Home Page

Decisions-1As we head towards the important decision (perhaps the same decision we were faced with in 2016), views have hardened and our leaders have learnt not to ask us—the people—to make the decision. Parliament has been prorogued, at least in part to prevent it making a decision—whether MP’s decision would be right or wrong depends on your perspective on Brexit.

The decision may come down to choosing from three possible outcomes: leaving the EU without a deal, leaving the EU under a withdrawal agreement, and remaining in the EU.

Bound prisonerTo us, this blog’s authors, the second of these ‘options’ does not seem like leaving the EU at all (for reasons we explain in several posts on the withdrawal theme). And the third variant may be imposed on us by Parliamentary sleight of hand or through a second referendum (which will probably not be a rerun of the first).

For a full list of articles click the monthly archive drop-down menu. Many are linked from our menu list of Themes, which focus on the main issues, as we see them. For a quick introduction, see our Summary.

We invite (moderated) reader comments – please keep the debate polite.

Summary revised in September 2019

The European Union is failing to meet its stated goals. Inspired and claimed as “a project for peace” it was always, in practice, a quest for ever more centralised power, regardless of the wishes of its citizens. As its strategic failures become ever more obvious dissatisfaction grows. We doubt that the EU can survive in its present form much longer.

Autocracy-1Our blog reveals evidence to show that the EU is on the wrong path. The Project is run in the interests of an elite web of politicians, administrators, bosses, unions and lobbyists – who are determined to continue on the current path despite the wreckage already created and in prospect. Their greatest success has been to convince many people that it has a high moral purpose and beneficial outcomes.

It seems plausible that the core beliefs of most Remainers and Leavers are equally driven by idealism—either that working together across nations is a virtue that will ultimately lead to good outcomes, or that freedom from remote autocracy is in the best interests of citizens.

The ideology is a ‘United States of Europe’ and progress is by the ‘Monnet Method’, to achieve the ideological goal without raising the suspicions of the majority of citizens, and even leaders, who would oppose it.

Latest Updates  revised in September 2019

Conflict-1We’re in the current messy situation because, instead of leading, Theresa May was led by opposing factions and by the EU; she tried to square the circle and found the answer is never ending.

The dangers and fragilities within the EU are still rising, as they were at the time of the previous referendum, so we hear about the downsides of leaving more than the upsides of staying, perhaps because there are few upsides. And we hear nothing about the downsides of staying in a fractious and fragile Union.

No confidenceParliament has voted to take leaving without a deal ‘off the table’. They have a disgraceful draft Withdrawal Agreement on the table, perhaps to be ratified at the fourth attempt. And they have in mind, under the table, withdrawing the UK’s application to leave under Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union. They propose a second, ‘confirmatory’ or ‘people’s, referendum limiting people’s options to a bad deal or not leaving so that Honourable Members can justify campaigning to remain. That at least is Labour’s strategy, while the Liberal Democrat would not leave whatever voters decided.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Home Page

    1. Thank you for your comment. I’m not sure what sort of answer you expect to your question though. I have never belonged to a political party. I have taken to social media to protest against the EU for two reasons mainly (and many lesser ones): it is aiming for a supra-national government that cannot be dismissed by its citizens, however it performs, and it continues to obstruct a more community-oriented collaboration among European nations, which might make a better shot at bring economic and other benefits to more people.

      Like

  1. It is not every day one encounters a new Eurosceptic blog site so was wondering what your political history was?

    You can read up my profile on The Harrogate Agenda website.

    Are you yet familiar with The Harrogate Agenda and if you are what are your thoughts on it?

    Finally have you read Flexcit and do you in principle support it?

    Like

    1. I’ve heard of the Harrogate Agenda but not studied it in detail. I like the idea but am concerned at the practicalities of bring it about.
      I’ve dipped into Flexcit and support what I have read.

