What Price Britain's Freedom?

We've heard a great deal lately about the expenses claimed by UKIP's representatives in the European Parliament, often as part of the general misinformation campaign being waged by Conservative Central Office, the Parliamentary Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Only last week we had scurrilous accusations being made in the European Parliament by a former member of UKIP, who rather than having the courage of her convictions and risk being sued, chose to hide behind foreign parliamentary privilege to publicise her unfounded allegations. And in addition to the outrageous personal charges being levied by a former colleague, with her own questionable "axe to grind" against Nigel Farage; and anyone else who she deems has done her wrong, we've even had the BBC trawling through its film archive to fish out a clip of Mr Farage, commenting on the potential value of the possible income that could and can be derived from European Parliamentary Expenses, equivalent it would seem to the salary of a Goldman Sachs employee!

 

Two million pounds screamed the headlines in one or two of the less reputable newspapers! Two million pounds over ten years, once you get past the outrage. Nigel Farage is thought to have earned two million pounds over a ten year period, in expenses and allowances, to help fund his Eurosceptic message in Britain and abroad, which if you work it out, comes to around £200,000 per year, not quite so impressive as the two million pound headline would first suggest is it? Mr Farage is said to be, not in the least bit apologetic about his claims; and whilst recognising the apparently huge sums of money involved, counters that he doesn't set the levels of expenses entitlement, plus a significant proportion of those monies go back to spreading the UKIP message at home and abroad.

 

Those things having been said, before critics and supporters choose to take a personal view on such matters, it is worth bearing several things in mind. Firstly, UKIP have never made any secret of their opposition to the European Union and everything that it represents, with its mantra of "ever closer union" and its aim of creating a federalised United States of Europe, an artificial political creation, where the sovereign nation state does not exist, as we recognise them today. This opposition to Europe is UKIP's USP, its Unique Selling Point, its brand if you will, so the people who vote for their representatives in the UK are not being in anyway misled over their primary motivations, or indeed what they stand for; that is, an end to Britain's membership of the current European Union. Being fundamentally opposed to the parliament that they have been elected to, by their British voters, UKIP representatives have two choices, either they attend the European Parliament, or they don't. Clearly, they could employ the same tactics as Sinn Fein representatives did in our own Westminster parliament, being elected to it, collecting the attached salaries for it, but never attending any sessions there. Alternatively, elected UKIP representatives could do what they've chosen to do, been elected to a foreign parliament, exploit the benefits of that membership, both as a form of financing their own party's work and utilising the public platform that it offers them, without facilitating the smooth running of that foreign parliamentary system. Were Euroscepticism more widely represented within the European Parliament, by larger numbers of likeminded MEP's, then no doubt UKIP could and would be more to stifle and hinder the business of the parliament in Brussels, but given that they and their continental colleagues are very much in a minority, there is only so much they can do in that respect.

 

Secondly, it is all very well for critics of UKIP to point out that the party's representatives have some of the worst attendance records in the European Parliament, which simply isn't true for all UKIP MEP's, but even if it were, why wouldn't they have? The entire raison d'etre of the party is a British withdrawal from the European Union and its parliament, not the complete destruction of the European project as a whole. The battleground for UKIP is not in Brussels, but in the towns, cities and villages of Britain, where British voters reside, not on the continent where the European fanatics live. UKIP's strategy is not to persuade Mr Barosso, or Frau Merkel that they're wrong, but to convince Mr and Mrs Average Britain that their country would be better off out of the EU, rather than better off in it. To make that case, the likes of Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall and other UKIP representatives need to spend as much time as possible in Britain, explaining to our home electorate, the benefits of withdrawal, as opposed to sitting in a European Parliament, which is not only dominated by foreign delegates, who have no love of Britain, but where the rubber stamping and cursory examination of highly intrusive rules and regulations has become almost routine. Given that most people, Eurosceptic and Europhile alike, recognise that the European Union as it stands is largely unreformable, there would be little point in any minor European party attempting to reform the undemocratic foreign body that now holds daily control over the lives of Britain's sixty-odd million citizens.

 

To put the amount of money reportedly claimed by Nigel Farage into some sort of perspective, over a typical decade, British MP's together are thought to have claimed nearly one billion in parliamentary expenses, around one hundred million pounds every year, not for party funds, not to try and rescue the country from an undemocratic monolithic structure like the EU, but for duck houses, for mortgages, for expensive holidays, for first class air travel, to employ their wives, their daughters, their sons, their boyfriends.

 

Recently, someone suggested that British MP's probably work around 96 hours per week, what with their parliamentary duties and constituency work. Contrast that with Nigel Farage and other UKIP MEP's, who not only attend the European Parliament as delegates, tend to their constituent's needs, but also travel the length and breadth of the UK to spread the message of "better off out". Nigel Farage has been not only been conducting his "Common Sense" tour of Britain, speaking to thousands upon thousands of British citizens, but has also met virtually all of his media commitments, as is the demand when you become known as the public face of UKIP. For anyone to suggest that he's not worth his monthly salary is completely fatuous, if one considers that he probably works harder and longer hours than most of his UK counterparts; and achieves a great deal more for the British people. Does anyone imagine that Europe, Immigration, Employment, Health Services and Education would be the red hot topics of the day, were it not for the campaign being waged by UKIP? Does anyone really think that the offer of a European Referendum would have been put on the table by David Cameron, were it not for the presence of UKIP?

 

There is no doubt that £200,000 per year is a great deal of money for anyone, even if you're a Goldman Sachs worker, but such monies have to be put into perspective. The disgraced and soon to be former Labour MP, Eric Joyce, reportedly claimed around £187,000 in expenses from the British taxpayer; and I wonder if people would see him as being as pivotal to the great debates of our time, as Nigel Farage has been? Under Farage's leadership and in unison with his UKIP colleagues, the party has gone from 3.5% in the public opinion polls to around 15-20%; and in many cases is leading the debate, not just participating in them as a minor political player. I wonder how many British voters have a local MP or MEP who is such a recognisable and influential on the national and international stage? Yet they're still paying around £100,000 per year to pay for their MP's anonymity and inaction. Is that better value for money than the reputed £200,000 per year being claimed by Nigel Farage? I doubt it!

 

Just how much is Britain's sovereign independence worth in cold hard cash? How much are the British people prepared to pay to have full unfettered control over our trade, our economy, our national borders, our immigration, our housing, our jobs, our benefit systems, or armed forces and all those other so-called competencies that Europe now holds sway over? Obviously for some people, those national controls aren't worth a penny; and they're content to hand them over to Brussels come what may, but for others they're absolutely priceless and if that means paying Nigel Farage and his colleagues hundreds of thousands of pounds, of what is after all, our own money, then its a price well worth paying!

I Wonder What Would Happen If.....?

I've probably mentioned on this blog before that when it comes to economics I'm no expert, but fortunately other people are, which is just as well, when I began wondering just how other countries go about tackling their own national unemployment problems. After all, Britain has a problem with unemployment, but in comparison to the likes of Greece, Spain, Italy, etc. our problems are minor one, although the fact that we still retain our own national currency, whereas they do not, possibly plays a significant part in explaining the often vast differences.

 

Anyhow, from the limited amount of reading I was able to do on the subject, some experts believe that there are a limited number of ways to help reduce unemployment within a modern economy, through public spending, through interest rates, or through taxation, although one would also assume that you could also affect employment through a combination of these three measures.

