Month: February 2018

The European Commission’s draft document and the EU’s blatant attempts to directly interfere in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom should demonstrate to all the the bare-faced ignorance of the unaccountable bureaucrats who wield power and influence in the corridors of power in Brussels.

As evidenced by Mr. Verhofstadt’s speech; this was clearly an outrageous attempted power grab by the EU. It’s totally unacceptable and will understandably be resisted by the 17.4M leave voters across the United Kingdom, (including 350,000 here in Northern Ireland) and likely many more than that.

Constitutionally, economically and politically, this is one United Kingdom; so there should be no divergence or ‘pick n’ mix’ approach to our EU exit. We joined the Common Market together and then voted to leave the EU as one United Kingdom. We will completely leave the EU formally as one nation.

It did not say on the ballot paper: “Does NI or Scotland or England or Wales wish to leave or remain?”  The question was about the entirety of our Union: The United Kingdom.”

If you look close enough; this is an attempt by those who wish to dilute the sovereignty of our nation and break it up by stealth. This attempt to essentially annexe Northern Ireland is backed up and wholeheartedly endorsed by the EU and its global cheerleaders who wish to punish the UK after ‘Brexit’ and save their rapidly failing political project.

This interference in the business of a Sovereign Nation State is another crystal-clear example of why 17.4 Million people voted to leave the EU and will be glad to finally see the back of it.

David Coburn  was invited for the second time, to a conference of Les Patriotes, to speak about a potential Frexit in the future! In French of course!

Les Patriots, could be the first movement to really bring the European Union to the forefront of debate in France!

VIVE LA FRANCE LIBRE!

 

Public Health England wants e-cigarettes to be made available on prescription. The agency wants them to be prescribed on the NHS within the next few years because of how successful they have been at helping people to quit smoking.

However, Dr Julia Reid MEP, UKIP’s former health spokesperson, believes that there are wiser ways the NHS should be spending what money it has.

“NHS services are closing, beds are being cut and our hospitals are running understaffed. We need to be looking at more ways in which we can save the NHS money, not looking at more ways to spend money that we don’t have to spare.

“According to their report, Public Health England has said that around 20,000 people a year are quitting smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, and that’s genuinely great to hear. However, this great feat was achieved without e-cigarettes being available on prescription.

“At the end of the day, e-cigarettes are already considerably cheaper than normal smoking, so for your average smoker, there is already a huge financial incentive to quit smoking and switch to vaping and e-cigarettes instead. Why should the ordinary hardworking taxpayer have to subsidise people’s recreational habits?

“You also have to remember that e-cigarettes and vapers are not medicines and are not regulated or marketed as such. We still don’t know really what the long-term effects of vaping and smoking e-cigarettes are.It was only fairly recently that Diacetyl was banned in e-liquids and e-cigarettes in the UK after it was discovered that the chemical was linked to a type of lung damage referred to as ‘popcorn lung’.

With regards to today’s e-liquids and e-cigarettes, researchers have also found evidence which suggests that nicotine inhaled from e-cigarettes could potentially be converted into chemicals that damage DNA in the heart, lungs, and bladder, however, it’s probably going to need many more years of research before we get a better idea of what the potential long-term side effects may are, if there are any at all.

“Right now, it looks significantly safer than smoking normal cigarettes, however, it’s still early days. Remember, years ago, when a company tried selling lettuce cigarettes, as a safer alternative, at the time a thoracic surgeon said, ‘It took us decades to establish a link between smoking tobacco and cancer without us inhaling something else’, so we should approach the alternatives with a great deal of caution.”

In his previous email to the home secretary regarding the far-left group known as “Antifa”, Keith Lonsdale UKIP Northern Ireland reminded that the definition of “terrorism” is contained in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Suggesting Amber Rudd  must surely be fully conversant with that definition.

Today we see a number of prominent news outlets reporting that another far-left, anti-Brexit extremist group, “the Real 48%”, has embarked upon a campaign of issuing death threats and other intimidation to people who they see as prominent members of the pro-Brexit camp and a number of Brexit campaign donors. These stories appear to be credible.

