SLATSKI - Socialist, Anti-Fascist.

Think of this dot when you think about our planet.

Image may contain: night

We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.  


A short story of Trump, in Superheroes.

We need Super Heroes again...
What happened to Superman's lessons from 1953?

The tables have been turned on America.....(@PresVillain)

Where is Wonder Woman??

She knows how to deal with him!! (Street Art in ).


President Trump and his South Africa delusions.

It all started with this when Trump tweeted some nonsense (again) and the white nationalists loved it. Nice stoking of racial divisions Trump, you utter bellend.

He quoted Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host and soon after the South African Govt responded, furiously.

But nothing summed the story so far and so gracefully, as this.

Well said Matt, well said.... 


Rod's Randoms: pae-DL! The child abusers at the heart of Britain'...

This blog has done a terrific job of listing the issues the EDL has with paedophiles. Check it out.

Rod's Randoms: pae-DL! The child abusers at the heart of Britain'...: Filthy-rotten paedophiles and far-right politics, it seems, go hand in hand. Dozens of convicted child sex ...

Floyd Codlin on Brendan O'Neill's piece in Spectator about the Football Lads Alliance #FLA

'A Politics of Two Halves' by Floyd Codlin
A little more than ten years ago, Brendan O’Neill and the rest of the Spiked acolytes were affirming that the working class was over, done and finished with no hope of return. They reaffirmed this at a meeting with MHI (Marxist Humanist Initiative), in March of 2015, via Alan Harding and Dr Mike Fitzpatrick.
Their main thesis was that the working class had lost all agency and sense of itself as a distinct class. This was always a dubious prospect to begin with, but that was the Spiked story and they stuck with it.
So, many of us on the left, who’d watched the political degeneration of former comrades flourish, were astonished when BoNy announced, like a triumphant member of the confederacy, hearing that “the gallant south will rise again”, that a working class movement was back, in his article for working class struggle the Spectator that “The Football Lads Alliance is a working-class movement – and the political class wants to ignore it”
What occasioned his return to the barricades was a demonstration by the so-called “Football Lads Association” (FLA), to protest against what they called “extremism”. This keys into one of Brendan’s main concerns, that people, in light of the Jihadi attacks in both Manchester and London, are not “angry” enough. Certainly the racist who drove all the way from Wales to ram his van into Muslim worshippers (who had just come from lending help to the victims of the Grenfell fire) outside Finsbury Park mosque took him to heart.
Rather than looking through the whole of the article, it will be of more use, to dissect sections of it instead. “On Saturday, London hosted one of the largest working-class demonstrations of recent years and these weepers for the voiceless said nothing. Nada. Zilch. Ah, but these were the wrong kind of working-class people. They were the Football Lads Alliance (FLA), a fascinating grassroots movement founded earlier this year to protest against terrorism and the ideologies that fuel it.”
Perhaps the reason why Theresa May, said nothing about the demo, was because, apart from the inbuilt distaste Tories have for w/c people, plans for a more authoritarian stance on extremism is in the pipeline. One needs to remind the BoNy lad, that Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary plans on restricting the encryption of WhatsApp, and ramping up the Prevent program. Two other things to note here, is his newly discovered fascination with “grass roots movements” and the fact that he in turn ignores/has forgotten there have been several demonstrations organised by the left and trade unions, that has put the numbers of these, ‘Freikorps’ wannabes in the shade. One of them was, ironically in Manchester, shortly after the concert bombing where there were a number of peace demos and benefit concerts
He said, “An estimated 10,000 fans brought Park Lane to a standstill. Rival fans, from Spurs, West Ham, Leeds and other teams, rubbed shoulders, held wreaths in the colours of their clubs, and listened peacefully as speakers railed against hateful extremism and slammed the branding of people who criticise Islamism as ‘Islamophobic’”. In the pubs as the rally drew to a close, several fights broke out between the fans. It must also be noted that in peace rallies in Manchester and London, after the bombings and stab attacks, etc. wreathes were laid, a respectful silence was held and speakers called out against Jihadist violence, so what is BoNy’s issue here?
The FLA founder, who has a very shady history all of his own, stated to loud cheers that, “We want all suspected terrorists who are not British citizens to be permanently removed from the country,” and that “Why should they be allowed to come over here? They’re not British citizens – get them out.”
Yet BoN brings in the infamous Spiked sneer with this section; “Most marches these days are packed with public-sector types, plummy anti-fascists, and Guardian columnists who must maintain their rad cred by occasionally traipsing through the streets with people holding dusty trade-union banners”. First of all, there are large pockets of industrial workers still in play, but also the composition of the w/c has always been subject to change, as Mike Freeman himself acknowledged in the RCPs book, ‘Taking Control’. The w/c is no longer solely the industrial big battalions. It also now includes the ‘precariate’, the lower level public sector workers, as well as teachers, nurses, firemen and women, etc. Far from him being the slayer of sacred, shibboleths, he merely regurgitates the prejudice of Spectator readers who’d call the police if they saw a w/c person of any description in their neighborhood
Brendan, asks that we take Meighan at his word, but why? At the rally, last week, Meighan bellowed, “we want our country back”, and was echoed enthusiastically by the crowd. Tommy Robinson may have turned up to only film, but he was greeted with acclaim when he did so, he also headed the march. Lets also not forget that he was eager last week for the traffic accident outside the British Museum, to have been a terrorist incident. Also both the EDL, Pegida-UK, and UKIP have insisted that they are not racist, or anti-Muslim, but their every utterance and publication on this subject has shown this to be a lie. On Extremism: Both BoN, the FLA, the EDL, UKIP and the Tories, etc. claim to be against ‘extremism”, so do the proprietors of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib, Bush and Obama. BoN wrote, “As speakers railed against hateful extremism and slammed the branding of people who criticise Islamism as ‘Islamophobic’. Except that those who are doing the critiquing, and on the whole it tends to come from middle-aged social conservatives, rarely, if ever make any distinction between Muslims and Islamists.
One of the FLA leaders a former soldier Phil Campion said, “As far as I’m concerned we’re at war.” He also said, “Politicians have surrendered in arrival halls and airports. They have housed, fed and clothed the enemy”, and that “It’s time to stand up to terror,” Campion went on. “The political correctness has gone too far. We’ve lost our freedom of speech. I’m not allowed to say anything anymore,” he said from the platform, with no sense of how eye rolling ironic that is.
But this has often been the rallying cry of the reactionary petite bourgeoisie as their complaint is that theirs is not the only voice and that they get challenged. Richard Seymour, while he’s writing about white supremacy, I think that this applies equally to the FLA, wrote “Shall we ever tire, I wonder, of dignifying racists and fascists with the mantle of oppression? They, the pitiable, neglected "white working class". They, the underdogs, oppressed in their own nation, by the politically correct, the educated, the middle classes and (sotto voce) the uppity minorities. No matter how many faces they kick in, no matter how many people they stab, no matter how many times they pose with guns as if in tribute to their co-ideologue Breivik, there will always be those who entertain a patronising sympathy for these primitive oiks and their native moxie. For example, here is the knuckle-dragging bore, Brendan O'Neill, late of the RCP, explaining to his rich, white audiences that opposition to the EDL is the behaviour of a rich, white clique motivated by class hatred”
As a counter to BoN’s pound shop class war, which is about as real as a female, porn stars tits. Seymour notes “There is a conception of class implicit in this argument that has nothing to do with class as a category of political economy. It is not even the old status-culture model of class that underpins official statistical classifications. It is a chimera, a purely sentimental, pseudo-ethnic model of class, in which a working class person is defined by certain sumptuary and sartorial habits, attributes, which make for convenient genre markers but which by themselves, can yield no sociological insight. It is an object of nostalgia and melancholia, the deus ex machina of reactionary polemic that strictly does not coincide with the working class as it actually lives and reproduces itself. That working class, the 'actually existing working class' for want of a better term, has anti-fascists and anti-racists in it.”
At the end of the article Brendan, states, “Where our supine political class seeks to shush concern about the ideology of terror, and to cultivate a passive response to violence, the FLA encourages us to be concerned. Where observers tell us it is ‘Islamophobic’ to criticise Islamist thinking, the FLA challenges such sly censoriousness and calls for open, robust and, yes, difficult debate”. Perhaps it’s best if someone tells him, that if you want to convince the wider world as to the class bona fides of the FLA, then you should not reproduce the same sorts of tropes you read on the DM/Express/Sun/CiF (Comment is Free), Spiked website and FB page, comments section. The sort that issue the most bellicose of threats, against feminists, PoC, Muslims, under the claim of being stifled under “PC gawn mad”
Andrew Kliman was writing about Trump, in “With Sober Senses” for MHI, but again it applies here when one sees the current flirtation being done by former revolutionaries, with the UK equivalent of white supremacy. He wrote on August 17th 2017, ‘Will We Allow Trump to Get Away with Fomenting White Supremacy and Racist Violence?’ “After intense outcry throughout the country, and pressure from many of his advisors (notably not including Steve Bannon), Trump read some mitigating words off the teleprompter on Monday.” Also that “one would have to be deliberately obtuse to think that Trump meant any of it. Leading neo-Nazi Richard Spencer correctly characterized the statement as “kumbaya nonsense” and said, “Only a dumb person would take those lines seriously.”” Andrew, also chillingly points out, that “Others, taking a cue from the Charlottesville event—which was nominally a protest over the planned removal of a Confederate-era statue—are organizing efforts to preserve “white heritage” symbols in their home regions.
Preston Wiginton, a Texas-based white nationalist, declared on Saturday that he planned to hold a “White Lives Matter” march on September 11, on the campus of Texas A&M University, with Richard Spencer as keynote speaker”
I am quoting Andrew Kliman because he correctly identifies the false sense of grievance and injustice that white supremacy fosters. It is also dresses it’s authoritarianism in the clothes of taking a stand against “the elites”, “special interests”, etc. The FLA is an attempted reformulation of the right, a right that could quickly become the far right.
What’s more, it is taking place in the context of a far right recovery in parts of Europe. In Europe, and we here in the UK have also seen this happen, is the normalization of the claim “it’s not racist to talk about immigration”. A spin off from that has been in turn the normalization of “it’s not racist to talk about Islam”. These have become code words and ciphers to make racism and bigotry more polite but no less deadly.
It is a sign of Spiked’s political degeneracy that while they may not be directly racist themselves, they have no intention of challenging those that are. Victor Grayson, a left-wing MP in the LP was thrown out because members of the House of Commons were discussing the Licensing Bill. Grayson moved an adjournment so that the house could discuss unemployment.
His departing words should ring in BoN’s ears “You are traitors! Traitors to your class.”But, alas Spiked people have booked their tickets on the carnival of reaction and they are determined to get their moneys worth.

