Liberal Democrat Manifesto

This is the first of the run throughs of manifestos that I am collating for the average Joe. As always I will do so by giving as much background information as possible without being clunky. I want to give you guys a fair chance at making your own minds up. Also I will rate the manifesto, this is marked out of a few points. Fresh original ideas, practicality and realistic pledges, being financially viable and finally whether they make sense! I’ll try not to be too boring and overbearing.

In the interest of being neutral and as impartial as possible (I will try but I will call out bullshit) I decided to start with the Lib Dems manifesto. What I expect is some good social policies, maybe unrealistic and non economically sound proposals and lots of ‘progressive’ policies for the virtue signaling brigade. That being said we shall see what they have in store.

First up is the obvious. STOP BREXIT. It does exactly what it says on the tin. Whilst at least they have the bollocks to be openly Remain and actually have a stand point (just look at the shambles from Labour flip flopping trying to gain Leave and Remain voters); they’re going against the biggest democratic mandate in this country’s history. If they were to get in (unlikely) then it would be a big kick in the dick for democracy and ordinary voters up and down the country. It would cause a big disaffection with politics and is uncertain what lengths the public would go to, to reassert themselves over the ‘ruling class’. This will win them the most votes but at the very heart of it, is a minority stand point and will more than likely just split the Labour vote. They say they will use the £50bn to go into public services and tackling inequality. Big blanket term and doesn’t actually explain how they will tackle it and how they will funnel the resources to fight this inequality. So not only financially vague but wholly irresponsible. Bad shout. Also I have a hard time believing this, when I still remember Nick Clegg being one of the only leaders wanting the referendum in the first place. As usual Lib Dems willing to whore themselves out to get any semblance of power/votes.

Now we got Brexit out of the way we can get onto the economy, as i’m sure you’re sick of hearing about Brexit! Especially as it’s other key policies that shape a government and who actually gets things done.

Equal opportunities between cities.

The good points: They promise to continue with the Northern Powerhouse and the Midlands Engine, so funding to these areas will continue, which I think is brilliant. For us to continue to grow as a country, we can’t just rely on the financial centre in the South East. Whilst it’s a great economic hub and creates enormous wealth for the country, I think that it’s only fair we use that wealth to pull up our brethren in the north. Investment into some big northern cities would be advantageous to us all, eventually I believe we’ll start to see ‘clean cities’ completely run on renewable energy. Slick, clean, classy modern cities is what we should expect from the future. Not that it will happen but we can dream, eh?

The bad point: You can’t please everyone. If you were to invest in Manchester and Birmingham, then Leeds and Newcastle would get jealous and possibly feel left behind. It’s a balancing act but a step in the right direction.

They plan to incorporate the British Business Bank more into the economy to help with small and medium sized businesses. Good point: They say they’ll work with normal banks to help as well. Encouraging small businesses is great as they make up a large part of the sector and creates aspirations for the normal person to one day own their own business.

Bad point: No one can trust the banks, they’re in it for themselves and will surely be out to make lots of money out of people. The only issue with pushing for lots of small and medium sized businesses is you can over saturate the market. Not only this but you can see irresponsible lending from the banks to people they know can’t pay it back. It could be businesses built on good ideas but not a solid enough business plan, leading to failure and loss of money. Yet again it’s trying to find a balance between responsible lending and pushing for a thriving small business ethos.

Upgrading the tourism sector and creating a new department in government to reflect this is a bad point, no good points. It’s using up money to create another level of bureaucracy we don’t need but will ultimately end up paying for. Whilst it’s good they’re trying to support areas that depend on tourism for their income, we would end up paying more for someone (Minister for Tourism) that doesn’t need to be there and all their staff and expenses, than actually trying to help out the tourism sector! Think i’ll pass.

House building targets are yet again a necessary evil that will never be met. I understand all major parties have to put it in there but we all know that there’s not much that can be done to get these houses built. We shouldn’t have to give up green belt land. This country is too densely populated as it is and we shouldn’t ruin the beauty of this country to try and prop up an unsustainable population. If you’re lucky enough to live in the countryside then you shouldn’t have to be concreted over. It’s the only irony of these parties that scream about the ‘climate emergency’ but want to wipe out nice green areas to accommodate a rising population. Let’s try to steer away from who is encompassed in that term population for now, otherwise I will turn wildly off topic as usual!