 

Public spending is thought to be the most direct method of affecting employment, whether through the introduction of public works projects, through education, or through direct welfare payments, which is said to be the quickest of the alternatives, simply because it's the easiest and fastest to set up and disperse to the end recipients. Studies in America suggest that those in receipt of welfare typically spend their entire incomes on basic commodities, such as food, heat, light and housing, making little if any provision for savings, or God forbid paying down any other existing debts. The thinking goes that because these consumers spend virtually every penny they have, then that is good for retailers and manufacturers, who sell more and produce more, thereby requiring more staff to sell and produce more products; which therefore increases the country's overall tax yield and also increases overall employment.

 

In a similar fashion, but over a much longer time period, public works projects, like schools, roads, municipal buildings, housing, etc. also help distribute wealth around the economy and reduces overall unemployment. However, more studies in the USA seem to indicate that schools actually create more jobs for each billion dollars invested in them, simply because, as well as directly employing teachers, cleaners, builders, electricians, etc. in building the school, college or university, there is the added bonus of the additional educational benefit that these places of learning have on the pupils who attend them, creating smarter, more skilful and better qualified future workers for the nation. Of course, the only major downsides to this sort of public expenditure is the length of time that they take to come to fruition; and the sometimes high costs of financing them, which has to be done at the cost of a much higher public spending deficit; and the costs of supporting it with interest payments. Interestingly, the same American studies, also concluded that the worst area of public spending for actual job creation was within the defence industries, where basic project costs and specialist salaries tended to make such spending excessively high.

 

The third area of financial control that governments can use to try and reduce unemployment is through the tax system, with lower personal, corporation and unemployment taxes being used to promote personal spending. More money in your pocket usually means more money to spend on other things, including holidays, consumer products, home improvements and the little luxuries in life, which suitably boosted by this additional consumerism should lead to greater economic activity overall, higher employment and increased tax yields, all of which are once again good for the country as a whole.

 

As has been mentioned though, the one big financial downside to such generous government spending, such as public works projects, tax cuts and benefit increases, is that the money to pay for them has to be borrowed and repaid over time; and clearly the trick is to pay down these debts, whilst at the same time benefiting from the additional jobs and economic activity that the government investment has bought and paid for.

 

Now, as I say (again) I'm not expert on these things, but it seems to me that just as you can have two entirely different approaches to personal debt, so you can have two entirely different approaches to national debt. The first approach, is don't have any debt, or if you have to borrow at all, do so for the shortest amount of time possible, before repaying it in full. That's a bit like those people who own Credit Cards, but make sure to pay the full balance off at the end of every month, so that there's no discernible debt to speak of. The second approach, is to have debt, but keep it manageable, accepting that you're paying a little bit of interest, but that's a price worth paying for having the funds you want, when you want them. That's a bit like the Credit Card holder who only pays the minimum, or a little bit more every month, so that they pay their debts down over a period of time, not straight away.

 

For me, that's how our present coalition government are behaving, making a choice between paying off the Credit Card as quickly as possible; and in doing so, damaging the economy, as opposed to paying the debts off over time and helping the economy to recover in its own time. Clearly, even for a five year fixed term government, there will be instinctive need to clear as much of the country's debt as possible, before going to the country with the claim that they've rescued the economy from near ruination, which was never the case to begin with. In over 300 years of borrowing, the British government has never failed to repay its debts, or meet its international obligations and it was unlikely that this was ever likely to be the case following the last Labour government's period of office. In fact, rather than the coalition's austerity measures being driven entirely by any sort of financial imperative, one might suggest that they were mostly driven by political dogma and ideology, the Coalition choosing to pay off the nation's Credit Card at the end of the month, rather than defer some of the pain and pay a little more than the minimal amount, just over a much longer period of time. Ironically perhaps, according to most reports, despite all of their posturing and prevaricating over the country's enormous debts, the coalition's austerity measures that have caused so much pain to so many people, have achieved very little in real terms, as our current financial deficit remains as high as it was nearly four years ago, when they first entered office.

 

Although much of the government's money comes from the people of the UK through taxation, a significant amount of their revenue also comes from borrowing, ostensibly in the form of securities, bonds and bills. Some of these government backed bonds or gilts can be redeemed in as short a time as 0 to 7 years, while others can be redeemed after 7 to 15 years and others again only after 15 years, all of them with the appropriate amount of interest being levied on top. The point being that government borrowing is certainly not conducted in 5 year blocks, whereas this current administration seem bound and determined to try and squeeze years of borrowing into an almost impossible timescale, to the extent that they're likely to irreparably damage the entire economy for the sake of their own ideological dogma.

 

Going back to the point that some American studies have suggested that increased welfare payments can help reduce unemployment by creating an increased demand for products and services that then create a need for more employees, thus reducing unemployment. One of the first acts of the coalition was to savagely downsize the public sector workforce in the UK, the very sort of local people who would have spent their salaries locally; and the they wonder why local economies suddenly fail. Without those hundreds or thousands of reasonably well paid workers, local businesses and local employees begin to feel the effects of a much diminished local economy, to the extent that businesses close, people are made redundant and far less tax is generated and raised. I know it might seem like a fairly simple analogy, but if you think of the economy as a balloon; and the government decides to arbitrarily to let some of the air out, then commonsense would suggest that the balloon is going to get smaller.

 

'Speculate to accumulate' is a fairly common and well known mantra, one that the coalition government is more than happy to suggest to the privately owned "for profit" sector, but seemingly reluctant to adopt for its own operations. Whilst clearly recognising the private sector's reluctance to commit billions of their own money to necessary schemes, without first receiving government assurances about potential coverage for possible future losses, rather than offer the guarantees, this government simply offers worthless platitudes. A good example of the coalition's lack of commitment might be deemed to be the housing sector. It's estimated that we need something in the order of one million new homes just to meet the current demand for housing, whilst at the same time it is costing the national exchequer about £22 billion per year for housing benefits, 40% of which goes into the private sector, often to Buy-to-Let landlords who use the money to further extend their own personal property portfolios; and at the same time help to inflate the property market generally. Now, the Insurance company Legal and General have proposed building five New Towns at a cost of around £5 billion; whereas the Labour Party have pledged to invest up to £10 billion to help meet the cost of the planned 1 new million homes they would like to build between 2015 and 2020. Either one, Legal and General or Labour, or even both, just how many jobs and how much good is it going to do the national economy if these projects came to fruition. More jobs, means more fresh money, means more demand for goods and services, means more new businesses and opportunities, means more new workers, more money, more taxes.

 

So here's the question: what would happen if one of the political parties vying for our vote in 2015 was to commit themselves to undertaking a fully costed new house building program, to undertake a fully costed infrastructure project, designed to improve our nation's transport systems, to undertake the construction of new schools and technical colleges to improve the skills of our native workforce, to undertake the formation of enterprise zones, where small and start-up businesses could be encouraged and supported, to undertake a regeneration of our traditional fishing and manufacturing communities, to undertake a refurbishment and regeneration of our native energy sector, to undertake the establishment of manufacturing centres for renewable energy devices.

 

And what would happen if, instead of raising the capital for these new programs using bonds over 5, 10 or even 15 years the government in power were to spread the costs over a 25 or 30 year period, the same sort of time period that a householder might purchase their home. Again, what would happen if the government of the day were to share the financial cost with the private sector based on a long term equitable return on their investments. Just how many new jobs, new opportunities, new businesses, new taxes would such programs create over the next few years, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions? Instead of paying £20 billion, or £30 billion in housing benefits to greedy landlords and at the same time artificially hiking the prices of existing properties through the roof, wouldn't it be better to just build the houses and homes that we need, with the added bonus of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs and regenerating our entire national economy?

