Majorityrights News > Category: European Union

The political threads are running red-hot this morning, following last nights tempestuous cabinet meeting over the May/Robbins Withdrawal Agreement ... 585 pages of internationalism, 0 pages of nationalism ... and the immediate and unexpected resignation of the (replacement) Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab.  The push is on.  Cabinet resignations will happen throughout the day.  For example, it is known that Michael Gove has cancelled his ministerial appointments today.  So he’s off.  Once he sees a way opening up to contest for the leadership the ambitious (replacement) Home Secretary Sajid Javid will jump on the wagon.  There could be ten or twelve in all.

Meanwhile, Rees Mogg’s ERG members within the parliamentary party will be putting in their written demand (effectively) for a leadership election to 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady, and by the Six O’Clock News he will be on the box announcing that the threshold of 48 letters has been reached.  Tomorrow morning, probably, May will inform the country that she is resigning rather than face a vote of no confidence, and will take the lonely drive to Buckingham Palace to inform the Queen.  The Withdrawal Agreement which she and her civil servants have spent so much time and effort negotiating (aka capitulating) will never see the inside of the House of Commons.

So who will now stand against Boris Johnson for the leadership of the party.  My suspicion is that from the Remainers it will be his younger brother Joe, who resigned six days ago, and who managed by that show of principle to vault over all the Remain dead-wood (Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond, former Home Secretary Amber Rudd).  In that event, we would have a Tory version of the Miliband brother’s battle for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2010.  But we would also have a straight battle between advocates of a second referendum and a real Brexit.  My feeling is that the large swathe of MPs who are basically knee-jerk party loyalists could look to Sajid, a Remainer who has shuffled into the Leave camp and a Muslim held hostage by political realism.  The Remainers have the numbers to swing behind him and put him into the final run-off in which the whole membership, and not just MPs, will vote.  But does he look like the sure-fire general election winner Boris Johnson is?  Obviously not.

Forza Nuova U.S.A.

The Economist urges Europe to accept its merger with Africa gracefully

The Economist, owned by the Rothschilds, has always been at the forefront of globalism. Back in the early days of mass migration, it mocked those, such as Cyril Osborne, who warned that the population reserves of the Third World were infinite, and Europeans would seen be faced with minority status if the influx was allowed to continue.

Here we are only a few decades later and the Economist, in the same imperturbably smug tone that is its hallmark, now tells Europeans that their being merged with Africa is now inevitable and they should accept it gracefully.

Europe’s deluded politicians still say that we need to encourage development in Africa to stop them coming here. But as the Economist makes clear, prosperity acts as a driver of immigration, not the obverse.

Today’s waves of African migration are merely a prelude. Of the 2.2bn citizens added to the global population by 2050, 1.3bn will be Africans—about the size of China’s population today. And more of them will have the means to travel. Those Africans risking the trip north across the Mediterranean today are not the poorest, but those with a mobile phone to organise the trip and money to pay smugglers. Few of the Nigerians who attempt the crossing are from their country’s poor north, for example; almost all are from its wealthier south. As African countries gradually prosper, migration will surely increase, not decrease. Emmanuel Macron raised these points in a recent interview. The French president was recommending a new book, “The Rush to Europe”, published in French by Stephen Smith of Duke University, which models past international migrations like that of Mexicans into America to show that the number of Afro-Europeans (Europeans with African roots) could rise from 9m at present to between 150m and 200m by 2050, perhaps a quarter of Europe’s total population.

Rape is probably inevitable, women. Rather than resist it, you should do your best to try and enjoy it. Maybe your rapist will turn out to be a nice guy. You can have little brown sprogs with him and live happily ever after.

READ MORE...

Nation Revisited # 145 November 2018

National Debt.

Individuals can declare themselves bankrupt but it’s not so easy for nations. Argentina defaulted in 2001 and she is still suffering the consequences. The UK national debt currently stands at £1.8 trillion, which is almost as much as our GDP. The annual cost of this debt is £48 billion.

Few modern states earn more than they spend. The exceptions are oil-rich states with small populations, like Norway or Qatar. Most states spend more than they earn, particularly on fighting wars. They cover the deficit by borrowing from the banks and by selling bonds. This is known as the National Debt. Hilaire Belloc explained it in ‘Economics for Helen’:

“When these national loans began the Government honestly intended to pay back what they had borrowed. But the method was so fatally easy that as time went on, and the debt piled up and up until there could be no question of repaying it all: all the State could do was to pay the interest out of taxation. It remained indebted to private rich men for the principle, that is the whole original sum, and meanwhile, through further wars, this hold of the rich men upon all the rest of the community perpetually increased.”

