London’s Burning by Anthony O’Brien

We were contacted by a gentleman named Anthony O’Brien who shares our concerns regarding the future of the UK, and the concealment of the future European State. An outline of his letter to us is below.

Anthony O’Brien, who has studied historical propaganda, has written an interesting novel designed to unmask the blatant propaganda and deceit behind politics today. The novel titled London’s Burning uses fictional characters so the plot and characters will keep readers captivated, whilst they are educating themselves.

The novel mentions many issues such as the notion that multiculturalism is a tool, a means to an end that will silence opposition and eventually help to create the new empire. The new emerging mixed race populations will not want the UK to return to the nationalist country of the past. Europe will receive their backing, whilst through education anti English doctrines may be established. Europe requires integration to become one people and one nation, no borders or boundaries, free movement within Europe for all European citizens.

Every country across Europe, every nationality has frustrated populations hostile to the new changes, many are suspicious and unsure as to why politicians are not listening or responding with any logical sense. Referendums on European citizenship is not up for debate, only hints of changes for the UK role in Europe will be discussed in the distant future, no voice for the people, no opt out, no referendums or disruption is permitted. The UK and Europe is already a dictatorship, governing without the peoples consent.

All this is shrouded within a political thriller novel, of which Anthony O’Brien is trying to pass the word around. This is not just about him trying to make a living, it is written from his perspective and is his gift to the public to try and open their eyes to what is happening all around them, as well as demonstrating his projected and scientifically accurate horrors for the future.


Is UK agriculture better off in or out of Europe?

thEUnit Digest


Farmers would be ‘reckless and naive’ to think current farm support levels would continue if the UK left the European Union, according to a leading Conservative MEP.

Richard Ashworth was responding to claims made by UKIP MEP Stuart Agnew that farmers would be better outside the EU, during a feisty European elections hustings event in London on Wednesday evening.

Mr Agnew, a Norfolk farmer himself, fought a lone battle on the issue of EU membership, as politicians from four other UK political parties all made the case for staying in Europe, albeit while pursuing reform of its flawed institutions.

Mr Agnew announced himself at the NFU-organised event, which took place at the Farmers Club, by declaring ‘the party is over’ as far as UK farming’s relationship with the EU is concerned.

While admitting Europe provided a ‘bonanza’ for UK farmers in the decade up to 1984, he said the bad has increasingly outweighed the good since.

“We feel in UKIP we would be better to be outside the EU, particularly for agriculture,” he said.


He made repeated reference throughout the evening to how Europe has ‘strangled’ British agriculture through regulation, citing the neonicotinoid ban, the inability to grow GM crops and a raft of legislation imposed on pig and poultry producers.

If you work for the European Commission, he said, your one job is to make rules. “It is a job for life. The only way to get sacked is if you are a whistle blower.”

While the other candidates for the May 22 European Parliament elections argued that UK farmers needed to be part of the single EU trading block, Mr Agnew said, if it left the union, the UK could forge its own trading relationships, for example, with Japan.

You don’t have to be in a political union to trade with it. If we were to leave the EU we would still be members of the WTO,” he said.

UKIP has pledged to continue the Single Farm Payment at the same level but, realistically, is not going to be in a position to make that decision.

Mr Agnew derided the ‘shambles’ of last year’s CAP reform. He argued that CAP funding has been falling – its share of the EU budget is now 48 per cent, compared with 80 per cent at one point – and will continue to do so as member states look to contribute less to central EU funds and the union expands east bringing in more net beneficiaries.

We are getting a smaller share of a smaller cake,” he said.


He pointed out that, as the second biggest net contributor, the UK would save money by leaving the EU, while other member states would have to cut payments in the absence of the UK contribution.

But Mr Ashworth, a South East MEP and, like Mr Agnew, a member of the EU Parliament’s Agriculture Committee, dismissed the suggestion UK farmers would not be harmed by leaving the EU.

He pointed out that they still receive €4.18bn (£3.44bn) a year from the CAP and that this money typically accounts for 50 per cent of a farm’s net income.

