Tuesday, 24 May 2016

Does Cameron take Euro-expats for fools?

The latest output from the Lie Factory is a stark warning that residence and property rights of UK nationals in Europe may be at risk. Does he take us for fools?

For a start, there are many, many more EU nationals resident in the UK than UK nationals resident in the EU. Like the million Poles whose boost to their own nation's GDP is substantial. Does Cameron really imagine that the Home Office will be telling all the Polish Sklep owners, the French IT businesses in London, the German and Italian caterers and restaurateurs that they must sell up and go? Even Cameron isn't that mad.

The principle that applies, and that will apply in the event of Brexit, is that those already established will retain whatever rights they have at the time of divorce, and that legal changes will only apply to future residents. 

Sorry, Dave, you're a nasty lying little spiv with no future and a shit political reputation. You will go down along with Gordon Brown as one of the UK's least effectual PMs. Now piss-off and get out of my road - I'm voting Leave, and so I'm sure will many expats who can see you for the lying hound you are. 

Monday, 23 May 2016

A month is a long time in politics

On 25th April, after the first round of the Austrian presidential election, I wrote;
I think the second round next month may be less dramatic, and the entire non-right wing vote will unite behind the green candidate, Van der Bellen, to give Austria a new President - a largely symbolic figurehead here where most power is devolved to the Chancellor and Länder.
I thought at the time it would pan out at 45% Hofer - 55% Van der Bellen - and would never have imagined that Hofer was within a hair's breadth of the Presidency. And the Chancellor to whom much power is devolved was then Werner Faymann, who, I wrote, had just scored a 72% approval rating for closing the Balkans migrant route. 

Well, even though I got Van der Bellen right, I didn't foresee Faymann's surprise resignation after the first round. His about-turn on migrants was too little, too late. A big tree felled. Just goes to show that a month is a long time in politics - and there's everything still to play for in the Euro referendum. 

And Hofer has everything to be cheerful about. The Austrian presidency shares many of the characteristics of the American vice-presidency in terms of its value vis-a-vis a pitcher of warm spit. The real prizes are the likely seats in the Federal parliament and the Länder governments to come - and my chum who sits as an MP for a Viennese constituency for the OeVP is actually safer than most of his colleagues. 

And still the BBC knows crap-all. I see their website has just compared Hofer's FPOe to Hungary's skinhead Jobbik party - when in fact the FPOe are a little to the left of Victor Orban's governing Fidesz. Maybe they should send a journalist to Europe to find out what's going on.  

Sunday, 22 May 2016

Why Cameron can lie so blatantly

The lies are coming thick and fast from the Number 10 / Whitehall Lie Factory - and becoming more and more outrageous. The Remainian campaign is descending to something beyond parody - no lie is too absurd, too incredible or too risible for Team Cameron to use. 

And the reason why is simple. If the Remainians win, no one will ever prove they were lying or not; they're throwing everything into winning, blind to the reality that if they lose, and none of the lies are proved true, they will have destroyed not only their own political careers but what ever residual consideration remains for political probity in the UK. In other words, they see no political future for themselves at all if out of the EU.

And that should sear itself into the minds of the electors; Team Cameron is only playing for its own selfish benefit, not for Britain's future.

Saturday, 21 May 2016

Labour's war on the Working Class

Labour's war on the working class is as old as the Party; a strong, independent and bloody-minded British working class was never going to become a compliant tool of the ex-public school Fabian socialists. The war had one aim - to destroy working class communities, make the working class utterly dependent on the State and inculcate socialist Internationalism to replace the 'crude' national identities valued by the working class. 

God knows how, but a documentary 'Last Whites of the East End' somehow got past the Stalinist censorship at the BBC to get made (they must have made and edited it in secret, surely?). Once made, and known about, the BBC realised they would create a greater controversy by not showing it - so it's been reluctantly scheduled for 22.45 on Tuesday. With the hope that it will then quickly slip from the national memory.  To be frank, I still don't believe they will show it - I think they will use the Referendum as an excuse to pull it from the schedules.

