Sorry, Douglas, but you are a bit premature

Douglas Carswell resigned from UKIP last month and now sits as an independent MP. On his resignation, which was announced a matter of days after Mrs May triggered Article 50, he said “It’s a case of job done…..we have achieved what we were established to do.”

In other words, he felt that UKIP had served its purpose – a theme to which he returned yesterday during a speech at an event hosted by the Institute for Government:- “I think we’ve done our job, and I think we should award ourselves a medal, or a knighthood, and take pride that we’ve won….if you’ve won a battle or a war you disband and you go home”.

But is Mr Carswell right in saying that the job is done? Winning the referendum last June against all the odds was an amazing achievement and the triggering of Article 50 last month to begin our divorce from the EU was a truly significant milestone for our country, but there are still hard campaigns to be fought in the next two years if Brexit is truly to be Brexit.

Many readers will be aware of the campaign by Fishing for Leave to  see a swift denunciation of the 1964 London Convention and the exclusion of all CFP-related legislation from the “Great Repeal Bill” so that we will regain control of all our waters once we leave the EU. While there have been a few positive signs that the Government is listening, a long, hard battle will need to be fought if we are to secure a Brexit that truly means Brexit for our fishing industry.

An equally fierce battle will need to be fought to extricate the UK from the European Arrest Warrant. Chief Police Officers support continuing UK participation in this odious scheme and they have the backing of the Home Secretary Amber Rudd. Last month, the Campaign for an Independent Britain hosted a meeting where legal expert Torquil Dick-Erikson highlighted the grave flaws in the EAW and mentioned some of the miscarriages of justice which it has engendered. Thankfully, there is a growing awareness of this issue among Leave-supporting Tory MPs and Peers, but it will not be easy to force Ms Rudd to climb down.

A third critical issue is foreign policy. Our friends in Veterans for Britain are seriously concerned about our being far too closely linked to the EU’s military policy even after Brexit.  On independence, our foreign policy will inevitably diverge from that of the EU. There may well be instances when we will wish to work alongside them, but we need to keep our distance from the European Defence Agency if Brexit is truly to mean Brexit.

If that is not enough, the battle is not won when we have taken the UK out of the EU. The EU needs to be taken out of  many UK citizens, especially young people. Those of us who took part in debates in schools and universities were made all too aware of the damaging effect of years of pro-EU propaganda. Of course, some europhilia among our young people is very shallow and superficial, revolving around the ungrounded fear that Brexit will stop them travelling around Europe. Such concerns can be easily dissipated by older people relating their experiences of inter-railing in the 1960s, years before we joined the EU.

For some, however, their love of the EU goes deeper and will require somewhat more intensive de-programming. A re-vamp of our GCSE history syllabus is essential as so few young people have any knowledge of our development as a nation. This, of course, will be mean challenging the far too prevalent self-loathing mentality which likes to talk about racism and slavery and generally to demean our great country, ignoring our many remarkable achievements over the centuries which prove that we have the capacity to manage our own affairs – and indeed, to run our country much better without the EU’s “help”.

Mr Carswell’s comments were directed primarily towards his former party. While this website is not the place to debate whether his assessment of the state of UKIP is correct or not, we can but hope that he and those who agree with him will resist any temptation to put their feet up as far as the battle for independence is concerned. The referendum result and the triggering of Article 50 were indeed causes for celebration, but the battle for independence is not over yet.

The post-truth era – when it really began

Those who were shocked by the referendum vote to leave the EU and by the election of Donald Trump have attributed their disappointment to a “post truth” style of politics. The reverse, I suggest, is the case. However imperfectly, a majority of voters grasped that the long-accepted  “liberal” narrative was simply untrue.

Increasing suspicion of the official line on anything was massively increased by the revelation of the untruth of Tony Blair’s and the US government’s claims about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq. But the organs of disinformation had rather a successful practice run in 1999 over the invasion of Yugoslavia. This was so effectively promoted in the mainstream British media as to have quite a high public approval rating. Tony Blair was always aware of the tremendous electoral boost which the “Falklands Effect” had given to Mrs. Thatcher and this was the closest he came to achieving it. Of course, the Falklands war was about repelling a genuine invasion of British territory and liberating its inhabitants from a truly fascist regime. Yugoslavia was very different, as I pointed out in the following article from 1999, to which I have added a few notes with benefit of hindsight.