“The idea that we could leave the EU and manage without 50 per cent of net farm income is not going to run,” he said.

We are not going to be able to pass that onto consumers because retailers would fly around the world and get and buy the food from where they can get it, so that is not going to happen.

“You could say the British Government will pay it but it would be reckless and naïve to believe that is going to happen.

“Without a shadow of doubt the UK is better off within the CAP, which is not to say agricultural policy doesn’t need to change,” he said.

He said leaving the EU would leave UK farmers disadvantaged against farmers stilln accessing the CAP in 27 other member states and would expose the UK to trading on its own in the global marketplace, where it would face tariffs on ‘everything you send for export’.

Trading Bloc

Labour South East candidate James Swindlehurst said the UK needed to be part of the EU trading bloc to compete on a global scale with the likes of China, Russia and the US.

“China is growing at 7 per cent a year. The only trading bloc big enough to rival it is the EU. In the long-term we have to work in that marketplace,” he said.

The last CAP reform didn’t do nearly enough to tackle the historic inefficiencies of the CAP but we need to retain a common policy.”

Catherine Bearder, an East of England MEP, stressed that her party, the Liberal Democrats, was the only one that stood, unequivocally as ‘the party of in-Europe’.

She said that, if the UK left Europe, farmers would still have to comply with all the rules and regulations coming out of Brussels to trade with it but would be powerless to alter those rules. Farming rules would be set by the French and the Germans.

Impoverished UK

We would have a very much impoverished UK,” she said.

This prompted an angry response from Mr Agnew who claimed the UK already had minimal influence over events in Europe, which were increasingly driven by countries in Eurozone. “Our voice is pathetic,” he said.

Green Party candidate Caroline Allen, a practising vet, said her party wanted to stay in Europe but push to reform it, including doing more to tackle climate change and transforming the CAP to benefit the environment and smaller farmers.

We need to work together in Europe to tackle climate change and the idea. If we leave Europe the CAP money disappears and the idea that we could carry on on our own in global markets is just ridiculous,” she said.


This article first appeared in thEUnit Digest.

Donald and Edward, together 100 years of opposition to the European project

A report of the CIB public meeting appeared in the French publication Trans-Europe Extremes. Please see below for a translation of the report.

Donald Martin

Donald Martin, Honorary President of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, 26 April 2014, London

They are 76 and 70 respectively and have devoted almost the same number of years struggling against the European project. Donald Martin, Honorary President of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, a cross-party lobby centred on opposition to the European Union, and Edward Spalton, its Honorary Secretary, were on their best behaviour for the annual reunion of their organisation. One month prior to the European election, UKIP, “the only party intending to exit the EU, and the party for which they will be voting, is on its way towards capturing a third of British voters.”We interview these two Euroscrptic veterans.

The road to tyranny and bureaucracy

When Donald Martin appears there is a respectful whisper: “Remember: he has been opposed to the EU since 1956.”

Without this cause I would never have met my wife,” the main speaker begins. He makes a tender glance at Mrs Jane Martin, who conscientiously ticks off the names of the arriving members. Since 1956, “a year before the Treaty of Rome”, Donald Martin has not liked this European project, against which he published a short brochure which is still on sale with the recommended reading in the lobby.

Even during my adolescence I was always against centralised power, which always ends up being tyrannical,” he explains, and elaborates: “Power engenders corruption, so absolute power brings absolute corruption.” Leaning on a simple wooden walking-stick, he reckons that he has never been wrong since. “Every day Brussels imposes itself a little more on the road to tyranny and bureaucracy,” he insists, with a large NO inscribed amongst the EU flag on his tie.

In a few weeks he will vote for the candidates of Nigel Farage ’s party. “He is the only one who offers us an alternative, namely leaving the EU.” He accepts that the press, including an investigation by The Times, threw a few “rotten eggs” to reveal that the UKIP Leader receives

£15,500 (€19,000) from Brussels every year to finance his MEP’s Party office, whereas it costs only€4,000; “but many others are much worth off,” he sighs, regretting that he cannot think of a single example. He suffers from advanced age and Parkinson’s disease.

