Cameron’s use of the Veto did Britain Proud

If you have read Bill Cawley’s article on the site about David Cameron’s
use of the veto at EU negotiations last week, you’d be forgiven for
thinking that the city might cease to exist as a viable entity at any
moment solely as a result of Mr Cameron’s actions. I’m afraid that Bill’s
piece was of course entirely wrong, biased and misleading-and deliberately
so, as he openly admits in the first paragraph, he has been an apologist
for the EU since the project was first devised in the backrooms by
politicians with a plan to create a new superstate all those many years
ago.

It’s not going to do anyone any good for me to start having a go at Bill
for his support of the EU project because we all know the arguments, we
all have out views and I doubt anything we say here will change them on
either side of the debate. Neither am going to get into his absurd talk
about the dangers of withdrawal because-much as many of us might like it,
and much as we know it would benefit the country-that was not on the
agenda at this summit.

So what does it boil down to? EU nations-excluding Britain-will be able to
hold secret meetings on how to prop up their all or nothing Euro project.
Not exactly the biggest disaster to have befallen our country I’d have
thought, since as one of the few country’s to have taken the very wise
decision to stay OUTSIDE the Euro we had little or no real influence on
the development of that particular folly anyway.

Second, EU countries-excluding Britain-will now have to submit their
budgets to the approval of unelected EU beaurocrats and face tough
controls on their debt and public spending plans. As was pointed out in
the House of Commons on Monday, if Britain had signed up to such an
arrangement it would actually render the policies of the Labour Party here
in the UK completely illegal as the bonkers plans of Miliband and Balls is
to further increase the debt and spend even more public money to boost the
economy. Presumably, Bill Cawley and all the other socialists that have
cheered him would think such an arrangement intolerable. Indeed,
Stoke-on-Trent would have been very hard and very directly hit if David
Cameron HAD signed up to such an agreement last week. perhaps that’s why
behind the public protests, even Mr Miliband is now accepting that he
would have done precisely the same thing and used the veto in Mr Cameron’s
place.

Third, the EU wanted to put regulations and restrictions onto financial
transactions 80% of which take place in the City of London. It would
effectively have been a special City of London tax designed to EXPORT jobs
and business from the UK to the continent, propping up their Eurozone
project but hitting the UK economy very hard indeed. Bill Cawley gives us
all the usual socialist propaganda about banker bashing and City of London
spivs receiving unfair protection, but lets be quite clear that the City
of London creates jobs and creates wealth that all of us mere mortals rely
upon for our country’s economic stability and well-being. Cameron would
have been an absolute fool to have agreed to the sort of regulations that
the EU were proposing.

Bill talks a good talk about the plight of the ordinary person who is
already hurting thanks to the economic catastrophe that we inherited from
Gordon Brown. But will Bill do more than offer tea and sympathy to those
people who would be made unemployed here in Stoke-on-Trent if the very
regulations he has written in defence of had been agreed by David Cameron
last week? I think not.

At the end of the day, the most important thing that a British Prime
Minister is charged with is defending the British national interest and
security. We must not allow swivel-eyed Euro obsessive’s across all
parties and none to mesmerize us into agreeing to everything the EU
demands even if it is against our own national interest. To be honest, not
many of us give a damn about the well-being of France and Germany when it
is our own people who are hurting. They look after themselves and so must
we.

We cannot sacrifice our national interest on the alter of Europeanism just
so that our leaders can say that they are at the heart of the EU project
and exercise some mythical ‘influence’ that cannot really be defined. And
ANY politician or activist who says otherwise should condemn themselves.

The Cameron Veto on Europe is a disaster for North Staffs.

What will the British veto in Europe mean for North Staffs?

I have spent a great deal of my adult life believing in the European project. In 1975 I was a young member of the Labour party and one few who was an enthusiast for Europe in referendum year. I helped to run a Yes to Europe shop in Lamb Street in Hanley and was naturally pleased when North Staffs like most of the country supported the Yes vote. 36 years later the whole project is under jeopardy after David Cameron’s veto will undoubtedly lead to Britain’s isolation.

