Picking up from where we left off yesterday in Part One, it gives me great joy to continue annotating M Barnier’s speech, in the hope that it not be consigned to the internet memory hole. I’m going into more detail today because those whose job it is to de-mask our EU tinpot dictators, whose job it is to show us Brits what the Brusselocrats think of us, whose job it is to support all who try to defend our country against that EU monster, have not been and are not doing their job. So,
Ladies and gentlemen,
(someone ought to tell M Barnier that this is offensive to all LGBTXYZers and any guide dogs and cats (mustn’t discriminate against cats) who are listening!)
The negotiations on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal are a complex task that we carry out with reason and determination, without aggression or naivety […] There is neither revenge nor punishment in our mission.
Cue hollow laughter …
My mandate comes under a framework laid down by the Heads of State or Government and by the resolutions of the European Parliament, all of whom wish for an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom.
Mr Barnier really said this! He, Juncker and the rest really think this is how the negotiations are going. They are the good, wise negotiators – we are the unruly children who perhaps might still be made to accept some punishment and then return to the EU.
We are awaiting sufficient progress from London […] We are not there yet.
Indeed. The reason is, as Henry Bolton said on Question Time on the 30th Nov, that ‘our side’ not only did not go to work on June 24th 2016, they still have no proper plan nor negotiation strategies. I find it extraordinary that, after more than 500 days, our esteemed MSM still have not grasped the fact that the Whitehall Mandarins are doing their utmost to scupper Brexit. Surely that’s worth investigating?
[…] We hope that this future relationship will be an ambitious one ! And we want security, defence and foreign policy as key components of it.
There it is: security and defence! Look how ‘foreign policy’ has become just a little, unimportant adjunct.
[…] After its exit from the Union, the United Kingdom will lose its decision-making powers at the European level and some levers for wielding influence.
Ah – those ‘decision-making powers’! QMV means the UK has the same ‘powers’ as Malta. I do hope you all know by now how decision-making and ‘influence’ actually works in the EU. M Barnier and the rest seem to think that we should be happy to sacrifice our lads’ lives on the say-so of unelected EUrocrats, by QMV where Luxemburg’s vote has the same weight as ours. No. No. No.
It will, however, remain a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member of NATO. It will remain a diplomatic, nuclear and military power.
Exactly! And this is the reason Brussels wants to keep us in. Hanging onto the coattails of France (also a permanent member of the UNSC and NATO) is not sufficient: they need us and they know it – but they need us to be under Brussels’, that is Paris’ and Berlin’s, control. No. No. No.
In the past, it is true to say that the United Kingdom has not been the spearhead of European defence. This is no secret to anyone.
Oh really? Never heard of NATO? Also note: this deftly implies, as remoaners and EUrophiles are fond of telling us, that it’s the EU which ‘has kept the peace in Europe’.
I’m getting suspicious, but let’s watch M Barnier provide more evidence:
- The British contribution to EU–led military operations is limited – barely 5% of the personnel deployed.
Which ‘EU-led’ military operations would those be? Can we get reports, can we have facts, M Barnier?
- The British have never wanted to turn the Union into a military power.
Precisely, and thank God for that! In 1973 we voted to join a Common Market, not a ‘military power’. This juicy little aim of Brussels has been well hidden in the Referendum debate. I suspect the result would have been even higher for Leave had not our supine Remain politicians, Whitehall and the MSM kept this well out of sight.
- The British have always resisted setting up a European Headquarters, although such a Headquarters would never compete with NATO.
Yes, indeed we have! And lo and behold, here M Barnier has let another cat out of the bag: a EU Armed Forces Headquarter would never ‘compete’ with NATO? No, because the EU aim ultimately is for the EU to leave NATO.
We’ve all heard too many politicians assuring us that xyz really isn’t what they aim for – and then go and do exactly that. One blatant example which we all remember is a certain Mr Clegg who in a stellar TV debate with Nigel Farage said that it’s a lie to say that there’s a EU Army …
But let me delve a bit further into the past. A certain Charles de Gaulle took France out of NATO. France has always taken the very long view with the aim of securing “la Gloire pour la Patrie”, working since the end of WWII for a unified Europe under their control. Just study the history of how the EU came into being. Of course, a unified Europe needs their own army – and the UK, paying its due in full to NATO, with renowned Armed Forces, is just right to become the spine of such an EU Army so that France and Germany don’t have to. They don’t pay their NATO dues anyway either.
So, lords, ladies and gentlemen: here you have the actual reason why Brussels must keep us tied into their wet dreams of an EU Military Force: the dissolution of NATO.
Forget Parliamentary Sovereignty which demands that our representatives decide where our soldiers are being sent to bleed and die: M Juncker and Madame Mogherini are perfectly capable of deciding this themselves – we just need to hand over our money and our people.
But our future partnership must be conceived to fit the geopolitical situation of tomorrow, not the policy and differences of the past. According to studies by the UK Ministry of Defence, by 2045 the major world powers will have doubled their defence budget. Some of them, such as China and India, may even have increased it fivefold.
Good grief! Shamelessly using our data, are the Junckers, Mogherinis and their speaker M Barnier really proposing that the EU (with us embedded, of course) must be able to fight wars with India and China in future? The mind boggles …
Let’s consider the title of your conference, ‘Security and defence in unpredictable times’ – who can say for certain that Europe will still be a haven of stability in 10 or 20 years?
Indeed – but on no account mention 2015 and the influx of that actual, destabilising factor: illegal migrants in their millions. Let’s not mention jihadis and terrorism … unless, of course, that lovely EU Army, paid for, equipped and manned mostly by us Brits but not under our command, is meant to fight insurrections in EU member countries – something many of us suspect is the aim. And look – here it comes, right in the next sentence:
It is for us, Europeans, to maintain this stability […]. Nobody is going to do it for us. And to me it seems obvious that we will be stronger if we cooperate to meet these challenges.
In other words: we must be made to remain so that EU Army boots can tramp the streets of EU member states to suppress the native people who dare take a stand against Brussels. It won’t be Catalonia, but take a look East and it’s not exactly hard to imagine where an EU Army might be used. Oh the irony ….
I’ve run out of space, so you’ll have to wait for the denouement until tomorrow when the juicy rest will be presented.