UKIP – the healthy surprise

Edward Spalton 20 May

Edward Spalton, Honorary Secretary of the Campaign for an Independent Britain, 26 April 2014, in London

“The EU can no longer advance behind a mask. Everyone can now see clearly that is is a superstate” With a glass of white wine in one hand and a fattening roll and sugar in the other, Edward Spalton takes a sip. “UKIP is in the process of changing the situation; it is threatening the other parties,” he smiles below his silver hair, his small grey eyes sparkling.

In 1973 he was deluded. “The idea of economic freedom was quite a pleasing one. He was then involved in negotiating primary foodstuffs; but he does not understand why “we still needed to break off our long-standing relations with the Commonwealth in order to treat the other member states as privileged. He therefore voted “no” to Britain’s entry into the Common Market and has been fighting ever since everything that comes from Brussels. “The EU is like the Roman Catholic Church: either you take all of it, or you don’t join it,” says this former Anglican who became Orthodox, partly “because the Church of England became so Europhile.”

With a British flag on his burgundy tie and a second badge in the lapel of his jacket, he was a longtime member of UKIP, “because it was necessary to convert people from every party. “The EU has turned our Government into a fraud,” he resumes, “and our MPs are stunned every time they realise just how many powers they have abandoned to Brussels”; and he hopes that UKIP will provoke “a healthy surprise” amongst the three usual parties. “I hope their sheep-like politicians will be thrown from their seats when the message gets to them!”

All it Needs to Leave the EU is Confidence

By Derek Bennett

In years past a leading toothpaste manufacturer used to advertise its product with the slogan: ‘A ring of confidence’.  Although the EU has its ring of gold stars on a blue background, it has undermined the confidence of the UK to govern itself, which is the message put out by Lord Lawson when speaking at a dinner organised by the Institute for Economic Affairs during April.

Lord Lawson, who was the Chancellor of Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s Government in the days when he was Nigel Lawson, said that Britain needed to have the confidence to leave the European Union and stand on its own in the world.  In his opinion the self-confidence the people and Government’s had in the UK was lost when Mrs Thatcher left Number 10 Downing Street.

He comparedthe EU to a child’s comfort blanket which, if we had the courage to let go, would help this nation prosper once out of the grip of the EU.  He said at the dinner: “We need a revival of self-confidence. One of the most important things that a Thatcher Government did was change the mood of the nation to give it back its confidence. This clutching hold of the EU is a sign of a lack of national self-confidence, which is not healthy”.

When a person of such political stature, who has held high office in Government, says it is time to quit the European Union all in high office today should have the confidence to listen, take note and act.  If the people have the confidence to leave, as they are showing by their support for the antiEU, UK Independence Party, then it is time for David Cameron, Nick Clegg and all other politicians to have the confidence to follow and take the nation from the dark starry night of EU membership into the sunshine of freedom and democracy.


This article first appeared in EU Realist and is reproduced with the permission of the editor.

Not a Job for the EU

By Colin Bullen

As the rise of UKIP continues the liberal establishment and their supporters are becoming almost hysterical in their attempts to denigrate the party. This is particularly true of the BBC whose blatant and deplorable smears prove once and for all how the principle that they should be unbiased has been completely forgotten. In particular Have I Got News For You and, on Radio 4, Broadcasting House have been prominent in portraying UKIP in the worst possible light and of mocking everything Nigel says on every issue.

Recently the assertions made by Europhiles that UKIP is a right wing party, only aiming at taking votes from the Tories, have been shown to be absolutely false, not least by Nigel’s comments on the betrayal of the British working class and it is worth examining how this betrayal goes much further than the issue of immigration from the EU. The interests of working class children have been ignored by the liberal left for decades, inter alia in the fields of education, employment and pensions.

Those of us who were born in the mid twentieth century were able to benefit from the education system bequeathed to us by the post war Attlee socialist government, where the academically inclined had the opportunity to attend grammar schools, often followed by university, grants at the latter ensuring that no-one graduated with a significant debt, while those less attuned to academia could receive more vocational lessons at technical colleges or at the secondary moderns.

