Posts Tagged ‘Security’

Trump ‘opens door to hell’ with Jerusalem move


Most British papers led with U.S. President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The Guardian reported on “Anger as Trump declares Jerusalem Israel’s capital.” It also featured a story on British Prime Minister Theresa May being given a new deadline to sort out the Irish border issue, with the headline: “May given 48 hours to seal Brexit deal over Ireland.” The Daily Telegraph wrote: “May will fall without deal, warns EU.” The Financial Times led with “Warnings mount as Trump recognizes divided city as Israel capital.” The FT also wrote: “Irish premier raises prospect of Brexit divorce talks stretching into new year.”

The Guardian

The Daily Telegraph

The Financial Times


Die Tageszeitung wrote that Trump was “playing with fire,” alongside a striking image of protestors burning an American flag. The paper also questioned whether Germany’s Social Democrat’s (SPD) should enter another grand coalition with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives. Die Welt featured Trump’s decision on Jerusalem and also wrote about European Parliament’s climate change plans. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote about the SPD’s three-day party congress, which kicks off Thursday, asking: “will SPD’s party congress bring clarity?” FAZ featured a story on former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili calling for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to be sacked, following Saakashvili’s dramatic arrest and escape Tuesday.

Portada de Die Tageszeitung (Alemania)

Portada de Die Welt (Alemania)

Portada de Frankfurter Allgemeine (Alemania)


The French press paid tribute to French rocker Johnny Hallyday, who died aged 74 due to lung cancer. Le Figaro featured a full-page shot of Hallyday bowing with the headline: “Adieu Johnny.” La Dépèche, which ran a 10-page tribute to the rocker, published a portrait of a young Hallyday with the headline “Generation Johnny.” Le Monde led with “Johnny Hallyday, a French idol.” The paper also featured a story on Trump’s plans to move the American embassy to Jerusalem and another on Russia being banned from the Winter Olympic Games.

Portada de Le Figaro (Francia)

Portada de Le Monde (Francia)

Portada de La Dépêche du Midi (Francia)


Dutch-speaking De Morgen’s front page headline was “Trump opens door to hell.” The paper also featured a story on Belgian national Catherine De Bolle being put forward as the new head of Europol. French-speaking Le Soir led with Johnny Hallyday’s death, calling him an “immortal idol.” It also featured a story on Trump “attacking the Middle East.”


ABC featured a story on Spain’s Wednesday constitutional anniversary, with a photograph of Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy with Ana Pastor, the speaker of the Congress of Deputies. “Reform it but don’t liquidate it,” the paper wrote, referring to Spain’s constitution, ratified December 6, 1978. El Mundo also reported on the anniversary of the constitution and featured a story on Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part Two

Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part Two

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 1073 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.

The post Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part Two appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part One

Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part One

As our beloved, remain-supporting MSM haven’t reported fully on M Barnier’s speech to a German audience on the 27th of November (except a brief squeal: ‘how dare he say we ran away from ISIS!’), allow me to present you with excerpts, garnished with my own take. I promise you – I’ve toned my comments down already! But my blood was boiling when I came to the end.

M Barnier, a Frenchman in case you forgot, and Juncker’s right-hand man according to his own words, demonstrates in this speech how much he, the French, the Brusselocrats despise us, and how little they understand us, our country, our history, our institutions. I’ve always said that they will never forgive us for defeating Napoleon, nor that we came to their aid against the Germans in WWI and WWII. This attitude is colouring and indeed poisoning the Brexit negotiations and M Barnier’s speech illustrates this comprehensively. I do not understand why our own negotiators have not taken this into account!

Now to the speech:

More than 500 days ago, the United Kingdom took the sovereign decision to leave the European Union and bring to an end 44 years of common history. To many of us this came as a great shock. […]

Indeed. It came as a great shock to Mr Cameron, Whitehall, and certainly Brussels who all believed we could be herded through Project Fear into remaining. As we all know, these people are still at it.

