The subject of Europe is now to all consuming and has to have its own page. Angela Merkel complained that the British were always blaming the European Parliament for all the petty rules and regulations. She said the British were behind 80% of legislation, and out of the room when the rest was decided because it didn’t interest them I raised this with a Polish co worker when were out in a lorry together. He laughed before saying, ‘Oh yes, we call the British the great bureaucrats of Europe.
Posh Ms BBC TV Producer blames ‘Dad’s Army’ re runs for Brexit- serious censorship gets even worse in Police State Britain.
Author and TV producer Daisy Goodwin is calling for the broadcaster to stop showing repeats of the Second World War sitcom, which originally aired from 1968 to 1977. Ms Goodwin, who created ITV drama Victoria, claimed showing old episodes could have convinced the public to support the UK leaving the European Union. The 57-year-old told the Radio Times: “If you really want to nail the BBC for influencing the nation’s state of mind about Brexit, you might look at how often Dad’s Army has been shown on BBC2.
“The BBC, if it wants to maintain its claim to impartiality, needs to retire the Home Guard (or send them on leave), because in the words of Private Frazer, ‘We are all doomed!’
“The world of Dad’s Army is a comforting place – it was reassuring during the mayhem of the three-day week and it’s soothing to those of us who worry about the effects of a No Deal Brexit.
“But while David Davis may sound like Corporal Jones, Philip Hammond has Sergeant Wilson’s hangdog look about him and there is more than a touch of wide-boy Walker to Boris Johnson, perhaps the Conservatives, indeed the whole nation, need to be reminded that we are not living in Walmington-on-Sea.
“Our current difficulties will not be resolved with a comic flourish and a jaunty burst of Bud Flanagan.”
The show starred Arthur Lowe, John Le Mesurier and Clive Dunn and is still watched by millions of people every Saturday.
Dad’s Army followed the lives of the Home Guard protecting the Walmington-on-Sea coastline from a Nazi invasion.
But the dysfunctional team protecting the coast are made up of the local bank manager and his team of volunteers.
It is up to them to take on the German enemies as they invade from across the Channel.
The Home Guard was made up of men who couldn’t take part in military service.
This was mostly due to being too old to join the army or navy.
They were nicknamed “Dad’s Army” because of their age.
The show has been linked to Brexit previously.
The Royal Mail released a collection of stamps last year to mark the show’s 50th anniversary.
But this also coincided with the day MPs voted on the first EU withdrawal.
The stamps featured the show’s most popular characters and catchphrases.
One stamp had Private Frazer’s quote: “We’re doomed. Doomed!”
Source India Times & Post
Italy at the Crossroads
by Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
June 18, 2019
|Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has shut the country’s ports to illegal migrants.|
ROME – Italy is in the news these days for two main developments. First, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has – against massive opposition from the media, the judiciary, and the church – shut the country’s ports to illegal migrants and thereby reduced the number coming from the Mediterranean Sea by 97 percent between 2017 and 2019. Second, his civilizationist party, the League (Lega in Italian), went from winning 6 percent of the votes in the 2014 European parliamentary elections to 34 percent in those same elections last month, making it by far Italy’s most popular party.
Seen from outside Italy, these dramatic developments suggest that growing numbers of Italy’s 61 million inhabitants have stopped denying their country’s apocalyptic immigration and Islamization problems and are ready to confront the country’s existential threats. But is this really the case, have Italians turned a corner in the battle to control their destiny? What do the port closures mean and how significant is the rise of the League?
|A growing number of Italians have stopped denying their country’s apocalyptic immigration and Islamization problems.|
To research these questions, I spent a week in Rome, meeting with 25 politicians, diplomats, journalists, and intellectuals espousing a wide range of views; Salvini was compared to everyone from Juan Perón to Margaret Thatcher. I came away impressed by the scope of the battle underway, one in which the civilizationists enjoy a momentary and vulnerable advantage that missteps could quickly reverse.
