Independence Day

We’ve Achieved Brexit!

Firstly, may I offer my hearty and warm felt congratulations to all those who have campaigned for Brexit. Well done to all concerned.

During this time of campaigning for the leave vote, along the way I’ve met some true Patriots but I was astounded by the amount of abuse and vitriol we received from the Remain and StrongerIn campaigns. We attempted to retain our dignity amid the accusations. Personally, I was accused of being a liar, fantasist, racist, fascist, a deluded old colonial, monarchist and a warmonger amongst many other things. I am none of these apart from being a monarchist of course.

I consider myself to be a true Patriot. It’s strange but this American style word is the one which defines me best. I wished for a Great Britain which retained the sovereignty of her nation, her peoples and her armed forces, now and in to the future. In a federal Europe this would have been an impossibility.

For those of us who have campaigned for Brexit, we have saved the UK from being reduced to a principality in a federal United States of Europe. We have saved the Commonwealth of Nations from being broken up. We have retained the sovereignty and guaranteed the protection of the British Overseas Territories. We have retained the sovereignty of HM Armed Forces and will ensure the resurgence of NATO forces within Europe.

By ensuring the UK does not enter a federal Europe, we have guaranteed that the UK shall never be forced down the route of adopting the Euro, nor will the UK ever be a member of the Schengen Agreement.

Brexit will also bring relief for many other member nations of the EU who are equally dissatisfied with the way in which the EU is travelling. It’s not just us “Little Englanders” who are disillusioned by the lack of democracy within the EU. The UK leaving will surely give long term succour to the Greeks and other members suffering in southern Europe.

The people of the UK must be strong and move forward, accepting this majority decision. As I type, the markets are in flux. This was expected and is not due to Brexit, but rather is self-inflicted, due to the negative campaign of Project Fear lead by the UK Government and the Remainers. They and EU funded bodies talked the UK down so much that they have caused this short term damage to the UK economy. The UK is strong and will swiftly bounce back once the markets accept the outcome and see the many potential possibilities that lay ahead.

The Leave campaign has had to fight an uphill battle; it seems a miracle that the Brexiteers have actually won. Firstly, we have had to endure a Government which has broken and breached its own purdah laws and rules on many occasions. Secondly, we have had to campaign around a biased mainstream media which has gone out of its way to promote Remain, whilst besmirching and belittling the Leave campaign at every possible turn. Thirdly, the EU and the Remain camp were able to wheel out the “experts” and “professional bodies and organizations”. We were berated at every turn when we refuted their claims. This wasn’t due to the fact we’re narrow minded fools who don’t respect experts. This was due to the fact that we just didn’t trust the words of directly and indirectly EU funded experts. They were all reaching their conclusions from a naturally biased perspective. Fourthly and lastly, was the mud-slinging. What good came of calling Brexiteers xenophobic racists, or to refer to us as Little Englanders? In the end it came to nought. It was unpleasant for those of us on the receiving end but those negative slurs may just have rebounded against the Remainers.

The one factor the Remain camp failed to grasp is that the Leave camp was never against Europe. The overwhelming majority of Brexiteers love Europe. I may even dare to claim we are the true Europhiles. We are the ones who wish to protect and preserve all the nations of Europe and their diverse cultures. In spite of the fact that the European Union’s motto is “United in diversity”, the sad truth is a United States of Europe would bring about a depressing monoculture formed in to a single nation. We love Europe; it’s the lack of accountable and transparent democracy from the EU of which we are not fond. The Remain camp never understood that we separated Europe from the EU in the Leave campaign.





What now for the future of the UK? Under Article 50 of the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU):

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”

Now is the time for the UK to enact Article 50. What does the future hold then? I’m not a politician but I firmly hope that our next political leaders shall believe in themselves and the UK and shall hold firm against all barracking from the EU. The UK is strong and holds many cards.

The UK’s biggest asset is the one it left behind in 1973; EFTA. I am certain the Leave camp were afraid to overstate the case for EFTA in fear of the Remains twisting the facts about the European Free Trade Association. I have previously written upon EFTA in the article BEFTA – The Future of EFTA and the UK.