Michael Rosen on Paul Nuttall. #PaulNuttallFacts #Stoke #Ukip

Michael Rosen on Paul Nuttall

Paul Nuttall says that when he said he invented the famous chocolate spread, he meant that he likes it.
Paul Nuttall says that he loved working with Mary Berry on the Great British Bakeoff but will take the brand to Channel4
Paul Nuttall says that when he said that he lost friends at Hillsborough he meant that he lost his glasses
Paul Nuttall says he's very proud that people in Liverpool say, 'He's Nuttall there'.
Paul Nuttall says that the best central defence in the top flight English league was Alan Hansen and Paul Nuttall
Paul Nuttall says his great inspiration is Shakespeare's Henry V:
"No, Nuttall these thrice-gorgeous ceremony..."
Paul Nuttall says that his brother is Midsomer Murders star John Nuttall.
Paul Nuttall says that his favourite book as a child was Beatrix Potter's wonderful little book, 'Squirrel Nuttall'.
Paul Nuttall says that the legendary Everton manager Howard Nuttall was his father.
Paul Nuttall says that he remembers when the names on everyone's lips were: John, Paul Nuttall, George and Ringo.
Paul Nuttall says that Nelson's last words were 'Kiss me Nuttall'. Paul Nuttall says that little green men write the comments on his website.
Paul Nuttall says that he lost his hearing in the trenches.
Paul Nuttall says that he didn't lose a close friend, he lost his bottle. Paul Nuttall denies he lost his credibility over the Hillsborough matter, as he's not sure he had any in the first place
Paul Nuttall says he lost an eye at the Battle of Agincourt but found it in the bath where his mum was storing coal
Paul Nuttall says he didn't lose his rag. It's just that he prefers to use paper hankies now.
Paul Nuttall says re his website and who writes what, he's lost track. And cars. Scalectrix eh? Easily done.
Paul Nuttall says that he didn't lose his shirt on the 4.30 at Sundown but in a bare knuckle prize fight in Toxteth
Paul Nuttall didn't lose his bearings. They're still in the ball-race on the car that his father was too poor to buy
Paul Nuttall says he didn't lose his train of thought. It was on platform 4 at Liverpool Lime Street.
Paul Nuttall says that he did not lose his temper. It was in the parlour is his two-up two-down back-to-back terrace
Paul Nuttall lost an argument but found it in Nigel Farage's trousers
Paul Nuttall lost his thread because, he says, Jeremy Corbyn closed the cotton mills.
Paul Nuttall said that he did not lose his hair, it lost him.
Paul Nuttall lost his way on the way to Hillsborough but he found it again when he decided to stand for parliament
Paul Nuttall lost his leg on a midnight hike and found it in the Lost Property Office on Liverpool Station

Why UKIP and their divisive rhetoric should always be opposed. #Brexit

We stumbled across the following cut and paste post, and cut and paste to share. Original source unknown.

Sentiments are all ours.

"I went for a walk today. First, down to the Post Office where the owner helped me with my parcel, checking the post code which he was worried was not correct. He’s a Muslim, a first generation immigrant judging by his voice - not that that made any difference. When I left the Post Office I decided to go home by a roundabout route in order to get a bit of exercise. As I passed a gate I got a huge hello and grin from the chap standing there having a smoke. He was black and had spectacular dreadlocks almost down to his waist - not that that made any difference. I went on my way, passing a lollipop man who was greeting parents and children as they passed with a beaming smile. He was white - not that it made any difference. On I went on this chilly afternoon, up past the hospital and met a “walking bus”: two young women and about ten children holding hands with each other and chattering away nineteen to the dozen, making their way home from school. Some of those children had white skins and some of them had brown skins, not that it made any difference - it certainly didn’t to them. I carried on, past the bike shop with the white owner, circling through the park past the swarms of students from our highly successful 6th form college in their mixed ethnic groups gossiping with the energy that young people have in abundance. Not that it made any difference either.

When I walk around the town centre I hear voices in many accents and languages. I have heard most of them all my life. The Scots, Irish, Germans, Italians, Jews and Basques were already here before I was born. So too were the Eastern Europeans, fleeing first the Nazis and then the Communists. There are Latvian clubs, Ukrainian clubs , Polish clubs, Estonian clubs and so on all over the region. After the “Captive Nations” Europeans came people from the West Indies and then people from the Indian sub-continent and Africa. The new voices around my home town are Chinese; we have a thriving University which has a good number of Chinese students, and those of a new wave of Eastern European people. Not that any of THAT matters.

I taught for thirty eight years in the area, mostly at a comprehensive, and taught children from all these backgrounds, and also from Africa, from Palestine, from Sri Lanka, from Greece and from Russia. They were all, well, children. They were, of course, mostly lovely. My colleagues were white, brown, Christian, agnostic, Muslim, French, Spanish, Caribbean. Not that any of that made any difference. I spent my last five years of work at one of the highest achieving schools in the country where some of the pupils had doctors or surgeons as parents, some taxi-drivers, some accountants, some shop-keepers and some academics and so on. Nearly forty percent of the pupils were Muslim or of Asian descent - and none of that, none of it, made any difference.