Investment in public transport – Good point: Public transport has been slightly neglected and it would be good to see any increase in spending for this sector. They have also said they want to make all trains ultra low emissions by 2035 (electric or hydrogen) which is commendable.

Bad point: They want to continue with HS2. Which was a good idea but is impractical, impossible to implement and is rising in costs by the day. Needs chopping. Also whilst I think it’s great to make the trains electric or hydrogen by 2035, it doesn’t say how much this will cost or how they will pay for it! My thoughts are, it will be a huge cost and would more than likely come out of an excessive borrowing budget, fiscally unsound.

Rolling out fibre optic broadband across the UK is unrealistic and costly. If you want it then pay for it, I have to and so should you. I understand they want to connect rural areas but BT are already rolling out superfast broadband across the UK already and it only effects their customers not the taxpayer. Yes they’re doing it in stages and it seems like an eternity (I had to wait 5 years for it to come to my area, suffering with excruciatingly slow broadband in the meantime) but we just have to be patient. We want too much given to us on a plate nowadays. I won’t mince my words, the internet is not a basic human right. I hate using the term but there are places around the world without the internet or even worse censored internet and surveilled upon. There are more important things to focus our energy and money on. Next.

Taxation – Good points: None.

Bad points: Yet again they plan to go after the giant corporations. This plan will not work. They will simply relocate out of the country which we don’t want. Could you imagine a mass exodus of all the big companies to our main competitors in Europe, absolute disasterclass. They want to increase corporation tax to 20% which was lowered (to 17%) by the Tories to encourage business and create wealth, because hey money doesn’t grow on trees! They also want HMRC to employ more staff to go after the big businesses but when the big businesses leave, they will turn onto the normal taxpayer to fund all these policies and they will have a bigger workforce to chase normal people down. Not a good time for PAYE workers who do their own tax returns or small business owners, the people they’re trying to ‘help out’.

Promoting wellbeing – Good points: This is a subject close to my heart so I back this. Although the way in which they’re going about it is typically political. Enter stage left, the new Minister for Wellbeing. Another unnecessary post created for the pure purpose of presenting to parliament every year on main measures of wellbeing and how government policies effect them. They could have done without this, however this post could be used as the new head of Mental Health services, not likely though so would be under bad points but i’ll keep it in good for now as it is very important. They also want to increase “access to high-quality mental health and other health services” which is good but they don’t explain how they will pay for it again.

Bad points: “Introduce wellbeing impact assessments for all government policies.” Says it all really. We won’t make the big decisions for the country that need to happen because they may negatively impact Dawn from Doncaster. When you make decisions at the top level there are always going to be winners and losers, you can’t please everybody.

I now move onto Education and skills.

Free childcare for 2-4 year olds and 9 month-2 year old 35 hours a week, 48 weeks a year free. Good points: Childcare is a huge issue in this country and this does take good steps towards addressing it. Me and my wife are going through this right now, as she’s just about getting ready to go back to work and it’s almost not worth her going back due to the astronomical costs. More help is needed from the government and they should be doing more to help families. There are areas that need serious shake ups, this is one of them.

Bad points: Yet again, giving away free things without accounting for the cost of it. That will cost a hell of a lot of money and there is only so much you can tax people to pay for things. The other side of the coin are the type of people that don’t have kids who i’ve heard before saying things like ‘if you can’t afford kids don’t have them’ or ‘I don’t want to pay for somebody else’s kids’. I feel these statements are unhelpful, as you do need to replenish the population so that we can grow the economy in the future and it saves you having to import labour and dilute the native population, which is unneeded and easily combatted by encouraging our own people to have children. This being said, people have the right to not want to pay for other’s children, if they’ve made the choice not to have them and their right should be protected.

Reverse cuts to school funding, allowing schools to employ an extra 20,000 teachers and reduce class sizes, restoring them to 2015 levels per pupil with an emergency cash injection. Good points: More teachers addresses the major problems we have in the teaching profession at present. I have put on here previously about the dwindling numbers of teaching staff, mainly down to the fact they can get paid better elsewhere for a less demanding job. Reducing class sizes increases the quality of learning for children and lessens the burden on teachers who have to usually contend with teaching a class of 30-35 children. It will also help especially in under funded inner city schools who need the cash injection to help with social mobility.