The abuse directed at the latter was never justified and many of their pupils went on to successful careers. All this can be contrasted to the modern experience, created in the 1960s by arrogant elitists like Shirley Williams and Richard Crossman, and enthusiastically continued by governments since, which saw comprehensive schools replacing the old selective system, the educational philosophy which had served so many generations well supplanted by ludicrous, so called progressive, theories and universities becoming a means of keeping youngsters off the unemployment register.

Major effects of the latter were to ensure that large numbers of young people begin their careers with a crippling level of debt due to the fees, while finding that many of the degrees for which they have worked so hard are useless when it comes to obtaining a decent job.

Once the youngsters begin their working careers they find a very different, and much worse, world than was the case fifty years ago. The disgusting use of zero hours contracts and unpaid internships enables selfish senior managers to exploit the workers while, at the same time, ensuring that more money is available for their own undeserved bonuses. The idea of careers for life has been much derided by modern politicians but, in the name of so called flexibility, the virtues of security for workers and the benefits of loyalty and experience for organisations have been lost. The replacement of the old establishment departments by the non profession of Human Resources has undermined the status of workers, as the latter is no more than a tool of senior management and offers nothing to employees except constant harassment.

The forgoing is bad enough but for those who, in the past, found employment in trades and in the factories the betrayal has been even worse. The politicians have allowed the manufacturing base of the country to be virtually destroyed, so that the nation which invented the railways is reduced to buying rolling stock from abroad, the greatest maritime power the world has ever seen now possesses almost no shipbuilding capacity and those mighty mines, steelworks and factories which once gave men and women jobs in which they could feel pride have been replaced by such froth as call centres and fast food outlets. No one who, as I have when campaigning for UKIP, has visited the old mining and manufacturing communities of the North, can feel anything but anger at the betrayal of hard working people by uncaring politicians. To all this must now be added the destruction of the livelihood of tradespeople such as plumbers, electricians and builders by competition from those entering the country from the EU who are willing to accept wages and conditions which completely undercut those trying to make a living in Britain. To say this is not racist, partly because most of those involved  are as  Caucasian as the average Briton but largely because the objection is not aimed at them, who are just seeking to improve their lives, but rather at those who have signed up to the policies responsible for this apparently unstoppable influx. Of course the latter are happy, as they see it as a means of depressing wages and enabling them to employ tradespeople at reduced cost to themselves.

The youngsters now in the jobs market also face much worse prospects of a decent retirement, the pensions system which was once the envy of the world having been destroyed by a combination of the policies of those like Gordon Brown, whose taxes appropriated retirement funds, and the replacement of final salary schemes by the confidence trick Of annuities.

Given the above there can be no doubt that the working class has been thoroughly betrayed by the selfish and incompetent political class over generations. UKIP policies may not be able to solve all these problems immediately but the freeing of the nation from the grip of Brussels, the ending of unlimited immigration from other EU states and the return of a desire to improve the lives of all our people, not merely the privileged few, would set the nation on the right course.

All that is necessary is for the people to reject the elite which has done so much damage to our nation and to vote for a different future.

Pots in the Pension

By Derek Bennett

On the 22nd May 2014 people all across the European Union will be going to the polls to vote for their MEPs. This futile exercise is akin to the old saying of ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!

Some MEPs will be gone and some coming in, none of them will have any real power or influence, their only function, at enormous cost to the taxpayers of Europe, is to provide the pretence that the EU is democratic. What each and everyone of these MEPs will get is a whopping great EU pension, paid for by people who struggle to make ends meet, due to the job losing bureaucratic actions of that undemocratic organisation.

Revealed in the press during April 2014 was the news that al MEPs are to receive a second, secret, EU pension at a cost of £187 million.  Some of the ex UK MEPs will be elevated to the House of Lords where they can influence votes on EU matters without the need to declare their EU pensions.  The only MEPs working to end this farce are UKIP MEPs who are prepared to make this sacrifice when they have been successful getting the UK out of the European Union.


This article first appeared in EU Realist and is reproduced with the permission of the editor.