And what are Labour so scared of about a proud and independent working class? I've written about this before:-
Arthur Seldon, who founded the IEA with Ralph Harris, was born Abraham Margolis in the East End of London to Russian-Jewish refugee parents. They both died in the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. He was adopted by a cobbler, Pinchas Slaberdain, and his wife Eva. He grew up with the great depression in the East End, and knew the harsh reality of poverty at first hand. He recalls when he was nine or ten his foster father died to leave him and his foster mother provided for by an insurance policy. He says he learned that even the poor, if left alone, were doing things for themselves. He said:

I was appalled by the insensitivity of governments to the efforts of the working classes to help themselves - the belief that they could not do all the necessary things. They were most anxious to ensure that they used all the opportunities of insurance to safeguard their families in times of sickness and loss of work. I began to sense a sort of anti-working class sentiment in all political parties. They wanted the State to do these things. They didn't like people to do things for themselves. They thought that ordinary people weren't capable. They forgot all the history of the working classes.
Ralph Harris, too, came from a working class background. He recalled when his mother died finding four policies in a shoebox - a funeral benefit policy for each of her children. "The working class feared they wouldn't have the money to bury their dead, so you could take out for a penny halfpenny a week an insurance policy to pay five pounds; four children, four policies, sixpence a week altogether and five pounds on it." Harris believed in something that was about human dignity;
Liberty carries with it individual responsibilities. Responsibility for yourself, and hopefully your family and as far as possible your neighbours. But it does throw responsibility onto our own shoulders. Well, that's what living means; it doesn't mean shrugging off responsibility and taking soft options.
In the years before the 1911 National Insurance Act, the working classes were served by a network of friendly societies, savings and loans clubs, mutuals and insurers that provided an alternative to the old Poor Law provision; their growth and popularity reflected a striving for that human dignity that is at the heart of a congruent society and nation.

Friday, 20 May 2016

Euroluvvies sign chain letter shock

A group of Euroluvvies, some of whom may be known outside the UK, have signed a chain letter in support of the EU. Some of them may even know what the EU is. Others, I suspect, think it's something their agent signed them up for, like Equity or RADA, that can help them get work. The full text of the letter is reproduced below

"We, the B-list luvvies of Britain, urge the readers of the Guardian to support the EU. This vital arts funding body has paid for productions that no commercial operator, government department, UK funders or angels would support. 

Without the EU, Smarg Humply would never have been able to mount 'Being', an exhibition of his own turds excreted over a year, at the ICA last month. Tip Issleg would never have been able to produce 'Medea' in Nazi SS costume at the Donmar and Benedict Cumberbatch would never have secured the 'Sofas R Us' pricebuster advert. 

Just being in the EU makes luvvies more imaginative and allows the creative juices to flow more lubriciously, not to mention allowing opportunities for heavily subsidised Eurofilms in Lithuanian, British Council freebies in Venice and broadening the minds of the vast majority of British luvvies who can't imagine a world beyond Soho"

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

German Left debates suspending elections / defying the Constitution

Der Spiegel is one of the few lefty organs for which I have a genuine regard. It has high journalistic principles and is strictly honest in a way that the Guardian, for instance, is not. Der Spiegel prints stories that often conflict with overt leftish interests, on the basis that if the German left loses honesty (as the British left has done) then it is finished. And thus it must have agonised a little about bringing into the light of day a fundamental debate that is being held amongst the German left. The question is whether the threat of German electors voting for AfD is great enough to justify suspending elections or contravening the 'eternal and cast iron' provisions of the post-war German constitution. 

I urge you to read a good piece by Dirk Kurbjuweit. He uses the jargon 'populist' to mean anyone getting more votes than Europe's old dying parties, and is open to the reality that the change in democratic opinion is not confined to Germany; France, Austria, Poland and Hungary are all moving in the same direction. But who decides when the people's democratic choice is undemocratic? Do the parties that occupy the centre-ground rejected by the voters have that right?

He is also frank that the insurgent parties are not members of the cosy and sclerotic political club that has run Europe into the ground over recent years - the new parties cannot be relied upon to join the cross-party institutional democratic corruption that has so befouled European democracy. And that is the real fear of Europe's entrenched establishment - and the stakes are high enough for them to subvert democracy, overturn constitutions and ride roughshod over democracy. 

To Der Spiegel, we must be thankful for the warning and hopeful that the malign powers will allow democracy to prevail - whatever the result.

Tuesday, 17 May 2016

The Nazis' real plans for a European Conferederation

Boris Johnson isn't Donald Trump and doesn't make the sort of unfounded free-form pronouncements that Mr Trump does. Nor is he Mr Tusk, who has just wrongly condemned him. A historian (of sorts - in the Dan Snow mould but with more knowledge), Boris wouldn't have made his jibe about the EU following Napeoleon's France and the Third Reich in a shared vision of a United Europe unless it were essentially true. And it is. 