Bad point: It’s becoming boring but it’s not costed, however I will let this one slide as i’m sure everyone would be happier paying a tiny bit extra tax to fund this, as it is at crisis point and we can’t let down the next generation. I’m in agreement with this policy.

Introduce a ‘curriculum for life’, in all state-funded schools. This will include Personal, Social and Health Education, financial literacy, environmental awareness, first aid and emergency lifesaving skills, mental health education, citizenship and age-appropriate Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). Teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships, and issues surrounding explicit images and content will be included in RSE. Good points: Introducing financial literacy to the curriculum is a good step as it’s one thing that you actually need in life and are never taught! First aid and emergency life saving skills is also a nice touch, as it is a good thing to have skills wise and could spark an interest in caring for people or even lead to joining the NHS which we should encourage; as we shouldn’t have to rely on foreign workers to prop it up post Brexit. We will need to find the workers from somewhere, so recruiting from our own stock is the sensible option. Mental health education is a good step in making people aware of the issues we all face at some point in our lives. It can also help young people recognise the signs before they take hold which could potentially save lives.

Bad points: Environmental awareness is a tough one. If it is educational then great. If they try to push an agenda which you fear that the liberal leaning teaching profession would, then this could become one of those terrible ways of pushing unbalanced views on our children and they should be able to make their own mind up about this subject. Not have a certain version rammed down their throats. Age appropriate relationships and Sex education is another one i’m weary of under a Liberal administration. You fear they will push a weird progressive agenda onto impressionable kids and mess them up. It’s all age relative, if you’re teaching them when they’re say 15 years old about what to expect and what to watch out for (e.g older partners, grooming, etc…) then fine. If they’re 12 years old and they’re pushing to tell them having sex with one of these pansexual self identifying nutjobs then it’s wrong. You could warp the perceptions of an innocent child and potentially wreck their entire sexual life based on shaky foundations fed by a progressive fad of indecisive attention seekers. Which leads nicely onto LGBT+ relationships. The fact they added the + onto the end tells me it’s wrong, all wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, that should be touched upon in the standard sex education, obviously not in excessive detail. But to push across these views of Trans people to younger people is yet again dangerous. A lot of Trans people are mentally unstable and suffering from mental health issues that are not properly diagnosed and the fact it’s been thrust into the limelight and you hear these horror stories of parents pushing their own kids to transition into the opposite sex is abhorrent, it’s child abuse, pure and simple. If you accept this is normal and condone these actions, then you can’t be trusted to teach this subject to kids. End of.

Oppose any future expansion of grammar schools and devolve all capital funding for new school spaces to local authorities. Good points: They probably see it as ‘the same education’ for all, which is a nice idea to have but is unrealistic. By mixing all abilities you risk dumbing down the ultra clever ones, why sacrifice ones at a higher level for the benefit of a few slightly slower children? It’s the same reason you get put into ‘sets’ when it becomes serious (e.g GCSE’s).

Bad points: Opposing grammar schools has never made sense to me, ever since I learnt what they were. They increase the opportunities of kids that might not usually have the opportunity to have access to such a quality education. It increases social mobility exponentially and makes them aspire to be better than they normally would be. It also rewards being the best, the smartest and getting there by yourself. The only thing that could be changed, should be the stress surrounding the SATs test to prove you can get into these grammar schools. Kids shouldn’t be pushed by their parents to get in, the tests should be changed and there should be no indication the test is coming, also the normal grades should be taken into account of admission to grammar schools, as some children don’t perform well in one off situations.

Raise the starting salary for teachers to £30,000 and increase all teachers’ pay by at least three per cent per year throughout the parliament. Good point: I bought it up earlier, this would solve the issue of teachers leaving for better paid jobs, keeping good people with the skills needed to do the job. I’m behind giving teachers more.

Bad points: None really. Public services have needed a wage increase for a while.

Challenge gender stereotyping and early sexualisation, working with schools to promote positive body image and break down outdated perceptions of gender appropriateness of particular academic subjects. Good points: Positive body image is important to push, so many issues with self esteem are embedded in body image from an early age, kids can be mean and damaging to each other. In pushing this, you can free the child’s mind and push them to reach their potential unhindered by poor self esteem and confidence issues.