Countries with vast natural resources and reserves of gold and foreign currencies, like the United States, can function with massive debts because the banks and bondholders trust them. But countries with no collateral can only borrow more money, for as long as they can.

When countries run out of credit they are reduced to starvation, unless some help is extended. Germany’s national debt was partly written off at the Lausanne Conference in 1932 and again at the London Conference in 1953. The Allies decided that it made more sense to get Germany back on her feet. At least, that way they would get some of their money back. It worked, and Germany cleared her debts as her economy recovered.

In 2000 a Canadian proposal for a debt moratorium was rejected by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but eventually, all national debts will have to be rescheduled, reduced or abolished. Creditors, including private bondholders, insurance companies and pension fund managers, will cling to the present system because they want their money back, but ultimately it’s unsustainable.

The Memories of a Blackshirt Supporter

http://siegrunen.blogspot.com

My parents came from widely diverse backgrounds, for my Father was a motor car tester, and my Mother was Governess to the children of a very senior army officer, I was born in the summer of 1924, and had a very reasonable education, initially at a state school, and then at ten years of age, to a well respected Grammar School in the Home Counties. At the age of 14, when I was on my way home from School, I came across a poorly dressed old man wheeling a pram on which he had fixed a wind-up gramophone and was playing a recording of a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley, who was addressing his audience as “my Blackshirt brothers”. I listened intently until the record was finished, and then thanked the old man, giving him a penny from my pocket. Arriving home, I explained to my Father what I had heard, and he told me how on one occasion he had gone up to London to make trouble at a Mosley meeting, but he had been so impressed that he had finished up cheering his support. I remember that. Before I was old enough to follow my Father’s example, the war was upon us. I was at University, and Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley were in prison under law 18B, together with scores of his senior officers. In fact, I never wore a black shirt myself.

After the war, they were all discharged from prison without being charged, and ‘Union Movement’ was formed. The new party had headquarters at an address in London and produced a newspaper called ‘Action’ with the front emblazoned with the Blackshirt emblem, a circle crossed by one flash, not two as in SS.

By this time I was making regular visits to London on business and would call into the London Office, and chat at length with Mr Raven Thomson, who was Editor of the newspaper. I used to make a contribution now and then to ‘Action’ and kept in touch. We had a group called ‘Friends of Union Movement’, and every now and again would attend a dinner in London, with ‘OM’ as speaker. He always spoke well, and his following was intensely loyal.

Of course, prompted by the Jewish lobby, things were made very difficult. We were obliged to drop ‘The European Salute’, and then the blackshirt emblem. The Home Office declared that the wearing of a black shirt constituted a uniform, and in spite of the fact that OM insisted that wearing the black shirt was merely to identify Party members during a commotion it was banned.

Raven Thomson died from the long-term effects of his brutal treatment during his stay in prison, and OM went to live in Orsay, France.

All these people have left their mark, and although several splinter movements have started up to maintain the creed, none have really been able to rally the public as OM was able to do.

This is not necessarily to do with their inadequacies, but the result of well organised, and Jewish funded publicity blocks that have prevented both reporting and any publicity leaking out, however small.

Once the administration was changed in Germany after the war, OM adopted a slogan “Europe a Nation”, which was his frequent cry. Were he to be here in 2016, he would have been aghast to note that the Jewish lobby is once again running things over there.

When OM retired into France he went there on the basis that eventually he would be called. He never was of course, which is a tragedy, for he would have been a brilliant statesman.

Nevertheless, he always kept his ear to the ground and clearly read the UK papers. This is made clear when some reporter named Peterborough reported on a rowdy meeting in Oxford, that the stewards had dealt with the rowdies as savagely as OM had done at his Olympia meeting. His reply is appended below.

“Sir, a note by Peterborough (May 14th) appears to compare the actions of stewards in defending my meeting at Olympia from attack, with the action of those recently attacking someone else’s meeting at Oxford. The difference is surely clear to any impartial mind.