When I was about twelve I had an experience that did make a difference. On a visit to my grandfather’s house one day, being left alone whilst everyone else went to walk the dogs I explored my grandfather’s library. Looking through his books I discovered a photographic record of what the Allies found in the extermination camps in 1945. There was a horrid fascination that kept me turning the pages looking at one nightmare after another. I felt sick and yet I couldn’t stop looking: gallows, ovens and shower-rooms that weren’t. One image stays with me: a giant yard full of what appeared, at first sight, to be neat stacks of firewood. Except it wasn’t wood that was so neatly piled. I couldn’t tell my parents why I was so upset when they returned from their walk, I felt that I had been looking at something obscene and shameful, and I had.

So here’s the thing: I was taught at junior school that white people were naturally better than every one else, that there were such things as human races and you could judge people by which religion they held to. It was all a lie. None of it, none of this nationalistic, xenophobic nonsense that engulfs us today is true. And it is why I am so angry about the results of the Referendum; that a project that was explicitly set up to ensure that the horrors of the past could never be repeated because we would be bound together at first economically and then through shared cultural experiences, a project that in those terms at least was an enormous success, that all this should be thrown away under the influences of those very forces it set out to destroy, is heart-breaking. I say shame, shame to all those unprincipled politicians and media men who encouraged this Pandora’s box to be opened. Let us hope that a butterfly of hope was released too."

Rethinking Brexit - a letter to The Economist from BRIAN UNWIN, former president of the ECB #Brexit

'Rethinking Brexit

I welcome your general stance on the Brexit referendum, but you go too far in saying it was a clear result to leave the European Union and that MPs therefore should not vote against the government triggering Article 50 (“The way forward”, November 12th). There is no established constitutional doctrine on referendums in Britain. In this case, the outcome was very close; the referendum was advisory, not mandatory; the campaign was full of misinformation and downright lies; and no indication was given (we still do not have it) of what trading and other relationships would follow with the EU and the wider world.

Although the economy has in some respects survived the referendum shock better than some had predicted, nearly all the underlying economic indicators now suggest that there is a very difficult medium and longer-term period ahead, with disposable incomes falling as inflation rises. With the added horror of Donald Trump in the White House, surely it is more important than ever that Britain should remain working closely and constructively alongside its partners within the EU.

It would be perfectly reasonable and democratic, and consistent with the practice in several other European countries, to offer the public an opportunity to think and vote again when the consequences of a Brexit become clearer. Please do not throw in the towel so easily.


Former president of the European Investment Bank

Dorking, Surrey'

Nov 26th 2016

A few words from @sturdyAlex on #Brexit

"I need to say a few words about this whole Parliament voting for Brexit, without any detail on what it means, being framed as "respecting the people's will" and any resistance conversely as "undemocratic". I CALL BULLSHIT.

It may be POLITICALLY difficult, but constitutionally? Easy, peasy. Every first year law student prays for a constitutional law exam question this clear-cut. It is at best a conflict between representative and direct democracy. And, since our system is explicitly the former, is a really easy conflict to resolve.

That is why the referendum was deemed to be advisory by the High Court (clearest in para.106 of the judgment) and the appeal on this issue rejected by the Supreme Court. Your views on the judiciary aside, this is now settled law:

"[The 2015 Referendum Act] falls to be interpreted in light of the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy which apply in the United Kingdom, which lead to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act."

So any MP is constitutionally absolutely entitled to vote with their conscience on this issue. The referendum has political meaning, but no legal or constitutional standing. As I said, it may be really difficult to balance the needs of the self, the party and the country. Some truly honourable MPs on both sides have resigned, rather than make this terrible choice.

Whatever you think of the referendum result, when you hear MP after MP stand up and say they think this is going to be a disaster for the UK, but they're going to vote for it anyway, what you hear is political difficulties overriding the right thing.

Reaching a stage where politicians make choices they believe to be wrong, because they're terrified of voters is ochlocracy, not democracy. It is not to be celebrated, but a symptom of profound dysfunction and should worry anyone intelligent, Brexiter or Remainer.

But it doesn't, because we're still wrapped up in the adversarial language of the referendum and so we are giving our politicians a free pass.

Add on top, the insidious idea that worrying about such things, or raising objections of legality through proper channels, or wanting to participate in the debate on what shape things take after we have left the EU, is somehow a lack of respect for the result of the referendum and you have a toxic mix.

Very few people have seriously raised this and yet it is has become the paranoia-du-jour. "They're trying to steal your victory." "Trying to disrespect your democratic will."

I suggest quite the opposite. Let's respect the result of the referendum. IN ITS ENTIRETY. And that result is: on a highly emotive and inflamed issue, with AWFUL quality of information available, often on purpose, often outright lies, a country was divided pretty much down the middle, and decided by a narrow margin a thing.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in your victory narrative, but that WAS the result of the referendum. And you disrespect it by saying fuck the 48%, as much as the few who say fuck the 52%. The only respectful result, the only democratic result, is one that as close as possible to 100% of citizens can live with. And for that to happen, all voices must be heard.

Once formulated this way, of course, the idea that the end result should gratify exclusively every Hard Brexit wet dream of the most extreme Europhobe, that the rest of the country can just lump it because "it lost", is revealed for the utter nonsense it is.

What we get instead is an act of political opportunism by a Tory Party sensing an hopelessly impotent opposition and going hell-for-leather at its once-in-a-lifetime chance to exorcise its perennial demon.

And that, friends, is the most undemocratic result of all."

The problem with not opposing Brexit #BrexitShambles #Ukip #SingleMarket #Immigration

Time and time again we are told that we should stop moaning, get over it, and accept the result of the EU Referendum and waive away all those rights we have as EU citizens. We are told that the result of the referendum was the 'will of the people' and that 'democracy has spoken' and we are consistently attacked as being traitorous for standing up for what we believe in.

The problem with this is that we feel, as do many others, that we were bullied into a referendum by UKIP and their rowdy mob of rag tag fascists who insisted that if the referendum result had been 52%/48% against them, that it would be 'unfinished business'.

Certainly, whatever the people had voted you can be sure that Kippers & Eurosceptics (egged on and supported by the likes of extreme far right parties like the EDL & Britain First) would never have stopped moaning, and it seems that whatever had happened there would have been a rowdy resistance. They were threatening the same before.

Then of course there are the problems associated with the 2016 referendum and the behaviour of those on the far-right. The hate of foreigners and refugees in an era of post-truth news, and where social media campaigns are funded by rich donors and supported by right-wings newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express and the Sun whose owners don't even live in the UK, yet feel they have a right to commentate and sow seeds of discontent. UKIP did very well from the money that was ploughed into the campaign by the Daily Express owner and the likes of Arron Banks who all have vested interests in leaving the EU, and who care little about the economic and social impact as they will do just fine thank you very much.

What strikes us as particularly ironic and hypocritical is that a party whose sole aim was/is to be anti-EU is the very same party that been creaming off funds to pay for their staff and using it for electioneering purposes in the UK. In doing do they defrauding the system as well as the British tax-payer for their own gain and wages and expenses, and all the time influencing hearts and minds with their racist and xenophobic agenda to further their own machine of hate. The level of influence UKIP and the far right have had in the UK thanks to heavily funded social media campaigns has been far-reaching, and they have behaved appallingly as a party along the way, turning people against each other and trying to take us out of that very EU that funded them so well.