Bad points: Stop. You need help. Gender appropriation is a myth. Men and women can do anything they want today. We’ve had two female Prime Ministers now (no need to point out they’re both Tories, but I will, just for balance.) there is no ceiling, that is the very top. The only issue now is paying them the same amount as blokes for the same job. The only time I would disagree, is if they’re not as competent and vice versa, a woman should get paid more in bonuses if she’s outperforming her male colleague and is more effective in her role. New age feminists are pushing it too far, this is a fact not an opinion.

Reinstate maintenance grants for the poorest students, ensuring that living costs are not a barrier to disadvantaged young people studying at university. Good points: I received EMA when I was in sixth form, it was good and not too much money (think it was £30 a week) it really helped paying for public transport and things I needed for sixth form. As long as they don’t go silly and give them loads of money when they’re fiscally irresponsible, then i’m all for it.

Bad points: Can’t think of one.

I will move onto Health & Social care now.

Raise £7 billion a year additional revenue which will be ring-fenced to be spent only on NHS and social care services. This revenue will be generated from a 1p rise on the basic, higher and additional rates of Income Tax (this revenue will be neither levied nor spent in Scotland.) Good points: I think we can all agree this is okay and needed, from any party.

Bad points: None. They’ve actually costed a policy, hurrah. I jest.

Introduce a statutory independent budget monitoring body for health and care, similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility. This would report every three years on how much money the system needs to deliver safe and sustainable treatment and care, and how much is needed to meet the costs of projected increases in demand and any new initiatives – to ensure any changes in services are properly costed and affordable. Good points: None.

Bad points: Paying more people to tell you we need more money is counter productive and lazy. The government should have fiscal responsibility of the NHS and that shouldn’t change. You’re never going to have enough money to properly run the NHS, this does not help. Ridiculous policy.

Support the creation of a new Professional Body for Care Workers, to promote clear career pathways with ongoing training and development, and improved pay structures. Good points: Improving pay should encourage more workers, which we desperately need. Giving them the training they need to perform their duties is a good step to ensuring the right people are in the right role. Totally onboard.

Bad points: None.

There is a lot of noise but no real cutting edge policies concerning the NHS so I have skipped a fair amount, mainly for your benefit! Now onto Freedom, Rights and Equality.

Introduce an ‘X’ gender option on passports and extend equality law to cover gender identity and expression. Good points: None as proved in court not long ago.

Bad points: I think this matter is more to do with tracing people in and out of the country and becomes a matter more of national security, which should be paramount over what some perceive as their personal right. It is a sensible step by the government to fight this as it has gone on far enough. This movement are just trying to create more issues and is trying to frustrate the normal procedures in place that are there to safeguard us. I can’t take anymore of this attention seeking madness. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile, there’s no escaping your past. You were born a man/woman, if you decide you want to change then good for you but you can’t change the fact you were born a specific way and by extension try to rewrite history by projecting your fantasy onto others; It could also be used as a way for someone to go off the radar, there would be untold issues of trying to track people whose identity suddenly stops as they change not only their gender but their name. They could leave the country as Mark Johnson, have a sex change, come back and then apply for a passport as Mary Johnson without anyone knowing. What if he’d committed a crime, he gets off scott free. Although I expect nothing less from the Liberal Democrats so i’ll move on.

Increase statutory paternity leave from the current two weeks up to six weeks and ensure that parental leave is a day-one right, and address continuing inequalities faced by same-sex couples. Good points: Two weeks just isn’t enough, I know from experience. Couldn’t agree more, yet again more has to be done to sort out the system and how the roles (of fathers especially) have changed. I also think it should be staggered so that you can enjoy different stages of your babies development.

Bad points: None as it doesn’t need to be costed, due to it being paid for by the employer and god knows we all deserve more from them!

Provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK by resettling 10,000 vulnerable refugees each year and a further 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children from elsewhere in Europe over the next ten years, and expanding family reunion rights. Good points: None.