Facts regarding Olympia are also on public record in contemporary Press reports and are now worth recalling. The attack on a perfectly legal meeting was openly organised and publicised for three weeks in advance, without any intervention of authority to prevent a flagrant breach of the law.

The assault of armed roughs was defeated by our young men who were accused of using their fists too vigorously. Soon after the occasion (the largest public meeting ever held in Britain) at Earls Court Exhibition Hall, was conducted in perfect order. Previously free speech had been systematically denied to anyone unpopular with Communism or the anarchic left. e.g. Sir Winston Churchill’s election meeting in Dundee when he was just out of hospital, reported in the Times under the heading “Mr Churchill shouted down.”

Authority was supine during a period when free speech ceased to exist. This was the origin of the Blackshirt movement, which opponents described as my “private army”. The means to defend ourselves were subsequently removed by special act of Parliament.

It then became more than ever, the duty of Government itself to maintain order, and in this duty, then and now, it conspicuously fails. In agreeing that no man should be allowed a private army, I suggest that Britain needs a Government with the will to maintain order which includes free speech for all. ”

- Oswald Mosley, Orsay, France.

READ MORE...

The Independence March in Warsaw is the largest annual patriotic gathering in Europe. Photo: Radio Maryja

Visigrad Post, Poland will soon celebrate the Centenary of her recovered Independence”, 11 Oct 2018:

Poland – In a month, on Sunday, November 11, 2018, Poland will celebrate 100 years of recovery of her independence.

November 11 is a day of celebration and commemoration in Poland. For several weeks, the white and red flags float proudly to celebrate the freedom, so dear to the Polish people and for which they were long deprived. In 1795, the once powerful Poland was disappeared from the map of Europe for the benefit of its neighbors. From 1795 to 1918, the Russian Empire, Prussia and Austria took over the entire Polish territory.

During this long period of 123 years, the country was the subject of a major campaign of depolonization. In addition to the occupation of the territory, the Russian and German invaders also conducted a policy to annihilate the “polonity”. The mere use of Polish in the occupied territories was severely punished in this context of Germanization (in the West) and Russification (in the East). This partly explains the attachment of Poles to their identity (national, cultural, religious, …). It was not until the signing of the Armistice of 11 November 1918 that Poland reappeared on the world map.

It must be kept in mind that Poland is one of the oldest countries in Europe. The foundation of the Polish state dates from the year 966. During the seventeenth century, Poland was one of the largest European powers, with a territory extending over an area (largely) greater than that of the present day France (Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, 815,000 km²).

A war of words that went too far

Every year, an “Independence March” is organized on November 11 in the capital, Warsaw. This grand parade is organized by several patriotic-conservative movements to celebrate the anniversary of this “revival” of the homeland.

The people present are also very diverse. Entire families coming from the provinces are also present. Mothers with their strollers parade alongside groups of young people, themselves surrounded by older people.

The 2017 edition of the Independence March took place in a respectful and serene ambience, without major incident. The many smoke bombs gave the streets of the city center a football stadium atmosphere. Of a total number of citizens between 60,000 (police estimate) and 125,000 (estimate of organizers), a handful of extremists (between 50 and 100) unfortunately made themselves known by brandishing racist or hateful banners. One of them read: “Europe will be white or uninhabited. “

A large part of the foreign press (CNN, BBC, The Washington Post, the New York Times, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde, Libération, Russia Today, Al Jazeera …) quickly took the opportunity to launch a real campaign of denigration of this popular gathering, of the government which tolerates it and, by extension, of the country which hosts it.

These media painted tens of thousands of people with the same brush as these activists, not worrying in this case about the amalgam that they are so prone to denounce after each terrorist attack. In this case, no nuance: all the participants were treated as extremists.

“Fascists” “xenophobes” “anti-Semites”, “Islamophobes”, “racists”, “homophobes”, … One would have thought they were attending a contest for the most insulting term to designate this human wave of Poles parading peacefully to celebrate the recovered freedom of their homeland and their show of love for it.

The first prize in this defamation exercise undoubtedly goes to former Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt - now, President of the ALDE group in the European Parliament, he declared in the same Parliament that “60,000 Fascists walked on Saturday in Warsaw, neo-Nazis, white supremacists (…) about 300 kilometers from Auschwitz-Birkenau”.