I hear many people, both on the remain and leave sides, saying we should respect the result of the referendum, when UKIP, Farage and co quite obviously would not have done. Those who attack us seem content to let UKIP do what they have done and take us out of the EU but also seem willing to ignore their behaviour and impact on the UK in not only bringing about this referendum, but also by using EU funds to try and demonise the EU and turn the British people against it, and then threaten and hold the country to ransom with threats of disorder and riots should they not get their way. They know exactly what they are doing, and it stinks to hell.

It's the scandal of the century. The way in which UKIP have got away with murder, almost, and left us in a state of turmoil and disarray, whilst they still cream off the funds that keeps them in pocket. Oh, and don't forget about their EU pensions which will keep many of those MEPs comfortable for years to come, while the people suffer the effects of their work.

The way UKIP have behaved in recent years is utterly shameful, the way they have turned the debate into a negative one taking the country back in time to a place many of us felt we'd left behind with the fascists of the past.

We will not give up so easily, and we will fight for our rights as EU citizens as those rights protect us from corruption in Governments of our own country and also guarantee us many hard-earned rights and benefits we will all lose as a country and people if we continue on this path to Brexit destruction.

"Again & again 1 side bows to the rules & to what’s fair-while the other focuses on the ruthless exercise of power”

How much longer are we going to stand by and watch while we let UKIP/The Tories and now Labour try and drag us out of the EU? What else can we do if we continue to play by the rules, and let UKIP get away with this? Surely, if UKIP have got issues with immigration, then why does the Government not do something about it, but destroying our relationship with the EU and taking us out of the single market? That is not the answer. After all, the majority of leave voters wanted to retain single market membership, They did not vote for a hard Brexit.


Suzanne Evans Is Posting Propaganda and Spin On Facebook About Brexit And #EuRef #Ukip


Despite Nigel Farage openly admitting that the promised £350 million a week for the NHS was a “mistake”, UKIP and the leave camp continue to believe that the people of Britain are gullible and that they will continue to listen to their lies and propaganda.

We have recently come across a message from Suzanne Evans of UKIP where she describes the UK’s “first day of independence” in terms which can only be described as blatant propaganda and the lowest level of political spin.

Also same post here, not sure who wrote it. Presumably Suzanne.And of course, also printed in the Ukip Express, here.

She starts, “the FTSE 100 lost significant ground” in fact, it hit a seven year low, rallied a little, but still closed with significant losses.  Why does this effect you?  Do you have a pension fund? Well forget retiring. Since the Brexit fiasco the FTSE has lost £120 billion. It also lost £100 billion last Wednesday - to put that into perspective that is nearly 20 years contribution to the EU budget wiped off our economy. 

Ms. Evans goes on to say that the pound “rallied”. The pound has lost over 10% of its value in the last week. The exchange rate between the Pound and the Dollar is down to the same levels as 1985, it is now worth nearly the same as the Euro. Why is this bad? As the Leave camp always said, we import more than we export. You do the maths.

Things are only this good because the Bank of England has given some assurances by promising emergency funding of £250 billion. 

Ms. Evans then goes on to say that the our special relationship with the USA will endure. We assume she read this in the Daily Express, owned by a Brexit donor. However, a rather more objective news source, Reuters, makes it very clear that this relationship is under threat:

“The loss of the strongest pro-U.S. voice within the 28-nation bloc, as a result of the “Brexit” referendum, threatens to weaken Washington’s influence in European policymaking and embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin to further challenge the West, analysts and former diplomats say.”

This is very serious. This is more important than a trade deal with the UK and the US and the salvage of the UK’s failing economy, this is threatening the stability of the entire Western world.

Ms. Evans then goes on to say the French government has confirmed that the Touquet Agreement will remain in force. This is the bilateral agreement between France and the UK which ensures that the Jungle housing the Syrian refugees remains in Calais and does not end up in Dover. We can find no authority for this in the press anywhere. In fact, Xavier Bertrand, the President of Hauts-de-France region where Calais is located said “The English wanted to take back their freedom: they must take back their border”

President Juncker has indeed stated that the negotiations for Brexit will be orderly, however there are no guarantees that we will retain the close connections with our former EU partners that we have now. They are not happy at the referendum result. The European Parliament is demanding that the UK trigger Article 50 TFEU so that this fiasco can continue with some dignity. If you are surprised at this, don’t forget that in his 15 years in the European Parliament, Nigel Farage hardly made friends and influenced people. Many times he has brought our former EU partners to the limits of their patience; openly called them Communists and Nazis. They are hardly likely to have forgotten this when they enter these negotiations. It has also been pointed out that the UK government has only 12 Trade Negotiators, and at least 100 will be needed to pull of this negotiation deal. This is not going to be an easy thing to do in a hurry. However, do not blame our EU partners, these problems are purely the fault of our own Government’s complacency and Nigel Farage’s infantile propensity to insult “foreigners”.

Ms. Evans then goes on to describe how “a big bank” (no mention of which one) has said it will not be transferring jobs over to the EU. This is what we found in the press:

“You’re looking at 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” says one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.”

Ms. Evans now goes on to talk about the CBI - sating that whilst they were previously against Brexit now they were fully on board. That is not how we interpret their statement. This sounded to us more like a word of warning and encouragement toward companies who were about to weather the worst economic storm they had ever had to face. Their statement also stresses the importance of the EU to our economy.

Even once we have left, the EU will continue to be our biggest trading partner, and the first destination for many companies when they start to export.

Finally, she states that several countries are interested in beginning bilateral talks with Britain. The only one we can find is Ghana.

To be more precise, this is not even a new trading deal. This is a renegotiation of an existing deal which was put in place via the EU. The only reason Ghana wants to talk to the UK bilaterally is that the UK is its largest trading partner within the EU.

Ms. Evans starts her statement with the words “A Prime Minister resigned” - This is the only accurate part of the entire statement.

We are amazed that after all the lies and propaganda spread throughout the referendum campaign, that UKIP would continue to try to dupe the British people. UKIP obviously believe that we are uneducated and gullible. This makes us extremely angry. The vote to leave has already left the UK economy in tatters, we dread to think what will become of it by the time we have negotiated our exit.

Response To Left Leave’s Seven More “Myths" About The EU. #Ukip #LabourLeave #EuRef #Lexit

In response to this article, in which #LEXIT: the Left Leave Campaign chair ROBERT GRIFFITHS attempts to counters key arguments for EU membership

Myth 1.    The EU has brought peace in Europe for 50 years or more.

The Lexit argument is that peace has been maintained by anti-war feeling in the West and the Soviet policy of “peaceful co-existence”. Peace therefore cannot be attributed to the European Union.

The genesis of the EU can be found in the Schuman declaration.  Robert Schuman was the post-war French Foreign Minister.  His statement of 9th May 1950 outlines the primary objectives of what we now know as the European Union.  This is what he said about obtaining peace in Europe.

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

He then detailed one of the key “creative efforts” that could bring about peace within a war torn and battered continent.

"The pooling of coal and steel production... will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."

The idea in itself is simple.  We work together towards reconstruction and towards a stable situation that will encourage production and trade..  We trade with one another, because we are far less likely to try to destroy those nations we want to sell our products to.

Our final quote from the Schuman declaration is this:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."

Large objectives are hardly ever achieved by a single plan.  Peace in Europe can be attributed to a number of different factors; the formation of the United Nations and NATO have also been key to ensuring peace in Europe.  No doubt so has an anti-war feeling in the West and a desire to cooperate from Russia, especially after the dismantling of the Eastern Bloc in the 1980’s.  However, the impact of the European Union in establishing cooperation between nations, to a point where trade and economic growth can be attained and maintained cannot be dismissed. 

The undeniable fact is that no two EU Member States has ever gone to war with each other.  It also cannot be denied that wars have happened.  The Individual Nation States that are the members of the EU have used their autonomy in determining their own foreign policy to go to war just as the UK did with Iraq, however, this has never been a decision taken at EU level.