Now, more than ever I see a trade partnership with the EFTA members of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland as an immediate but partial solution to the EU. Both Iceland and Switzerland have already contacted the UK seeking trade talks. With a strong UK rejoining EFTA, that organization of our own design can be reformed in the 21st Century to be an effective trade bloc alongside the EU. This of course means bringing an end to the European Economic Area (EEA) Treaty under its current terms and conditions. With the UK in EFTA, the EU will have to listen and respond more favourably to any and all demands from a reformed EFTA.

This will only be the beginning. With a resurgent EFTA, nations trapped within the EU will look upon a successful trade only organization with envious eyes. How long before other nations in the EU are holding their own referendums over whether to leave the EU? Denmark, a nation not in the Eurozone, nor keen on the Schengen zone as they continually apply controls to their borders; a country which only joined the EEC because the UK joined would be a nation ripe for leaving the EU and joining us in an EFTA trade bloc. Many Danish citizens would be attracted to the notion of Daxit. Many of the wealthier EU nations, not beholden to Germany or the European Central Bank would be in a position in future to defect to a successful EFTA. This will leave the Franco-German engine with an even larger tab to pick up, as they continually attempt to keep the poorer nations of southern Europe within the Eurozone.

There will come a time when even the EU will have to admit the Eurozone dream is over. For the foreseeable future the goal of those who seek a federal Europe will be at least partially moribund. If France and Germany along with some or, all of the BeNeLux nations wish to go ahead with forming a single federal nation; that shall be of their own choosing. In future, without the UK’s bolstering presence in the EU, other member nations of the EU and their peoples will be able to regain control of their own sovereignties, whether in a reformed EFTA, a potentially reformed EU in decades to come or, even alone if that is their choice. This is what the EU referendum has always been about; the sovereign freedoms of a nation to make independent choices.

Some form of deal will be made with the EU to trade in the Single Market and that best chance is EFTA. Outside of the EU the rest of the world awaits the UK. To begin with, there is the security blanket of the Commonwealth of Nations. No longer limited or restrained by having to go through EU channels, the UK shall be able to have face-to-face dealings with our Commonwealth “Family”. That’s 52 other nations! Consider all the potential business opportunities available to the UK now that it will be able to deal with them directly. Indeed, within hours of the Leave result being declared, Canada, Australia and New Zealand were contacting the UK to begin trade negotiations. Immediately! So important is the opened up UK market (they’ve waited over forty years for this opportunity) that these nations are in agreement to form a bilateral trade deal to work together in helping the UK market. Other Commonwealth nations, Ghana and India have also contacted the UK to begin trade talks. That security blanket has already proven to be working.

The UK has regained its voice on the world’s stage. Think of all the other countries and potential markets outside of both the EU and the Commonwealth. Without the restrictions of having to go via EU channels to trade with the rest of the world, the UK will be in a prime position to forge many new agreements and deals in the coming years. Again, within hours of the Leave result being declared, the United States of America  admitted that the UK shall not be “at the back of the queue” as had been hinted during `Project Fear’, instead the USA quickly contacted the UK to begin preliminary trade talks. South Korea and Mexico have also contacted the UK seeking talks for new trade agreements. In future many more nations will follow, seeking trade agreements with the UK. This is what those in power at the EU have feared; for its member states to openly see a UK outside of the EU proving to be so successful that it shows the EU for what it is; a barrier rather than a conduit to economic trade. That alone may be enough incentive for some EU member states to seek extraction from the EU.

Many young voters have been afraid for their futures, scared by `Project Fear’. They needn’t be. Many of them were born after 1992, or were too young when the UK via the Maastricht Treaty was taken in to the European Union they now know. They really can’t comprehend how big and powerful this nation once was. Freed up from the EU, Great Britain with her own voice restored can grow again. There is an entire world out there, a bright new future of endless possibilities. At this very moment in history, never shall this country be more democratic, more freer, more sovereign, nor shall its future be more brighter and hopeful in potentiality than it is at this current time. This is why we must grasp this opportunity with both hands and go forwards together, as one nation, united in the just cause of returning the UK to its rightful place on the world’s stage and to build a bright and prosperous future for the generations of Britons who will inherit this great legacy.