It is hard to believe that such absurd remarks could have been made by an experienced politician. They nevertheless reveal two interesting observations. On the one hand, this statement shows Mr Verhofstadt’s profound ignorance of Poland’s history as well as its past and present geopolitical situation. On the other hand, it confirms the tendency towards the complex of superiority (moral, ideological, cultural, …) of many members of the “western” elite (of which Verhofstadt is one of the front runners) vis-à-vis what is pejoratively attributed “Eastern Countries”. This attitude makes it virtually impossible to discuss coherently the points of disagreement between “old Europe” and the CEECs (Central and Eastern European Countries) that joined the EU later.

A necessary clarification

If Mr Verhofstadt had even a minimum of good faith and / or basic knowledge of history, he would know that the Poles constitute the first European nation to have resisted Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime, at least as early as 1939, and consequently paid a heavy price. He would also know that the Germans looted and razed Warsaw in 1944 and that tens of thousands of civilians were killed by Wehrmacht soldiers throughout the Second World War.

To speak of “Polish neo-Nazis” is therefore at least intellectually dishonest and insulting, especially regarding the families of the victims who died under the “fascism” that Verhostadt claims to denounce.

The height of the perfidy of these remarks can be illustrated by the presence at this Independence March of veterans of the Second World War who themselves fought the real Nazis! A surrealism worthy of George Orwell’s “1984” universe.

By Sébastien Meuwissen, Belgo-Polish student in journalism at IHECS.

New Observer, “EU’s “Relocation” of Fake Refugees and Invaders by Country and Number”, 28 Sept 2018:

       

According to statistics kept by the United Nation’s International Organization for Migration (IOM), a total of 34,694 invaders—22,005 from Greece, and 12,689 from Italy—have been “relocated” to 24 other European states since the program began. This does not include the 11,000 who have been sent to the UK.

According to the IOM figures, as of April 30, 2018, the following nations had “received” invaders as follows:

Austria: From Greece 0; From Italy 43; Total 43.

Belgium: From Greece 700; From Italy 471; Total 1,171.

Bulgaria: From Greece 50; From Italy 10; Total 60.

Croatia: From Greece 60; From Italy 22; Total 82.

Cyprus: From Greece 96; From Italy 47; Total 143.

Czech Republic: From Greece 12; From Italy 0; Total 12.

Estonia: From Greece 141; From Italy 6; Total 147.

Finland: From Greece 1,202; From Italy 778; Total 1,980.

France: From Greece 4,400; From Italy 635; Total 5,035.

Germany: From Greece 5,391; From Italy 5,434; Total 10,825.

Ireland: From Greece 1,022; From Italy 0; Total 1,022.

Latvia: From Greece 294; From Italy 34; Total 328.

Liechtenstein From Greece 10; From Italy 0; Total 10.

Lithuania From Greece 355; From Italy 29; Total 384.

Luxembourg From Greece 300; From Italy 249; Total 549.

Malta From Greece 101; From Italy 67; Total 168.

Netherlands From Greece 1,755; From Italy 1,020; Total 2,775.

Norway From Greece 693; From Italy 815; Total 1,508.

Portugal From Greece 1,192; From Italy 356; Total 1,548.

Romania From Greece 683; From Italy 45; Total 728.

Slovenia From Greece 172; From Italy 81; Total 253.

Slovakia From Greece 16; From Italy 0; Total 16.

Spain From Greece 1,124; From Italy 235; Total 1,359.

Sweden From Greece 1,656; From Italy 1,392; Total 3,048.

Switzerland From Greece 580; From Italy 920; Total 1,500.

Britain is notably absent from these IOM figures, for reasons unknown. However, this does not mean that the UK has not participated in the scheme. So far, according to official figures, at least 11,000 fake refugees have been taken in by that country since the “relocations” began

The “relocation” program was adopted in September 2015 “to relocate asylum seekers from Italy and Greece, to assist them in dealing with the pressures of the refugee crisis.”

Under the scheme, up to 106,000 invaders “with a high chance of having their applications successfully processed (EU average recognition rate of over 75%) were to be relocated from Greece and Italy, where they had arrived, to other Member States where they would have their asylum applications processed.”

A majority of them were male (63 percent), adults (68 percent), and of Syrian (52 percent), Eritrean (35 percent) and Iraqi (11 percent) nationality. The scheme also included 585 “unaccompanied minors.”