The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of NATO and a member of the European Union.  We could attribute all these factors to having ensured peace for our nation in the last 60 years.   Economic prosperity and stability cannot be achieved without peace between nations, economic cooperation between nations can ensure that peace.  This was the key ethos of Robert Schuman’s speech.  The EU cannot be sidelined as a contributing factor to the maintenance of peace within Europe.

Myth 2.   Many problems are international and so require a coordinated EU approach.

The Lexit argument is that international problems are larger than the EU.  The UK is already a member of a number of international initiatives (WHO, WTO, Unesco, ILO etc) so we don’t need to be involved in EU initiatives.  Furthermore, they see the EU as representing only large corporations and therefore undermining the efforts of the above mentioned international agencies.  Finally, as the UK is the 5th largest economy of the world, we will always have influence.

To take the last comment first.  Since the latest round of polls showing an advantage for Leave the pound has fallen, and £77 billion of investment has already left the country.  Nobody can guarantee that our economy will remain the 5th largest whether we remain or leave.  However, even the leave campaign has admitted that there will be an economic shock and a period of economic uncertainty will follow if we leave the EU  Therefore the argument that our standing in the world’s economy will remain the same cannot be guaranteed.

It is true that international problems are larger than the EU.  However, the EU as a collective provides over 50% of all global development aid, the EU is in fact, the world's leading donor in this area

After leaving the EU would the UK commit to a continuing its current level of funding?  Will the EU have to reduce this kind of funding if the UK pulls out?  How would this damage worldwide development projects in the future?  Who will ultimately suffer from this?  What would be consequences of this?   Maybe questions to ask yourself before casting your vote.

As to environmental initiatives, again, a global concern, but basic geography would lead one to assume that dealing with issues such as air and sea pollution would require cooperation with our immediate neighbours.  Let’s look at the UK fishing fleet.  Rather than trying to destroy our fish stocks, the limits put on the fishing industry have been put in place for reasons of ensuring that certain species do not become extinct from over fishing.  This is a long term approach to try to address mistakes made in the past.  The majority of our own problems stem in fact from the Cod War that took place between ourselves and Iceland prior to our EU membership.

As to further EU environmental initiatives, the UK is signed up to the EU Energy Union, with framework policies running to 2020, 2030 and 2050.  The final aim is to ensure EU energy independence - thus removing our need to rely on countries outside the EU for our energy supplies.  This will be achieved by commitments to the development of renewable energy. 

The UK is certainly not forced into joining these initiatives.  Please see below a link to a press release from 6th June 2016 regarding closer cooperation between the North Sea countries on the use of wind power.  This initiative looks into the use of space used in the North Sea for the wind turbines, better connectivity for supply etc.  Every North Sea Member State, and Norway - a non-Member State are involved.  The UK isn’t.  Obviously not the EU keeping us out.  Definitely a display of the current government’s non-commitment to renewable energy.

Myth 3: If Britain votes to leave the EU, it would be a victory for the political right. 

The Lexit argument is that our government and the CBI which both support Remain are only interested in big business and saving the financial services sector.  If we leave the current government will fall and the UK can promote polices that would favour investment in people not business.

It is true that the mainstream political right does indeed protect the interests of big business.  They are also keen to protect the City of London.  Unfortunately we have a Conservative government which was democratically elected and these are their priorities.  Secondly, since the decline of our manufacturing industries caused by Thatcherite policies our economy is heavily reliant on the City of London for creating money to drive the economy and to attract investment.  This investment is likely to fall if we leave the EU and the country has already seen £77 billion in investment leave the country as a result of polls showing a lead for leave.

A vote for withdrawal may well bring down Cameron and Osborne, but this is not a general election, and the referendum is not about the current government, it is about our continued membership of the European Union, the implications thereof, and what would be lost or gained as a result of leaving. or staying.

We could indeed promote policies at home and abroad that would put people first.  However, to do that we would need to put the appropriate government in place.  There is no guarantee that a leave vote will trigger a General Election.  Even if it does there is no guarantee that we would end up with a government that has the political will to do this.  There is also no guarantee that after leaving the EU we would even have an economy capable of guaranteeing policies favouring investment in people and continued influence on the world stage.

We could end up with a Labour government after a leave vote with a sufficient majority to protect our rights as workers and citizens without the protection of EU law, but for how long?  If voted out we could be back to Tory policies again in 5 years.

After a leave vote we could also just as easily inherit a government composed of Michael Gove, Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson.  Unfettered and with no protection from EU law, this troika could mean the complete loss of many of the rights as workers and even as human beings that we currently take for granted.

Myth 4. The EU can be reformed to serve the interests of the people:

The Lexit argument is that the powers of the EU can only be changed by Treaty changes which have to be unanimously agreed on in the Council of Ministers.  They claim that the Treaties contain pro-austerity policies which limit government investment in companies, they claim that alleviating these limitations would lead to greater economic investment in key domestic markets.

After an extensive search online, we cannot find a specific Treaty Article which imposes austerity measures on member states within the EU.  It is assumed that Lexit are referring to this.

The EU Treaty has stipulated what they consider to be an “excessive budget deficit”.  Trading between member states does indeed mean greater independency upon each other’s economies.  What do we have to gain if our trading partners have economic difficulties?  How can we sell to a country with no money, or where high unemployment leads to a reduction in demand?  In any case, why would we want to be free to run up a budget deficit?  surely this is counter productive?

Furthermore, the Treaty does contain specific provisions for tackling poverty and social exclusion within the EU. According to Article 9, “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.” Moreover, Article 3 clearly stipulates that the Union should “combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection.”

Furthermore, Article 208 TFEU stipulates the following:

“The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.”

All very well for citizens outside the EU - what about our own citizens?

This site does admit that there is “no EU plan on how to shield poor citizens in the EU from the consequences of austerity measures, nor any EU policy on protecting social sectors in Europe.”

However, since identifying this problem initiatives have been put in place to try to alleviate the impact on EU citizens.

For example, youth employment, including Erasmus+ which extends learning opportunities for EU students to include apprenticeships, which can be taken in any EU member state.

For an indication on how this has been attributed in the UK - see here.

Another example on how this has helped specific areas in the UK.

It could be said that this our money and that the UK could fund this anyway.  However, see our comments under myth 3 - we would need a government in place with the political will to do this.


To move on, what about Lexit’s comments on State Aid?

State Aid is part of the body of EU law relating to competition.  EU competition law is run with the primary objective of serving EU consumers.  By ensuring a market where companies compete with one another the consumer is guaranteed lower prices and better products.

The EU, in conjunction with the National Competition Authorities based in each Member State deal with competition law on a variety of levels.  For example, responsibilities of dominant undertakings, investigating and dismantling cartels and cartel activity, monitoring mergers to alleviate barriers to entry for smaller companies and start ups and finally they monitor state aid.

Lexit is correct, State Aid is illegal under EU competition law.  The rationale is that providing government funding to companies gives them an unfair competitive advantage on the market.  They are not run efficiently as they have no motivation to ensure improved products.  State aid also favours richer countries on the global market as they can afford to fund failing companies.

However, State Aid is allowed under certain circumstances.  For example, The Royal Bank of Scotland received state aid from the UK government.  Why did the EU allow this?  Because the alternative would have meant small investors (the small citizens such as you and I) losing their life savings, and maybe going to a cashpoint machine and not being able to withdraw money from their account.  The result, mass panic and a possible domino effect on the rest of the financial services sector.  A real disaster for the United Kingdom, therefore it was allowed under EU law.

As a little aside, the financial services sector was investigated by the EU.  A cartel was uncovered regarding the fixing of the Inter Bank Lending Rate in three currencies (Libor, Eurbior and Yen).  The fine imposed by the EU in 2013 on the banks for Euribor and Yen was €1.71 billion.  This money went directly into the EU budget and came off the EU taxpayer’s bill for funding the EU.

