club onto the next level. As I believe the end goal is for Arsenal to become a Supergiant, it has to be the long term goal. They wouldn’t have put so much effort, time and money into creating Arsenal the brand. We have a huge stadium, the 7th highest revenue in the world, one of the biggest fanbases in the world and a team capable of getting into the UCL every year. The only place left to go is get another world class manager, buy world class players in every position and go for the Champions League, not just once but prolonged success. That is the business model I believe they will aim for.

This takes me onto the next part, who could come in and make that transition work? Me personally, don’t laugh but on a 3 year contract I think we should go for Mancini. The simple reason why is that he 1. Has Premier League experience and has won it. 2. Has some Champions League experience. 3. Knows what it takes to juggle the two (most foreign managers can’t grasp the winter period e.g Pep & Klopp) 4. Has a great win percentage and record. 5. Plays an attractive style of football (which is imperative to appease fans). Now I know no one will share my view so let’s assess the other options out there.

  1. Diego Simeone – The logical choice. Fighting off Real & Barcelona every year takes a lot, especially when they won La Liga. Sustained attacks in Europe, winning Europa League and getting to the final of UCL twice in 3 years, an amazing win percentage and also has a backbone and wouldn’t think twice about shaking the team up with some emotion. The downsides – He has no experience of the Premier League, a poor defensive style of play that i’m not sure that fans will trade attractive football for trophies (winning ugly), there’s only so many times you can shout at players to provoke a response. If we were to get him I believe it should only be on a three year contract.
  2.  Thomas Tuchel – This is a strange one for me, he’s come out as favourite pretty much and I can’t see why? Sure he’s manager of a big club like Dortmund, he’s got them scoring but if you couldn’t get Reus & Aubameyang to score then you shouldn’t be a manager! He’s not excatly setting the Bundesliga on fire and hasn’t even won half of his games. He got to the Quarters of the Europa League and is through to the Last 16 of UCL this year. He had one good season last year and has a different approach to tactics which are his only good traits.
  3. Joachim Low – He plays amazing football with the German national team, he’s got a good win percentage overall, however if you look at his domestic record it’s not amazing, he won the Austrian League the same year as our Invincibles and took Stuttgart to 4th twice in the late 90s. Yes he’s won the World Cup but it’s a different ball game (excuse the pun) in the leagues. This would be a massive gamble plus he likes smelling his own balls!
  4.  Eddie Howe – I understand this one, yet it won’t work. He gets the most out of Bournemouth because of the structure in place at the club and he runs the club with 4 or 5 ex-players as his backroom staff. He plays some attractive football and has achieved well whilst having restraints in regards to players. Yes he’s English and it would be good to see an Englishman in a top job in England! I’m all for giving opportunities but you should get in on merit and Eddie’s record doesn’t speak for itself.
  5. Max Allegri – He’s had it so easy, he inherited an AC Milan team he did well with and then took over Juventus with unlimited amounts of money, he’s won 3 league titles in his time in management but his style of football is dull running a 3-5-2 system. He’s been through to the Last 16 in UCL just as many times as Wenger, even though he reached the Final his first season with Juventus. The club would be much the same under Allegri and wouldn’t be seen as making a step forward.
  6. Leonardo Jardim – Only in his early 40s, he’s travelled around a bit, though he’s got a good point percentage overall and plays quite nice football, his European record isn’t amazing. Although saying that I reckon with the structure and resources that Arsenal will have in place, he could excel. Probably my my 2nd or 3rd choice, it wouldn’t be a bad move for Arsenal.
  7. Roger Schmidt – Finally, low down on the list with having only won an Austrian Title and Austrian Cup. Stable Top 4 finishes with Leverkusen and through to the Last 16 2 out of 3 seasons, not exactly the profile of someone a club of Arsenal’s stature should be looking at in my honest opinion, yet he’s been ‘shortlisted’ or linked with the club so I included him.

Whatever the outcome at the end of the season whether he stays or goes, no manager that comes in should be expected to create instant success and should be given time to adapt and build their own squad. We should all be patient and give anyone the time to progress. I’m in two minds as to whether Arsene should stay at the club in the background as sometimes it can be a distraction, as the new manager is always compared to the outgoing manager and doesn’t help if he’s still around (e.g Ferguson). Ideally if he does stay, i’d like  him to become director of football and oversee the youth academy as his true talent lies in developing young players and making them ready for the first team.

Thank you for reading!

Republican or Royalist?

I read an article the other day that stated that there is actually a movement that wants a referendum on getting rid of the Royal Family. Personally I have no side to take on the issue but this has made me curious what people’s thoughts and feelings about the matter are.