NATO’S MALIGN METAMORPHOSIS TO AGGRESSOR

by Edward Spalton  published in Freedom Today, October 1999

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has undergone a profound change, says Edward Spalton. In its new association with the EU , he argues, NATO is no longer a purely defensive alliance but a force which may be used for forcing questionable western values on other states.

When the troubles first started in Yugoslavia, reporting was fairly even-handed. The atrocities of all sides were shown. Gradually the media became gleichgeschaltet (as Dr. Goebbels would have put it) or “on message” as New Labour would have it: only the Serbs were demonised then. The defining moment was Germany’s recognition of Croatia before any of the normal criteria for full diplomatic relations existed  – settled government, recognised frontiers etc. The rest of the EU states, having vigorously opposed such a move, shuffled into line as part of the EU Common Foreign Policy. From this point the waters became ever muddier.

The Bosnian and Kosovo tragedies followed as night follows day.

As the intervention developed, the UN dropped out and NATO changed its character utterly, in contradiction of its own charter.

In concert with the developing Western European Union (the supranational armed forces of the European Union) it ceased to be a defensive alliance, protecting the sovereignty of its members and became an imperial entity, waging its first war of conquest.

The American, British and mainland Western European peoples have not yet fully grasped the enormity of this metamorphosis. Yet they are all now pieces in the Great Game being played with their countries by the unaccountable, undemocratic, supra-national new agencies of New NATO and the EU.

Throughout the past 50 years until very recently, there were few institutions which seemed more beneficent and protective than NATO. It was a purely defensive alliance in which members agreed to come to each other’s aid if attacked. Just how they did that was up to them. Most came into the NATO command structure, but the French left it, knowing that the rest would still come to their aid: having their cake and eating it as usual.

Nonetheless it kept the Soviets from carrying out Mr. Kruschev’s stated intention: “We will bury you”. The Marshals of the Red Army, who frequently proclaimed their indifference to the prospect of countless millions of casualties, were deterred by the clout of this united front, backed by the might of America and steadfastly supported by Britain and Canada. Mainland Europe owes Old NATO two generations of peace and deliverance from totalitarian rule.

This was nothing to do with the European Union, which did not exist when NATO was formed. From its inception the EU worked to destroy the sovereignty of European democracies (rather more effectively than the Red Army, as it turned out).

NATO was often cited as an example of “pooling” sovereignty, as in the EU, but this was never true. It was an organisation of sovereign states co-operating under international law for a limited purpose. It contained provision that states might leave by giving notice to other members (unlike the EU). There was no NATO Commission and there were no NATO Directives over-ruling members’ domestic laws.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has changed its character beyond recognition. It is no longer purely defensive but has arrogated to itself the right to go adventuring in other states. At its 50th anniversary celebrations, Tony Blair proclaimed a new doctrine which would justify NATO invading territory from the Atlantic to the Urals and beyond in defence of “peace” “democracy” “stability” or “human rights”. More or less any state in the world of second rank or less could qualify for the treatment, if it was not in the good books of Tony and his cronies.

He has also linked Britain’s NATO contribution with the Western European Union (WEU), a hitherto shadowy organisation which is now defined as the EU wing of NATO. Under the guise of closer co-operation, this is nothing less than the creation of an EU army, navy and air force. British forces will still wear British uniforms for the time being, but their command will be so integrated with the WEU as to be beyond control or recall by Parliament.

General Naumann, Supreme German Military Commander, gave a strong hint of WEU and New NATO thinking when he said “German troops will be engaged for the maintenance of the free market and access without hindrance to the raw materials of the entire world”. The implication is that if the entire world does not agree, so much the worse for it. We have ways of making you trade!