It is this scheme to which the Hungarian and Polish governments have objected, and in which they have refused to participate, arguing that none of these so-called “refugees” are in fact fleeing for their lives, and that all have safe haven either in their country of origin or in states much closer to their homes.

During the Syrian Civil War, millions of Syrians fled to Europe and other places as refugees. Now it seems that Syria wants them back after a powerful speech by Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Moualem at the recent UN General Assembly.

Speaking on Saturday (29th September), Moualem, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, thanked the countries which have taken in the refugees, but said it was time for them to come back home, as the Syrian Civil War is now practically finished.

“The government continues to rehabilitate the areas destroyed by terrorists, to restore normalcy,” he told the meeting. “All conditions are now present for the voluntary return of Syrian refugees to the country, the country they had to leave because of terrorism and the unilateral economic measures that targeted their daily lives and their livelihoods.

True enough, thousands of Syrian refugees abroad have started their journey back home.

From this podium I would like to stress the following - the return of each and every Syrian refugee is a priority for the Syrian state. All doors are wide open for All Syrians abroad to return voluntarily and safely…

Thanks to the help of Russia, the Syrian government will spare no effort to facilitate the return of refugees and meet their basic needs. Therefore a special committee was recently established to coordinate the return of refugees to their places of origin in Syria, and to help them regain their lives once again.”

Moualem also criticised the uncooperative attitude of some of the Western countries to which the refugees fled, and accused them of trying to prevent the refugees returning to their homelands.

  “We have called upon the international community and humanitarian organisations to facilitate these returns. However, some Western countries, in line with their dishonest behaviour since the start of the war in Syria, continue to prevent the return of refugees. They are spreading irrational fears among refugees. They are politicising what should be a purely humanitarian issue, using refugees as a bargaining ship to serve their political agenda and linking the return of refugees to the political process.”

Source, TradNews

Related at Majorityrights:
Bashar Al-Assad, a proper Left Nationalist, a socially conscientious man.

Bill Ballie on the Imperial Mindset and Obscured Roots of Racialism and Early British Socialism in UK Nationalism

Nation Revisited # 144 October 2018

       
        The Imperial Mindset.

When nostalgic Brexiteers look back to the ‘good old days’, the summers were warmer, the food was tastier, and the dogs and people were friendlier. They have convinced themselves that it was a Golden Age before we joined the old Common Market in 1973. They have forgotten about the strikes and confrontations, the poor productivity, and the years of stagnation.

Some of them believe that the British Empire was destroyed by conspiracies but history tells a different story. When the Japanese won their war with Russia in 1905 they showed that the European powers were vulnerable, and when they took Singapore from Britain in 1942 they proved their point to the subject peoples of Asia and Africa. We fought colonial wars in Malaya, Kenya, Aden, and Cyprus but there was no stopping “The Wind of Change.” Within thirty years of WW2, all that was left of the Empire was a few outposts like Gibraltar and the Falklands.

Those of us born in the last days of the British Empire are proud of our achievements. We built roads, railways and bridges all over the world and bequeathing a civil service, a judiciary, and a parliamentary system to our colonial subjects. The British Empire was a force for civilisation and progress, but it was also the source of cheap food that damaged our agriculture, the producer of cheap cotton goods that destroyed our textiles industry, and the supplier of immigrants that undercut our wages and conditions. We discovered the hard way that commerce overrules sovereignty and that people follow goods across borders. In the days of Empire we recruited workers from the West Indies; as members of the EU we signed up to its rules and conditions, and if we are swallowed up by the United States we will import contaminated food and commit our troops to ‘perpetual war’.

Capitalism has been global since the days of the East India Company. We fought the Chinese to force them to buy our opium; we fought the Afrikaners for their gold and diamonds, and we fought the Turks to steal the Arabian oilfields. But the days of trade enforced by bayonets are over. We belong to NATO and our armed forces are under the command of General Curtiss Scaparroti, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. We are members of the United Nations and subject to the International Court of Human Rights. We belong to the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. If we leave the EU we will operate under the World Trade Organisation. And the majority of our immigrants come from outside the EU, mainly from Africa and Asia.

We pro-Europeans believe in beneficial access to markets, incoming investment, and peace in Northern Ireland. And, realising that the Empire has gone, we see our future in terms of European co-operation. We also know that wages are far too low and that immigration can only be controlled by international agreement.

