EU CRUNCH TIME FOR CAMERON.

Oh dear, oh dear. The poor old European Union is huffing and puffing and making out that agreeing to new arrangements for the UK is a huge problem. As we get closer to the supposed 'crunch meeting', key players are letting it be known that the negotiations are hard, agreement may or may not be possible, there are 'sticking points' and so on. The truth is very different.

Of course there'll be agreement, mainly because there's very little that can't be agreed. Cameron's 'demands' are virtually meaningless and will make almost no difference to anything. The EU will continue on its merry way as before and all of the fuss that's been made over the last year or so will be forgotten. Migration into the UK will continue; paying benefits to migrants will continue as will having to provide them with all of the social facilities enjoyed by long term residents, such as free access to the NHS and assorted local authority services. The UK will continue to be beset by vast volumes of rules and regulations issuing from the faceless bureaucracy that will continue to shuttle back and forth between Brussels and Strasburg, not forgetting the vast costs incurred by simply having the various EU bodies of parliament, council, commission and God knows what else.

The European Union is a huge conglomeration of nations which serves no one but itself. It is inherently socialist, protectionist and inward looking. It is like an old-fashioned 'closed shop' trade union, with its leadership hell bent on maintaining power and status at all costs; no one can 'enjoy' its privileges unless they're members and no one can be members unless they sign up to its ways. Leave, and you forfeit all rights. This is a doomed organisation, utterly unfit for a world in which communications and trade are global; while it may have been a good idea, once, its day has passed.

Cameron will return from his latest round of talking just like Neville Chamberlain did in 1938. He will have at least a metaphorical piece of paper to wave at onlookers and will claim that he has achieved a wonderful result, and that all is now well. He will say that we can now vote to stay in this organisation without fear but that to leave it would be both foolish and highly dangerous.

POPPYCOCK.

Vote to leave. Get out. Open up the UK to business and opportunities with the rest of the world without all of the baggage of the EU around our necks. Di it now. Do it in June. Do it as soon as possible. Just DO IT !

WOGAN SIGNALS TIME FOR CHANGE.

I didn't dislike Terry Wogan, but neither was he entirely my 'cup of tea'. His death yesterday was sad but hardly justified the extensive coverage afforded by the BBC.

As with the demise of David Bowie a couple of weeks ago, the BBC and other media went overboard. The BBC made Wogan's death the main news story of the day and gave it massive coverage on every news broadcast. The story was deemed more important that David Cameron's EU discussions, the upcoming Iowa primaries in the US, the inquest into the still unexplained death of a young soldier at Deepcut barracks in 1995 and its possible implications in relation to 3 other deaths, the ZIKA epidemic, a financial crisis in Nigeria, the murder of 11 people at  a party in Mexico, and much more. Indeed, the events in Nigeria and Mexico did not even merit reporting.

Terry Wogan may well have been a very nice, generous man; he was undoubtedly a good and well-liked broadcaster, but the effusive praise now heaped upon him is simply out of all proportion. This is another example of the media seeing itself as being 'the story', rather than being the reporter of stories; it sees its own as being more important than all else. The pompous, opinionated and self-indulgent hordes of television and radio presenters and regular guests need reminding that they are NOT the story.

It is time for change.

CAMERON, JUNCKER AND TUSK PLAY GAMES WITH US ALL

David Cameron's much reported discussions with Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk are a sham, as anyone with half a brain cell must know. All Cameron is trying to do is to show how hard he is 'fighting' for the UK, while Juncker and Tusk are trying to show how tough they are. In reality, this is a case of 'aunt sallies' being set up simply so that they can be knocked down, and both sides can claim 'success', 'victory' and anything else that occurs to them. To cap it all, Cameron is desperately trying to finish things off so that he can call a referendum as quickly as possible, and before the opinion polls move even further in the direction of 'leave'. To this end, he is prepared to have the referendum campaign going on at the same time as campaigns for the Scottish parliament, Welsh assembly AND most local authorities throughout the UK; this is utterly ridiculous, though not to Cameron.

The whole EU re-negotiation is a political exercise designed from the start to end with Cameron claiming enormous reforms that will free the UK from vast swathes of intrusive EU rules and regulations; in truth, it will achieve very little, though that won't prevent an utterly disingenuous and Europhilic Cameron from telling the voters that we must stay in this 'reformed' organisation as we now have membership on our own terms and to leave it would be terribly dangerous.

Ha, bloody ha. Whatever Cameron 'achieves' will be dressed up as victory, though it will be a hollow one. The potential confusion caused by holding 4 separate electoral campaigns at much the same time will be destructive for all of them, but will allow Cameron and his fellow Europhiles to muddy the waters still more. For me, the clearer it becomes that Cameron and his fellow travellers are hell-bent on rushing the population into an early and ill-conceived vote, while campaigning to remain in with lies, half-truths and scare-mongering, the more I am certain that the only way to vote is 'LEAVE'.