It was a decision that came six months after the French Minister of Defence issued a call for solidarity to all his European counterparts to join forces to fight the terrorism of Daesh. Never had the need to be together, to protect ourselves together, to act together been so strong, so manifest. Yet rather than stay shoulder to shoulder with the Union, the British chose to be on their own again. […]

This is the first instance where I experienced a ‘jaw-hit-floor’ moment. According to M Barnier and all Brusselocrats, spin doctors and speech writers who prepared this text it seems we should have stayed because – ISIS? What, one might ask, has France done to combat this terrorism except waft fine words around? Keep the Calais Jungle going, for instance, to ‘punish’ us?

Is this the first instance in this speech of ‘The Continent’, now disguised as EU, demanding we Brits do as we did in the Napoleonic wars, WWI and WWII and save them from their self-created chaos? Let’s see…

And yet, in an act of collective responsibility, Europeans suddenly woke up and responded by choosing unity. They affirmed their common project, even in one of the core areas of national sovereignty – security and defence. […]

Aha! It’s going to be about PESCO!

To illustrate this wake-up call, let me quote the words of Chancellor Angela Merkel last spring: ‘Wir, Europäer, müssen unser Schicksal in unsere eigene Hand nehmen.’

Oh dear, Madame Merkel and M Barnier – have the Europeans been oppressed by some unnamed force, for all these years?

Yes, we need to take our fate into our own hands! […]

Do so! We Brits won’t hinder you!

In his first speech to the European Parliament in September 2014, Jean‑Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, called for a relaunch of European defence. And I had the honour of working alongside him at that time as a special adviser on these issues. […]

Told you! It’s about PESCO! (Here follows a long ‘historical review’ of how Juncker, with the help of Barnier, got the EU to accept PESCO.)

And this Defence and Security Union will have to be developed without the British, since on 30 March 2019 the United Kingdom will, as is its wish, become a third country when it comes to defence and security issues.

Now we get to the core of the reason why Brussels wants to keep us in: they want their little EU Army (which doesn’t exist, right, Mr Clegg?) and they want PESCO – and for that they need us: our money and above all our Armed Forces, under the command of Brussels. Funny that nobody talked about that in the Referendum Campaign…

We must draw the appropriate legal and operational conclusions from this:

  • The UK defense minister will no longer take part in meetings of EU Defence Ministers; there will be no UK ambassador sitting on the Political and Security Committee.

Yes, and? Does M Barnier think that’s a valid argument for us to remain?

  • The UK can no longer be a framework nation: it will not be able to take command of EU–led operations or lead EU battlegroups.

Stating the blooming obvious…

  • The UK will no longer be a member of the European Defence Agency or Europol.

Oh dear.

  • The UK will not be able to benefit from the European Defence Fund the same way Member States will.

Oh dear. But then again, we won’t have to pay the lion’s share into that fund when we’re out, so for us that’s a very good deal.

  • The UK will no longer be involved in decision-making, nor in planning our defense and security instruments.

Yes – and? Or – is M Barnier insinuating here that NATO will dissolve and the EU Force will become the new NATO? Continuing with more banal statements about Brexit, he drops this gem:

[…] Second, despite the UK’s withdrawal, we shall maintain our strategic capability: there will be no security vacuum in Europe.

Interesting. Never mind that one might ask what ‘strategic capability’ he’s talking about, one might wonder if his speech was meant to put the frighteners on his German audience so that he can then re-build their ‘confidence’: “The EU is strong even without the UK”. Let’s proceed:

There are three reasons for this:

  • London’s withdrawal will not affect bilateral cooperation between certain Member States and the United Kingdom, particularly at operational level. The UK will for example continue to play a part in NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Poland.
  • London’s withdrawal will not affect the strategic partnership between the European Union and NATO.
  • After all, Theresa May has assured the Member States several times that the UK is committed unconditionally to maintaining European security.

