|
|
By  David Craig, on November 8th, 2014 (One can’t write about politics, economics, immigration and the destruction of Britain every day. So today I’d like to introduce you to the great cruise gratuities ‘scam’)
I don’t know if any readers ever go on cruises. But if you do, you’ll have noticed how eagerly and effectively the cruise companies extract money from passengers, supposedly for gratuities. And if you’ve never been on a cruise and never intend to, you might still find this little tale of fleecing customers mildly amusing.
Large cruise ships – here’s how it works on many large cruise ships:
1. When booking you get a choice – either pre-pay your gratuities at typically about £7 a day per person or else the cruise company will add a higher sum – perhaps £10 a day – to your bill at the end of the cruise. This pressures you to pay upfront.
2. When you get on the ship, you then discover that these pre-paid gratuities don’t include things like the bar. So another 10% to 15% is automatically added to any drinks you buy
3. Supposing there are 3,000 passengers on a 2-week cruise, then that’s £21,000 a day – £294,000 for the two weeks – that the cruise company is getting in pre-paid gratuities. Does anyone really believe the cruise company is distributing absolutely all of this £21,000 a day (£294,000 for two weeks) to their staff?
River cruises – things are reportedly much worse with a company called Viking which specialises in river cruises. According to a report in the Torygraph:
1. On its two-week Yangtse River cruise Viking ‘recommends’ that each passenger pays $15 a day in gratuities for the crew, $10 a day for the tour guides, $2 a day for local guides and $1 a day for drivers. This all adds up to $28 (£18) per day per passenger
2. There are 170 passengers on the Yangtse River cruise. If these 170 passengers pay their £18 per day, then that’s £3,060 per day – £42,840 for the two weeks
3. There are about 80 crew on the boat. Of course, officers will get a bigger share of the tip money and toilet cleaners rather less. But on average Viking are taking £535 in tips per crew member for the two weeks – £267 per week. That may not seem a lot, but…
4. The average wage in China is $4,755 per year – about £3,067 – equivalent to about £60 per week
5. So Viking would have us believe that, in addition to their salaries, its staff are each getting around four times the average wage in tips! Does anyone really believe that Viking actually distributes all the £42,840 per two-week trip to its 80 staff? Or are there some cynics who are tempted to suspect that Viking pockets a goodly proportion of the gratuity money to help boost company profits?
If it looks like a scam, smells like a scam, feels like a scam and seems like a scam, then it’s probably a scam.
I have the impression that the way cruise companies extract gratuities from passengers is a massive and massively profitable scam.
The ‘Spit List’ – You could, of course, refuse to pre-pay your gratuities and give very little during your journey. But it’s rumoured that on some boats the crew keep a list of passengers who don’t pay gratuities – the so-called “Spit List”. I probably don’t need to explain why, if one wants an enjoyable holiday, one wouldn’t want one’s name on the “Spit List”.
By David Craig, on November 7th, 2014 Recently I’ve been bombarded with ads inviting me to ‘FREE 2-hour seminars’ that will make me wealthy like this one https://mruk-events.localspecific.com/ and this one https://www.richdadedu.co.uk/
I’m sure that the seminars I provide links to above are absolutely fantabulous and hugely helpful to attendees. However, when I was researching my book PILLAGED How They’re Looting £413 Million a Day from your Savings and Pensions I attended a few FREE ‘get rich’ seminars and my conclusion was that they were little short of being scams preying on the gullible and vulnerable.