Bad points: There are many. Let’s start with the numbers. It’s excessive, it should all be done on a case by case basis. Refugee is a dirty word now, as it has been abused and distorted from it’s true definition. A real refugee now would be say for example, British passport holders in Hong Kong. They’re quite literally being beaten and locked up by the Chinese imposed regime. They’re political refugees that we have technically signed up to protect just over 20 years ago (1997). I don’t buy the whole refugee from the middle east thing anymore. They quite literally have to pass through dozens of safe countries to get here and try to gain asylum. That isn’t a refugee, that is an economic migrant. We have enough of those, get in line and fill out the necessary paperwork like EVERYBODY ELSE. We need to focus on migrants from all over the world and make it a fair playing field. Get the very best and brightest, it’s a privilege to come to this country, not a right. A refugee is someone fleeing war and is displaced and can no longer return due to fear of their safety. Why not go next door to Saudi Arabia, a very wealthy country and not too far from your home, meaning when you repatriate (which all refugees should) it isn’t a huge journey for you. Or go north to Russia one of the top three richest countries in the world. No that’s right, you’ll travel to gullible European countries trying to do the right thing to show they’re caring, as they’re too scared to be called racist. Sick of it.

Stop Brexit and save EU freedom of movement. This is getting comical now. Good points: None.

Bad points: You will still be able to freely travel throughout Europe. You just have to produce your passport at the border, much like everyone used to before the EU. Personally looking forward to getting lots of stamps in my passport to show where i’ve visited. How do you think American or Australian backpackers travel Europe? By law you are allowed 90 days free travel throughout the Schengen area and we will be entitled to the same rights. 90 days. Nearly three months. If you’re going to travel for more than three months, then you might need visas but if you’re planning a trip of that magnitude, then applying for visas is probably not going to be much different from planning a trip to the US or Asia? People are just lazy, there I said it. All this information is readily available. Please don’t buy into these scare stories, this is just another ploy from people with vested interests trying to make you believe things are changing and people don’t like change, so it must be bad right? For the love of god, just do some research.

Give 16- and 17-year olds the right to vote in elections and referendums. Good points: Yet again none.

Bad points: I do really wonder if they were on drugs when making some of these policies. I’ll break it down like this. We don’t trust people to legally drink until they’re 18 as they can’t be trusted. But they’re willing to let them have a say in changing the country based on people offering them free things. They’re literally deluded. You can’t even go to prison until you’re 18, you’re not even legally an adult. That’s where the line must be drawn. Just because you can change something, doesn’t mean you should. It’s another example of being patient, we expect instant gratification due to the advancement of technology and we want everything right here right now. This can’t be applied to voting, a certain degree of responsibility and thought is needed when making a choice that will effect the entire country for the next five years. Also by extension referendums! Jesus, don’t even get me started.

Extend the right to full participation in civic life, including the ability to stand for office or vote in UK referendums, Local Elections and General Elections, to all EU citizens who have lived in the UK for five years or more. Good points: None.

Bad points: This is irresponsible and unnecessary. You should only be allowed to stand for office and vote if you were born here. Before you think this is biased and ‘narrow minded’, my wife is an EU citizen and she agrees. She can still vote in Sweden and that is the way it should be. She’s a Swedish citizen and reserves the right to influence change in her own native land. The same should apply here. They’re basically trying to import votes, which is undemocratic and it stinks.

This last section is called Better Politics. I’m trying my hardest to stay focussed and unbiased but it’s oh so very hard.

Reform the House of Lords with a proper democratic mandate. Good points: The House of Lords is long overdue a reformation. They have proved this in the frustration of Brexit. There is no longer a reason they shouldn’t be an elected body. I think it should be split into industries, those that have served at the very top of their professions for a long time and are honoured by the Queen, should then be put forward for the public vote. Say for example you have top scientists honoured. You had a top physicist, chemist, biologist etc… They would be in the category of science, there would be a certain amount of seats reserved for this industry. You would then vote on the ones put forward. Same would apply for business, technology, sport, education, economy, etc…a broad range. We would then have actual law makers who have incredible experience in their field. I also think they should limit the amount of ex-politicians allowed in the chamber, as they usually get put in the Lords after being law makers for a certain amount of time or serving in a government. Due to the Commons having far greater powers and being able to push certain legislation thorough the Lords without scrutiny, why should they then be able to effect laws in the Lords? It should be decided on the number of votes in the general election and share of the vote. So for example, if the Brexit party got 8% of the vote but no seats, they’d be entitled to a set amount of Lords to be appointed to the chamber. Same would apply for the Greens who consistently get about 3-4% of the public vote and only ever one or none MPs. I think if the leader loses the election which they technically do most of the time, then that leader would be the one put forward to the Lords. Meaning they’re not put to waste and would push the losing parties to be more competitive and advance their younger members, meaning fresh young talent gets through quicker rather than parliament being a stuffy old person’s game as it is now. It would also be representative, as it would mean the Lords would have high end political figures who commanded a fair amount of votes to be made party leader, would then be able to represent the views of the party in the other chamber. The ruling party would get a fair share too due to their share of the vote, which doesn’t always equate to huge amounts of seats. Only difference is their leader would obviously be Prime Minister, so wouldn’t be able to sit in the Lords. So maybe the longest serving member who loses their seat in that election would be the highest ranking for the ruling party? There are many avenues to go down but this would be the most fair I think.