And here’s the proof that all of the above was a nice exercise in how to put up and then defeat straw men! So in real life, in the ‘actualité, it doesn’t matter for EU security that we’re out and not ‘contributing’ to the EU version of ‘strategic capabilities’ and the rest of it. Next, sugar for May:

I welcome this commitment and thank Theresa May for making it. History teaches us that there must be no horse-trading over the security of Europeans – that is an absolute necessity.

Sleight-of-hand: note that he equates Europe-the-continent with the EU. Note also that he clearly regards these security negotiations as horse-trading, with the final outcome that we must shoulder the monetary and human defense costs without complaint so we can get “the Europeans” out of any mess they create themselves for themselves. After all, there are precedents …

[To be continued tomorrow in Part Two where all will be revealed!]

The post Barnier’s Speech to the Germans – the Low-Down – Part One appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Britain furious with Barnier over ISIS claim

LONDON — Michel Barnier has provoked fury in Whitehall by saying that, in voting for Brexit, Britons chose not to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the EU just six months after a French call for solidarity against ISIS.

A U.K. official close to the Brexit negotiations said the claim was tantamount to “accusing us of ducking out of the fight against Daesh [ISIS].” The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, branded Barnier’s assertion “irrational and stupid.”

The row threatens to sour the atmosphere of Brexit negotiations, just two weeks ahead of December’s critical European Council summit.

The European Commission’s Brexit negotiator was addressing a security conference in Berlin Wednesday morning.

Referring to the vote to leave the EU in June 2016, Barnier said: “It was a decision that came after a series of attacks on European soil, committed by young people who grew up in Europe, in our countries. It was a decision that came six months after the French minister of defense issued a call for solidarity to all his European counterparts to join forces to fight the terrorism of Daesh.

“Never had the need to be together, to protect ourselves together, to act together been so strong, so manifest. Yet rather than stay shoulder to shoulder with the Union, the British chose to be on their own again.”

Barnier was referring to calls from France’s then defense minister, now foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, for European solidarity in the wake of the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris that left 130 dead.

The U.K. has played an active part in military operations against ISIS in Iraq and also, since a House of Commons vote in December 2015, Syria. The British official said the U.K. was the second largest contributor to the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign against ISIS, and also a “key player” in the humanitarian response to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. The official also pointed out the U.K.’s role in training Iraqi state security forces.

Questioned about Barnier’s speech, Theresa May’s official spokesman emphasized the “leading role Britain has played and continues to play in combating Daesh.”

The prime minister has been absolutely clear about our commitment to the ongoing security of Europe and of the European Union and her determination to continue cooperating  with the EU, sharing information and standing together against IS and terrorism in all its forms.”

Stefaan De Rynck, an advisor to Barnier, said on Twitter that the EU’s chief negotiator had merely “stressed partnership defence/security w/ UK: NATO, bilaterally and w/ EU (but EU autonomy), unconditional.” [sic]

In the same speech, Barnier made clear that the U.K. would have no decision-making role in EU foreign affairs and defense structures, but could continue to participate in joint operations.

The U.K. regards its military strength and intelligence and security expertise as among its strongest cards in the Brexit talks, which are approaching a critical phase ahead of December’s European Council meeting, where U.K. negotiators hope European leaders will allow talks on a transition period and a future trading partnership to begin.

Michel Barnier: UK cut out of EU defense decisions post Brexit

LONDON — The U.K. will lose all decision-making powers in EU foreign policy and defense issues after Brexit and cannot remain a member of the cross-border law enforcement agency Europol, Michel Barnier said Wednesday.

Speaking at a Berlin Security Conference, the EU’s chief negotiator shot down suggestions by some in the U.K. foreign policy establishment that the country could continue to participate in the EU’s powerful ambassador-level political and security committee (PSC). Barnier said there must be no U.K. ambassador sitting on the PSC and that the U.K. defense secretary would no longer take part in EU defense minister meetings.

The U.K. will also be unable to take command of EU-led operations or lead EU battlegroups, he said, nor could it be a member of the European Defense Agency or Europol.