State Aid can also be allowed for what is considered to be a “service of general economic interest”  “SGEI” - for example, a privately owned bus company finds it inefficient to run a bus route to a very isolated area, this can be funded by a government in order to ensure that transport in this area is assured.
TATA steel has been in the news recently, the criticism being that the government cannot save the industry with state aid as it is forbidden by the EU.  First of all, we have a conservative government which would be against state aid by default.  Secondly, state aid can be given to steel industries if it encourages efficiency.  Some EU Member States have done this, mainly through reducing energy prices by encouraging switches to renewable energy.  Our government just does not have the political will to do this.  It doesn’t seem to like renewable energy anyway.  The EU is also desperate to apply anti-dumping measures on China to prevent them from dumping cheap steal on the EU market.  Again this has been held up by our own government.

The case for Anti-dumping measures is very high.  Personally, I would not want to buy Chinese steel as their workers are exploited and do not enjoy the same levels of social protection and human rights laws as we do.  If we can be independent in our supply within the EU, then we can exert influence on places such as China.  We do not want cheap products at any price.  Ensure protection to your workers and maybe we will consider buying from you.  Ensure the use of renewable energy policies in your production and maybe we will buy from you.

Can the UK do this from outside the EU?  Another question to ask yourself before voting.

Finally, can the EU be reformed?  with the correct Member State governments, certainly.  There has to be a political will to do that.  This only happens if you, the citizens, vote for governments who wish to do this.  Ultimately the EU is the sum of its parts, it is an assemblage of independent Nation States.

Myth 5.  Scotland and Wales benefit from EU funds and British withdrawal would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

The Lexit argument is that the money supplied is insignificant compared to what comes from central government, and that Scotland cannot afford to leave the United Kingdom.  Free from EU rules on public procurement local government can award larger contracts to local suppliers.

Why only British withdrawal?  It is the United Kingdom that is a member of the EU, not Great Britain.  Why does Lexit not want to touch on the thorny issue of Northern Ireland?  Could we please not forget the Labout MP that put the Good Friday Agreement in motion despite being extremely ill at the time.  It has been put forward that leaving the EU could lead to the demise of the Good Friday Agreement, this would be an insult to Mo Mowlam’s memory.

To return to the original argument, it is not just Wales and Scotland that receive EU funding.  EU funding is available to the whole of the United Kingdom.  Scotland and Wales received most of the funding during the 1980’s as these areas were considered by the rest of the EU as needing regeneration.  This was during the Thatcher era - a Conservative government.  We now have another Conservative government that has little interest in regeneration projects that fall outside London and Home Counties and which has actively favoured their own constituencies with government funding.

This has also been doing the rounds on Facebook - it shows how much Charities could suffer from a withdrawal from the EU - and also demonstrates how much the poor and vulnerable are dependent upon charities, which are in turn dependent upon EU funding:

“Wave goodbye to local authority and charity services you thought the government pays for, if you vote to Leave the EU. The government does not and will not pay for services you currently take for granted and you probably think are paid for by the government - the government cut funding in 2010 and repeatedly since then, forcing councils, schools and lots of other organisations to become charities in order to compete for funding from the lottery and from the major EU funding streams. I know because I write the funding applications! Goodbye services for children, disabled people, hospitals, the elderly, community transport, adult education, libraries, theatres and parks all paid for by the ESF. Goodbye town centre rejuvenation projects, small businesses, inland waterways and transport all paid for by the ERDF. And hello massive hikes in council tax and hello fracking companies and nuclear power stations on your doorstep, massive corporate building projects in the countryside and privatisation of schools as your council makes desperate attempts to make up the shortfall.
Even the National Institute of Statistics has openly published a statement to say that the Leave campaign are lying about the figures they're using. Please wake up to the social impact of leaving the EU and vote with your conscience not your pride.”

As a last interjection on ESF funding, the EU requires match funding before they will provide money for projects.  Every EU member state’s government puts this up themselves.  It makes sense after all - it is double your money surely?  However, the UK government provides no match funding.  Charities, start ups, cultural projects from the UK have to secure match funding from the private sector or use national lottery money. 

Scotland and Wales may leave the UK.  This is a real concern.  Scotland only recently had their own referendum on continued membership of the UK - the vote was extremely close and it has shown huge divisions between in particular England and Scotland on their visions for the future.  Funnily enough, Lexit is using the same arguments for Scotland to remain in the UK as Remain is using for the UK remaining in the EU.  Scotland has no desire to be an independent nation and a member of the EU sitting next door to a country that is not an EU member state.  This could become particularly tricky if Scotland adopts the Euro.  Whatever Scotland decides to do should there be a vote for leave, this will seriously damage any good will, such as it is, within the Union as a whole.  Different sections seem to want different things for their future and this is hardly a healthy situation on which to move forward as a nation.

Finally, public procurement rules are in place to ensure transparency, decrease the risk of anti-competitive practices and prevent corruption.  Removing public procurement rules will not necessarily result in money being diverted into projects for the greater good.  It may well lead to money being diverted for the pet projects of corrupt politicians only intent on lining their own pockets, and to the detriment of struggling start ups and small businesses.

Myth 6:  Democracy and Human Rights will be threatened if Britain leaves the EU.

Lexit seems to run out of steam here.  Again, the Member State quoted is wrong, it is the United Kingdom which is a member, not Great Britain.  Their argument is that there is Tory hostility towards the ECHR.  The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.  They also say that we need to defend Human Rights whether within the EU or not.

I think there is full agreement here.  Human Rights should be defended no matter what.  The ECHR is indeed separate from the EU.  However, since enlargement of the EU in 2004, adherence to the ECHR has become a condition of membership, it would be extremely difficult to leave the ECHR whilst a member of the EU.  Something Lexit does not seems to want to touch on.

It is also true that the Tories wish to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998.  This it can do whilst remaining in the EU, it is our own law, put in place by the last Labour government, and which incorporates the ECHR into UK law rather than having to rely on common law.  However, even with the HR Act 1998 scrapped we would still have the ECHR to fall back on - in fact the EU does not stop us adopting our own Bill of Rights if we so wish, however, it would have to be in line with the ECHR.

Lexit has completely ignored the European Charter on Fundamental Rights.

The provisions of the Charter are addressed to:
    •    the institutions and bodies of the EU with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity; and
    •    the national authorities only when they are implementing EU law.

The Charter ensures that Member States apply the ethos of the EU on the principles of equality of treatment and subsidiarity whenever it enacts EU law.  This ethos is also applied in all implementing regulations used by the EU institutions.

Lexit is also forgetting the protection provided by EU law to the Directives contained within the social chapter.  These directives are far reaching and deal with equality in the workplace and access to training and education.  They forbid discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religion and race.  They also contain rights to maternity pay, maternity leave, minimum paid vacation, health and safety regulations and also make sexual harassment in the workplace illegal.

It cannot be said that the EU is against Human Rights.  The principal of equality was enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome and it has been one of the cornerstones of the EU throughout its history.  Lexit  simply cannot imply that our human rights are better protected once outside the EU.

Myth 7:  There is no realistic alternative of EU membership.

The Lexit argument is that we already have bilateral agreements in place, and that we can join the European Free Trade Agreement and via that the European Economic Area.  We can also trade freely with BRICS and with the 53 Commonwealth nations.

From the above, it would appear that Lexit wish for the UK to have a Swiss or Norwegian style agreement with the EU.  Switzerland is a member of EFTA.  Norway is a member of EFTA and the EEA.  Both countries pay into the EU budget, both countries have free movement and they are both members of Schengen - so they have no border control.  Nether country has MEPs representing their nations in the European Parliament, nor do they attend meetings of the Council of Ministers.  They do have to adhere to the rules regarding trade and their products and packaging have to be in line with EU rules.  They are also part of the Social Chapter, and they have to comply with these rules as well.  They have no say in how these rules are developed. 