 

Time and time again the theory that the private sector will eventually provide and often at a much reduced cost to the public sector has been proven to be untrue, not least with transport, with hospitals, with schools, with energy, in fact almost any sector that you care to name. It is a lie, a myth, a fallacy, a fable, it simply isn't true, because if it was we would have some sort of evidence to prove the case conclusively. That being the case, then governments like the one we have at present are not the answer to our country's problems, as they are too short-sighted and too ideologically bound to be brave or daring enough to put their hands in their taxpayer funded pockets and do what any sensible person would do. 

Dishonest, Deceitful and Disreputable:

You would have thought that with events in Ukraine still unfolding by the day, with a Malaysian passenger aircraft still unaccounted for; and with the Pistorius trial still gripping South African audiences, there was more than enough proper "news" about to keep everyone satisfied, but apparently not. True to form the British media have reverted to the old favourite of endlessly repeating a piece of 'tittle-tattle', or unfounded gossip offered up by a former UKIP MEP, in the person of Nikki Sinclair, who used European parliamentary privilege to accuse the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, of not only having an affair with one of his co-workers, but also of having the temerity to use European taxpayer's funds to pay both his reputed mistress and his German wife, to carry out office work on his behalf. Wow!! Hold the presses, we have a world exclusive!

 

Of course one's immediate response to such a shocking revelation, were it to be actually true, although the fact that the MEP in question was careful enough to use parliamentary privilege to protect herself speaks volumes, would be, so f*cking what? Who cares? After all, it's not as if extra-marital affairs, or gay relationships, or even paedophilia is a shock to the general public anymore, especially if they involve members of that supposedly honourable palace in Westminster. Unless of course, the shocking revelation part was that Mr Farage was paying his wife; and possibly someone that he probably didn't have an affair with, out of public funds?

 

It is interesting though that the sanctimonious gutter trash that represent our country's mainstream media today, haven't thought to mention the approximately 150 British MP's who are reported to employ relatives in their own parliamentary offices, as part of the £98.1 million that our own national politician's leeched out of the public purse for their expenses in 2012. Somehow I don't remember Nigel Farage giving the British public a John Major type promise, the sort of back to basics sermon that very quickly unravelled, even more so, when it transpired that he'd been playing away with Edwina Curry, under poor old Norma's nose. It's the very nature of Farage that appeals to certain sections of the wider electorate, the fag smoking, beer swilling, blokiness that people can relate to, so what if he did, or didn't get his "leg over" with one of his assistants, or would that one bad habit too far?

 

Surely we should all be far more bothered by the sheer public deceit, dishonesty and disrepute that has been heaped on the British parliamentary system by the three main party leaders in Westminster, rather than worrying about British MEP's recovering some of our own monies from the international tragedy that is the European Union. Today, instead of having two cast-iron guarantees from the Labour and the Conservative leadership's on any future EU referendum, both have been very careful to couch their language in such a way, so that they've ruled nothing in and ruled nothing out, confusing the issue even further. Mr Cameron has definitely promised an In/Out referendum in 2017, but only after he's tried renegotiating the terms of our membership, but has also been reported as saying that he'll never freely agree to leave the EU. So that's an In/Out referendum, just so long as the resulting decision is In.

 

For his part Mr Miliband, has absolutely ruled our a public referendum on the subject, simply because he'll make sure that there are no substantive changes to the existing EU treaties that would cause a public plebiscite to be held. However, in the event that circumstances change unexpectedly and he was forced to offer the British people a choice, then he probably would, although he'd probably support staying in. So that's no In/Out referendum under a future Labour administration, but if there was one, Mr Miliband would probably have to see which way the political winds were blowing before finally making his own mind up.

 

What is particularly amusing about these events, is that some of the media, most notably the Financial Times, seems to think that Mr Miliband's strategy over Europe and the question of a referendum is so much better than David Cameron's! They accuse UKIP of creating uncertainty, when they offer a straight Out proposition, but seem to think that the Labour and the Conservative Party's constant dithering over the issue, shall we, shan't we, offers a greater degree of certainty to business owners and foreign investors. Talk about utterly bizarre! 

Looking Backwards For Our Country's Future:

Telegraph commentator, Harry de Quetteville, posed a very good question in his newspaper column today (Tue 11th March 2014), asking "should Britain just accept that it is no longer a major power?", which seemed to link in very well with the recent remarks made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, when he suggested that too many people in Britain today are backward looking, insular and seemingly desperate to revive a Britain that no longer exists. According to Mr Clegg and many of his fellow European Union supporters, casting a glimpse back to the former days of Empire, of international influence, industrial power, military security, economic independence and political statemanship would be a hollow exercise, when compared to looking forward to their own vision of a federally absorbed Britain, with minimal international influence, limited industrial capacity, shared defensive capabilities, a highly dependant economic future and people like themselves leading the way. Rather than wanting a Britain that is global, that is enterprising, independent, confident, principled and forthright, they would much rather have a Britain that is parochial, that is safe, malleable, dependent, reserved, unprincipled and timid. 

 

All three major party leaders, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, David Cameron, along with most of their parliamentary colleagues would have us believe that Britain is now so diminished as a nation, as a significant world power, that we have little choice but to rely on the succour and security of the European Union, in order to add value, to add strength, to the British voice on the international stage. They choose to overlook the fact that the UK still remains a member of G7, G8, G20, IMF, NATO, OECD, WTO, Commonwealth of Nations, is a recognised nuclear power, remains a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has the 4th largest defence spending in the world, was the world's first industrialised nation, is the 6th largest economy in the world and is the world's 8th largest economy in terms of purchasing power. In addition to belonging to dozens of internationally recognised bodies, the UK still retains sovereignty over 17 territories outside of mainland Britain, which exist as British Overseas Territories and/or Crown Dependencies.

 

Despite being a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), in 2013 and in response to suggestions that Britain might reconsider its membership of the European Union, the German defence minister at the time, Thomas de Maiziere, publicly stated that he believed that a British withdrawal from the EU would almost inevitably harm the UK's standing in the world and have a highly negative effect on Britain's membership of NATO, even though the defence alliance and the EU are two entirely separate entities. As things stand the biggest single contributor to NATO remains the United States, while the likes of Britain, France, Germany, etc. are also significant contributors in terms of finance and manpower, although are inevitably restricted by various national budgetary constraints. However, for any German defence minister to suggest that Britain would, or could not meet her responsibilities to the alliance in  any future military or humanitarian emergency is completely dishonest, a threat that one can only conclude is designed to influence future public discussions regarding the UK's future relationship with the EU, rather than with NATO itself. It is also worth pointing out of course that on occasion Britain has initiated military and humanitarian missions outside of the NATO alliance, with absolutely no recourse to its European and North American partners, so the prospect of "standing alone" in any future armed conflict would hardly be a cause of major concern for the UK. With some of the best trained, equipped and battle-hardened frontline troops in the world, despite their recent downsizing by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg's coalition government, Britain's armed forces still present one of the most formidable military forces in the world today, with or without our NATO allies alongside. 