Since writing this article, nearly two weeks have passed since the nation went to the ballot box. I have been dismayed by what I have witnessed. The EU referendum was over. The voting done. The nation had spoken. Over 17 million people had voted Leave. They had grasped the opportunity for a brighter future. The verdict was final. Brexit had been victorious.

You would not have known this if you were watching the news broadcasts on mainstream television channels. The BBC are the most guilty but all broadcasters are culpable of continuing to promote a pro EU and Remain stance, in spite of the fact that this nation voted Leave.

These broadcasters, who should have been allaying the fears of the general public after Brexit and bringing calm to the markets; who should have been “banging the drum” for the UK and British commerce, promoting the news of all those nations who have since contacted the UK and are vying to be first in line for trade talks.

Instead, we have witnessed nothing but churlish spite from the broadcasters as they have concealed and failed to publicize the positive news on Brexit while seeking to grasp and promote every story that may undermine the process of Brexit or the UK economy. The British mainstream media have been utterly disingenuous in their attitude to the point of treachery of their own nation and people. If there is to be a recession in future, they shall be culpable and much of the blame shall fall upon them.

As long as our politicians have the moral courage to invoke Article 50 (having been given the mandate to do so by the outcome of the referendum) and complete the UK’s exit from the EU within the next two years, the potential future of Britain outside of the EU still remains a very bright one. All of those nations previously mentioned are there waiting in the wings;  with new opportunities for the UK, with potential access to economic markets which when combined are far in excess of the EU’s. Those nations seeking access to British economic trade will only continue to grow and expand. This is the positive message which our mainstream media should be exalting to the nation and the world.



EU Referendum Myths On Figures

It seems peculiar even as the Remain campaign berates the Vote Leave campaign for the £350 million per week figure going to the EU from the UK as non factual; the Remain campaign holds to their statement that there are over 500 million consumers in the EU for British businesses.

If the Remain campaign wished to be completely factual they should claim that there are over 500 million `potential’ customers, when in reality there are nowhere near that many potential consumers.

In Southern Europe and the Mediterranean the economies of Spain, Greece, Italy, et al are far from being in the position where their citizens can purchase goods and services from the UK on a noticeable scale. The same can be said for the nations from Eastern Europe who have joined the EU. Their economies are too disadvantaged to be able to purchase British goods and services.

All of these nations are in the Eurozone. The chances of these economies recovering within decades are negligible. This is the entire point of the Eurozone. All of these nations are kept poor and are reliant upon Germany and the European Central Bank. When the European Union morphs in to the United States of Europe and nations are transformed in to principalities their utter reliance upon the ECB will be the leverage used for their agreed compliance to a federal Europe. What this does mean is the majority of citizens of the EU are not consumers of British goods and services.

The UK in the EU has to accommodate 27 other nations, which are set to increase, just to do business with Germany, France and the BeNeLux nations. The economies of France and the BeNeLux nations are not in the rudest of health. This leaves Germany as the main market for UK goods and services. This is less than 82 million consumers, not over 500 million. In reality, for German consumers it is not even that amount. Your average German citizens, Herr und Frau Schmidt are not consumers, they are savers and investors, unwilling to spend and consume anywhere near the levels of British or American consumers.

For British goods and services there are far more potential consumers in the rest of the world, hundreds of millions more potential consumers outside of the EU. To think otherwise is sheer folly and for this reason it is the sensible decision to vote leave on the 23rd June.

EU Army

Having written previously on the formation of an EU Armed Forces, with recent changes gathering apace I am compelled to write further on the topic of the EU army, its position with NATO and the future potential consequences.