Italy’s challenges provide the context for this battle. Government at all levels is notoriously dysfunctional from Rome’s traffic to Genoa’s bridge. Its population has about the oldest median age in the world, 48. Nearly ¾ of Italians are pessimistic about the country’s future. With the largest government debt in Europe and the continent’s second largest government debt as a percentage of GDP, it is in danger of legal action and huge fines by the European Union. Lampedusa Island and Sicily make it the European country closest to the anarchy in Libya and therefore the most affected by Africa’s population boom.
|Italy’s two dominant cultural forces – the Communist Party and the Roman Catholic Church – are both universalist and thus favor mass immigration.|
Worse, the two dominant cultural forces in Italy – the Communist Party and the Roman Catholic Church – are both universalist, with little appreciation for what makes Italy a distinct nation. Naturally, both favor large-scale immigration, as expressed by Pope Francis‘ ardent statements. On May 27, for example, he called the presence of migrants “an invitation to recover some of those essential dimensions of our Christian existence.”
In addition to these lofty reasons, other Italians have more practical ones to want an unceasing flow of migrants. Italy’s Left cannot but notice how the migrant vote helps its counterparts in other countries (e.g., France). State-funded migrant services, which employed some 36,000 people, let go of 5,000 employees when the number of illegals dropped, with another 10,000 expected to be laid off. Corruption, including embezzlement and prostitution, is endemic to those services, with the Mafia making “vast profits off the backs of migrants.”
|Civilizationist pride in Italian heritage stands in direct contrast to universalist attitudes.|
On the other side stand those who wish to celebrate not just the nation of Italy and its glorious national culture but also its many distinctive regions, with their long histories, mutually-unintelligible dialects, and renowned cuisines. Venice, for example, enjoyed independence through eleven centuries (697-1797), developed a unique method of glass-making (Murano), and has its own school of music composition. Civilizationist pride in this heritage stands in direct contrast to universalist attitudes.
The person of Matteo Salvini, 46, drives the civilizationist impulse to preserve. A career politician who joined the then-marginal Northern League at age 17, he became a Milan city councilor at 20 and rose through the party ranks, finally taking on and defeating the party’s long-time boss in 2013. As the new leader, he quickly turned a regional party into a national one (dropping “Northern” from the name) and made control of immigration his central message.
|Salvini, 46, drives the civilizationist impulse to preserve Italy’s identity.|
Salvini so dominates the League and drives Italy’s politics that the country’s future course depends in large part on his priorities, skills, depth, vision, and stamina. Should he succeed in turning the ports closure into a long-term solution to the problems of immigration and Islamization, his current electoral success presages a watershed for Italy. But if he fails in this attempt, Italians will not soon again have an opportunity to control their borders and assert their identity and sovereignty.
In larger terms, Italy has the potential to join Hungary in leading Europe out of its current decline; but this happy prospect requires enormous skill and more than a pinch of luck.
European Remainer Mainstream propoganda again- Huffington Post June 13th 2019:
MORE TORY CUTS
Tory austerity may or may not be ending sometime soon, but today the party embarks on fresh round of brutal cuts – this time of its own leadership candidates. The culling process means that we could end up with just six, possibly seven, contenders left by lunchtime. The new rules, designed to speed up the contest, mandate that those who can’t muster 17 votes must drop out.
Few expect Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey or Mark Harper to make the cut. Rory Stewart thinks he may squeak it with 20 votes, a triumph that would allow him to catapult into the TV debates in the next few days. He’s vowed not to serve under Boris Johnson, but I wonder if he’ll resist the call of ‘Queen and country’. After Johnson’s message that he wasn’t ‘aiming’ for no-deal, could he stay on in the Cabinet and then walk out in a blaze of glory if the new PM does indeed go for the nuclear option? Either way, many think Stewart is perfectly placed for another run at the leadership next time.
For now, it’s all about raw numbers. This is a secret ballot and with a still sizeable chunk of undeclared MPs, it will be fascinating to see how Johnson, Hunt, Gove, Raab, Javid and Hancock fare. Each camp will be desperate to mop up supporters from those who fail to clear the first ballot hurdle. Despite the herd mentality, MPs are rugged individualists at times and it’s not always obvious where they will switch loyalties. Still, many expect Johnson and Raab to be boosted by McVey and Leadsom’s numbers, while Harper’s will head towards Hunt, Javid or Hancock.
Everyone will be looking to see whether Michael Gove’s numbers have hit a ceiling. If so, could Javid or Hancock build up momentum to overtake him and Raab? Should Stewart drop out, Hancock could leapfrog Javid. It may all be academic, if Johnson comes close to the magic 105 needed to guarantee a place in the last two next week. With his obvious support out among members, will it be all over bar the shouting as early as today?