 

In case anybody remains in any doubt about the innate entrepreneurialism, inventiveness, or competitiveness of the British people, it's worth pointing out that throughout our nation's history, Britons (including our ethnic Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh inventors), sometimes acting in partnership with other nationalities, sometimes acting alone, have been responsible for inventing or discovering a whole range of everyday things that the entire world now just take for granted. These include; the telephone, television, stereo, photography, DNA, hip replacements, radio telescope, vertical take-off aircraft, jet engines, jet aircraft, birth control pill, beta-blockers, hovercraft, hypodermic syringe, tranquilliser gun, silent burglar alarm, childproof bottle caps, collapsible baby buggy, wind-up radio, CT scanner, MRI scanner, DNA fingerprinting, DNA sequencing, stem cell uses, world wide web, Concorde aircraft, thermos flask, lawnmower, flat glass process, chocolate bars, electric telegraph, modern fire extinguisher, light bulb, pneumatic tyre, cats-eye road marking, carbon fibre, disc brakes, steam engine, steam turbine, soda water, reflecting telescope, marine chronometer, synthetic dye, passenger railways, linoleum, toothbrush, automatic kettle, glider, military tank, modern torpedo, safety bicycle, tension spoked wheel, cement, seed drill, spinning frame, Bessemer steel making, electric motor, hydraulic press, modern sewage system, programmable computer (Colossus), stainless steel, ATM bank machine, tin can, electric vacuum cleaner, waterproof material, penicillin, cloning, IVF, radar, cordite, corkscrews, depth charges, electro-magnets, fax machine, power loom, periscope, polyester, rubber bands, submarine, umbrella, and the universal joint.

 

Even today and despite the often widely held opinion that Britain is a much less important place in the world, in terms of the things that we produce and the services we provide, the UK still remains a world leader in areas like the creative industries (architecture, film, media, the arts, literature, etc.), aerospace, military shipbuilding, motor sport, music, technology, agriculture, financial services, sport, tourism, petro-chemicals, research and development, food manufacturing, engine technology, brewing, automotive (Landrover, etc), insurance services, medical research, hotels and catering, pharmaceuticals and information technology.

 

The top earning exports from the UK include; machinery and mechanical equipment, fuels, oils and substances, road vehicles and parts, electrical equipment and components, pharmaceuticals, precious stones and jewellery, optical equipment and apparatus, organic chemicals, aircraft and space vehicles, plastics and plastic products, as well as engineering products (valves, etc.)

 

Where Britain falls down, fails if you will, is when it comes to defending our own national interests, our historic industries, our traditional trading partners, thereby forcing us to rely on other non-traditional countries for supplies of basic resources, or finished manufactured products. Agriculture, fishing, steel-making, coal mining and ship-building, are just some of the historically important heavy industries that have largely been lost to the British economy; and to those hundreds of thousands of British workers who might have expected to find viable full-time employment within them.

 

Even though in 1973 our politicians promised us much, in reality, membership of the EEC, now the EU, has delivered very little in terms of real long term benefits to our country. Rather than taking full advantage of our own pre-existing imperial friendships to access historic overseas marketplaces with their 2.3 billion citizens in the Commonwealth of Nations, we have somehow managed to anchor ourselves to a continental corpse that is only a fraction of the Commonwealth's size; and that is becoming less important to overall global trade by the very day. At the same time, with the European Union increasingly being dominated and driven forward by a smaller and smaller number of powerful northern nations, so it becomes less and less democratic for the 500 million citizens who entirely rely on the corrupt and bloated corpse. Surely any British politician who would willingly advocate our continued membership of this fetid organisation, or even greater involvement, cannot be said to be acting in the best interests of our nation, if they would argue for "more Europe", rather than "much less Europe".

 

Despite how diminished Britain might be thought to have become over the course of the past 40 years, beneath the thin veneer of dilapidation, destitution and dog-earedness that our political elite have brought about through their own personal vanity and political ideologies, there still remains the Britain that forged and built an empire, because the people remain fundamentally the same. Our generous nature, our tolerance towards others, our stoicism in the face of adversity, our quirky traditional humour, our pride in our unique culture and traditions, all of these things are the result of our shared 2000 years of history; that have helped to make us the people that we are. It would be beyond belief if we were to simply settle for being part of a second rate economic, social and political experiment like the EU, when we could do so much better on our own.

 

It's a complete fallacy for the likes of Nick Clegg, David Cameron, or Ed Miliband to claim that we couldn't manage on our own, if we were to withdraw from the European Union. Our world beating industries, would still be world beating industries; and people would still want to buy their ideas, their products, whether we're in the EU or not. Our Aerospace industries would still design, build and sell fast jets to the world's air forces, whether we're in the EU or not. Our Petro-chemical industries would still continue to develop new products, new processes that other countries want to buy and export. Why? Because Britain is absolutely bleeding brilliant at producing high-end products that people around the world want to buy, that's why!

 

Consider also that out of the European Union, our own farmers will be released from the bureaucratic nightmare that originates from Brussels. Out of the EU, our traditional fishing grounds would be restored allowing British fisherman to carefully exploit our natural resources; and maybe help rebuild some of those communities that were blighted by the EU imposed fish quotas. Rather than rely on foreign fuel sources, outside of the EU, maybe we could look at using our own native resources of coal, shale gas, renewables, etc. that the British householder and business owner can actually afford. Outside of the European Union we can develop some of those long lost trading links with our Commonwealth cousins that we should never have surrendered in the first place. Outside of the EU, Britain can re-take its proper place at the high table of the various international bodies, rather than having to defer our position and our historic rank to the EU's entirely invented diplomatic corp. Outside of the EU, British representatives would speak exclusively for the British people. And who knows, outside of the European Union, the British people might just start to find that they like being in charge of their own national destiny again; and who knows just where that might lead, to the past way of doing things perhaps? 

You Cannot Regulate Against Personal Animosities:

It's funny isn't it that despite nearly fifty years of British history and at least nine different pieces of binding legislation having been passed by successive governments, we're led to believe that we still live in a country that is beset by racism, sexism, fascism, intolerance, bigotry, Islamophobia, xenophobia; and any other number of supposedly extremist sentiments that you might try and care to name. Or so the prevailing mainstream media keeps telling us!

 

Starting with the first Race Relations Act that was passed in 1965, successive government's have introduced a range of regulatory rules designed to both influence and order people's personal and public thinking when it comes to the issues of race, gender, religion, employment and standing for public office. In their turn, there has been the Race Relations Act 1968, the Equality Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Race Relations Act 2000, the Sex Discrimination Act (Election Candidates) 2002, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010, a variety of highly specific Employment Equality regulations; and overriding all of these, has been the ultimate criminal sanction, the relevant sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

 

So, according to the widely held theory, with race relations having been thoroughly addressed and equalised through the 1965, 1968, 1976 and the 2000 laws, community relations in Britain should have been perfect, given that these pieces of national legislation were in place to regulate people's behaviour and attitudes; yet despite this there were "Race Riots" in Chapel Town 1975, St Paul's in 1980, Brixton 1981, Chapeltown 1981, Moss Side 1981, Toxteth 1981, Brixton 1985, Broadwater Farm 1985, Handsworth 1985, Dewsbury 1989, Bradford 2001, Oldham 2001 and in Birmingham 2005. What do these riots prove? They prove that you can regulate and legislate as much as you like, but ultimately, if people don't want to adhere to the actual ideals behind the law, then in reality they aren't worth the paper that they're written on; and are therefore worthless.