Tony Blair demonstrated his contempt and disregard of Parliament during the Kosovo war. William Hague made little enough objection although Madam Speaker said a few choice words. Those EU states with traditional, constitutional or treaty obligations of neutrality,  Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland, are being railroaded into associate WEU/NATO membership through an initiative called ” Partnership  for Peace”. This is Euro-Newspeak for “Command Structure for War”. WEU institutions contain no provisions permitting members to leave.

The atrocities of the various sides in the break-up of Yugoslavia were very similar. The leaders of Croatia and Bosnia, maintained in power by WEU/NATO, are both on record calling for genocide. They practised it vigorously when they had the chance. In this respect there is no difference between them and Milosevic. Yet only the Serbs were castigated. WEU/NATO succeeded in managing the media with frightening totality to minimise the atrocities of its clients.

The policy of New NATO and Germany in particular was to break up the Yugoslav state in which the Serbs were the senior partners rather as England is in the UK. Following the footsteps of pre 1914 Austro-German policy, this was the active aim of Germany from the early Eighties and they persuaded the Americans to their view.

Anti-Serb bias is profoundly ingrained in the psyche of southern and central Europe. Before he concocted his own racial theories, Hitler, like any other Roman Catholic Austrian subject would have imbibed the officially approved attitude that Orthodox Serbs were “worse than Protestants”. The Nazis later recruited Roman Catholic and Muslim Slavs (Croatians and Bosnians, genetically indistinguishable from Serbs, as well as Muslim Albanians) as honorary Aryans in elite, volunteer Waffen SS units. The Orthodox Serbs always remained SlavUntermenschen. Recent events reflect the continuance of this mindset in a hardly less overt form. Today’s government of Bosnia resurrected the name of one SS unit the Handzar Division. It provides the life guard for the President.

Collaborating wartime states like Slovakia and Croatia were clerico-fascist in nature, supported both by the local church hierarchies and by the Vatican.

Cardinal Stepinac, wartime Archbishop of Zagreb, wrote exultant reports to Pope Pius XII of of the hundreds of thousands of forced gun-point conversions of Serbs in Croatia. His clergy were active as concentration camp commanders and extermination squad leaders, dealing with those stubborn Serbs who refused to become Roman Catholics and thus “de-Serbed”

Yet the present Pope has set in motion the beatification of this gruesome character. John Paul II has apologised for the Roman church’s failure to speak up for Jews. Yet, despite his oft-expressed wish for reconciliation with the Orthodox churches, he shares the Roman blind spot with regard to the holocaust of Serbs, Jews and gypsies, carried out in his predecessor’s name and full knowledge within living memory.*

There are plenty of extant photographs of the papal legate to Nazi Croatia giving the fascist salute to parades of the Ustache, a force whose methods revolted even the SS. They were at work under clerical management well before Germany issued its Europe-wide Directive for the Final Solution of racial problems.

The achievement of an ethnically and religiously purified state of Croatia had to wait until 1995 when NATO’s “Operation Storm” caused the expulsion of all the Serbs from the Krajina region.

Warren Christopher of the US State Department callously remarked that this ethnic cleansing of Serbs had “simplified ” the Croatian situation. Compare this with the rightful humanitarian concern for other racial groups which suffered similarly. The West took a very different attitude to the no less appalling Serbian attempted “simplification” of Kosovo. Serbs, it seems, don’t count.

More recently Clare Short, British minister for overseas aid, said that the Serbs fleeing Kosovo were not refugees at all, but “people who had decided to move”. They were therefore unworthy of humanitarian aid as a lesser breed, outside her much publicised, caring compassion for humanity in general. The politically correct Ms. Short would not dare to display such racist bias against a minority at home.

This attitude to Serbs persists today, mostly unthinkingly but sometimes it is startlingly explicit. Among the most bloodthirsty advocates of condign punishment and all-out war on Serbia was an influential member of the European parliament, one Dr. Otto von Habsburg, heir presumptive of the former Austrian Empire, a blast from the past with malice aforethought, long matured! The terms of the Rambouillet agreement were just as extreme as the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia which touched off the Great War in 1914. The terms were quite impossible of acceptance and designed to be so.