What will happen to the area should the vote lead to Britain leaving the EU?

David Cameron is the Prime Minister for the City of London. And his veto was essentially to protect their interests over the prospect of a Tobin tax on financial transactions. Anyone in N Staffs should be wary of any policy whose aim is to protect the interests of the City

This is the same City of London, which is primarily responsible for the financial crisis. And the same City of London which contributes 11% of tax revenues each year but which is instrumental in facilitating $3trillion of tax funnelled to tax havens every year.

The City has become disproportionately dominant over the last 30 years, a period in which the wealth gap in the UK has widened massively, a period in which we have all become massively indebted as real incomes for ordinary people have stagnated. All this should concern the people of North Staffs.

The political classes whether it is Labour or Tory have bent the knee at the City to the detriment of places like Stoke. The withering of our manufacturing sector is largely the consequence of short termism and the pursuit of the quick buck. The security of the manufacturing parts of the British economy depends on long term investment especially in areas such as the Green economy. The financial structures in the EU are more likely to guarantee this long-term investment rather than the drivers in the city based on rapid returns.

It’s extraordinary that Cameron thinks that his priority is to defend the interests of the City regardless of the impact of EU isolationism on the UK manufacturing sector?
Cameron’s stupidity has cheered the swivel-eyed bigots on the Right of his party and his sponsors in the City, but it was not done in the national interest and it will tear the coalition apart. After which it will tear the Tory Party apart and possibly with more pro European Scots ultimately into a breakdown of the Act of Union.

The most momentous foreign policy decision in decades, and one which he and the Europhobes will come to rue in the coming years.

Merkel Questions Germany’s Multicultural Experiment

The issue of immigration now forcing it’s way on to the Europe wide agenda.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stirred up a storm of controversy by describing Germany’s attempt to build a multicultural society an utter failure.

In a speech to the youth wing of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party on Saturday, she said:

“At the beginning of the 60s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country.”

She added: “We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality.”

“And of course, the approach to build a multicultural society and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”

Whilst at pains to point out that immigrants are welcome in Germany, Merkel went on to say that the concept of multiculturism, one where people would “live side-by-side” happily, did not work, and immigrants needed to do more to integrate, including learning German.

Her comments were thought to be aimed at Germany’s 4.3million Muslims. There are around 3000 mosques in the country.

She spoke about her fear that German-ness’ may eventually be lost and her concerns about headscarves in classrooms and Turkish ghettos in cities like Berlin.

“We feel bound to the Christian image of humanity ““ that is what defines us. Those who do not accept this are in the wrong place here.”

A recent poll suggested that 30% of the population of Germany had concerns that their country is being overrun with immigrants.

I am concerned that Germany is following the likes of Belgium and France whose political direction is heading for an uncomfortable rush to the far right following recent debates about banning the Burkha.

I’m all for a sensible discussion about Immigration but all this talk of mutlicultural experiments failing is all wrong.

Germany, just like the United Kingdom, invited immigrants into their country 40-50 years ago when there was a shortage of labour to undertake certain undesirable jobs.

Those immigrants have gone on to have families, 2nd and third generations now play an active part in society.

Here is Stoke-on-Trent I do share the frustration regarding the lack of racial integration in parts of our city.

I have spent a lot of time in cities like Birmingham, Leicester, London and parts of Lancashire, on business. I have witnessed first hand, different cultures living and working side by side. I have seen the respect and tolerance of the different cultures that exist in these progressive societies.

It is fair to say that certain cultural differences may prevent the closest of friendships in some cases but never the less there can be a mutual respect.

A few years ago i was the Chair of an award winning multicultural group set up with the aim of breaking down some of the prejudices that existed predominately in the south of the city.