WE MUST VOTE TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

Those who say that the United Kingdom should remain within 'a reformed European Union' simply have no case. Rather than state positive reasons for continued membership, they rely on scare-mongering, telling us all how dangerous it will be and how difficult life will become should we vote to leave. They tell us that we will cut ourselves off from the EU economy and other major international markets. This is total bullshit.

The UK is one of the largest and most important economies in the world. It has the second largest economy in the EU, being second in size to Germany and comprising some 16% of the total. Indeed, The economy of the EU is wholly reliant on 4 countries - Germany, the UK, France and Italy, which together make up close to 65% of the Union's total GDP. Astonishingly, 18 of the 27 EU members together comprise only 12½% of its GDP and yet these minnows are able to dictate policy to the rest, if it suits them, in selected areas.

The truth is that the EU needs the UK every bit as much as the UK needs the EU, probably much more so. Without the UK, the burden of carrying the mish-mash of minor nations will fall evermore heavily on Germany and France; neither wants to risk this happening and so they will, reluctantly, agree to a few irrelevant yet headline grabbing 'reforms' which David Cameron can present to British voters as 'victory' in his campaign to achieve change in the EU. In truth, nothing will change.

From the perspective of the UK, leaving the EU will relieve us of the need to continue to support a large number of tiny and relatively unproductive economies. Germany, France, Italy and others will have no choice but to continue trading with us, and we will have the added benefit of being able to trade freely with the rest of the world, including its largest economies in the USA, Japan and China, as well as re-establishing links with the Commonwealth.

The European Union is a disaster. It is based on outworn notions and run by a largely faceless elite; it has expanded well beyond it's initial boundaries, as a political construct, and is now an amalgam of countries, many of which have nothing in common other than their geographical locations. It has become the geopolitical equivalent of the camel, often referred to as being a horse designed by a committee; the European Union is an organisation designed by politicians for their own purposes. It should be consigned to history and the UK leaving would be the catalyst for it's dissolution.

Vote to leave.

OSCARS, LUVVIES, GAYS AND EAGLES.AT THE BBC.

Anyone who disputes the left wing bent of the BBC needs only to listen to their news broadcasts this morning. In a world beset with major economic, religious and political problems, the jolly old Beeb chose highlight three stories which have no significance other than to left-leaning commentators and those with a distorted view of what is, and what is not, important..

Firstly, it seems that the nominees for this year's Oscars are all white; no coloured actors, writers, directors, designers and so on have been included. This is seen as being a major issue and has been lambasted by the 'head' of the Oscars awards body as well as by various coloured performers. Wow ! What a story ! The Oscars are nothing other than an opportunity for navel gazing and self-congratulatory drivel that have no relevance whatsoever to the real world. A large number of overpaid 'luvvies' gather together in the hope that they will be rewarded for all their 'hard work' by being given what is simply an industry award. It's all meaningless and who is, or is not nominated is equally meaningless, and yet the BBC chose to make this one of their main stories of the day.

Secondly, it's been reported that the security service, MI5, has been named as being the 'most gay friendly employer', in the country, following a survey covering some 400 organisations carried out by the gay rights charity, Stonewall. Forgive me for not actually giving a damn, but what on earth does this have to do with 'news' ? An organisation which supports lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender people has used a self-selecting survey of its own members and supporters to try to bring pressure on employers, politicians and others. Not only is this irrelevant and pointless, it is also meaningless. Again, the BBC thinks differently and has made it a national news story, presumably due to the preponderance of homosexuals, lesbians, luvvies, lefties and all the rest in that organisation.

Finally, following the unbelievably excessive coverage of the demise of David Bowie, the death of another 'pop star' has caught their attention. Someone by the name of Glenn Frey, hardly a household name, has died and this, the BBC believes, deserves headlining. Mr Frey was a member of a highly successful group in the 1970s, the 'Eagles', and I have to admit to quite liking their music; however, I, and I'm sure most people, would have no idea of the names of the group's members. To make the death of this largely unknown musician a headline story is ridiculous and simply emphasises the degree to which the BBC is inward looking and obsessed with the world of so-called entertainment.

What more is needed to prove that the BBC, as it is currently organised, is simply 'not fit for purpose' and should be dispensed with ?

LEAVING EU IS THE ONLY OPTION.

Two senior Conservatives have come out in support of the UK's continued membership of the European Union.

Former minister Nick Herbert claims that leaving this egregious political bloc would be a "jump into the void", while the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, is reported to have said that it would "cut the country off from the rest of the world and limit the freedom of young people to study and find jobs in the European Union".