Why is this a better deal than the one we have now?  How does this make our situation more democratic?

As to BRICS, we already trade with them bilaterally.  Germany trades with them quite extensively on a bilateral basis.  As to the Commonwealth - do they want to trade with us?  What are they going to buy?  Do they have the means to purchase? Consider this video when thinking about the 'Swiss' model, a reply to Brexit the Movie.

Furthermore, surely again, simple geography implies that trading favourably with your neighbours is more pragmatic, especially when those neighbouring countries are wealthy.  Why would poorer countries be prepared to pay extra for our goods so that they can be transported, particularly when they will be subject to WTO trading tariffs?

We invite an open response from the #Lexit #VoteLeave campaign to our questions and ask them to seriously consider the implications of what they are campaigning for. 


This Is Doing The Rounds On Facebook, But What Is The Truth? #Ukip #WorkersRights #EuRef

This image is being shared round by Left #Lexit campaign taken (it would seem) from info being shared by far right on Facebook.

What to make of it?

Well, we considered the following:

The problem with all this is that the Lexit campaign plays straight into the hands of UKIP, and in the event of a Brexit helped by a Lexit campaign, we will find ourselves facing a Tory/Ukip govt and lose all the benefits of EU membership. These benefits are far reaching, and will impact on all of us. It will be an incredibly messy divorce and (without sounding too pessimistic) it could be very damaging to the UK economy, and put many jobs at risk. Not to mention the huge cost of a Brexit, when we consider all the costs of overhauling our legal framework, and renegotiating new trade deals. For me and many people on the left we are facing a difficult decision on 23rd June. 

But what to make of the information we are faced with about workers rights?  This covers point one. We need to remember that with 'Paid holiday leave' it is the minimum only that is set by the EU (same goes for maternity leave, maternity pay, etc) - the EU doesn't stop individual nations setting a higher minimum if they want to, and this is a strong argument against the claim that the EU doesn't allow individual countries to make their own laws. Therefore, this infographic shows that we DO make our own laws, and finally puts to rest that old lie from UKIP that we don't. 

But there is a lot of misinformation in it. The claim that the UK has a 'minimum wage' deftly sidesteps the fact that we do not have one of the highest minimum wages in the EU. The original text from which the above infographic is taken states that 'we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world'.  We may have one of the highest in the world, but not Europe. As UKIP likes to keep reminding us, the UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, so why would we not have one of the highest minimum wages in the world?

Also we need to remember the fact that one of the two major parties of government in the UK opposed the existence of any minimum wage at all until the late 1990s! I'm not sure what an "EU minimum wage" would involve, but my understanding is that EU nations are required to have a minimum wage, even if it's just one they set for themselves. It would be pretty hard to impose an EU-wide minimum wage, for obvious reasons. It's an unfeasible proposition since the member states economies are so different.

The point about 'No minimum maternity pay' is simply not true. Women on maternity leave are entitled to an allowance during the period of leave at a rate at least equivalent to sick pay. In reality UK maternity pay is the 3rd lowest in Europe, only Greece and Luxembourg are lower. 

As for 'Equal pay', our membership of the EU has strengthened and influenced by EU law.  The 1970's Equal Pay Act paved the way for the UK's entry to the European Community, helping to bring it towards conformity with Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.'

Furthermore, there was no right to a MINIMUM paid holiday entitlement in the UK before the EU Working Time Directive was introduced in 1993, the Tory government at the time tried to stop the EU introducing it, it was put into UK law in 1998. It was increased to '5.6 weeks' by Labour because some employers were counting Bank Holidays as part of the 4 weeks. The rights of agency workers and part-timers are also protected under EU law.

It's important to remember that these laws are protected and guaranteed by the EU. 
None of these things are under threat by remaining in the EU, but how safe are new rules like these if we leave?

Without the EU even the minimum can be taken away. Do we want to be like the US with no maternity leave or pay and no sick leave or paid vacation? Do we trust the Tories and Ukip to protect our working rights?

Finally, it is also interesting to note this, which worries us immensely. Who is actually funding the Labour Leave campaign?

Vote wisely, don't be fooled by the spin.


Are We Witnessing The Death Of Britain First ?

The London Mayoral Election has been for Britain First, in Paul Golding's own words, a 'disaster'.

Hey, Golding, we could have told you that in advance. Because it always is.

And it's been nicely summed up in this video from The Independent. Image links to the original post. give it a watch.


The Curious Case Of #Ukip's Rosie Ward

As with many of UKIP’s ‘bright young things’, Rosaline ‘Rosie’ Ward’s rise up the UKIP ranks is a tale of back stabbings and cover-ups. It's the way, in Ukip.

First picked up at a UKIP ‘luncheon’ by outed anti-Semite Stuart Guppy, she was quickly passed around to UKIP Councillor Harry Blakeley, who in turn groomed her for a meteoric climb up UKIP’s greasy pole - which concluded in a rather cushy job in the European Parliament, from all reports doing very little.

Cornwall Councillor Harry Blakeley
promotes Rosie Ward’s rise.
[Click for email detail].ption
Blakeley was 69 at the time and a married County Councillor,” explains a former branch officer who has since quit the party.

He was often seen driving around with her and soon engineered her appointment as Branch Chairman. He also touted her to Nigel personally and attempted to have her employed as YI (UKIP’s youth movement) Press Manager."

“The fact she was [at 16] younger than his grandchildren didn’t seem to bother him; but a lot of us felt quite uneasy about their relationship. Our parliamentary candidate once commented that he thought Blakeley was 'infatuated' with her.”

Indeed, whenever his young protégé was criticised, Blakeley would attack with ferocity, ‘denouncing’ members and the public alike. For the aging Cornwall Councillor, Ward could do no wrong.

So when local patrons found evidence of BNP affiliated articles, authored under her name on Nick Griffin ally, Jack Buckby’s Culturalist website, Blakeley lied to members to get her off the hook.

Steve Crowther, UKIP National Chairman, also weighed in by officially telling concerned staff that he had “concluded that for a 16-year-old it was a mistake which should be acknowledged but should not terminate her political involvement.”

Clearly many in UKIP were prepared to look the other way and continue to promote the young woman in the public eye.

Cornwall Councillor Harry Blakeley
attacks members and officials for
raising concerns about Ward’s BNP links
[Click for email details]
Ward’s 'management' of the Camborne & Redruth branch was reportedly “ineffectual”, and she soon became embroiled in a public scandal after her infamous ‘drugs party’ was reported by the national press.

As always Councillor Blakeley was there to save the day and her mandate was reaffirmed.

UKIP soon entered the planning stage for the 2015 general election, and with Camborne & Redruth listed as their third highest target seat UKIP Chairman Steve Crowther was confident that an 18-year-old with no experience was fit to lead the campaign.

Rosie Ward wrote for BNP insider
Jack Buckby here with Nick Griffin
"Ward should have never been given that level of responsibility at her age,” comments a former UKIP colleague.

“Putting someone so young into a public position under scrutiny like that, especially when it is UKIP is very irresponsible; but Blakeley refused to entertain any suggestions otherwise. He had his own agenda to keep promoting her and that is exactly what he did.”

“Pointing out that she was making repeated gaffes and ruining her own reputation was seen by Blakeley as ‘unfair criticism’. He even started ghost writing offensive internal letters and asking her to send them out under her name. He should be ashamed of himself.”

Issues came to a head when Camborne & Redruth’s candidate was arrested and charged for animal cruelty. Ward took the wise decision to use this incident to resign from her role. The new candidate, Bob Smith, banned the young ‘kipper’ from any activity in the campaign due to her BNP affiliations; including a keynote speech she was due to give at the YI Conference; much to the chagrin of her replacement ... the ever present Councillor Blakeley.