A wiser leader than Milosevic might have preserved the Yugoslav federation, but the plans of the separatists and their backers had been long laid. They were also supported by aid and arms for the Bosniaks, Croats and Kosovo Liberation Army from the arsenal of the former East Germany and elsewhere. Germany trained and equipped the KLA from at least 1996 much more munificently than Colonel Gadaffi ever supported the IRA. Prior to this the unrest in Kosovo had been at a lower level than in Northern Ireland, as measured by reported deaths. Germany ensured a big enough conflict in Kosovo to provide a pretext for intervention.

The EU and the Americans had decided that a group of small, tractable, client states in the Balkans was preferable to a strong Yugoslavia, capable of self-defence. These statelets also provide economic Lebensraum for the EU. The treaties ending this phase of the Balkan wars are quite explicit in this respect. The new states must follow EU-decided economic policies, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants. So the British people, unknown to themselves, have become accomplices in the creation of an old-style continental land empire with far more than its share of disputed frontiers and ethnic conflicts.

“Divide and rule” has long been a favoured maxim for imperial powers. We are experiencing the same principle applied to ourselves, as Britain too in this country is balkanised into regions.

While we owe a debt of gratitude to Old NATO for past services, New NATO and its associated EU organisations are profoundly inimical to freedom, as we have always understood the term. New WEU/NATO is no friend to a sovereign Britain nor to a sovereign anywhere else. From drinking the euro-federalist potion, Dr. Jekyll has become Mr. Hyde in the person of George Robertson. (The NATO Secretary General of the time).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to many people who gave information, encouragement and comment upon drafts of this article. Among them are Rodney Atkinson, Jim Bogusz, Andrew Bond, Ron Dorman, Hugh Meechan, John Ryan, Simon Stoker and Dusan Torbica. All errors and infelicities of expression are entirely my own.

* Courageous individual Catholics, lay and clerical, performed many acts of mercy at great risk. They appealed in vain for Archbishop Stepinac to denounce the terror. Official Church publications of the time show beyond all reasonable doubt that the Croatian hierarchy was politically committed to fascism, genocide and forced conversions

Note  December 2016

With benefit of hindsight, I should have included more about the Muslim aspects of the war in Bosnia where the Americans winked at the importation to Europe of Jihadi warriors, the same sort of people whom they sponsor today in Syria. I also gave far too much credence to NATO’s blackening of the character of Slobodan Milosevic, the Serb leader (“The Butcher of the Balkans”). Very, very quietly in July 2016 the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia exonerated him from complicity in the atrocities in Bosnia – 1,303 pages into the 2,590 page verdict on Radovan Karadzic. Milosevic died in custody before the verdict in his case had been delivered. So, in the Western propaganda myth, he “escaped justice”. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED REPORT ON TRIAL.

I consulted widely amongst colleagues in the independence movement because 1999 was the year when UKIP first gained its three seat foothold in the European parliament. The party was not successful in the East Midlands where Hugh Meechan was first candidate and I was second. Some people felt the article might make UKIP appear to be anti-Catholic. Hugh’s advice was particularly useful. Not only was he a barrister, able to weigh the evidence on which I had based the article, but he was also a devout Roman Catholic. He neither suggested nor requested alterations but I did insert the footnote after consulting him. Sadly, Hugh died of cancer in 2000, a great loss to UKIP and the independence movement. At his insistence, his funeral service was conducted in the Latin rite.

The Balkan territorial settlement, enforced at Western gunpoint, remains in shaky, unstable existence. Croatia is now an EU member state. Parliament decided that the war against Yugoslavia was “illegal but legitimate”. Because of highly effective propaganda, the war was the nearest New Labour came to achieving a popular “Falklands effect” like Mrs. Thatcher, something Tony Blair was very keen to emulate. General Naumann was made an honorary KBE.

Subsequent NATO “humanitarian interventions” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have been uniformly unsuccessful and the Western proxy wars in Ukraine and Syria have not prospered either. Public trust in propaganda for such enterprises was fatally undermined by Tony Blair’s lies about “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq.

Our President writes to Mr Cameron – again!

Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter 10th March from your Correspondence Officer stating that you are grateful for the time and trouble I have taken and that my letter 24th February has been forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is of course your own views and reply that are requested since you are making the statement frequently that the UK is safer within the EU.
In my letter of 24th February the letter per my attachment about French Exocets launched against our warships HMS Sheffield and HMS Glamorgan and supply ship Atlantic Conveyor causing the deaths and injuries to British soldiers and sailors I relied upon my aged memory at that time. I have since researched what is in the public domain by references to Hansard,  to a BBC interview and reference to the Chicago Tribune newspaper. The French Exocet damage occurred during the Falklands war and the withholding of ammunition by Belgium occurred during the Gulf war.
Falklands war   BBC News Magazine Mike Thomson Radio 4 6th March 2012 re Exocet missiles & French technical team
“How France helped both sides in the Falklands war”
I quote; A French technical team mainly working for a company 51% owned by the French government stayed in Argentine throughout the war. British Defence Secretary at that time Sir John Knott was asked: does he now feel a little let down by a nation that he had previously described as Britain’s greatest ally? This was his response: ‘We asked Mitterand not to give assistance to the Argentinians. If you are asking me; Are the French duplicitous people? the answer is; Of course they are and they always have been.”
NB On a personal note I do not and never have regarded my many French friends in that way and believe Sir John Knott aimed his answer at French leaders.
Gulf war “European Unity fails in Crisis” Chicago Tribune 23rd January 1991 by R.C. Longworth
“Europe’s dream of welding itself into a united superpower has become an early casualty of the Gulf war. Europeans admitted Tuesday they are disgusted with themselves over the failure to unite in the crisis. There was special dismay over Germany which is seriously considering reneging on its NATO obligations.
The report also refers to the fact that Belgium being so opposed to the war that it has refused to sell ammunition to Britain for use in the Gulf.
The German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  wrote “The beginning of European political union has failed”
“The first victim of the conflict is a united Europe” added the Italian daily Corriera della Sera.
Commons Hansard 10th April 2002 Column 24WH Royal Ordnance Factories
“Before the Gulf war, cases and shells for 155mm FX70 ammunition which is our mainstay artillery ammunition were manufactured at Birtley. The contract was transferred to Rhinemetall of Germany which discovered that it could not make them and sub-0contracted to a Belgian comapny. During the Gulf war for political reasons, Belgium an ally and a member of NATO, indeed it is the home of NATO headquarters, refused to supply us with artillery ammunition. That artillery ammunition was desperately needed to support the major assault that our amoured corps was making through Saudi lines to retake Kuwait. That is one of the problems of relying on overseas manufacturers and presumably why Henry VIII set up royal ordnance factories in the first place”.
Gulf war costs. Lords Hansard 31stJanuary 1991 vol 525 cc 789-92 
Lord Mulley :“I was extremely concerned at the report that Germany was withholding crucial Tornado parts. That raises a further question as to whether it was wise to become involved in European co-operative ventures where production is shared among the partners if, de facto, it gives each of the partners a means of veto over the use of aircraft in each country”.
The Earl of Onslow: Are the Belgians providing the ammunition? Are the Germans allowing the forces Tornado spare parts? May we have a straight answer?
The Earl of Arran:  To the best of my knowledge Belgium is not providing ammunition. I shall have to write to my Noble Friend concerning the prohibition on the supply of German Tornado spare parts”
George West

We are militarily unsafe within the EU

A letter from our President, George West, to the Leicester Mercury

Shirt-sleeved Prime Minister Cameron is touring our country trying to kid us all that we are safer within the European Union.

 

Does he never learn from history? Has he forgotten the Falklands war? Has he forgotten NATO? Has he forgotten the Commonwealth troops coming to our aid in the past?

 

We were betrayed by two of our European Union “allies” during the Falklands war.The French sent a team of technicians to tune and prime five French Exocet missiles they had sold to Argentina. Without those technicians, those missiles would have remained harmless.

 

The missiles were used against our navy and soldiers. HMS Sheffield was hit ( 20 British killed). Two missiles were launched against HMS Glamorgan hit (13 British killed). Another missile hit our supply ship Atlantic Convoy (12 British killed). Other British sailors and soldiers were left injured and disfigured by our EU “friends” and British families left to grieve.

