The author has deleted this message.
Hi Paul we pay so much because of the amount of corruption in the EU never since the mafia has their been so many cons
The author has deleted this message.
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by paulob1
In reply to Paulob1
Just what possible threat of war has our membership of the EU prevented?
The only tangible military threat to western Europe since 1945 came from outside of Europe, from the old U.S.S.R. and the only feasible opposition to that threat was the USA as the major NATO partner(90% of armed forces in Europe were Americans).
The myth of an EU pan European peace, is just a form of propaganda that would have made that clever little Nazi Joseph Goebbels proud , as would the deceptive claims that the EU is at all Democratic.
Only fools and lunatics lap up this rubbish, perhaps they should consult a mental health specialist or attend a course in actual reality.
This post was updated on .
If you wonder how Germany having been totally crushed in WWII was able to be the leading European economy for almost seven decades and be the nation in effective control of the EU then read this recently declassified US intelligence document;
"US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128
Enclosure No. 1 to despatch No. 19,489 of Nov. 27, 1944, from
the Embassy at London, England.
S E C R E T
ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2
7 November 1944
INTELLIGENCE REPORT NO. EW-Pa 128
SUBJECT: Plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity after Germany’s defeat; flow of capital to neutral countries.
SOURCE: Agent of French Deuxieme Bureau, recommended by Commandant Zindel. This agent is regarded as reliable and has worked for the French on German problems since 1916. He was in close contact with the Germans, particularly industrialists, during the occupation of France and he visited Germany as late as August, 1944.
1. A meeting of the principal German industrialists with interests in France was held on August 10, 1944, in the Hotel Rotes Haus in Strasbourg, France, and attended by the informant indicated above as the source. Among those present were the following:
Dr. Scheid, who presided, holding the rank of S.S. Obergruppenfuhrer and Director of the Heche
(Hermandorff & Schonburg) Company
Dr. Kaspar, representing Krupp,
Dr. Tolle, representing Rochling,
Dr. Sinderen, representing Messerschmitt,
Drs. Kopp, Vier and Beerwanger, representing Rheinmetall,
Captain Haberkorn and Dr. Ruhe, representing Bussing
Drs. Ellenmayer and Kardos, representing Volkswagenwerk
Engineers Drose, Yanchew and Koppshem, representing
various factories in Posen, Poland (Drose, Yanchew and Co., Brown-Boveri, Herkuleswerke, Buschwerke,
Captain Dornbuach, head of the Industrial Inspection Section at Posen
Dr. Meyer, an official of the German Naval Ministry in Paris
Dr. Strossner, of the Ministry of Armament, Paris.
2. Dr. Scheid stated that all industrial material in France was to be evacuated to Germany immediately. The battle of France was lost for Germany and now the defense of the Siegried Line was the main problem. From now on also German industry must realize that the war cannot be won and that it must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.
Each industrialist must make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually
and without attracting any suspicion. Moreover, the ground would have to be laid on the financial level for borrowing considerable sums from foreign countries after the war. As examples of the kind of penetration which had been most useful in the past, Dr. Scheid cited the fact that patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc., New York, and the Krupp company of Germany jointly and that the U.S.
Steel Corporation, Carnegie Illinois, American Steel and Wire,and national Tube, etc. were thereby under an obligation to work with the Krupp concern. He also cited the Zeiss Company, the Leisa Company and the Hamburg-American Line as firms which had been especially effective in protecting German interests abroad and gave their New York addresses to the industrialists at this meeting.
3. Following this meeting a smaller one was held presided over by Dr. Bosse of the German Armaments Ministry and attended only by representatives of Hecho, Krupp and Rochling.
At this second meeting it was stated that the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was practically lost but that it would continue until a guarantee of the unity of Germany could be obtained.
German industrialists must, it was said, through their exports increase the strength of Germany. They must also prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party which would be forced to go underground as Maquis (in Gebirgaverteidigungastellengehen). From now on the government would allocate large sums to industrialists so that each could establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the Party so that a strong German Empire can be created after the defeat.
It is also immediately required that the large factories in Germany create small technical offices or research bureaus which would be absolutely independent and have no known connection
with the factory. These bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons as well as documents which they need to continue their research and which must not be allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy.
These offices are to be established in large cities where they can be most successfully hidden as well as in little villages near sources of hydro-electric power where they can pretend to be studying the development of water resources.
The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party.
Each office will have a liaison agent with the Party. As soon as the Party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany the industrialists will be paid for their effort and cooperation by concessions and orders.
4. These meetings seem to indicate that the prohibition against the export of capital which was rigorously enforced until now has been completely withdrawn and replaced by a new Nazi policy whereby industrialists with government assistance will export as much of their capital as possible.