 

In a similar fashion, anyone who believes that women have achieved social or economic parity with their male counterparts is a fool; and yet the legislation to ensure that such parity has been around for nearly forty years. Likewise, if the legislation was working, Black youngsters would achieve comparable educational and employment outcomes to their white compatriots, yet they still don't, nearly fifty years after the first draft of the Race Relations Act was introduced into parliament. Why? Because in reality society is, what it is, with all the same intolerances, bigotry and discrimination that existed fifty years ago, the only difference being, that people don't publicly proclaim or admit their personal bigotry today, as they did fifty, or even sixty years ago, because it's not acceptable, or politically correct to do so. But for anyone, in government or in the media to believe that modern Britain has been compelled to become a much more tolerant, multicultural or accepting place for foreign migrants, just because were told to be, or made to be under threat of the law, is a complete nonsense, as it's simply perpetuating a mythical social model that doesn't actually exist.

 

The level of sheer stupidity displayed by our political classes is a wonder to behold. Rather than seeking to find and resolve the root causes of the British people's fears over immigration, those associated with migration generally, health, housing, education, employment, local services and wages, for the politician's part it is just easier to refer to such concerned people as racists, fascists, bigots, xenophobes, or Little Englanders, who only represent a very small proportion of the British population. Only yesterday, Nick Clegg called such people "backward looking", thus playing into the idea that those of us who see a future outside of the European Union, hanker for a return to the 1950's, when Britain was reported to be a much simpler and much more straightforward place to be. Only today, an Irish correspondent has felt driven to attack the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage, for his nationalistic views, which seems very odd, coming from a citizen of a country that had struggled for a thousand years to free itself from British dominion, only to then throw itself freely under the governorship of a foreign parliament in Brussels.

 

It seems that no matter how often people state the case that UKIP supporters don't dislike foreigners per se', just the fact that our government has opened our borders to one and all, is completely lost on the Westminster elite and the most of the mainstream media. For them both, lazy journalism, political spin and pointless sound-bites are the answer to people's genuinely held concerns, which simply helps ensure that fear, antagonism, intolerance and extremism within the British public continues to grow unchecked. Of course, some politician's and commentators dismiss such public concerns as simple scare-mongering, countering that the perceived pressures on schools, housing, hospitals and the nation's emergency services are all being overstated, that the numbers of people and children not speaking English as a first language is relatively unimportant to the economic future of our country. They tell the British public that it would be economic suicide for Britain to leave the European Union, to stop the flow of European migrants, because as a country we couldn't survive alone, that it would impede our ability to travel abroad, to retire to Europe, to work in Europe, all of which are a complete nonsense. For decades before the EU was even thought about Briton's travelled the globe, for vacations, for work and so in or out of Europe, Britons will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future.

 

Nigel Farage was attacked for daring to say that the absence of English voices, on an English train, travelling through the English countryside concerned and alarmed him, as if it should be perfectly normal for anyone to travel on a bus, a coach or a train in their own native country, without hearing anything but foreign voices. It is perhaps indicative of the utter disconnect between our political classes, our media and the people that they are supposed to serve, that any normal everyday person is thought to be stark staring mad for commenting on the absence of English voices on what was after all, an English train. Had a similar journey been undertaken by someone in France, Belgium, America, Canada, Germany, Pakistan, India, or elsewhere in the world, do you imagine that the reporter of the incident would have been publicly vilified by the media in that particular country, or would the wider implications of the incident itself have been discussed as a matter of some national concern? Even now the "racist" bombshell, designed to curtail discussion and prevent reasoned explanation, are thrown around by elements of the British media, often to hide the fact that there is no reasonable explanation for the events that are taking place in our country. Mass migration? Use the racist ploy! Open borders? Use the 'R' word! The foreign ghetto-isation of our larger towns and cities? No need to address the question, just call them a "racist" instead!

 

The recent case of a former UKIP councillor who it was reported to have inferred that Lady Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, was a monkey and questioned whether or not whether the teenager was actually killed by a group of white thugs, perhaps illustrates best of all that legislation on its own is a highly imperfect way of trying to regulate an individual's personal opinions. Clearly, racism in its most potent form revolves around the belief that one race is superior, or inferior to another, a point of view that has yet to find any sort of scientific basis from any laboratory in the world. Bearing in mind that most intelligent people accept the facts on the general theory of evolution, that all of modern mankind evolved from early apes, then the councillor was correct in a limited sense, but overlooked the fact that his early ancestors were no doubt swinging from tree branches too at some point in our shared history. As for his reluctance to accept that Stephen Lawrence was indeed murdered by a gang of white thugs, which included the two men subsequently convicted for the crime, ultimately they were tried and convicted by a jury of their peers, so as far as British justice is concerned, they did participate in the murder of the young teenager and are currently serving their prison sentences accordingly.

 

As has been said before on this blog, politicians, policemen, soldiers, health workers, or indeed any other large body of people are almost certain to be representative of the society that they're drawn from; and that includes local councillors or national representatives, whether they stand for UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Labour, Green Party, SNP, SDLP, or whoever. Out of the thousands of individuals who regularly put themselves forward for public office, there is always likely to be a smattering of racists, fascists, paedophiles, crooks, religious extremists, liars and adulterers amongst them; and no amount of lawmaking can ever account for that. One only has to look at the recent P.I.E. scandal that is currently engulfing the Parliamentary Labour Party to know this is true, although one wouldn't think there was any real problem if you happen to peruse the front pages of the Daily Mirror, the Labour Party's public media mouthpiece, as it's far too busy worrying about UKIP's latest politically incorrect faux pas, to be worried about paedophiles and the like!

 

Now I don't claim to be as clever, as some of those degree holding geniuses that currently inhabit the Palaces of Westminster; and dictate to the rest of us just how we should live and think about things, but if the likes of Greece and Spain are anything like the measure of the potential problems we could encounter in the future, as the result of our EU membership, then being backward looking, insular, or even nationalistic might be the least of our problems.

 

Having successfully created and essentially nourished an unrepresented underclass of British people who are suspicious of immigrants, ostensibly because the indigenous natives fear for limited jobs, limited benefits, limited heath care, limited education and limited housing, just how long do governments imagine it will be before these two communities, foreign and domestic, British and non-British, English speaker and non-English speaker, entitled and un-entitled, culturally bound and culturally apart, start to conflict with one another?

 

Screaming "Racist" or "Fascist" every time they hear an argument, or a remark they do not like, is not a legitimate answer to the root cause of the issues that often pre-empt the very same argument, or remark. British workers and native citizens feeling besieged by increasing numbers of foreign migrants is a legitimate concern, one that won't simply be solved by shouting "Racist" at it. Our current open border policy towards EU immigrants which causes many of these native concerns, won't be fixed by the media screaming "Fascist" in their news headlines. Handing control of 50% of our national lawmaking powers to a foreign parliament in Brussels won't be resolved by calling people "Little Englanders" or "Xenophobes". Expressing genuine public concerns about our country's future in terms of its defence, education, health care, education, transport, welfare system and its economy, won't be stilled by simply accusing the protester of being "backward looking", or worse still "anti-European". These issues are not just major concerns for Nigel Farage, or those UKIP supporters who have paid their annual membership fees. No doubt many of these same concerns play on the minds of millions of British citizens, irrespective of whether they're Black, White, English, Scottish, Christian, Muslim, male or female, rich or poor, employed or unemployed. And yet here we are, another year down the road and still the usual political parties refuse to openly acknowledge that there is a problem; and that it requires a solution!