      Like

      1. Niall, This blog has two authors so I thought I might add my response to my brother’s. As a youngster I was very left wing but, like many others, became aware that we must address the world as it is and not as we wish it were. “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong,” according to H L Mencken (roughly). Grand designs seldom, if ever, work and are certain to fail if they don’t adapt to evidence and changes in the real world. The EU is further proof of this.
        I agree with you that decisions should be devolved as close to those affected by them as is practical and that competing administrations should lead to innovative solutions providing fair, efficient and effective government. We must be careful that higher-level decisions don’t get hog-tied and then adopt QMV across incompatible interests, as the EU does.
        Further comment on your proposals are more appropriate on your own site. I can’t seem to do this from my smart phone, which is all I have with me this week.
        Nick

        Liked by 1 person

      2. We aim to draw people’s attentions to the fundamental flaws in the EU’s design, how it excludes influence from its citizens and, because of the entrenched ideology, will not be reformed. It performs badly and is sustained only by myths and propaganda. Worst of all it prevents the formation of a useful European community.

        Like

      3. Well as you well know we won the referendum and so the BIG issue now is what happens next and to ensure the Brexit offered is doable in the time available,workable and causes us as little grief as possible. This is of course the aim of the blog EU Referendum where I first came across you and your blog.
        As to the long term future for the continent of Europe (because it is so important to differentiate between the EU and Single Market of 28, the EEA of 32 and Europe of 51 countries) this is covered in Flexcit and ultimately sees an European Economic Space controlled by UNECE in Geneva.
        The more blogs working together to support the above the better.

        Like

      4. Thanks for your comment. I agree that we need as much support as possible during the Brexit negotiations to ensure that there will be no back-sliding towards Remain as things get difficult. They will get difficult because the EU feels it has to defend itself against the risk of contagion and so has to make it seem that the UK is being punished. They have little confidence that their project can hold up on its merits, perhaps because it has so few.
        And, as you say, there are now more important international agencies which could oversee a more democratic and successful European project.

        Like

    1. Thank you for following our blog! Are you in Bulgaria? What do you think of our views of the EU? We are deeply sceptical of the supposed benefits of the EU, mainly because of their ideology of the super-state and the lack of democracy.
      Good luck with your blog; we will keep in touch.
      David

      Like

  2. Just found your blog and hope in the near future to submit my own theory of what is actually happening and why. The evidence I have gathered suggests that ultimately the EU via a joint effort with Islam wishes to either have a shared project of an EU/ Arab alliance with the combined power, resourse and financial capital to compete with the USA and China, or use the same alliance to join a NEW World Order. No doubt the evidence could be interpreted in different ways but it does not negate the facts relating to what is actually happening in Europe. Please let me know if you are interested. I have been trying to get this information in the public domain for a long time but not with great success. I am not an Intellectual or university graduate but investigate the facts via a prism of common sense. I submit that I may have got caught up in my own bubble however your scrutiny of the evidence would be valuable to me even if you do not want to print.

    Like

    1. I’m mildly curious to see your evidence as it seems a big stretch to have the EU conspiring with ‘Islam”. First, many EU member states have a distaste for Moslems and, more generally, for Islam. Second, the EU is an organisation run by people while Islam is the generic title for a religion with many adherents who disagree with one another. Who represents ‘Islam’ in such a conspiracy? Or what Islamic organisation? Third, while I agree that the EU seeks to compete with the US and China, it does so explicitly not subversively. One of their claims for ‘Europe’ is that it needs a federal government to give it the scale it needs to compete. EU leaders push this argument and don’t seem to need any other organisation to join in; they would rather take the power for themselves.

      Like

      1. I will try today to collate the info and send it to you. For now please Google these. Barcelona Declaration when investigating this please click the blue print with the union flag. This opens more pages with icons to click. Not all work but some do. The Mediterranean Agreement is the strategy and the up to date version 2017 although as is the EU, s usual penchant for hiding their agenda in words of reason it is not as overt as the BD. I will send you the original copy of the Isesco Charter as it was too overt and has been replaced with another more pliable document that says the same thing but in a more nuanced way. The IOC document is explained on you tube and worth a watch. The charter of the BD is also explained on you tube. While examining these document the overriding question is: why would Merkel risk her political career, the Eurosceptism and civil unrest of the people by refusing to cap migrant numbers. For the same reason she is unable to form a coalition government. Why is anything relating to Christain heritage being ignored in favour of all things Islam. She is aware of the outrage it will cause if, in the latest episode the ECJ rules that in a particular case Sharia law can overide common
        law. This is the bulk of the info but I will try to submit it to you in an easier form. The BD starts with a Danish person writing to his PM demanding to know about this agreement and the ensuing reply. Thanks for your interest

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.