 

On the one side you have the Royalists, who believe that the Queen is the be all and end all. She and her family contribute £1bn in tourism a year, they’re good for international relations and being the face of the British people abroad, they’re an unelected barrier between the Government and absolute power which is healthy, otherwise you end up with power hungry leaders with no restrictions. People use the argument against the Monarchy and the House of Lords saying they’re unelected and anti-democratic. When in actual fact they’re just a safeguard against giving all the power to one individual or one party. The House of Lords can delay bills and block them for up to a year but can never fully stop a bill going through but can buy enough time to properly scrutinise and amend a bill, so that it isn’t rushed through without being properly debated or heard and enshrined into UK law. The Queen has the power to reject any law but in doing so would create a constitutional crisis so usually signs it off anyway, which is where people get the idea that the Queen has no power, as she has to adhere to what the government puts in front of her. Our lawmaking process is pretty good and thorough though, so when it finally gets put in front of the Queen, it’s in it’s final form and has the support of most MP’s who are voted in and given a mandate to vote on and make laws on our behalf. Which will finally be completely back in our control after Brexit! She can still technically wage war against another country, not that she will ever need too. She can also dissolve parliament which is a perfect safeguard in the event of having an unpopular PM or mad PM intent on harming this country. However in doing so it would start a civil war, so it’s more of a deterrent. The PM always tends to keep the Queen onside as it’s a kind of mutual understanding between the two. Also the Royal family will play a pivotal role when we start to negotiate trade deals around the world again post-brexit. Where some Prime Ministers can be disliked and unpopular with other countries, the Queen has the respect of a large amount of nations around the world and this can be a good building block for negotiations in places where the PM might be unpopular. Believe it or not this is how it used to be done before the EU negotiated all of our trade deals for us. I also read in an Economist article that keeping the Monarchy but reforming it would be a welcome sign to both parties. That’s a basic look at the For argument.

Bildresultat för british republicans

On the other side you have the Republicans who want to see the Queen dethroned and kicked out onto the street. That’s my cynical view of it but for the sake of being balanced let’s look at their argument. They say that the Queen sponges off the state which is true, yet her net contributions outweigh the running of her estates and outgoings. They use the fact that Prince Charles has penned letters to MP’s in the past as an excuse to describe him as meddling in politics. Which is also true as the Royal Family as a whole should stay impartial and a-political. Which is where I think a lot of the fear shown by the Republicans come from, the realisation that he will one day be king. They assume the worst and expect Charles to stick his oar into political proceedings. I think the fact that he cheated on Diana with Camilla sits uncomfortably with most people and don’t think that someone with such bad intentions should be trusted or be trusted to run a country. Much like nowadays when an MP is caught doing something lewd they’re forced out of office, yet with a monarchy you can’t force them out. It’s an outdated hereditary system which I can understand, a birth right to the throne is such an archaic means of choosing a head of state. Yet if you had to vote in a head of state, then you’re stuck in the catch 22 of they could be in league with the PM and therefore wouldn’t be impartial or a-political and we would automatically fall into an autocracy or a puppet government run by the head of state (e.g Russia). The Republicans also show a distaste for the amount of coverage the Royal Family gets in the media, I personally look at this as jealousy as the movement doesn’t have as much coverage or the following and support they feel they deserve. I understand that they get media attention for being given the crown and not doing anything worthy or noble to warrant receiving the crown like they originally did (e.g Battle of Bosworth), however I don’t exactly see the Queen racing head first into the enemy on horseback with a sabre in hand in this day in age.

Bildresultat för british royal painting horse

The reason the Queen and the Royal Family are who they are is because of the Queen, she has an overwhelming sense of duty that deserves respect, she has worked at making the Monarchy what it is and her family all look to her as an example and we can only hope that they try to follow in her footsteps, wearing the commitment and duty she does. I’m happy with the status quo and don’t wish to ruffle the feathers of the establishment on this issue, yet it is important to have these kind of debates on issues as it defines who we are and what we really hold dear. I’d like us to keep the Monarchy in the traditional sense and hope they don’t go over the top and try to drag it into the 21st century too much when the Queen passes away. That will be when it’s time to get rid of them as they’ll become more celebrity than monarchy. Bowing to pressure. This institution stands tall and doesn’t quiver at the thought of opposition, leading by example and displaying the true British values and integrity. I don’t think there will be reform as I can’t see anyone voting for it, if we did then i’d imagine that the Royal Family had already lost their grip at that point. I think it would spell the end of the United Kingdom as well, as we wouldn’t all have that shared culture anymore and I feel that we’d get more and more disconnected as a nation\collective nations.