Previously exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence. Now the Nazi party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time to advance the party’s plans for its post-war operation.
This freedom given to the industrialists further cements their relations with the Party by giving them a measure of protection.
5. The German industrialists are not only buying agricultural property in Germany but are placing their funds abroad, particularly in neutral countries. Two main banks through which this export of capital operates are the Basler Handelsbank and the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt of Zurich. Also there are a number of agencies in Switzerland which for a 5 percent commission buy property in Switzerland, using a
6. After the defeat of Germany the Nazi Party recognizes that certain of its best known leaders will be condemned as war criminals. However, in cooperation with the industrialists it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important members in positions with various German factories as technical experts or members of its research and designing offices.
For the A.C. of S., G-2.
WALTER K. SCHWINN
G-2, Economic Section
MELVIN M. FAGEN
Same as EW-Pa 1,
U.S. Political Adviser, SHAEF
British Political Adviser, SHAEF"
In reply to this post by June Hendra
It's about time the UK decided if it is in or out of the EU. If your in then convert to the euro currency and abide by all the rules and regulations laid down by the elected council on a majority vote. If your out then please stop attending EU conferences using the veto at will and leave us to govern ourselves. We dont need the UK to advise us on matters of internal EU concerns and after spending taxpayers money to bail out the banking system whilst still giving bosses a huge bonus while the working public are struggling to get by is a joke. Please do us a favour and get out of our affairs, concentrate on the Falkland Islands and getting UK troops out of Afganistan.
Spanish ex pats, you said
"It's about time the UK decided if it is in or out of the EU. If your in then convert to the euro currency and abide by all the rules and regulations laid down by the elected council on a majority vote. If your out then please stop attending EU conferences using the veto at will and leave us to govern ourselves. We dont need the UK to advise us on matters of internal EU concerns and after spending taxpayers money to bail out the banking system whilst still giving bosses a huge bonus while the working public are struggling to get by is a joke. Please do us a favour and get out of our affairs, concentrate on the Falkland Islands and getting UK troops out of Afganistan."
1, It's about time the UK decided if it is in or out of the EU I totally agree, lets have a referendum!
2, If your in then convert to the euro currency and abide by all the rules and regulations laid down by the elected council on a majority vote., firstly why would any one with a modicum of intellect want io join a failed currency that will ultimately bring ruin to all the stupid nations of the euro zone. Secondly the rules and regulations were in fact laid down in the first place for the benefit of one nation, Germany(view the evidence for this in the recently declassified US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 dated November 1944).
The council you refer to is I assume the European Commission which is not an elected body it is in fact appointed and cannot be deselected by the voters of the EU.
3, The UK veto is designed to prevent the EU from endangering the UK economy and to protect the sovereign rights of the British people. As a spin off the use of the UK veto is a force for good because new treaties that would damage economic progress cannot be enforced without the consent of all 27 EU states.
4, As to the Falkland Islands and Afganistan, If you are an English Ex Pat living in Spain you are a twat, If your a Spaniard living in the UK, Vete a la mierda a España que cara de coño.
Well said John K....
I agree, The EU is hardly a model of democracy, accountability and about rigidly sticking to the rules. It is an unelected, bloated, tyrannical, faceless institution that is just a big boys club for France and Germany (mainly Germany). The EU can't afford for the UK to leave it and Germany knows that. Spain and Italy are of no real use as are expats that moan about the UK spending money bailing out banks. It's the fact that the EU will not allow the ECB to do the same that the markets are panicking. How much money do you think Spain uses up?? And the EU has bailed out whole countries (one which might be Spain soon) so I don;'t think you will be very comfortable over there when the stuff hits the fan....
Cameron's Veto has now been widely admired and people in France and other nations are thinking along the same lines, that enough is enough. That little prat Sarkozy will be out soon anyway.
The EU/Euro zone has never stuck to the rules from the beginning. It is a pointless vanity project. One of the original principles was that the EU would not support/bail out the indebtedness of member nations ......that rule lasted 5 minutes! The only idiots that do stick to the rules are us in the UK....
Couldn't agree with you more, which was why China refused to support the European Monetary Fund (ECB) - they want a return for their investment, rather than throwing it into a bottomless pit. It is the sheer weakness over the tenability of the Euro and the seemingly intractable pegging of the Swiss Franc to the same, which has resulted, along with Osborne's relaxing of restrictions in the City, in Sterling benefiting temporarily as a result, admitting monies which might otherwise have found their way into Swiss Banks, where increased regulations have deterred would-be investors. However, if internal unrest emerges, such as the threatened boycotting of the Olympics, that position could swiftly change.