I found that they all followed a very similar format. So, if you or anyone you know is planning to attend one of these FREE seminars, here’s roughly what should you expect:
1. Presenter is a liar – the presenter will say that they used to work for a large company but, after they had attended a FREE seminar, they started making so much money from property/trading/forex or whatever that they didn’t need to work any more. They’ll probably show you a photo of the huge house they supposedly live in and claim they spend their time travelling on luxury holidays and enjoying their hobbies – golf, singing in amateur musicals or whatever. But if you Google them after the seminar, you’ll probably find their claim to be a wealthy expert is a lie. They might even be a failed actor who earns their crust by giving these seminars
2. Most attendees are losers – looking around the attendees, you’ll see that most of them are self-evident losers. There may be a high proportion of immigrants working in low-paid jobs who are particularly easy to sucker with a ‘get rich quick’ scheme
3. A little bit of knowledge – in the first 40 minutes of the seminar, you will get a bit of knowledge about property investing, share trading, foreign exchange or whatever and that’s quite fun and interesting
4. Do you have the courage? – the next 40 minutes of the seminar is a challenge to you. You’ll be asked if you want to spend the rest of your life stuck in your current job or do you dare to break free. You’ll probably be shown short videos of people who have supposedly become rich thanks to the seminar company. Having attended a few of these, I noticed that one supposedly satisfied customer was used in two different seminars. If I remember correctly, in one seminar he supposedly got rich from foreign exchange and in the other from property investment
5. The big sell – the last part of the seminar is aimed at getting you to sign up for a 2- or 3-day course. You’ll be told that this ‘normally costs £1,995 plus VAT’ but that if you sign up immediately you’ll get the course for ‘ONLY £995 plus VAT’. Some are even more expensive – £2,995 ‘but you’ll get it for ONLY £1,995’. Plus, if you sign up immediately, you’ll also get some CDs and a book ‘normally worth £1,997’ absolutely FREE! The presenter will then give you some dates for the courses but will warn that there are only a few places left on each date
6. Take the advanced course! – some of these FREE seminar companies make their money from the people attending the 2- to 3-day course. But others use the 2- to 3-day course to try to sell you into taking further courses – their ‘Advanced’ course costing thousands of pounds more – and paying for ‘your own individual mentor’ who will help you get rich
It seems that few of the people attending these FREE seminars ever ask themselves the question – if the presenters and mentors and their lackeys are so successful and rich, why are they wasting their time trying to persuade a bunch of losers like me to part with a thousand pounds or so?
By David Craig, on November 6th, 2014 You’ve probably all seen the gushing reports in the mainstream media about a new study claiming immigration has been good for Britain. The study is called The Fiscal Impacts of Immigration to the UK
I’ve read the study so that you don’t have to. And from what I understood, here are a few warnings:
1. Produced by (IMHO) ‘proven idiots’ – the authors of the report are Tommaso Frattini and a (probably appropriately named) Christian Dustmann. From what I remember, it was the very same Christian Dustmann who produced a report for the British government in 2003 estimating that ‘only about 13,000’ immigrants a year would arrive from the 10 countries joining the EU in 2004 if the New Labour government gave them immediate access to the UK on joining the EU. In reality about 230,000 a year flooded in. So Mr Dustmann has a track record for getting things spectacularly wrong and should really give up lecturing us all about the ‘benefits’ of immigration
2. Possibly biased – the report sets out to ‘provide substantive evidence on immigrants’ fiscal contribution’. Not evidence on immigrants’ cost, but on their contribution. It seems the authors had reached their conclusions before doing their analysis
3. Used to attack UKIP – Virtually every media report focused on the supposed benefit – £8.775bn between 1995 and 2011 – contributed by immigrants from EU countries and only mentioned in passing the negative contribution made by non-EU immigrants – a whopping £104bn. Clearly the massively negative cost of immigration should have been the headline, not the dubious claim that EU immigration is good for Britain. But the media was only interested in using the study to attack UKIP
4. Doesn’t account for benefits paid to unemployed Brits – the study completely ignores the fact that the many millions of people who have poured into the UK will have taken some jobs that would otherwise gone to British people. If just 500,000 more British people were in work, then that would be around £5bn a year less that we would have had to pay in benefits. So, for the period of the study (1995-2011) there’s another £85bn cost of immigration. And I’m not including all the social costs of the misery of unemployment on these people and their families
5. Doesn’t include Bulgarians and Romanians – although the two countries joined the EU in 2007, their people only got free access to the UK this year. As Bulgarian and Romanian criminal gangs and Roma gypsies swarm into the UK, one might be tempted to imagine that many of these people will not be making the same contribution as hard-working Polish plumbers and bricklayers.