 

It just never seems to occur to the political classes and their media support network that increased community tensions, whether based on race or ethnicity is inextricably linked to the issue of immigration; and probably even more so, if that foreign immigration is too much and too fast. Our country's immigration policies are inextricably linked to our membership of the European Union; as is the migrants entitlement to jobs, benefits, health care, education, housing, language services, etc., so the idea that these matters are entirely separate from one another; and can be dealt with on an individual basis is a completely fatuous one. To resolve them all, you simply need to resolve the one main point central to the rest, our country's membership of the European Union.

 

It is way too simplistic to just categorise people's dislike of the European Union as a form of latent racism or fascism, because for most people the argument has never been about the foreign migrants themselves, but the agreements and treaties that have allowed them to come to our country in such large numbers and over so many years. Now, politicians and the media may choose to persist with their well worn thinking that to oppose the four basic pillars of the European Union, the free movement of people, goods, services and capital, is to be outside of the norm, a racist, a fascist, a xenophobe, or a backward looking Little Englander, but that would be to do a huge injustice to a majority of the British people.

 

Of course there are those who foolishly believe that one race is superior to the other, that one religion holds a greater truth than its counterparts, that one gender is more worthwhile than its opponent, but then again no amount of legal regulations are likely to persuade such people that they're wrong. At the same time, casting general insults in the direction of those who oppose the European Union, is hardly likely to make them look more favourably on the project, rather it will simply harden their opposition to it. Just like the various Race Relations Acts have done little to improve community cohesion and integration in Britain, nor the Sex Discrimination Act eradicated sexism, or the Equality Acts provided real equality, no amount of strengthening of the various European Treaties, or insulting its opponents is going to make the British people feel any more European than we did right from the outset.  

Sadly Nick, Bile And Anger Doesn't Even Cover It!

It seems that many column inches have been devoted to the Liberal Democratic cause in the past couple of days, a significant amount of which has been provided by the Murdoch empire in the form of the Times newspaper, especially with regard to the Lib Dems upcoming battle in the media with UKIP. As part of the same campaign one is led to believe that tomorrow (Monday 10th March 2014) the same newspaper will publish an exclusive expose', purportedly provided by the Lib Dem Party, in which UKIP will be accused of breaching European rules over expenses and funding of political parties in direct contravention of EU rules on the matter. Now, obviously the Times are producing the article on the basis of it being an important public interest story, although given its timing and the source of the allegations themselves, other commentators might see it for what it really is, a desperate smear campaign dressed up as public interest journalism, probably explaining in part why the Times finds itself in the financial state that it is. After all, does anybody need another tittle-tattle rag, when so many already exist within the British mainstream media; and a broadsheet version one at that?

 

As part of the same anti-UKIP agenda, at the Liberal Democrats Spring Conference in York this week, Nick Clegg told his fellow delegates that a tide of extremism was sweeping across Europe, spreading waves of bile and anger that could endanger the entire EU project that he and his party so assiduously support. He also proclaimed that the forces of chauvinism, protectionism and xenophobia had been emboldened and that the fight was now on for the future of the continent. These groups, which presumably include UKIP, although the party wasn't mentioned by name, are said to be backward looking, ungenerous and seek to place the blame for their national problems elsewhere, which one would assume to be coded language for immigrants, although he didn't state that directly. Mr Clegg also reiterated that he loved Britain, how we look beyond our shores; and called his own party the guardians of a modern, open and tolerant Britain. 

 

Of course it's easy to understand why the prospect of extremism, personal bile and radical anger are so foreign and strange to Mr Clegg as an individual, simply because he is a well educated, wealthy man in his own right; and is even more so having benefited from the generosity of the British taxpayers generosity over the course of the past four years. Never having held what most people would regard as a proper job, in the sense of having had to labour physically for his money, instead he is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with our modern day political elite, not just in Britain, but throughout Europe as a whole. Just what gives Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Miliband or any of them the right to counsel other citizens about their feelings, rights, opinions, or their values, when not a single one of them has walked in a working man's shoes.

 

Perhaps Mr Clegg and his colleagues would like to explain to a British, Greek, Spanish, Irish Cypriot, Portuguese, French, Belgian worker, why they cannot find meaningful employment, when their national governments still insist on allowing hundreds of thousands of strangers to come into their countries to compete for what few jobs there are. Perhaps too, they would like to explain why these same workers have no real recourse to their own national governments whose control over national borders, employment, welfare, health, etc. have all been usurped by an unaccountable parliament in Brussels. Is it any wonder that Greek workers who have been forced to endure excruciating pay cuts are angry, or that those who have had to abandon their children to the state are full of irrational bile towards the foreign powers who insist that their national governments enforce severe austerity measures on the populace. Is anyone really surprised that British workers get irrational when billions of pounds of taxpayers money is frittered away abroad, when charitable food banks are caring for our own poorest and neediest citizens here in the UK.

 

If the likes of the Front Nationale in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, or even UKIP in the UK are increasing their memberships; and therefore their influence over the national electorates, then surely most competent politicians would by asking the obvious question, why? Is it because everyday French citizens, Greeks or Brits have suddenly become unmanageable extremists, for no other reason that they feel like it, or that they've suddenly taken a complete dislike to Black people, or those who are different, those who speak a different language, or maybe even been afflicted by a completely unforeseen continental madness that has somehow gripped millions of disparate people throughout Western Europe? Or is perhaps that politicians the length and breadth of Western Europe are just not listening to their national electorates; and as a result people are left with little choice but to look elsewhere for an alternative voice, whether that be the Front Nationale, Golden Dawn, or the even more moderate parties like UKIP.

 

Despite what David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband may choose to believe, ultimately they are the architects of much of UKIP's electoral success to date, though not because of their own successes, but because of their abject failure of national leadership. For far too long the Westminster elite in Britain, including Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, have chosen to deliberately disregard the electorates views on the subjects of both immigration and Europe, knowing full well that the British public would never accept unlimited mass migration, or the transfer of sovereign power to a foreign parliament, so rather than put the question to the people, they simply didn't ask and did it anyway.

 

This is not a unique situation to the UK, as across most of Western Europe national governments have simply acquiesced in a similar fashion, with or without the explicit consent of their native populations; and then Nick Clegg wonders why the continent is beset by waves of extremism and why millions of normally law-abiding citizens suddenly find themselves driven to action by an overpowering personal anger. Mr Clegg and his like are indeed fortunate that the British people are far more restrained in their anger and their bile than some of our more emotional continental cousins, otherwise who knows what lengths people might have gone to in seeking some form of redress from the political classes who have let them down so badly thus far.

 

Any hopes that people might have that Mr Clegg and his Liberal Democrat cohort will change their views on immigration and Europe are entirely wasted of course. Completely oblivious to the concerns that normal people have over such matters, only today the Liberal Democrat MP, Ed Davey, suggested that not only should we open the borders to any willing immigrant, but that the invitation should also include their extended family as well. Bearing in mind that the latest ONS figures showed an increase of 212,000 foreign migrants coming to the UK, in the past 12 months, if you assume that each one of them brought with them an average of six other people, two children and various parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. then rather than 212,000 migrants per year, the figure would probably be closer to 1.5 million migrants per year, all of whom have to be housed, employed, cared for by health services, educated, administered, transported, etc. In the event that the Liberal Democrats were ever able to implement such a policy, I wonder whether Mr Clegg and his colleagues would expect the British people to be happy about it, or would they possibly be filled with more bile and anger than they are at present? Hmm, let me think about that one?  