The EU has a wide policy agenda designed to "fight climate change". That raises a number of questions.
Is it necessary?
Will it work?
Are we approaching it in the most cost-effective way?
The cost of the EU programme is a subject for debate, but the switch to "a low-carbon economy" will certainly cost hundreds of billions, and probably trillions of Euros.
If the answers to the questions above are "no", then we are wasting the money.
If the answer even to just one of the questions is "no", then we are wasting all or part of the money.
The question whether human activity and CO2 emissions are driving serious or catastrophic climate change remains hotly disputed.
Contrary to Al Gore's script, the scientific proof is not established. Many thousands of qualified scientists take a contrary view, including a significant number who are or have been panellists and reviewers for IPCC studies. Some argue that if a risk exists, we should take action to mitigate it -- the "Precautionary Principle".
Yet despite the "Stern Review", most serious economic studies of climate mitigation suggest that costs greatly exceed potential benefits.
Even the British government's first impact assessment of its Climate Act showed a net deficit, and had to be hastily fudged.
The approach of Lord Lawson in his book "An Appeal to Reason" is that we should undertake adaptation, as and when required, and only if needed, rather than to incur eye-watering up-front costs, on a globally unprecedented scale, for mitigation efforts which may not be needed and may not work.
So, will it work?
The UK produces only around 2% of global emissions, so UK action would at best be trivial. Taking Europe as a whole. Its efforts will be quickly negated by rapid economic and industrial growth in the BRICS.
Green campaigners laud China's commitment to green technology, yet China is building a new coal-fired power station every week, with India not far behind.
The EU aims to lead the world, yet no one is following. European industry takes a vast hit on energy costs, but CO2 levels continue to rise.
Finally, do we have the most cost effective approach?
Let's assume that we want to reduce CO2 emissions despite the disputed science, we should therefore be looking for the lowest cost-per-ton reductions, so as to reach our objectives with least damage to our nations competitiveness.
Low-cost ways of reducing CO2 emissions might include building nuclear power stations (effectively a zero-cost option, since electricity from nuclear is competitive with other mainstream technologies).
We might switch from coal to gas.
We might focus on energy efficiency.
For example, the EU's exhaust emissions regulations on automobiles are estimated to cost around €250 per ton of CO2 saved, while insulating buildings delivers a cost of €10 to 20 per ton.
The Commission has decided on the most expensive approach imaginable. It has mandated highly challenging targets for re-newable’s, like wind and solar power. These produce low effiency/high-cost electricity. Even then, published cost estimates generally do not include the high cost of essential back-up energy sources..
Unpredictable and intermittent technologies like wind require instantly-available back-up, which almost inevitably means gas. But energy produced from gas which is run intermittently is inefficient, driving up both costs and emissions.
On some estimates, the package of wind-plus-gas may produce no CO2 savings at all, since we would have to pay twice-over for generating capacity -- once for wind, again for the gas. Better to build gas, and forget the wind altogether.
The remaining green argument is that fossil fuel prices are rising because gas powered energy depends on imports.
Perhaps we should look at the USA, where shale gas reserves are estimated to have longevity of up to 500 years.
America is looking forward to a new industrial renaissance based on cheap, indigenous gas.
Yet we in Europe are driving industry away with massive energy and carbon taxes. The EU seems to have an economic death-wish.
I live in Northampton, we have a standing population of 210,000 of which 104907 are of working age, native JSA claimants= 5700, if the EU workers who have travelled to Northampton had stayed in their home country's that JSA figure would be considerably lower
Northampton has attracted a large number of overseas workers, particularly from Eastern Europe. Most recent data shows that in the three months between October and December 2009, there were 585 new worker registrations in Northampton. the second highest migration rate in the country. These migrants also brought 115 dependents, 39% of whom were aged under 17 years. This dispels they myth that Eastern Europeans stopped coming to work in the UK because of the Credit Crunch, so are still taking employment traditionally taken by the young unskilled so fuelling youth unemployment.
Since 2009 the EU and non EU migrants has increased exponentially in Northampton and it is feasible that if they had not migrated here, unemployment would have been irradicated completly and this would have had the effect of driving up average per capita wages in every area of employment because available job vacancies would have outstripped the supply of available employees.
Perhaps someone could answer this question.... ???
Do we have a set of accounts for our involvement in the European Union ?
It would be nice to see not only where our money goes, but where the rest of the money goes from each member state.
Simple really !!!
Apparently The European Social Fund has released figures that showed the EU has spent £144million on British prisoners – but nothing on victims of crime.
The European Social Fund (ESF) forks out huge sums of taxpayer-funded cash to help criminals improve their self-esteem and support them in finding a job.
One project got £110million, making it the biggest single social fund project in Europe.