Each outcome was “the logical consequence of the sovereign choice made by the British,” Barnier said.

The U.K. has said it wants a close, continued partnership with the EU on defense and security after Brexit, and ministers view the country’s military strength and security and intelligence expertise as one of the country’s strongest hands in the Brexit negotiation. Prime Minister Theresa May has made repeated commitments to continued U.K. support for European security.

In a position paper published in September, London did not explicitly back calls, made by former Foreign Secretary William Hague among others, for the U.K. to retain participation in the PSC, but did call for the U.K. and the EU to have “regular close consultations on foreign and security policy issues, with the option to agree joint positions on foreign policy issues.”

A separate position paper on security issues called for a closer relationship with the EU than any other third country, and did not rule out continued membership of Europol to facilitate this.

However, London and Brussels are agreed that the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU will not affect any Europe-wide cooperation under the aegis of NATO, or the U.K.’s bilateral cooperation with EU member countries. The U.K. would continue to take part in NATO’s military operations in Estonia and Poland aimed at bolstering Europe’s defenses against Russian aggression, Barnier said.

He added that a future defense and foreign policy partnership with the U.K., while not granting the latter decision-making powers, should “enable” the U.K.’s “voluntary partnership” in EU missions and operations, participation in joint armaments programs, and exchanges between EU and U.K. intelligence services.

Echoing the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel last spring, Barnier said that Europe, in the face of Brexit and Donald Trump’s “strategic repositioning” of the U.S., needed to “take our fate into our own hands.”

“Who can say for certain that Europe will still be a haven of stability in 10 or 20 years?” he said. “It is for us, Europeans, to maintain this stability and to promote our values around the world. 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.”

The Dangers of Mrs. May’s Planned “Security Treaty” with the EU

The Dangers of Mrs. May’s Planned “Security Treaty” with the EU

It is good to see that UKIP is now getting its teeth into the issue of our armed forces, and the risk of their being absorbed into a single EU force, as well as putting forward a policy of general attention and care for veterans.  For the time being, an immediate threat has been averted in that the government did not sign us up to the “EU army” project at the meeting on Monday 13th November last. However there remains a possibility that the five EU states who did not sign up may still do so, indeed Portugal and possibly Ireland are expected to. We must remain vigilant.

The decision will be formalised on December 11th. The two areas of Defence and Criminal Law are actually closely connected, and they both come under the heading of SECURITY. We need to keep an eagle eye on Mrs May’s plans for a “Security Treaty”, which will be put in place after Brexit. Many people think there is nothing wrong with this. They say that after all we share many values and geo-strategic aims with our EU allies, most of whom are also members of NATO. We face the same threats, for example terrorism, so why not cooperate as closely as possible?  Well, we need to be careful of glib arguments.

It is true that we share some values with our continental friends, but there are others, in particular as regards security, where we differ.  For example, our criminal law system descends from Magna Carta, but theirs descends from the Napoleonic-inquisitorial tradition which is completely different. With the European Arrest Warrant, we are forced to adapt to their system, which allows arrest before evidence of a prima facie case has been gathered, whereas ours insists that evidence be collected before an arrest can be carried out, as provided by article 38 of Magna Carta. And our Habeas Corpus ensures that this will happen by providing for a public hearing within hours of arrest where evidence can and must be exhibited. Habeas Corpus is unknown in continental Europe. It is not provided by the ECHR. It is still available in the UK for those arrested under a domestic warrant, but not if under an EAW.  The Napoleonic-inquisitorial system is a ready-made tool for tyranny. Ours is a bulwark of democracy.

Amber Rudd told the Commons in March this year that she and the government intend to keep the EAW as it stands, and our membership of Europol, indefinitely after “Brexit”. This will be included in the planned “Security Treaty”. UKIP hitherto has largely ignored this. We need to denounce it as loudly as possible, and demand that the government drop this.