Ensure that a new Prime Minister, and their programme for government, must win a confidence vote of MPs. Just had to go through this without good or bad points as I think this is lazy. I think they miss the exact point of a general election here. In fact, this very election was called because it was no longer a majority government, minority governments can’t rule as nothing gets done (as we’ve seen recently).

Legislate to allow all-BAME and all-LGBT+ shortlists. Good points: Still on drugs I see.

Bad points: Shortlists are a very bad idea. Nothing is more demeaning to the people on these lists as they know they’re only there due to the colour of their skin or their sexuality. If you want a free and fair society like they say they want, you will let them all get there on their own merit, not a quota set to involve them. Just look at the Tories, they have a Home Secretary and Chancellor who are BAME. You don’t need to belittle these people to try and give them a voice, if they’re not good enough to get there in the first place, then they shouldn’t be there. Just look at Diane Abbott and David Lammy. Look at them. Listen to some of the ridiculous stuff that comes out of their mouths. Proof that just because you are from a different ethnicity, doesn’t mean you should be allowed near a position of power.

Expect the BBC both to provide impartial news and information, and to take a leading role in increasing media literacy and educating all generations in tackling the impact of fake news. Good points: They’ve got to be having a laugh.

Bad points: Everyone knows the BBC are so biased it hurts. They can’t hide it and haven’t been able to for years. Perfect example was last night’s Have I Got News For You. Was laughing a lot more than usual, you know why? Because during election season (the duration of an election campaign) they can’t be seen to be influencing the result so have to ridicule and satire everyone equally. I wish I was joking. There was the most amount of Corbyn and Labour bashing I’ve seen in ages. There was still the tired old Brexit jokes but at least the observational humour wasn’t entirely directed at Tories and Trump for once. Whilst it was enjoyable, it was actually quite sad to think that they only did it because they’re made too and not because it’s funny. That would be true impartiality. In regards to the fake news, yet again looking at people like Andrew Marr, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitlis you can see their bias in everything they do. The only true unbiased broadcaster is of course Andrew Neil, who goes after everyone equally as hard. The saddest thing about the abuse he gets is people actually try to paint him as biased, yet the one person in a bit of controversy is Boris as he’s ducking the interview. Surely then if Andrew was a ‘closet Tory’ as I’ve seen him labelled, why would a Tory PM be scared to do an interview with him? You watch all of his interviews and he gives everyone a hard time. Closest thing we have to Paxman. He was also the person who should have taken over Question Time. I don’t watch it anymore because it has descended in stature under Fiona’s stewardship. Unlike Dimmbleby who fairly put them in their place if they stepped out of line, she just squawks over them.

There is a section about Defence in which they commit to 2% of GDP under NATO rules and accept they need a nuclear deterrent. I didn’t feel the need to go into much detail as this has droned on for long enough!

There were a fair amount of good policies which slightly surprised me (maybe i’m going soft in my old age) but as usual the progressive dross shone through and they proved they’re still the Lib Dems!

Fresh original ideas: 3.5/5

Practicality and realistic pledges: 2/5

Financially viability: 1/5

Responsible and sensible pledges: 3/5

Total: 9.5 out of 20

It was ‘half good’. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough to win you an election. Considering they have approached the platform to try and win a ‘majority Liberal government’ (Jo Swinson’s own words), there isn’t enough in there to create the sing great enough to get a majority of seats. I do believe that taking the Remain stand point will garner a large section of Labour seats and a large share of their vote, as the only true Remain ‘voice’ it will probably only equate to about 30-35 seats in reality; due to our outdated First-past-the-post electoral system. It’s a massively improved effort and there are some genuinely good ideas in there. They should use this election as a spring board to continue growth, maybe introduce some slightly more conservative policies and edge towards the centre to garner support from Conservative swing voters. That’s where their strongest position has been (I believe they won around 50 seats when they last did this). The lasting thing this manifesto has imprinted on me was it’s length. It was awfully long and drawn out and would probably turn off your average voter who is not normally interested in politics. I had to condense a huge chunk of the manifesto down and only just managed to keep this entire post down to less than 6000 words. If you decide to do your own research (which I encourage) you will see what I mean and will fall asleep before finishing it.