Since the conception of the current European Union there have always been plans for what people are referring to as an EU army. As early as the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on European Union) under Article J.4, plans were made for the EU to form a common defence policy, with the aim to go on and form a common defence, i.e. the basis on which to form the inception for an EU Army.

By 2003, at a meeting in Brussels it was agreed between France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg to form a “European Defence Initiative”, whereby the armed forces of each nation would in future work closer together in cooperation.

This meant reinforcing the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) which lead to the formation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Though both policies serve the same purpose, there are major and important differences in how they each go about achieving that goal.

At the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon (TEU) it was agreed to expand upon Article J.4 so, under Article 42 it was agreed for the upcoming CSDP to pool the resources available to the European Defence Agency (EDA) and form a “Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence” within the EU. In effect this was the license granting the EU to form a combined EU Armed Forces enshrined as a directive in EU legislation.

For an EU Army to come to fruition the Common Security and Defence Policy was required to supersede the European Security and Defence Policy. It is vital to understand the differences between the two. The main points of the ESDP are:

  • The ESDP though being of Europe was not operating under direct legislation from the EU.
  • The ESDP was enacted under the organisation of the Western European Union (WEU). Though the WEU’s Council and Assembly operated from a headquarters in Brussels, the organisation was in fact a part of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the Allied Command Operations headquarters for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
  • The remit of the ESDP was enacted under NATO protocols.
  • In 1995 a European multinational rapid reaction force, the European Rapid Operational Force (Eurofor) was set up by the WEU. The deployment of Eurofor was a joint NATO and EU action.

By comparison the nature of the Common Security and Defence Policy brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon differs greatly to the previous European Security and Defence Policy. Those differences are:

  • The CSDP falls entirely under the jurisdiction of the European Union. NATO has no say and plays no part in the policy.
  • The WEU embedded in NATO was abolished to be replaced by the European Defence Agency (EDA) as early as 2004. The EDA is answerable solely to the EU Council and has no links with NATO. The EDA is responsible for a remit that covers everything from defence think-tanks to research and development, from operational planning to tactical deployment.
  • Eurofor the joint NATO and EU European multinational rapid reaction force was replaced by the EU Battlegroup (EU BG). Again, this EU Battlegroup is solely answerable to the Council of the European Union and therefore the unelected European Commission.

The EU Battlegroup is also complemented with the European Corps (Eurocorps), the European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR or EGF), the European Maritime Force (Euromarfor or EMF) and the European Union Force (EUFOR). All are joint EU operations.

It is the EU Battlegroup which has formed the nucleus of this EU army. Already in May, British troops of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment and the 4th Infantry Brigade were deployed on exercise on Salisbury Plain as part of an EU Battlegroup joint operation. Further more, as explained by others including Colonel Richard Kemp CBE, from July these troops shall form part of the EU High Readiness Battlegroup and shall be commanded by the EU Council.

The European Defence Agency and therefore the EU Battlegroup is presided over by the “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy”. The High Representative works in conjunction with the President of the European Council. Both unelected in the positions they hold. It is they who shall hold sway over the deployment of the 2nd Battalion, the Yorkshire Regiment and the 4th Infantry Brigade from July. The post of High Representative is currently held by Italian politician Federica Mogherini. A member of the Italian Communist Youth Federation, after the dissolution of the Italian Communist Party, Mogherini became a member of the post-Communist `Democratic Party of the Left’. So at this very moment a representative of the Communist/Socialist left now holds the power to preside over the deployment of members of HM Armed Forces.

Whether members of HM Armed Forces on exercise bore the insignia of the Union flag or the EU flag is a moot point. The most pressing issue is who held control and overall power to deploy British troops on exercise. The answer to this is the High Representative, a `foreign’ politician and a `non-British’ body hold the powers to control a supposedly sovereign nation and the movements of its troops. This is not a fantasy, nor a dream but an event that has already taken place in actuality and has already occurred.

In my previous article The Armed Forces of the EU, I concentrated upon the eventual and complete loss of sovereign control of HM Armed Forces by the UK. I also focused upon future dangers placed upon citizens of the EU when, not if an EU Armed Forces came to fruition.