6. Ignores the social cost – it doesn’t take any account of the cost of the NHS being close to collapse because of increasing demand from immigrants, our education system being overburdened as immigrants have more children, our police being unable to protect us as the immigrant crime rate soars and housing becoming unaffordable for many Brits as the demands from 7 million immigrants pushed up prices and rents
I’m sure there are many other weaknesses in the study.
But basically (IMHO) it’s just a piece of pro-immigration propaganda masquerading as academic research. More garbage from Mr Dustbinmann?
And don’t believe the media reports of immigration being good for Britain. Even this biased study, which hugely underestimates the real costs of immigration, proves immigration has been an economic disaster for our country.
By David Craig, on November 5th, 2014 I wanted to cover a different issue today. But there’s one story that I couldn’t allow to pass without a comment.
You almost have to feel sorry for the 300 Libyan troops who came to train in Britain for a few months. After a series of gang rapes of British girls (and apparently also a man), they’re being sent home to Libya early. That’s put an end to their UK holiday.
Yet, if they’d been following the British news before they came here, they’d know that in Britain M*sl*ms are allowed to gang-rape, gang-sodomise and gang-torture tens of thousands of British girls. The police look the other way because of political correctness, the politicians say nothing because they want the immigrant vote and the M*sl*m community does nothing (and even condones its men raping tens of thousands of British girls) because Britain’s M*sl*ms despise us and view us kaffirs as sub-human.
Though, if you want to find some sub-humans, the Middle East or Pakistan might be quite a good place to look.
So, the poor Libyans must have been ever so surprised when they got ticked off after just a few rapes, confined to barracks and will soon be marched onto a plane back to the medieval hell-hole from which they came. Although some of them have demanded political asylum so they can stay here for a bit of “Carry on Raping” at British taxpayers’ expense. No doubt some slimey, parasitical, self-serving immigration lawyer will use the Human Rights Act to ensure these animals remain in our country. So, lock up your daughters (and your sons?).
But perhaps we should thank these Libyan soldiers for once again forcing us to face up to the reality of the kind of people that we are allowing into Britain?
On the subject of Britain’s ‘open door’ immigration policy, yesterday I wrote a blog trying to prove that immigration was bankrupting us and trying to disprove our rulers’ claims that immigration was good for Britain. So, it’s pleasing to note that a new report from University College London has calculated that during New Labour’s desperate attempt to import Labour supporters by allowing uncontrolled immigration, the cost to British taxpayers has been over £115bn.
That’s lower than my estimate because the report didn’t take account of benefits paid to British people whose jobs were taken by immigrants. But it’s still a pretty chunky number. And that’s just the direct financial cost. It doesn’t take account of the social cost of 7 million mostly low-skilled, poorly-educated arrivals from the world’s worst hell-holes.
So, how did the BBC and the Guardian report this massive cost to British taxpayers?
Perhaps it’s time to close down the BBC?
By David Craig, on November 4th, 2014 I’m afraid I don’t understand how tax credits work, but if I’m vaguely on the right lines, then immigration is bankrupting us.
I’ll try to crunch some basic numbers to show how.
At least 7 million immigrants have come to the UK since New Labour opened up the borders in 1997.