The EAW must be reformed, so that a British court can examine evidence, before granting extradition, and if necessary reject it.  This is important because the State is a body that holds the legal monopoly of the use of violent force. In Britain we have had 350 years of peaceful constitutional development and evolution, so we tend to forget this elementary truth, that the State can use its monopoly of violence to oppress the people. The armed services, the police, and criminal justice, are those areas of government, under the heading of “security”, that give the State the power and the legal right to use physical force against citizens, and make them do things against their will. Enforcement, in a word.

People in Britain are usually far more concerned about the economic side of things. But there is a link: in taxation, because you cannot have a taxation policy, unless you also have enforcement powers. Taxation after all means forcing people to give money to the government, whether they want to or not. They will only do so if they are frightened by the prospect of criminal prosecution, forcible removal of their property (fines), and ultimately handcuffs and prison. Many people are saying that the single currency will fail unless there is also a single taxation policy. This is why the EU needs a uniform legal system and centralised, single-point, enforcement powers – hence Corpus Juris, Europol, the Eurogendarmerie, and ultimately the EU army. Prodi said it clearly, when the single currency was brought in: “We now have the coinage, we need the sword”.

It is pretty obvious why the Eurocrats and the EUphile authorities want to push all this through under the radar, with no public discussion.  But even on our side there is a tendency to avoid these subjects. Our centuries of peaceful domestic political history have made many, if not most of us, unable to see that at the end of the day, it is guns that determine who controls the country.  We like to talk about votes, money, trade, and so forth. To talk about foreign soldiers or gendarmes patrolling our streets sounds “outlandish”, “gratuitous scaremongering”, and our leaders fear that if we associate our main theme with such “wacko” ideas we will destroy our credibility. They say these are “not issues that people raise on the doorstep”.

I remember the late Piers Merchant reprimanding me vehemently for wanting to warn people about the Eurogendarmerie, for this very reason. Even earlier I remember various people not wanting to talk about Corpus Juris because it would distract attention from our main campaign at that time, which was to “save the pound”.

Personally, I turned against the EU when Delors announced his plan for a single currency in 1990. I then realised that this meant that they really did want a single state. And I predicted that a single state would need a single system of criminal law which would be on the continental inquisitorial model, extinguishing our Magna Carta safeguards of trial by jury, Habeas Corpus, etc. Even though I imagined back in 1990 that it was going to happen eventually, I was shocked when I saw my prediction come true with the Corpus Juris proposal in 1997.

Well there is my tupp’orth. I think it is really just a matter of putting facts in a row, and joining the dots. I hope UKIP’s leadership will pick up these themes.

We had an inkling of the danger when Spain’s central state police force, the Guardia Civil, attacked peaceful voters in Catalonia with baton-charges and rubber bullets. The leaders of the Catalan independence movement, democratically elected politicians, are now in prison, or on bail in Belgium, having received a European Arrest Warrant, facing thirty-year sentences. And by the way, the Guardia Civil are Spain’s contribution to the nascent European Riot Police paramilitaries, the EuroGendarmerie, whose six contributing states are currently training side by side, and being welded into a single force, in Vicenza, Northern Italy.

We shall see what Madrid does if the pro-independence parties win the Catalan elections scheduled for 21st December. Accept the result? Or send in tanks? On present form, the latter result looks more likely. And Brussels will approve? Hmm…

If a “Security Treaty” between Britain and the EU involves us in further entanglement with EU “security arrangements” as our government’s actions and words so far lead us to suspect, we could get to the point where Eurogendarmerie troops are asked over and stationed on British soil. Mrs May said in June 2012, when Home Secretary, in reply to a Parliamentary Question by Dominic Raab MP, that “of course, special intervention units” from the EU would be invited in, “if needed”. At that point, Brussels will be able to treat Brexit as a seditious rebellion, and snuff out our independence, just as Spain can snuff out Catalonia’s, by brute force, indeed brutal force.

The post The Dangers of Mrs. May’s Planned “Security Treaty” with the EU appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: index backlink | Thanks to insanity workout, car insurance and cyber security