I hope you found this helpful, interesting and insightful. Next up on the run throughs is Labour. Make a coffee and get comfy, i’m sure things will get a bit off topic! Thank you for reading but yet again I would like to push for you to read the manifestos or at least the summaries before casting your vote. The political landscape HAS changed and it does mean that you might not necessarily be aligned with a party as you once were. Especially if you’re a Labour voter. I’ll say no more!

 

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.

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.

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!

A Warning

I start by apologising for not posting in a while but I feel I can’t wait any longer for this to all unfold without warning people of what’s to come. I shall start with responding to people losing their heads over David Cameron calling refugees ‘a bunch of migrants’. Which isn’t actually too far from the truth. I have looked up the separate meanings for refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, and in actual fact the ones at Calais fall under the category of asylum seekers because in England a refugee status is only given to an asylum seeker once they’re granted asylum, which none of them have been. So don’t be so outraged at a slight slip of the tongue when you don’t even understand the meaning of the term refugee yourself. None of them have applied for asylum so technically they are just economic migrants, hence the slang term ‘migrants’ and why they aren’t being allowed to enter the country.

Thank god we cleared that up. The actual reason for this post is to warn people of the EU referendum vote. Now while i’m sure you all know my position on this, this is a different message. In the coming months (depending on the actual date of the referendum) the media will be saturated with the in and out campaigns. Unlimited amounts of EU money being thrown at trying to scaremonger the British public into staying. What I wanted to say is that at the heart of both the in and out campaigns will be politicians, I want to remind you to listen to NEITHER of the campaigns. Politicians have no place or say in this referendum as it is for the PUBLIC. So all I want you to do is turn off your TVs and the news and research the EU for yourself. All the information is readily available, if you choose that you think the EU is great and will save you then good for you i’m not going to argue with you. Don’t give in and listen to biased corporations like the BBC and the government who already sound like they are leaning towards an IN vote.

The only reason I feel the need to warn you is because I fear that with politicians at the heart of it, the referendum will lose meaning and power and be run by the people that held off on giving us the vote in the first place and are trying to manipulate the outcome by holding all their cards close to their chest.  Why do you think none of the top ministers have come out in support of either campaign yet? Other than the fact that they have been gagged by Cameron until the ‘renegotiation’ has concluded, and when it does conclude expect a snap referendum. So the actual date and narrative is already being skewed as Cameron leans towards ‘renegotiating a better deal and staying within a reformed EU’. In which case he has already omitted that he wants to stay, giving it a one sided undertone. What he doesn’t understand is that normal voters who don’t pay attention to politics or current affairs will hear a tiny bit and go ‘ohh I don’t understand all this EU malarky, that Cameron bloke is in power, he should know what’s right and he thinks we should leave.’

The problem with this being, that this is our only chance for a whole generation of getting out of the EU. If we fail and lose the vote to our own scaremongering about freedom of movement and immigrants, then we won’t get another chance to vote for another 20-30 years. Back in the first referendum (1975) the electorate were tricked into the EU in the first place by the wording of the question and haven’t been given the option to re-vote until now. What does that say about the people in power? 41 years of being stuck in this hell hole with no way out. Now I know peoples feelings about UKIP but you have them to thank for the massive pressure put on the government and the momentum and movement that has carried us to where we are today. Without them we wouldn’t have the vote, which is our democratic right. Something which the EU isn’t massive on as most of the highest positions in the EU and the European commission are held by unelected people. So the people running a Union of democratically elected MEPs from the member states aren’t elected, that makes no sense. Have you ever stopped to wonder who are these people, what are their intentions?