Here in Austria, Napoleon's occupation is remembered fondly by the many local 'shooting clubs' who dress up in rather comical Napoleonic army dress for local civic occasions; they award themselves a coulourful array of medals and not all of them are Lieutenants. Like the Dutch-Belgians who ran away at Waterloo because they favoured Napoleon (or perhaps more kindly, like the Dutch who ran away at Srebrenica, they were just scared and poorly disciplined) many of Europe's ordinary folk at the start of the 19th century rather enjoyed being part of a resurgent Carolingian Empire. As a 2002 French magazine stated
".. many of the EU's features—federal law, the common market, the dismantling of frontiers, the promotion of the idea of the rights of man—can be traced to the Napoleonic heritage. Why, even the Grand Army brought together 20 nations" 
 they wrote,  under the strapline "Napoleon - the real Father of the EU"

But it was the Third Reich, and Ribbentrop in particular, whose vision of Europe was closest to that we have today. In 1943 Ribbentrop planned for a post-war Europe, and the German Foreign Ministry actually drew up a draft European Treaty, the predeccessor to Maastricht. The Benelux countries were not included in the list of members of this Nazi 'confederation' as Germany planned to swallow them whole anyway - as was also the case with Austria. And there was no independent Poland. But the plan included Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece, locked together in a mutual voluntary confederation under which;
  • The members are sovereign states which guarantee the freedom, national character and political independence of other member states
  • The organization of the internal affairs of each member state was to be their respective sovereign decision.
  • The member states were to defend the interests of Europe and protect the continent from external enemies.
  • European economy was to reorganized in mutual agreement between the member states, with internal custom and other barriers progressively abolished.
  • Trans-European rail, autobahn, waterway and airline networks were to be developed according to a common plan.
The whole was designed to ensure that 'wars never again break between European peoples'

The Nazi plan was dusted off again and re-presented by John Monnet and Robert Schuman and co. after the war - some plans seem to have been lifted wholesale from the detailed proposals drawn up by the Nazi diplomats - and thus we have the start of the EU.  

Donald Tusk is not a historian, nor does he have any real understanding of 20th century European history. He's just a leftie apparatchik desperate to toe the Party line - which is surely responsible for his silly and ignorant pronouncement that "...when I hear the EU being compared to the plans and projects of Adolf Hitler I cannot remain silent. Such absurd arguments should be completely ignored if they had not been formulated by one of the most influential politicians of the ruling party."

Sorry, Donald, but it's a matter of historical record. 
Many Austrians like dressing-up in Napoleonic uniforms

Which migrants really cost the most money?

It's not a knockout blow for our Brexit campaign, but the Migration Watch figures on the cost of immigrants give us a good guide which of them we shouldn't allow in.  

Firstly, sorry but EEA immigrants are still pretty much cost neutral - Older A10 nationals contributed 89% of their cost, older EEA others contributed 109% of their cost, while the figures for the newest A10 and EEA other are 93% and 184% (yes, 184%) - showing that non-A10 EEA nationals are the best earners for the UK. Overall, the annual £1.12bn net cost of all EEA immigrants compares to the annual cost of British natives of £88bn. 

But it's the non-EEA migrants who cost the real money. They only contribute some 92% of their costs compared to UK natives - a net cost of £15.6bn. And given the breakdown of the origin of those expensive migrants from previous academic studies, I'd guess two-thirds are Muslim - £10bn a year in taxes to undermine our own nation. 

This isn't new. The first major study was the 2007 IPPR / Channel 4 study, which I have quoted virtually every year since. I wrote:
For every Pakistani sucking at the taxpayer's teats is an Indian paying those taxes. For every feckless Somali demanding housing and health care is a Chinese grafting sixty hours a week to pay for it. The left-leaning ippr carried out an important study in 2007 that identified why Labour's immigration policy had not raised per capita GDP in the UK one iota; half our immigrants are net contributors, adding to GDP and paying taxes and creating wealth, and half of them are net consumers, spending taxes and subtracting from national wealth. The key, of course, is knowing which half is which. And it's not based on skin colour.
The Speccie was more explicit in 2008:-
If the government is serious about optimising the planning of public services, it needs to disaggregate the immigrant population and find out which groups are profit centres and which are cost centres. No doubt it has been doing so quietly in the background, but it looks as if talking frankly about the results of this exercise in public would blow their political cover to smithereens. The best research so far available (prepared by the IPPR late last year for Channel 4’s Dispatches) makes for uneasy reading. Only 1 per cent of Polish immigrants claim income support, as opposed to 21 per cent of Turkish immigrants and 11 per cent of Pakistanis; only 8 per cent of Poles live in social housing, compared with 80 per cent of Somalis, and 41 per cent of Bangladeshis.
So there you have it. Exclude Pakistanis, Afghans, Bangladeshis, Somalis, Eritreans, Ethiopians and Turks and we'll save a fortune, have enough social housing and reduce the demands on overworked transport and public services. Keep the Chinese and the Indians, and test the Nigerians - half of whom are grafters, half of whom are spongers, according to the evidence.