These arguments have been thoroughly debated but the decision to leave the EU was largely emotional. Abstract ideas of ‘sovereignty’ were more important than economics. In fact, some on the Brexiters are happy to accept a lower standard of living for the illusion of sovereignty.

As for immigration, the Brexiteers don’t regard West Indians, Africans and Asians as foreigners, after all, they play cricket and most of them speak English. They are happy to admit our former colonial subjects but they are determined to stop the Poles.

Neither side has a monopoly on patriotism but some people are fond of shouting “traitor” at the opposition. That’s unfair because we all want the best for our country. People are not traitors because they have a different opinion, and shouting abuse at foreigners does not make one a patriot. We are entering uncharted waters and time alone will tell who is right and who is wrong.

The BBC

 
John Reith 1889-1971 photo credit BBC.

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a state-owned media empire that was founded by the brilliant Scottish engineer and radio pioneer John Reith in 1922. His original intention was for the service to be educational as well as entertaining. Left-wingers accuse it of being right-wing and right-wingers accuse it of being left- wing. The truth is that it supports the establishment, not necessarily the government of the day but the overriding liberal-capitalists consensus.

[MR editorial note: Nationalists being against corrupt establishment is indicative of what we are calling “Left Nationalism”]

The Corporation is funded by an annual ‘licence fee’ of £147.00. If you watch TV in the UK you must pay the licence fee, even if you are watching a foreign station. This unfair levy is the main source of the BBC’s massive income of nearly five billion pounds. It wastes this money on presenters like Chris Evans who earned £2.2 million last year, Gary Lineker who earned £1,7 million, and Graham Norton who got £850,000. The BBC also has legions of journalists, researchers, and photographers who fly around the world gathering news stories. And it spends a fortune on legal fees and settlements.

The British government is struggling to find money for the National Health Service, defence, education, and almost everything else. But we allow the bloated BBC to waste billions of pounds on broadcasters and bureaucrats. We should stop this madness by selling it off; the TV and radio stations, the buildings, the news service, the sports franchises, and everything else.

And we should not fall for the myths of impartiality and quality surrounding the Corporation. It’s forever congratulating itself on its high standards, but it’s as biased as any other state-owned propaganda outlet, and most of its TV and radio programs are made by independent production companies.

The licence fee should be abolished and the slimmed-down company should be paid for by adverting revenue, with any profits going to the state. Presenters should be paid an industrial wage and the service should be returned to John Reith’s founding principles. The current BBC is a money-gobbling monster that’s out of control. We should sack the lot of them and start again.

Post-Brexit Policies

When we leave the EU the political parties will no longer be able to blame everything on Europe, they will be forced to address our problems. As I write, they are holding their annual conferences and making their promises for the future.

       

Theresa May is clinging to her Chequers plan despite the fact that it has been rejected by the EU and most of her party. The Tories have abandoned austerity and are promising to build more social housing and increase public spending. They have also promised to reduce corporation tax so an increase in income tax is inevitable. 

Jeremy Corbyn expects to win the next general election and he has promised to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail, and the water companies. His chancellor, John MacDonald has revived the manifesto of the Italian Social Republic to give shares and seats on the board of companies employing more than 250 workers. When Benito Mussolini introduced this policy it was overtaken by events.

Vince Cable pledged that the Lib Dems would lead the fight against Brexit but our ‘first past the post’ electoral system is rigged against them. They have 12 seats at Westminster but under proportional representation they would have more than 50.

Ukip and the various parties of the far-right will lose most of their reasons for living when we quit Europe. But immigration will still be with us because most of them come from outside of the EU. The latest ONS figures show that in the last year 127,000 EU citizens came to the UK and 179,000 from the rest of the world. In fact, if we sign trade deals with China and India we will probably admit more of them.

All of the parties are promising to increase defence spending, but if our economy shrinks we will have even less money to spend. We may have to stop pretending to be a world power and deploy our armed forces for the defence of the UK, instead of getting involved in Afghanistan and the Middle East. That would mean more frigates and destroyers but we would not need two gigantic aircraft carriers and a fleet of nuclear submarines.

Education also needs sorting out. France and Germany provide free education from nursery to university and so should we. We must gear our educational system to provide the doctors, engineers and scientists that we need instead of relying on immigration.

READ MORE...