A Wholly Unprincipled Talking Shop:

Long on rhetoric and short on meaningful action! That just about sums up the core values of the European Union and the British Government of David Cameron. Yes, they support the idea of a free and independently democratic Ukraine, but only for as long as it doesn't hurt their own economic interests. Is there such a thing as a Judas State? One that would sell its neighbour for the modern equivalence of thirty pieces of silver? Well if there is, then there seems little doubt that the likes of Germany and Britain would qualify for that prize, given that they both appear to forego their democratic principles, rather than risk the ire of Russia's industrial oligarchs and organised crime families, for fear that our nation might suffer some minor financial loss. What price Britain's moral standing in the world? What price our purported defence of democracy, or those democratic principles that are so commonly bandied about by the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Hague, etc.? They're clearly worth nothing at all, if the fate of the London Stock Market suddenly becomes a determinant for our nations moral compass, or meeting our international treaty obligations!

 

In 1994, Britain, the US and Russia signed a binding treaty guaranteeing to protect the integrity of Ukraine's territorial borders, with no specific stipulation being placed on that treaty agreement that Britain's undertaking was likely to be based on the UK suffering no economic loss, as seems to be the case today. The secretive approach by the Coalition to avoid at all costs having to impose sanctions against Russian financial interests in the city of London, or those pro-Putin oligarchs who have secreted their often ill-gotten gains in our nation's housing stock, should be a source of shame for every right thinking British citizen. Similarly, the fact that a number of the EU's leading nations are hurrying to protect their own trade and financial interests with a highly questionable Russian administration is an international disgrace, given that the EU talks so impressively about the rule of law, democratic mandates and the global importance of the Union itself. If nothing else, this particular crisis has helped prove the lie of the European Union's self-proclaimed regional influence, economic power and diplomatic weight. The Ukraine crisis has proved once and for all that none of these things exist in a meaningful way, something that has been testified to by Vladimir Putin's utter disregard and disdain for the Union and its membership over the past few days. Having measured the moral fibre of Merkel, Cameron, Hollande and the rest, Mr Putin recognises that none of these so-called leaders are going to risk jeopardising their own national economic interests in order to defend far-off Ukraine, despite their having done so much to encourage pro-Western Ukrainians to fight for unfettered access to the EU. In a sense therefore the EU has been seen by Mr Putin for what it really is, an unprincipled talking shop that cannot be relied upon to honour its word, let alone support its international obligations.

 

On a previous blog post I questioned whether or not David Cameron could be compared to that other great British political appeaser, Neville Chamberlain, who obfuscated and vacillated so hard over Hitler's rise in Germany that he very nearly brought our country to the brink of disaster. However, that having been said, Chamberlain's views had been informed by the tragedy of earlier events, where entire generations of young French, British Belgium, Canadian, American, Commonwealth and even German soldiers were essentially wiped out, as each side tussled with the other for control of the European continent. It was these human losses and the fear of repeating them that lay at the forefront of Chamberlain's mind, not what was in Britain's best economic interests, as seems to be the case with Mr Cameron and Co. As with his much talked about renegotiations with the EU over Britain's membership of the Union, Mr Cameron's whole approach is deluded, dishonest and duplicitous, talking tough for the cameras, but ready to fold like a cheap suit when confronted by a more determined opponent. He is, by far and away the worst Prime Minister this country has elected in a generation; and is certainly not the sort of political leader that most would choose to lead us through a major crisis, such as that we are experiencing today. Rather than confront the international bully, Mr Cameron would much prefer to accommodate him, thus ensuring that the bully, rather like the common blackmailer, will come back again and again, with even bigger and more unreasonable demands, until at last they reach such an unreasonable level that they simply cannot be met, as proved to be the case in the 1930's, when it led to the undoing of Mr Chamberlain.

 

Whether or not Cameron recognises the potential for other supposedly elected tyrants around the world to invade their neighbours territories on the pretence of defending ethnic groups within those territories, they certainly exist; and one wonders whether a failure to properly confront Mr Putin over Crimea has now set an international precedent that will be hard to stop happening again. What will Western powers do if China were to invade Taiwan, or the Senkaku Islands on a similar basis, or the North Koreans invaded South Korean territories using the same excuse? What would Britain do if Spain suddenly decided to occupy Gibraltar, or the Argentinan's parts of the Falkland Islands? Could we really rely on Mr Cameron and Co. to do the right thing and set out to recover them, or would he first assess the potential economic ramifications to the city of London and his financial backers before deciding on what action to take?

 

Although no great fan of the United States as a global superpower, or its entire approach to Europe and to Britain specifically, it is hardly any wonder that the US despairs at the actions of its European allies, whose over-reliance on the American military in the past has now been exposed for what it is, continental defence on the cheap. If it had been at all possible for Britain's international reputation to sink even lower than it had become under Blair, Brown and Cameron, then today under this Coalition that low point in our history has undoubtedly been reached. With our land forces, naval assets and air force trimmed to the bone; and without the prospect of an effective blue-water fleet for the next few years, our country has come to a sorry state indeed, when one bears in mind that this government seems happy to give billions of pounds of taxpayer's money to some of the most corrupt administrations in the world.

 

Where Washington calls for international unity on economic sanctions and seizure of assets in response to Russia's illegal actions, the European Union and its membership prevaricate and consider, mull over and discuss; and in the end agree on nothing, a fragmented approach from a now wholly discredited political union. No-one was ever suggesting that western military forces were ever going to be aligned directly against Russia, but when the western alliances cannot even muster a common approach to the unfolding crisis, then one has to ask what is the point of organisations like NATO, the UN or indeed the EU? If they cannot even mobilise their economic, diplomatic or political will against the Russian Federation, let alone a military response, then should any of us feel safe in our beds, now or in the future.

 

It is now crystal clear that not only is European membership interfering with our lives in terms of our economy, our education system, our taxes, our manufacturing industries, but more worryingly, it is hobbling our own national defensive capability. Britain must be able to speak with an independent voice when it comes to international issues, events that affect British people directly at home. These are not matters or duties that we can defer to a foreign parliament in Brussels, as to do so runs the risk of our national security being determined by strangers, or even worse, sworn enemies of our country.

 

Clearly, the Russian's actions in Crimea don't represent any sort of direct danger to the British people as such, but have we and our political leadership become so morally bankrupt that we're prepared to countenance a militaristic bully boy riding roughshod over international law and existing treaties, especially those that previous British government's have signed into life. With billions of dollars of legitimate and not so legitimate Russian investments being poured into British based banks and property portfolios by Russian energy oligarchs and members of Mr Putin's immediate Kremlin circles, Britain, along with the likes of Switzerland, Cyprus and the USA are perfectly placed to impose an economic lesson on Vladimir Putin's Russia, that illegal military activities bring with them a cost to the wider economy. But of course that's unlikely to happen with Mr Cameron's Coalition willing to find any excuse in order to avoid having to play political hard ball with the Russian Bear. As is noted in the Financial Times today, economic measures work both ways; and although many in the West would fret over entering an economic dispute with oil and gas rich Russia, for fear that they may switch off the taps, it's worth remembering that Russia's economy relies on the sale of those natural resources to help pay for everything else. Mr Putin really would be cutting off his nose to spite his face, were he to refuse to sell his country's native oil and gas supplies, especially when such resources can be sourced from elsewhere.