What is this other than scaremongering ? Why do these Europhiles not tell us what the tangible benefits of membership are, rather than attempting to scare us with vague, unsupported and frankly risible remarks that are devoid of any actual content ? The simple fact is that remaining in the European Union will bring still more rules and regulations which stifle innovation; it will bring, regardless of anything that the Europhiles say, the 'ever closer union' so beloved of Europe's predominantly socialist leaders and the UK will inevitably be encompassed by it; it will continue to bring, inevitably, vast flows of population from poorer nations to the UK, leading to enormous social pressures and ultimately to civil strife. The UK will find itself ever-more subservient to the will of the Brussels (and Strasbourg, given the imbecilic dual arrangements that exist) executive, to European foreign policy, social policy, monetary policy, economic policy and so on.

Pro-Europeans such as Nick Herbert and Nicky Morgan say nothing about any of this. They confine their campaigning to issuing statements designed to frighten sections of the population, rather than giving them any positive reasons to remain in the Union; the only possible reason for taking this approach is that they have no positive reasons to cite. Remaining in the European Union is a protectionist policy while leaving it would be a clear indicator that the UK is genuinely open for business with the rest of the world.

The only conclusion is that the UK should, indeed must, leave.

EUROPEAN UNION - IN OR OUT ?

As the debate regarding the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union (EU) gets under way, the man in the street can expect to be bombarded with all manner of misinformation. There will be the usual lies, damned lies and statistics so beloved of politicians and their acolytes, much dissembling and plenty of ambiguity.

Despite all of this, there are certain facts which should not be ignored. Firstly, the EU owes its origin to the post-war world of the 1940s and 1950s, the desire of major western European nations to find a means to avoid another continental war and the perceived threats from the military, financial and economic might of the USA and Soviet Union. In 1951, France and West Germany formed the European Coal and Steel Community and in 1958 they were joined by Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg in creating the European Economic Community (EEC), or Common Market. At this time, the UK opted not to join the EEC and, instead, was a founder member of another free trade area, EFTA, in 1960. However, there was a subsequent change of heart and the UK made 2 attempts to join the EEC during the 1960s, on both occasions having its application vetoed by the French president, De Gaulle.

Eventually, in 1973, the UK was successful in gaining entry at the same time as Ireland and Denmark. However, joining this somewhat exclusive European club meant that the UK's membership of EFTA was terminated and its trade links with the many world wide nations of the Commonwealth also had to be severed; in future, the UK's trade with countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India and so on, would have to be on terms negotiated by the various organs of the EEC. Over the years, the EEC grew further and transmogrified into the European Union, a body virtually unrecognizable from the Common Market  which the UK had joined in 1973. There are now 28 member states with still more waiting in the wings, vast numbers of officials, huge volumes of legislation, a central bank and even a new currency for many of its members. Member states are bound hand and foot by rules and regulations dreamt up by faceless bureaucrats living and working hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Those who want the UK to leave this organisation refer to issues of cross-border migration, the lack of transparency, institutional corruption, and its insularity and protectionism. They complain about the way in which national governments have, in effect, become subservient to the whims of distant legislators, most of whom have little concern for the interests of individual nations. The drive for 'ever closer union' and the creation of a 'United States of Europe' is seen as a nightmare scenario.

On the other hand, those who favour the UK's continued membership, seem to have little to support their argument other than nebulous fears about what might happen should the UK vote to leave. They say that the consequences could be dire, that there would be huge costs and job losses, and they've produced figures which they say support their claims. Lord Rose, formerly chief executive of Marks & Spencer and now appointed to lead the 'In' campaign, simply says that "it's not worth the risk" to leave. Again, nothing positive or concrete, just fear-mongering.

Many of those who favour continued membership seem to be executives in charge of large financial and commercial organisations, people who have vested interests in having identical financial, economic and trade regulations across as much of their areas of operation as possible. Others are political figures from a bygone age such as Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine, people who still live in the past, and Gordon Brown and John Prescott, whose left wing views sit comfortably with the predominantly socialist, centrally controlled nature of the EU.

The truths of all of this are that the EU is a construct of the past. Since its origins, the world has changed out of all recognition and there are now many more nations vying for significant international trade. The UK is one of the biggest economies in the world and, in the event of a 'No' vote, would have little difficulty in establishing its own links with many of these growing countries, as well as remaining a major trader within Europe. The EU itself is an impossible amalgam of such disparate nations, with vastly different histories, cultures and economies, that it cannot survive; it must change or die, whatever its current leaders desire.

If the UK votes to leave the EU, it could well be much more problematic for the future of the EU than of the UK. Indeed, a UK 'No' vote may well be the catalyst for a major rethink amongst European nations that could result in the emergence of a genuinely sustainable European bloc. Only time will tell, but I'll be voting to leave, and the sooner the better.