According to comments from a former Camborne and Redruth branch Chairman posted on an internet blog, Ward was told to leak information about the election campaign; including sensitive information about party leader Nigel Farage. This, once again at the behest of Harry Blakeley.

Ward listed as Intern at EFDD
After several months’ inactivity Rosie Ward was interviewed for a position in UKIP’s Brussels office. We are told that the interviewing official was in possession of a ‘large dossier’, which included information about her links to the BNP and articles written for Culturalist, plus negative social media posts criticising her constituency candidate and other party colleagues.

(Ward has since worked hard to remove all references to her BNP work, but caches and links remain active)

“UKIP member and right wing individual”
Ward joins a BNP affiliated site
However, for reasons unknown, UKIP’s European level staff, including MEPs, decided to ignore the evidence - and BNP affiliation - and offer the YI member a three month paid intern contract.

What Ward’s duties amounted to at the European Parliament have never been specified, but we’re told that she was “taken under the wing” of senior UKIP advisor, Anthony Brown; who immediately began posting her articles on his personal website.

“Nobody really knew why she was there or what she was doing,” remarks a former colleague. “Apart from taking several coffee breaks a day there didn’t seem to be much output. The main thing I recall was her posting nonsense on social media, and that her housing situation was compromised for much of her stay and she did the rounds asking colleagues for a thousand Euros to pay her deposit.”

Rosie Ward, now 19, has since quit social media and we are told no longer has involvement with the party - although she has been heavily featured in posts by the Leave.EU Campaign.

Ward featured in a
'Students For Britain'
'Brexit' post.
While her age is a factor, remember UKIP Councillors and even their National Chairman were happy to put this young woman in a high profile public role and use her for their own ends.

Perhaps her involvement with the BNP can be seen as naivete, but it proves once again that UKIP are happy to overlook such affiliations - so long as it helps their cause.

This post is less about Rosie Ward and more about how Ukip, a party dominated by middle-aged males, jumped at the chance of a photogenic token female future candidate, regardless of skills or knowledge. So much so that her BNP history was casually, effortlessly air-brushed away as a minor inconvenience.

We understand that although Ward has been 'off radar a bit' recently, this is more due to her studies than any other factor.

We expect her to resurface at some time, branded, polished and with a whitewashed history.

Stay tuned.




#EuRef #Lexit #LabourLeave #Ukip #VoteRemain #VoteLeave #Brexit #StrongerIn ( 2 ) 1984 ( 1 ) AfD ( 1 ) Alan Craig ( 3 ) Alexander Balkan ( 1 ) Alexandra Phillips ( 1 ) Alistair Harrison ( 2 ) Amjad Bashir ( 1 ) Analysis ( 1 ) Anne Marie Waters ( 3 ) Announcements ( 6 ) AntiSemitism ( 1 ) Arron Banks ( 4 ) Arthur Thackeray ( 3 ) Barking ( 1 ) BBC ( 1 ) BeLeaveBritain ( 1 ) Bikers ( 1 ) Bill Etheridge ( 2 ) Birmingham ( 1 ) BNP ( 6 ) Breitbart ( 3 ) Brexit ( 16 ) Britain First ( 5 ) Candidates ( 1 ) Carl Joel Ankar ( 3 ) Cartoon ( 1 ) Chris Smart ( 1 ) Christianity ( 2 ) Climate Change ( 1 ) Combat18 ( 1 ) Conference ( 1 ) Conservative Party ( 1 ) Cornwall ( 3 ) Crime ( 4 ) Daily Express ( 1 ) Daily Mail ( 1 ) Dariuz Sobkow ( 2 ) David Coburn ( 6 ) David Rowlands ( 1 ) Donald Trump ( 3 ) Douglas Carswell ( 6 ) Dover ( 1 ) Economy ( 2 ) EDL ( 5 ) EFD ( 6 ) Electoral Commission ( 2 ) Ethics ( 1 ) EU ( 16 ) EU Laws ( 3 ) EU Legislation ( 3 ) EU Referendum ( 14 ) Europe ( 13 ) European Elections ( 3 ) Facebook ( 2 ) Faith Matters ( 3 ) Flo Lewis ( 2 ) FN ( 1 ) Football Lads Alliance ( 1 ) FPTP ( 1 ) France ( 2 ) Fraud ( 1 ) GE2015 ( 3 ) George Monbiot ( 1 ) Gerard Batten ( 1 ) Germany ( 2 ) Google ( 1 ) Grassroots Out ( 2 ) Great Yarmouth ( 1 ) Greece ( 1 ) Greenland ( 1 ) Hate Speech ( 1 ) Health Tourism ( 1 ) Hermann Kelly ( 1 ) History ( 3 ) HIV ( 1 ) Holyrood ( 1 ) Homophobia ( 4 ) House of Lords ( 1 ) Huffington Post ( 2 ) Humour ( 10 ) Immigration ( 5 ) Ireland ( 1 ) Islam ( 2 ) Islamophobia ( 2 ) James Carver ( 2 ) Jane Collins ( 1 ) Janus Korwin-Mikke ( 1 ) Jayda Fransen ( 1 ) Jeremy Corbyn ( 1 ) Jonathan Arnott ( 1 ) Khalid Khan ( 1 ) KKK ( 1 ) KoD ( 1 ) Labour Party ( 4 ) Laura Henderson ( 1 ) Leave.EU ( 4 ) Liam Porter ( 2 ) Lisa Duffy ( 1 ) Llyr Powell ( 1 ) London ( 6 ) Lord Pearson ( 1 ) Louise Bours ( 1 ) Manifesto ( 1 ) Marine Le Pen ( 2 ) Mark Reckless ( 1 ) Media ( 3 ) Myths ( 2 ) Nathan Gill ( 3 ) Neil Hamilton ( 2 ) NeoNazi ( 3 ) News ( 26 ) NHS ( 3 ) Nick Clegg ( 1 ) Nick Griffin ( 2 ) Nigel ( 1 ) Nigel Farage ( 20 ) Oldham ( 1 ) Opinion ( 27 ) Orange Order ( 1 ) Pegida ( 1 ) PegidaIreland ( 1 ) PegidaUK ( 3 ) Peter Reeve ( 1 ) Peter Whittle ( 3 ) Pierre Vaugier ( 2 ) PiS ( 1 ) Poetry ( 1 ) Poland ( 2 ) Polls ( 1 ) Przemek Kilian ( 1 ) Quotations ( 3 ) Racism ( 4 ) Radio ( 1 ) Raheem Kassam ( 2 ) Refugees ( 3 ) Richard Hendron ( 1 ) Robert Iwaszkiewicz ( 1 ) Roger Helmer ( 1 ) Rosie Ward ( 1 ) Rotherham ( 1 ) Sarinder Joshua Duroch ( 3 ) Scotland ( 4 ) Scottish Daily Record ( 1 ) SDL ( 1 ) Security ( 1 ) Slovakia ( 1 ) Social Media ( 11 ) Spain ( 1 ) Steven Woolfe ( 2 ) Storch ( 1 ) Stuart Agnew ( 1 ) Summitted ( 1 ) Sweden ( 1 ) Tax Avoidance ( 1 ) Telegraph ( 2 ) Thanet ( 1 ) The Guardian ( 2 ) The Independent ( 2 ) The Times ( 1 ) Thurrock ( 1 ) Tommy Robinson ( 1 ) Tower Hamlets ( 1 ) Turkey ( 1 ) TV ( 2 ) Twitter ( 11 ) Ukip ( 73 ) ukiplgbt ( 4 ) USA ( 3 ) Victoria Ayling ( 1 ) Video ( 10 ) Vote Leave ( 3 ) Wales ( 4 ) White Supremacists ( 1 ) Winston Churchill ( 1 ) Winston McKenzie ( 1 ) WomenDefyUkip ( 1 ) Workers Rights ( 1 ) Young Independence ( 1 )

Recent Posts