Since there are many in the StrongerIn and Remain camp who display a total sense of naivety where it concerns political and defence policy matters, and who are in complete and utter denial about the formation of an EU army, I would care to impart to them a prescient concern which is far greater than the UK leaving the EU.

Don’t just take my word for it, for what I am about to write. Listen to the professionals. Listen to Veterans for Britain, heed the words of Rear Admiral Roger Lane-Nott CB, Major-General Julian Thompson CB, OBE, General Sir Michael Rose KCB CBE DSO, QGM, Lt-Gen Jonathon Riley, Major-General Tim Cross CBE, Major-General Nick Vaux CB, DSO, Major-General Malcolm Hunt OBE, Rear Admiral Richard Heaslip CB, Rear Admiral Conrad Jenkin, Commodore Mike Clapp CB, Colonel Richard Kemp CBE and now included in that number Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie GCB, LVO, OBE, DL. Research these men and what they now say of the EU. You shall not only discover much bravery on their part but you shall also discover much reasoning and truth in the words they say.

To place the current dangers of the European Defence Agency and Article 42 in to context we must look to the past and the Cold War. Many of us are children of the atomic age. Born after the Second World War we grew up in a world that lived under a silent but constant threat of total annihilation during the Cold War with the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics opposing the West which included the USA and NATO members.

During this Cold War period, especially for many of us who grew up in the vicinity of, or indeed on military barracks, we were fully aware that we were all protected by the concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD). A form of global peace was maintained, with both sides fully aware that in the event of a pre-emptive nuclear strike the other side would retaliate without fail with equal or greater force including the use of second-strike capability. The absolute guarantee that either side would retaliate with equal force brought parity to the Cold War and ensured an acceptable stalemate. It was only in Korea and Southeast Asia that the Cold War was able to turn “Hot” in any way, allowing opposing forces to `safely’ judge their foes combat abilities.

In the mean time, we were well versed in “Protect and Survive” public information films. But we never panicked. Living near military installations we were all aware that somewhere in Soviet Russia our areas would be targeted by ballistic missiles. But we also were aware that we were all under the protective envelope of professional NATO forces. Under the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) we were protected by the intercontinental bombers from the United States’ `Strategic Air Command’, we were protected by our own Royal Air Force and among others the Avro Vulcan bombers. By sea our Royal Navy deployed the Polaris programme, ensuring that four nuclear powered Resolution class ballistic missile submarines patrolled the seas. By counter-measure for anti-submarine warfare, the Royal Navy deployed long-range hunter-killer submarines to search for Soviet ballistic missile submarines. Ensuring our security, did not alone fall to the USA and the UK. That task was ensured by all NATO members, most notably Canada. We were eternally grateful to all the NATO personnel for their dedicated service and constant vigilance as they showed courageous acts of bravery and sacrifice.

During all that time of the Cold War NATO forces kept us safe. They ensured parity. The Soviet Union were aware if they had carried out a pre-emptive strike, those in command at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the Allied Command Operations headquarters for NATO in Brussels under the Western European Union (WEU) would have been authorized in those circumstances to retaliate with immediate effect alongside the USA. Thus the stalemate of guaranteed “Mutual Assured Destruction” ensured peace.

Now all of those safeguards against any combative strike shall be gone. Thanks to the EU Army, or at the very least which even the Remainers can admit to, the joint EU defence policy of the European Defence Agency. Along with the EU Battlegroup this has guaranteed the marginalization of NATO within the EU.

These are precarious times. The administration of Barack Obama is currently more concerned with pressing matters in the Pacific Ocean, looking to the China Seas, China, North Korea and Southeast Asia rather than concentrating efforts towards Europe and NATO. Whoever the next Commander-in-Chief shall be, I doubt this outlook will alter very soon. At the same moment that President Obama berates NATO members from the EU for not achieving high enough levels of expenditure in their defence budgets towards NATO, these same EU states have directed this funding towards the European Defence Agency. While the power of NATO weakens and is siphoned off, so does the power of the EU’s own defences weaken. The EU army may already exist in the form of the EU Battlegroup but as each nation amalgamates its own forces in to the EU army the dilution is becoming so great to be considered a threat to our defence strategy.