Bildresultat för united kingdom

This also brings me onto the subject of continued referendums. I believe in democracy and the spirit of referendums, however they should be reserved for the truly divisive issues that can’t be settled by any normal means. It shouldn’t become the go to measure for every occasion. Before you know it we’ll have a referendum on whether referendums should be legally binding! A referendum about a referendum. I also think that it’s disgraceful that even though it has been put to the public vote (Brexit) because the politicians couldn’t be trusted with the decision, they’re trying to hatch a plan to disrupt democracy in plain view. There are calls to try and halt Brexit through the House of Commons as it’s only ‘advisory’. Advisory it may be, yet the turnout was high and the voice of the people shouted a resounding Leave! The MPs almost forget who puts them in power in the first place, they act on behalf of their constituents who coincidentally were the ones who voted to Leave? So why would you even think of trying to go against the very people you serve? The disconnect between the population and politicians has never been wider. There is even a legal challenge as to whether the PM can activate Article 50 without consulting Parliament! The people have spoken, that should suffice. The mortally wounded Remainers are trying to impose a posthumous blow to the Leave campaign. Their attempted sabotage is morally corrupt and contemptuous. Anyone seen to be attacking the will of the people should be dragged from the commons by their ankles and thrown in the tower. It should be treated as treachery. They’re the same people that lied about what would happen in the event of Brexit, they don’t have the best interests of the country at heart. This brings me beautifully back to the start, this is why we don’t entrust all of our power to these people and why we are safeguarded against them. The system works, be thankful that we can choose who we have in government, the poor Americans are about to be lumbered with either Trump or Clinton.

I love my country.

The Movement

I write this piece as I feel it was touched upon recently but not properly aired to the masses. As you can tell by now i’m firmly against being a member of the EU and wish for us to withdraw. Same old stuff you hear from most ‘right wingers’ like myself right? The age old come back of “immigration makes this country” springs to mind in defence of my voiced opinions. However, I feel I have half created a solution to this problem to keep all sides happy. Thanks to Mr Farage, who in his hard fought interview with Evan Davis came out with the notion that he’d “prefer migrants from India and Australia.” While there is nothing wrong with this in my eyes, there has been massive backlash over it as the left wing media has shouted out that he hates Eastern Europeans which is completely untrue. I completely understand what Mr Farage was trying to get across though.

I think as a possible/viable option if we leave the EU, we could introduce a new free movement of people. The people i’m referring to though are a bit different to what you might expect. I think we should extend an olive branch to the 16 remaining nations across the globe that still share our Queen. They have decided against joining the anti-royal brigade and stuck with her, in doing so sticking with us. As Head of State of all our nations I can’t see why free movement and easier trade between our nations couldn’t be easily sorted out, if we needed migrants to prop up our economy if it did ‘shrink’ after we left the EU, rather than sourcing our migrant labour force from a pool of 500 million EU citizens and open the flood gates screaming ‘our economy is dying without you’, we should open the door to the other nations that we actually share a history and an institution with? That’s what Mr Farage was trying to get at, we actually have things in common and uphold some sort of common values and principles. Also the overall combined populations of these nations comes to about 75 million of which i’m sure about just over half are of working age or with skills actually needed in this country. I’d rather open the invitation to them as I feel there would be easier social cohesion and integration.

I understand the argument would arise that why are we leaving out the other colonial nations e.g India, USA, etc… and that it’s having double standards and having a selective and discriminating outlook on immigration. That is why I worded it in the manner I did, those that still share the Monarchy would be welcome, these other nations gained independence from the UK and the Queen and that is why the invitation would not be open to them. Plus taking into account that India has a population of 1 billion people and the USA is an immigrant nation I don’t think opening the borders to them would be advantageous for either countries.

I feel at least the idea should be floated in the public domain, even if it is totally lambasted and scrutinised to within an inch of it’s life by the liberal establishment, like everything else these days. At least the idea would be out there to gather momentum or even lead to other ideas. Everyone has their own views on things, if anything it would create discussion and dialogue, which is healthy to have. Especially on the touchy subject of immigration, which I feel is yet again being manipulated by the media in their favour, as they always seem to try and use it as a tool to suppress the voice and opinions of the right, who in a democratic society have just as much right to air their opinions even if the liberals disagree with it. For that exact reason it should definitely be put out there as you need a balance, there’s too much of a nanny culture and political correctness. It squeezes the life out of any rational debate on most subjects, as frequently “you can’t say that”. We can’t give in and just say “okay you’re right”. We have the right to stand up to these people as quite rightly we are all ‘equal’ as they often remind us. If we are equal then why is their opinion better than mine? Mine is equally as important. It’s like they’re saying they are MORE equal than us. Now that sounds horrendously like the slave trade, when they used to be classed 2/3 of a person. One set of people can’t be more equal than another. I read an interesting quote recently by Huey Long (often misquoted as by Churchill) he said “When Fascism comes to America, it will (be in the name of/come under the guise of/be called) anti-Fascism!“. It all starts to sound a bit of a coincidence. I understand obviously we aren’t in America, yet the same thing could apply to England right now. I’ve encountered it many times whilst trying to speak out in favour of traditional sentiments and conservative ways of looking at the world and any time you put it across you are shouted down as a ‘racist/fascist’. So now I put this idea across of free movement between us and these 16 remaining sovereign nations and finally show that in the right format I’m actually FOR immigration. Obviously this all hinges on us leaving the EU though. I would very much like to hear what other British people think of this idea? As ever, thank you for reading!

The 16 remaining sovereign nations:

Canada

Australia

New Zealand

Papua New Guinea

Antigua & Barbuda

The Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Grenada

Jamaica

St Kitts & Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent & The Grenadines

Solomon Islands

Tuvalu