Between 2009-14, £144million will be spent on criminals, according to details uncovered by Tory MP Priti Patel. She said: “Victims are being sidelined. A small fraction of this could do an enormous amount to help charities that support victims and their families.”
Furious UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said: “The EU can waste millions on making criminals feel better about themselves. A bit more money spent on making them fear detection, conviction and punishment would be better.”
The Ministry of Justice admitted "No ESF money had been spent on crime victims".
A spokesman for the ESF said: “The money was specifically to help former offenders to find work – a crucial factor in preventing reoffending.”
The debate must surely be to find a way to ease the intolerable burdens of debt that have been unleashed on our society thanks to the blinkered myopic vision of the likes of Blair, Brown and Bush in particular - (I still think they should be called to account for their actions). Stopping pointless wars and finding a solution with cheap, affordable energy and resolving the debt mountains have to be a world number one priority if all of the other ills of society have a hope of being tackled. America is enjoying a brief respite thanks to Obama's canny move of approaching China concerning US debt to that country. He argued that calling in US short term would result in a financial crisis which would dwarf 2007/8. China understood the argument, and extended the US debt long-term. Europe tried the same thing but was rebuffed, and that for me, spelt end of the Euro and the European Union. We need to get real! Debt is debt, and apart from Germany, Europe is riddled with it and unless there is a worldwide moratorium on the debt crisis (following Hadrian's model) plaguing our world in the very near future, the Titanic scenario is very real indeed. Al-Qaeda is no longer welcome in Asia. The theatre has moved to Africa, where impoverished people are being coverted to its vile bile. As always, we are two steps behind here and appear to be functioning on empty!
In November 2011 Roger Helmer MEP (Con) announced his intention to resign. There is within the conservative party an established protocol for succession when an MEP resigns that means the candidate who came second to the existing MEP steps up and takes over from the outgoing MEP to maintain political continuity.
Roger Helmer said; “I have always argued that a parliamentarian who finds himself no longer able to support the Party should stand aside in favour of another Conservative, and I have roundly criticised former colleagues who failed to do so, like Bill Newton Dunn and Edward McMillan Scott. But in this case, as you will be aware, I sought in good faith to do the honourable thing, and to resign in favour of the next-in-line Conservative, Rupert Matthews. Indeed in October I announced my intention to resign at the end of 2011. But that plan was frustrated by the deliberate obstinacy and recalcitrance of the Party Chairman.
I wrote to Baroness Varsi in early January saying that I would not resign without a clear undertaking on the succession issue. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received. In these circumstances I believe that I have fulfilled my obligation to the Party, so far as I am able, and I therefore withdraw my offer to resign. I had made it clear to Baroness Varsi that I would not allow the stand-off to continue indefinitely, so I will now plan to fulfil my current term until 2014.”
Roger Helmer MEP has now resigned from the Conservative Party because he could reconcile his Eurosceptic views with those of the UK Government in relation to the EU, and has joined U.K.I.P. for the remaining term of his tenure as an MEP.
I'll tell you this, John, right now Brigid and I are severely tempted to follow suit!
The author has deleted this message.
My father who came from a poor mining background was a staunch laborite, my own opinions were somewhat further to the right of politics so I naturally drifted away from my fathers political views.
I have always seen Labour as a Party whose dogma is designed to establish a level playing field in society where everyone is equal, unfortunately not everyone is equal and this often attempted idyll has a negative effect of lowering the level at which everyone finds themselves, thus smothering individuality and enterprise in the cause of supposed egalitarianism.
The EU is essentially a socialist endeavour and like all such endeavours before it. is inevitably doomed to fail.
UKIP is for me true British Conservatism in that its policies are constructed to put our country and our people first.
In reply to this post by Peter. C
Do you know, Peter, I also voted for Blair - once. So disillusioned was I with the Tories post Thatcher - I wasn't that crazy about her either, but at least she was dominant in European matters and remained fiercely British. Can you imagine her kowtowing to the US over Tappin, after her own experience of their neutrality over the Falklands? Americans are notoriously neutral when it suits them, and two World Wars are witness to that! I too am extremely close to voting UKIP next time round. As for the Labour Party UK, it lost its cred under Blair, and Brown was on his own planet, and it certainly wasn't Earth!
Reports are coming in that the little French rat Sarkozy is mooting that France may abandon the Shengen agreement in order to restrict excessive numbers of African migrants that are undermining the French economy, obviously political rhetoric to gain support from the growing right wing in French politics.
However Sarkozy is well behind in th pre-elecection polls and he deperately wants to hang on to power, so who knows, but it could cause a huge skism in the Franco/German entent cordial if Frau Merkel gets her nickers in a twist.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|