As previously mentioned in my other articles, since 2013 Germany has begun the integration and amalgamation of its Deutsche Marine with the Royal Netherlands Navy, the Koninklijke Marine, including their respective Marine forces, the German Seebataillon and the Dutch Korps Mariniers, along with all submarine operations. Further to this, an 800 strong German army battalion will be integrated into the Dutch Navy. The collaboration between Germany and the Netherlands has seen over 2,000 Dutch soldiers from the 11th Airmobile Brigade (11 Luchtmobiele Brigade) integrated into the Rapid Forces Division (Division Schnelle Kräfte) of the German Bundeswehr. In future the 43rd Mechanized Brigade (Gemechaniseerde Brigade) of the Royal Netherlands Army will be integrated into the 1st Panzer Division (Bundeswehr Panzerdivision), but the Bundeswehr 414 Panzerbattalion has at this time already been merged with the Gemechaniseerde Brigade. Due to amalgamation all of these forces are therefore reduced in size and weakened due to less personnel and material. Nevertheless, all have been assigned to the EU Battlegroup and are conversely not a part of NATO forces.

Now we come to the most problematic and dangerous issues of the European Defence Agency. Under Article 42.2 of the Treaty of Lisbon:

“The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”

 In the past where those in command of NATO at SHAPE could order an effective and immediate retaliation, is the European Defence Agency now in the position where all 28 members and 2 Presidents of the European Council need to be in unanimous agreement before a retaliatory strike can be made? This seems like a virtual impossibility. It is little wonder that in the six Yugoslav Wars fought from 1991 to 2001, conflicts fought on European soil; there was no presence from the EU in the Balkans. Not once. All intervening forces came from NATO and UN Peacekeeping Operations. Not a single presence from the EU due to a lack of unanimous agreement. This is just one example in a litany of many.

This is a grave concern and a very serious threat to our immediate safety. If European Defence Agency forces are not deployed by unanimous agreement then what may be the other options? It may be possible in future we shall witness the High Representative and the President of the European Council (both unelected in the positions they hold) take the executive decision to order a retaliate strike. To consider the possibility that either would hold sway over the Royal Navy’s Trident nuclear programme and their four nuclear powered Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines does not bear thinking about. By recent attitudes exhibited by the EU it would seem unlikely that their services would ever be deployed, no matter the circumstance. Worse still, all potential future threats to the EU will be aware of the impotence of the European Defence Agency and will perceive any EU concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction” (MAD) as moribund.

This weakness is a grave threat to global peace. To vote Brexit is the only way to ensure the long term survival of a strong NATO presence within Europe and maintain global peace. If the people of the UK vote to remain in the EU, HM Armed Forces shall ultimately be confined by the rules of Article 42. Operating within the EU Battlegroup, call it an EU army, call it a joint-operation, call it what you will; what it means is that our professional armed forces shall be bound up in the EU’s vanity project as they form their own army, therefore neutralizing the combat effectiveness of HM Armed Forces. In future we shall witness an EU army which focuses almost solely on internal crises, while simultaneously flag waving and marching on parade grounds to persuade the citizens of Europe that this army has any gravitas; at the same time they shall turn a blind eye to all external threats from outside of the EU.

While remaining within the EU, the UK shall be unable to influence future defence policies of the Common Security and Defence Policy or the European Defence Agency. It is only by leaving the EU, would the UK be able to influence the disastrous situation Europe now finds itself in. After Brexit the UK would at last regain a powerful voice within Europe to speak on behalf of NATO. Only after Brexit could the UK have enough power to influence the United States of America to once again look towards Europe and NATO. For NATO forces would be unable to operate effectively without the great input from the forces of the USA.

If you wish to preserve NATO to ensure the safety of ours and future generations the only solution for this is to choose Brexit and to vote leave on the 23rd June.