Boris Johnson got through his big day yesterday without imploding on the launchpad as he did so spectacularly three long years ago. Yet his critics are already pointing out that even a few minutes of scrutiny exposed his slipperiness on everything from a Brexit no-deal to his drug history to his past remarks about ‘letterbox’ Muslim women or ‘bumboys’.
I’ve written an in-depth piece on how Johnson fared not just at his launch event and the 1922 Committee hustings, but also more widely on how he got his act together (in every sense) in recent weeks. Most telling of all was how neither the launch nor the ’22 distracted him from the real business that has shaped this entire leadership race – those one-on-one meetings with wavering backbenchers up in his fourth floor office in Portcullis House. Boris met more yesterday, including some who had been in to see him before and had been unconvinced. It was revealing that they went back at all.
It was obvious Johnson was deliberately more serious and sober yesterday. The Q&A was more freewheeling. Yet given that he is a consummate actor who has spent years crafting the ‘bumbling Boris’ persona since his student days, where does the artifice begin and end? Was he simply acting at being serious? Is he always acting at being dishevelled? The fact that his family call him ‘Al’ (Alexander is his first name, not Boris) suggests few know who the real Boris Johnson is.
Javid had a jibe that Johnson is ‘yesterday’s news’. But his supporters think that he’s very much the leader they need right here, right now, the only man who can save the party from what he told MPs yesterday was the ‘near extinction event’ of a Farage and Corbyn carve-up. Some waverers want a leader for tomorrow, someone who can win in 2022 and 2027. However, the real undercurrent of Johnson’s pitch is that his time has finally arrived – and that he’s the one to call and win a snap election in 2019 to end the Brexit deadlock for good.
Is no deal inevitable? Steven Bush June 13th 2019
Jeremy Corbyn’s motion to prevent a no deal Brexit was narrowly defeated in the House of Commons yesterday, after 10 Conservative rebels were cancelled out by 12 Labour MPs going the other way – eight voted against the motion while four were absent without leave
It’s the same combination of factors that has defeated attempts to soften or stop Brexit in the past and the same combination that frustrated Yvette Cooper’s first attempt to delay no deal in January 2019: some regular Tory rebels felt that the time is not yet ripe, while some Labour MPs feared that the vote would be seen as frustrating Brexit. Both believe they will get another chance to vote to prevent no deal.
The numbers are certainly there to do so. Several Labour MPs who have consistently voted for the deal and against measures they regard as stopping Brexit have privately said that, if they are forced into a choice between no deal and revoking Article 50, even they will take the option of revocation.
Many Conservative MPs who sat this one out because they are backing candidates who they still hope could defeat Boris Johnson. And, most importantly of all, the number of opponents of no deal is going be swelled because at least some ardent critics of no deal, such as Philip Hammond, are going to end up on the backbenches whoever emerges as leader. As Katy Balls reveals in the Spectator,
Theresa May warned the Cabinet this week that while they had got used to Brexiteers voting against Brexit, the next leader will have to adjust to a new reality of Remainers voting against no deal.
There’s a but coming, though, and it’s a big one: what if Boris Johnson doesn’t want to bring back the deal with a fresh coat of paint? What if he does decide to go for no deal? Yesterday’s vote also boosts his argument to Conservative MPs that when push comes to shove, Parliament’s no deal majority will shy away from the concrete and radical moves it would have to make to actually prevent no deal. I wouldn’t bet heavily on that in his shoes, but nor would I bet heavily against it.
It would be a democratic outrage if the new Prime Minister opted to mothball Parliament to get their way but it would be within their powers. MPs have narrowly opted against their one certain chance to change that and they are not guaranteed to get another.
Comment There is nothing democratic about Cameron offering a referendum smug in the notion it would be a remain vote, then it becomes a decision for Parliament’s elite and media cronies, when the vote goes wrong, to disguise a remainer ‘deal’ as if it were not in fact remaining on worse terms- which is what a deal effectively is.
MPs place their faith in John Bercow, the Speaker, to block no deal. He has said the idea parliament wouldn’t get a say in the matter is ‘for the birds’.
Assuming without precedent, he has taken on the power to bend parliament’s rules and even break them, historic as they are. He is a powerful advocate for Remain. Impartaiality is not his thing, so he sets a dangerous precedent in the name of democracy (sic).
Chief Whip Julian Smith told cabinet this week that the IfG report is wrong as it doesn’t take into account the fact that the government faces an activist speaker. Pity Bercow is not more of an activist in his role as my constituency MP.