When can we expect a statement from the Home Secretary in regard to the increasingly violent and extreme nature of the anti-Brexit far-left?

Amber Rudd has spoken a number of times on the supposed threat from the far right, which many would say is in reality all but non-existent in the UK but, despite the fact that proven instances of violence, intimidation and criminal damage by far-left groups are far more numerous and frequent, you have barely given them a mention.

Threatening to kill people with the intention of changing the direction of British politics is, I believe, a terrorist act.

When can we expect to see the Home Secretary take decisive action against these groups?

To Amber Rudd I ask the question again, is your lack of mention, let alone action, indicative that the activities of these far-left, anarchic groups suit your own political objectives i.e to thwart our exit from the EU?

 

Keith Lonsdale UKIP

The closure of Kilroot power station will remove at a stroke 36% of the electricity generation capacity within the province. This in itself is a threat to the continuation of supply to our homes. We must always remind ourselves of the comment “They haven’t gone away you know” when accessing and future electricity supply requirements. Any cross border link is simply a target for those who have no interest in the success of business or any other aspects of Northern Ireland.

At a time when the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is promoting the concept of America first it simply does not make sense to export jobs to another country which is precisely what this closure of Kilroot will do. We cannot afford to lose the estimated 270 jobs not least because of the loss of the skills involved before we even begin to consider the devastating effect on the families involved.

Kilroots problem stems from the fact it failed to land a contract to supply the new integrated single electricity market (ISEM). Should we ask why? In 1992 AES Corporation, in its first investment outside of the United States, purchased Kilroot. From then the healthy profits left these shores destined for the American company. Were the profits excessive and could this  explain why Kilroot could not compete within this new unified market, were the Northern Ireland consumers paying over the odds for their electricity.

Could it be that Jenny Piper, the Utility Regulator Chief Executive, sat on her hands while Ulsters consumers paid more than the needed to and is perhaps a contributing factor to the downfall of Kilroot. Electricity cost needed to be kept in line for the benefit of the Northern Ireland consumer not AES.

UKIP Northern Ireland has reminded the Home Secretary of the definition of terrorism within the meaning of UK law is made clear in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, suggesting that she is fully conversant with that definition.

The behaviour of the anarchist and violent far-left group of political activists known as “Antifa” falls into several categories of that definition on a near daily basis, both in the UK and in other parts of the (predominantly western) World.

Given the considerable catalogue of well documented and evidenced instances of their “terrorist” behaviour, why have you so far failed to proscribe this organisation, when you have proscribed others for far less?

Could it be that “Antifa’s” activities suit the Home Secretary’s political objectives?

The chief of Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, has called for ‘muscular liberalism’ to promote tolerance and diversity. Tolerance is one of four modern ‘British Values’ identified for the Prevent strategy that was forced upon schools in 2014. It is ill-defined, however, in reality meaning whatever the ruling Leftist establishment wants it to mean.

In the sixties and seventies it meant abortion on demand, easy divorce, and free love. In the nineties it meant the implementation of speech codes and political correctness. In the noughties it meant rapid mass immigration and the creation of punishments for ‘Islamophobia’. In 2013 it meant accepting same sex marriage or else being punished for ‘homophobia’.

Today it means accepting transgender propaganda in primary schools which tells children they are not boys or girls, before encouraging girls to have their young bodies pumped full of testosterone if they say they want to be a boy, or allowing boys to have oestrogen injections and surgically removing their reproductive organs on demand. Anyone not accepting this edict from the Ministry of Love is guilty of ‘transphobia’.

Today those earlier celebrations of free love and sexuality are again the subject of censure; now anyone found guilty of being ‘handsy’ or being attracted to attractive women is classified as a misogynist. Attractive women are no longer allowed to find work unless they ensure they reduce their attractiveness to below the acceptable threshold, as the Formula 1 grid girls recently discovered.

The real problem this so-called liberalism has, but is too afraid to name, is that of Islamist extremism. It has encouraged multiculturalism and mass immigration, but in classifying Muslims as a victim class, it is unable to confront the totalitarianism and misogyny inherent in the literal and now influential interpretation of Islamic scriptures.