Similarily, big companies that operate in the UK are putting pressure on the government to stay inside the EU so that they aren’t hit with tariffs for importing or exporting goods. The In campaign is funded by companies like Goldman Sachs. I’ll tell you why because they have interests and connections in Portugal, Greece and Italy. For the last 10 years Goldman Sachs were responsible for hiding the trouble the Greek economy was in and almost caused it’s collapse. The former Italian Prime minister is an ‘international adviser’ for Goldman Sachs, the head of The European Central Bank is former managing director for Goldman Sachs International and the current Portuguese Secretary of State for the Prime Minister runs his own agency that controls structural reforms for the Portuguese government agreed by the European Commission, European Central Bank and the IMF. It all smells to high heaven, why is an American Investment bank meddling in the running of three EU nations? Because there is money to be had from the EU. Who pays the most into the EU through contributions I wonder…that would be the UK! Without us the EU will crumble as the monetary strain will be left at Germany & France’s doorstep. It’s no coincidence that the 3 nations I mentioned are all on the brink of collapse, and if we leave it will cause the domino effect of either, other EU nations economies collapsing or others leaving with us. As such the EU will never be the same again. Unelected people in the echelons of the EU and outsiders meddling in monetary affairs is just the tip of the iceberg with the EU and you wonder why I want to leave? All of these details will be glossed over and left out of any campaign or coverage I can assure you. That is why i’m warning you of what’s to come if we are to STAY in the EU.

The other side of the argument, that will come out from the SNP is that if we as a whole leave the EU then they will call for another Scottish referendum, putting unnecessary pressure on the UK to stay in due to their ulterior motives of angling for another referendum. Don’t get dragged in by it, they weren’t getting another referendum for a long time and now they are trying to hijack this opportunity for us to vote. They had their referendum now let us have ours without interference. Together we stand a chance of winning this referendum, don’t be divided by vicious separatists like the SNP. Scotland voted to stick with us, now we need you to stick by us so that we can get through this together. Even if you want Scotland to be independent, do you really want it independent but IN the EU? You will become a faceless state like the small eastern European states with no say and you will be dictated to by the EU with no choice in the matter. All you have to do is look how eastern Europe has been treated during the ‘refugee crisis’? Germany has stamped it’s authority all over Europe and pushed it’s own agendas without being opposed. You will be a part of that too. Stand with us and we can take this horrible organisation down, then once the EU is completely finished with if you still really wanted to go it alone then I wouldn’t stand in your way. Even though you would see what is possible when we work together.

That is why I think we should cut loose, why should we plough our money into the corrupt organisation when we can stand against all that is wrong in the world? I believe in democracy and I don’t think we ever signed up to being told what to do by people that aren’t democratically elected. Yes there will be fallout, that is to be expected but will it be as big as they will make out? More than likely not. Even if we were to leave, we activate a clause in the Lisbon Treaty that gives a schedule of around 2 full years before we can leave so that we can negotiate our own trade deals and make sure there is no sudden ‘jumping ship’ causing an economic downturn throughout the world. People saying you can’t negotiate trade deals in 2 years as a reason not to leave need their heads examining. If as a whole nation you can’t pool your resources and negotiate a whole host of trade deals with the outside world then I wonder what the government is even there for? The EU is pissed off that it won’t be getting a big chunk of the pie and that it will probably go to places like Brazil and China who are booming at the moment and are 2 of the biggest economic outputs in the world. Fear not we will still trade with the EU and everything will still be the same, we should take the old trade agreements that were in place before we joined the EEC back in 1975 and update the paperwork. That would save a whole lot of time by revising an already tried and tested agreement, rather than re-negotiating a whole new deal.

Lastly, I would just like to point out to the people saying the NHS will be destroyed without the freedom of movement between the EU states, it won’t. If we were to only let in ‘skilled migrants’ this would include doctors and nurses? As it is a skilled profession and if that’s what we were in need of then we would approve visas instantly? That is how a visa system works. We would just stem the flow of unskilled EU workers.

I implore you to see sense and research the EU before being brainwashed by the flood of In and Out campaigns saying we think this and we think that. We need to cut them out of this and make it about the people and the simple fact that the EU isn’t run properly and we shouldn’t be a part of it. If all the lefties that believe in democracy don’t join us on the right who feel the same, then we let them win and we’re stuck in this mess for the foreseeable future. If it’s one thing the British are good at, it’s standing up and defeating a common enemy.

Please share and spread the word.

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.