 

If that wasn’t enough, the Belgians refused to supply us with artillery and small arms ammunition for the weapons that Belgium had sold to us.

 

I rest my case, Mr Cameron, when some of your friends become our enemies

 

George West

Photo by Ben Sutherland

Safer inside the EU? A letter to Mr Cameron from our President

Dear Mr. Cameron,

As an ex-soldier, I am angry when I hear you and Generals talking about our country being safer inside the European Union.

The CEO of Europol states that there are between 3000 and 5000 battle trained terrorists already inside Europe. With free movement across EU borders they can slip into the UK. Some probably already are here. How does that make us safer?

But have you forgotten history? Even within the European Union, two of our European allies cheated on us during the Falklands War and a high price was paid by British soldiers and sailors and their families.

On 5th March 2012, the BBC broadcast the evidence that they had found that the French helped Argentina sink our ships with French technicians helping to prepare French Exocet missiles.

The French Exocet was the most potent weapon in Argentine’s armoury, carrying a 165kg warhead skimming at high speed one or two metres above the sea. They only showed up on radar a few seconds before impact.

One hit HMS Sheffield leaving 20 British dead.

Another hit the supply ship Atlantic Conveyor leaving 12 British dead.

Two were launched against HMS Glamorgan leaving 13 British dead.

Most of these missiles would have been duds without the help of the French technical team.

If that wasn’t enough, having purchased rifles for the British army from Belgium, the Belgians refused to sell us artillery and small arms ammunition in the Falklands war.

When it comes to money and profit how can we trust what you say when history warns us differently?

I look forward to your reply bearing in mind that it is NATO that is supposed to keep us safer and not the EU. The British people want to hear truthful facts when deciding whether they prefer to be governed by our Parliament and our Courts or by the European Union.

Please do not try to suggest that should the UK leave the EU, Europol and other crime agencies would sever links with the UK and our intelligence services or us with them.

Finally I would like to remind you that I swore Allegiance, not to the European Union, not to the British government but to Her Majesty the Queen.

Yours sincerely,
George West

formerly 67th Regiment Royal Artillery

More nonsense rebutted.

Thatcher letter re maastricht

If anyone still believes the “remain” side will play fair, a couple of newspaper headlines in recent days should be sufficient to dispel such illusions.

Firstly, Charles Powell, Lady Thatcher’s private secretary during much of her time in Downing Street, claimed that she would have backed David Cameron’s renegotiation and voted to stay in.

Bill Cash MP has rebutted that claim by producing a letter she wrote to him making it clear she would not have signed the Maastricht Treaty (See above), which meant that she therefore would have taken the UK out of the EU. If Maastricht was a step too far for her, therefore it is inconceivable that she would have supported keeping the UK in the EU under the terms agreed by David Cameron and Donald Tusk, which accept the further integration to which successive UK governments signed up with the Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties.

Now David Cameron, following in the steps of Hilary Benn, has raised the spectre of the Russian Bear. Mr Putin would be delighted to see the UK leave the EU, so we are to be warned. It would “weaken Europe”.

If Benn and Cameron’s alleged fears are based on military concerns, they are unfounded. Firstly, let’s be clear: we are wanting to withdraw from the EU, not Nato. It’s the all-important alliance with the USA which has helped maintain stability in Europe and given the reluctance of most EU member states to spend much on defence, it’s the organisation including a country prepared support its military that will count in the years to come if Mr Putin needs to be kept at bay.

Furthermore, within the EU, the UK has been the biggest foot-dragger when it comes to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. It’s the usual story. While our leaders insist they want our country to remain an EU member state, they disagree with the other member states over the question of defence, just as they don’t want us to join Schengen or adopt the Euro.

Only today, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin expressed his enthusiasm to proceed with further integration within the Eurozone, declaring our country will get “no veto, no mechanism” – in other words, no special deal to protect the City of London. On so many issues, they want to go one way, we want to go another. Although the other countries don’t want us to go, our presence actually makes the EU weaker. Our departure is therefore likely to delight Mr Putin far less than the scaremongers would have us believe; in fact, it probably won’t bother him one way or other.