Although the Ofsted Chief Inspector mentioned her support for a London head teacher who wanted to ban the hijab in school, she’s been careful not to be too muscular in confronting such radical Islam. Her verbal support did not prove robust enough for the head in question, who has still been forced to back down under pressure from parents. Yet despite this delicacy, Ms Spielman has had no hesitation in going straight for the jugular in tackling conservatism (of the historical British Burkean variety), singling out the Christian Institute, a well-respected research and campaigning organisation that has tirelessly and correctly challenged the promotion of transgender propaganda in primary schools. She has also taken on the churches generally for their opposition to the granting of extra powers to Ofsted, saying that these powers are needed to tackle extremism in education.

This is a Trojan Horse of an argument, and I will tell you why.

The current government is desperate to introduce an Extremism Bill to demonstrate that it is countering the Islamist extremism that teaches children that Western nations are Dar al Harb (land of war) and must be converted to Dar al Islam (land of submission). Yet once it introduces a general law against extremist thought as proposed, the clear danger, as Ms Spielman herself has given away, is that it will be used to target conservatives and traditionalists as much as, if not more than, dealing with the real menace of Islamism.

We can predict that wealthy and powerful feminist and LGBTQQIAAP3G* groups will seize upon the legislation and immediately use it for their own ends. This makes the Ofsted Chief Inspector’s assurance that extra powers would not be used to investigate and close down Sunday schools which teach traditional family values not just unconvincing but incredibly naïve.

She must know that Church Sunday schools can hardly be equated with seventh century-style Islamists like the Wahabbis and Tablighis who do not hide their agenda of wanting to establish a global Islamic caliphate with full Sharia law, and who have already targeted state schools in Birmingham.

This is why, if she is to have any credibility, Ms Spielman needs to make it very clear that this is where she is directing her energies, and not at the freedom of expression of pro-life, pro-family, democracy-respecting social conservatives who believe the scientific fact that there are two genders defined by birth anatomy and chromosomes.

She needs to show her concern that reasonable and rational viewpoints such as these are already targeted as ‘hate speech’; that teachers have already lost their jobs simply for acknowledging they hold them as personal beliefs in answer to pupils’ questioning.

Finally, she needs to understand that this is the agenda of cultural destruction that the Left has continuously and very cleverly pursued, in which everything which gives identity is deconstructed – and is the reason why family, marriage, masculinity and femininity and even the idea of male and female are undermined. It is a process that does not stop. Polyandry is already recognized in Colombia. The BBC has called paedophilia a sexual orientation which needs to be understood rather than punished. And in France the age of consent may lowered to accommodate under-age sex.

Conservatives made the most remarkable strike back against ‘progressive’ Leftism in winning the referendum on Brexit in the UK and electing President Trump in the US. But while Trump has executive power to ‘drain the swamp’ in the US and is winning against the liberal resistance, in the UK the swamp is fighting back and cultural deconstruction proceeds apace.

Leftists are organising and re-doubling their efforts to impose the tenets of cultural Marxism on society, giving conservatives no choice but to fight back to protect heritage, freedom and prosperity.

Leftism under its ‘liberal’ guise destroys and deconstructs all that civil and good that Conservatism has created and stands for conserving.

What is needed to counter this and the radical Islam Leftism tolerates, is not muscular liberalism, it is muscular conservatism.

David Kurten UKIP

I am one of the 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU and remain vehemently committed to doing so.
We did not vote for a transition period, which would be a de facto extension of our EU membership, we voted to leave the EU in its entirety at the earliest opportunity.

This must be no later than 29th March 2019.

The majority of us would not have much objection to a post-exit implementation period to allow a smooth exit but, it must be without any control or influence by the EU.

We know that the Prime Minister a remainer and we know she and other elements within and without the Tory Party will try every trick in the book to keep us in the EU in all but name.

17.4 million of us (and rising) are watching very closely and will not accept anything other than what we voted for: Full exit from the EU; no ECJ, no single market, no CAP, no CFP, no customs union and absolutely no freedom of movement (within the EU treaty definition).