 

As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Mr Putin, his close circle of political allies and to a lesser extent the Russian people themselves have benefited enormously from the globalisation of their industries and their home economy. Those benefits however come with a price and with significant responsibilities, including the ability to honour international treaties; and to talk with neighbouring states instead of threatening them militarily, like some immature schoolyard bully. Any sort of conflict is generally bad for business confidence and although Russia might gain some national kudos from picking an argument with neighbouring Ukraine, ultimately that won't count for a lot if they turn themselves into an international pariah that nobody, but nobody wants to deal with! 

No Negotiating With A Brute In A Suit:

Like most people who live in the West, one's personal perception of Vladimir Putin tends to be framed by the international media's portrayal of him, as a rough, tough, outdoors type, a man's man, who truly believes that his public persona of the former KGB officer, who is skilled in unarmed combat, able to ride horses and motorbikes, who is happy to cuddle endangered tiger cubs and generally play everyday hero in front of the world's media, actually makes him some sort of international statesman, which it obviously doesn't.

 

Rather than being a marked improvement on the Soviet leaders who have preceded him, men who for the most part were recognisably pragmatic about modern Russia's place in the world, the likes of Boris Yeltsin and Mikhael Gorbachev, Vladimir Putin, for some reason, is thought to have modelled himself on even earlier Russian leader, one that 20th century history has since deemed to be a despot and a tyrant, Joseph Stalin, a man who was responsible for killing millions of his fellow countrymen.

 

Of course, Vladimir Putin's actions are almost always designed to play to a highly selective domestic audience within Russia itself, those small numbers of oligarchs who have benefited personally from the Russian President's stranglehold over the country's extensive oil and gas industries, those many who have suffered as a result of the new expansive capitalism and consumerism introduced by the likes of Yeltsin and Gorbachev and who happily reminisce about the days of the old Soviet system. And then there are the nationalist youth groups, such as "Nashi", a purportedly democratic, nationalistic youth movement, which claims itself to be a democratic, anti-fascist, anti-oligarchic, anti-capitalist movement, but which is reported to be funded and encouraged by Putin and his political allies, to the tune of many millions of roubles every year.

 

"Nashi" was said to have been founded by a close political associate of Vladimir Putin, having originally sprung from a pro-Putin youth group called "Walking Together". According to some informed sources the group is intended to be a street level paramilitary organisation charged with attacking and harassing political opponents of Mr Putin's regime, a task that has reportedly seen them travel throughout Eastern Europe to attend various staged rallies and protests, in an attempt to undermine and silence critics of the Moscow regime.

 

According to some reporters who have investigated the organisation, Nashi bears striking similarities to the Hitler Youth of the 1920's and 1930's, with their annual camps dedicated to offering military style fitness training, indoctrination with the group's core beliefs, strategies on healthy living and planned procreation to ensure future citizens for the "fatherland", all bearing echoes of an earlier fascistic enterprise that brought nothing but sorrow and evil to continental Europe during the early 1940's. Some reports have even suggested that Kremlin insiders have criticised Nashi for not being brutal enough towards their political opponents, even though one renowned journalist was thought to have been left in a life-threatening coma, following a brutal attack that was blamed on supporters of the youth organisation.

 

At the same time, intolerance towards minorities is reportedly on the rise in Putin's Russia, with Chechens, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Circassians, Uzbeks, Poles, Jews and of course Gays all being targeted and victimised by the regime and its supporters, actions that are reminiscent of the various pogroms that afflicted virtually all of Europe, East and West, over the course of the last century, with the loss of millions of innocent lives. Despite Nashi's stated aim of confronting and fighting fascism in their own country, what they clearly forget to mention is that they intend to do it through implementing their own form of fascism, but fascism all the same.

 

Of course, recent events in the Crimea have to be seen in the round; and it would be a mistake to believe that Russia's decision to annexe the Crimean peninsula was purely designed to promote Mr Putin's personal political and economic agenda at home. Most well informed western commentators agree that the Western Powers, in the form of both NATO and the EU have now pushed eastward to such a degree that they have deliberately and purposefully eaten into the breathing space that Russia once used to enjoy. Even though much of this advance has been as the result of invitations from those emerging nation states, such as Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, who were keen to join the western alliances like NATO and the EU, obviously very little thought had been given to how such changes might impact of the much diminished Russian Federation and its plans for its own mutual Customs Union and defensive alliances. With the USA now busily eyeing the Pacific for future trade and engagement, much of the decision making in mainland Europe seems to have fallen to NATO and the European, both of which have chosen to ignore the warning signs put out by Russia in 2008, when they annexed Abkhasia and South Ossetia, in much the same way; and on the same pretence as they have just used in the Crimea. With the local Russian Consulate issuing hundreds of Russian passports to Crimean citizens, Mr Putin was repeating the trick that his administration had used in South Ossetia in 2008, allowing his forces to enter the region, ostensibly as part of a humanitarian/peacekeeping mission, but that was little more than a land grab by the Russian President and his political associates.

 

From the West's point of view, the Russian actions in the Crimea should be treated as a wake up call, especially for those nations such as Britain and France, who would be expected to supply the cutting edge to any European military force, whether as part of NATO, or even as part of a EU sponsored rapid reaction force. With the American's redirecting their strategic assets towards the East Coast of the United States, offering easy access to the Pacific, rather than cutting our own armed forces to the bone, so that we're unable to cope with unforeseen military emergencies, common sense would seem to dictate that we should be reinforcing our strategic assets, not diminishing them. At the same time, the scrambling about by Europe and NATO in order to formulate a common response to the Russian's illegal actions in the Crimea, has proved once and for all that the European Union as an effective geo-political entity does not work, cannot work, simply because there are way too many national interests to consider and to satisfy.

 

In all likelihood, Germany will take a far more pragmatic view of Russia's actions simply because she has to, as her home industry, national employment and therefore her economy relies so extensively on Russian oil and gas supplies. Other EU states, those that have more to fear from a militarily belligerent Russia will no doubt take the hardest line, with the Polish Premier already being particularly scathing about Russia's actions, which begs the question, how on earth can they find a common approach, when each European nation has its own view on the current situation? By the time they do agree a common strategy, no doubt the Russian troops will all be back in their bases, any regional plebiscite will have taken place and the Crimea will have been formerly annexed to the Russian Federation. That's not progress, or unity, but rather a shambles, a shambles that will almost certainly convince Russia that it has little to fear, if and when it chooses to gamble again in the future.

 

But therein lies the heart of the problem. Most experts agree that a wealthy Russia will be an emboldened Russia; and with the United States and its allies wearied by constants wars; and preparing to withdraw their forces from the International scene, there is the danger of leaving a power vacuum that a wealthy and expansive Russia will be more than happy to fill. In common with China, Russia wants to create new markets for its products and resources, to keep its factories and its workers busy, to further enrich its own economy. Creating its own Russian Customs Union is thought to be the first step towards achieving that goal; and part of Mr Putin's strategy is to ensure that he maintains the core of that Customs Union, whether the individual countries want to be members of it or not.

 

Having effectively neutralised all internal opposition to his regime in Russia, through the use of trumped-up charges, political show trials, or through the use of groups like Nashi, Mr Putin is now generally free to pursue a much more aggressive and vigorous foreign policy than ever before, especially as the USA has had its attention drawn by the Pacific. Although he may lack the political finesse of some of his global counterparts when it comes to international relations, ultimately with his home treasury bulging with cash; and with no serious adversary to limit his more outrageous actions, one is left to wonder what the West can really do to temper the actions of a Russian President like Vladimir Putin, before he does us all some real harm? But then, there's the nub of the original question "Can you actually negotiate anything with a brute in a suit"?