Parents from both the Muslim community mixed with white parents to encourage their children to adopt a tolerant approach to life in our city.

This group did some great work, barriers were broken down, but i would be lying to suggest it was without difficulties.

There was a real reluctance for some people in the Asian community to get involved.

Until we all promote a society where there is a sensible, commonsense approach to immigration and a real desire for cross cultural integration, progress will be very slow indeed.

There are simply too many quangos and one sided community groups that promote the needs of one culture over another.

There needs to be a simple society charter that agrees to let the different cultures exist and celebrate the diversity whilst promoting a one society ethos which can come together for the greater good of our city/country.

If we fail to do this, at some point in the future, the extremes of the communities will spill their bile out onto the rest of our tolerant society.

People like the Chell Heath racist must never be allowed to influence the young people of today who will become the multi- cultural adults of tomorrow.

The same must be said about the extremists in the Asian Community.

I am completely sold on the notion of a multicultural society. Yes it’s going to take some work, yes there needs to be some give and take, but I think we could make it work… Don’t you?

Or do we take the fall back, vote capturing view of the German Chancellor? Which in my view is a complete cop out!

New research Into Migration and the rise of the extreme right-wing across Europe

New research on the rise of far-right parties across Europe will be launched today at an international conference organised by Britain’s leading centre-left think tank, Policy Network.

The research paper, authored by Professor Monserrat Guibernau of Queen Mary University, condemns mainstream parties for taking the wrong approach to a new form of right-wing radicalism and says they have failed to address the deep social malaise affecting Europe.

Commenting on the paper, Policy Network’s Elena Jurado said:

“This research shows that Britain’s political elites cannot afford to be complacent about the encroachment of the BNP and their rhetoric of hatred into mainstream politics.”

“Although the BNP is a much weaker party than its continental counterparts and has not yet succeeded in “modernising” its image, all three major parties need to rapidly reach a consensus on how to neutralise the threat of right-wing extremism.”

“That consensus must take seriously the concerns of disenfranchised voters on bread and butter issues like housing, decent public services and their role in the job market. But it must categorically condemn the racist and xenophobic overtones that the BNP and their like exploit to fan the flames of hatred and discontent.”

The paper finds that:

* New right-wing radicalism has built its success on criticism of the current democratic status quo; protest against elites; and the preservation of national cultural integrity.

* The rise of right-wing radicalism cannot solely be explained by short-term economic insecurity as the new radical right have widespread following in more affluent European countries like Denmark and Switzerland and have high levels of support across Europe among middle and lower classes and the self-employed.

* Mainstream parties have failed to stop the rise of the new radical right because they have underestimated the appeal of their message and have dismissed them as fanatics on the fringe of politics.

The paper calls on all mainstream parties across Europe to:

1 . Implement democratic reform to reassert public trust in politics. The new radical right has exploited a growing alienation from politics and increasing mistrust in the political process. Mainstream parties should restore voters’ confidence in politics by improving efficient government, reducing bureaucracy, increasing transparency and enhancing trust between politicians and the citizens they represent.

2. Openly adopt a fair and balanced approach to migration. Anti-immigrant and pro-nationalist discourse is a strong theme across all radical right-wing parties in Europe. Mainstream parties should voice the importance of controlling immigration flows, while formulating immigration policies based clearly on respect for human rights and a balance between rights and duties. Social cohesion should be actively fostered though education and media campaigns, particularly in areas where the concentration of immigrants is high.

3. Smarten up social policies. Rapid change brought about by globalisation and high levels of immigration has alienated large sections of the population. Particular attention should be devoted to the white working class and lower middle class citizens who often feel threatened and unable to compete with cheap foreign labour. This should involve tightened labour legislation to avoid exploitation of citizens and immigrants alike; and a modern welfare state, capable of meeting the needs of the most vulnerable while ensuring access to professional and university education according to ability, not social class.