1. Unemployed immigrants – of these 7 million, at least 20% (1.4 million) are not in work.
Assuming each of these good people is costing us around £10,000 a year in benefits and public services (healthcare, schooling for their children, policing, translation etc), then that’s £14bn a year we’re paying for the pleasure of the multi-cultural enrichment from letting these people flood into our country
2. Immigrants on low wages – now let’s assume that of the working 5.6 million, 80% (4.48 million) are on lowish wages – less than £13,000 for a single person and less than £18,000 for someone with children. Most of these people will be entitled to Working Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Reduction to help with rent and Council Tax. If they have children, they can claim Child Benefit and may also be entitled to some Child Tax Credit. Basically, few if any of these people will be making any contribution to Britain at all. Moreover they will be using our public services. If each of these people uses just £3,000 a year of public services, then they’re costing us £13.4bn a year
3. Immigrants making a contribution – that leaves 1.12 million immigrants who may be contributing more than they take. If each is paying £2,000 a year more in tax than they’re taking in services, then they’re contributing £2.24bn a year.
4. British losing jobs to immigrants – then we have to make some estimate of how many British people are unable to find work as some of the 5.6 million working immigrants have pushed them out of jobs. Let’s be conservative and assume just 1 million more British people would be in work if there was not so much immigration. If each of those unemployed British are costing us £10,000 a year in benefits and services, then that’s another £10bn a year immigration is costing.
In summary, immigration may be costing us £35.16bn a year (£14bn + £13.4bn + £10bn – £2.24bn).
And with almost 500,000 new immigrants arriving every year, this cost will just keep on increasing thus negating any public-spending cuts any government makes.
Of course, you can argue with these figures. But there’s something called the “inertia of large numbers”. Often you can make a rough estimate of something like the real cost of immigration. Then, even if you spend weeks doing detailed calculations, you’ll probably just end up with close to the number you first arrived at.
Our useless Government keeps making cuts to public spending and yet public spending continues to rise. Why? The ever-increasing cost of immigration. But, of course, nobody in power or the media can mention this due to political correctness.
By David Craig, on November 3rd, 2014 Yesterday the mainstream media was excitedly reporting the latest pile of Global Warming bilge from the gravy-train-riding “scientists” at the IPCC. The “scientists” who have been proven wrong on every single prediction they’ve made.
In several press articles, there was the usual picture of a lonely polar bear standing on a tiny block of ice. Here’s the one used by the Sunday Torygraph:
The message to us was clear – ice melting, polar bears drowning or starving. Helpfully, the caption under the photo reinforced this doom and gloom message “Warming beyond 4C would likely result in “substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, impacts on normal human activities”, according to a draft of the document”.
Of course, one should never let facts get in the way of a good story. But the suggestion that the population of polar bears is declining due to Global Warming is complete and utter tripe
Here’s a table showing the supposed “frightening decline” in polar bear numbers due to man-made Global Warming. Whoops, sorry. Polar bears are thriving. Their population has shot up from somewhere around 5,000 in the 1950s to above 25,000 by 2005. Some experts even think there may now be 32,000 polar bears though there’s some dispute about this as the “experts” have recently changed the way they count polar bear numbers
And here are 10 reasons not to worry about the survival of polar bears.
https://polarbearscience.com/2013/02/26/ten-good-reasons-not-to-worry-about-polar-bears/
A large part of the reason numbers have been rising is restrictions on hunting them.
There is also some evidence that the most drastic declines in polar bear numbers have been due, not to melting ice, but during periods when there was too much ice preventing them reaching their main food source – seals. And some experts believe the biggest threat to polar bears now is that there are too many all competing for the same food resources.
But if polar bear numbers have plateaued, there could be other reasons. For example, there may not be enough for them to eat. Here’s a possible explanation from an organisation that monitors numbers of seals (the polar bears’ main food source): “The first few months of 2001 saw reports of a large increase in sightings of various seal species, including harp seals, along the eastern seaboard of the United States, as well as an increase in the number of seals needing rescue and rehabilitation. The cause is as yet unknown but some of the reasons being suggested include commercial fishing in northern waters forcing seals further south to look for food”.
Oh, that’s something the Greenies forgot to mention.
If the ever-increasing number of polar bears knew that all the hand-wringing, bleeding heart, misguided ecofascist Greenies were predicting their imminent disappearance, I imagine they’d be rather surprised.
And while we’re on the subject of totally misleading photos about supposed Global Warming”, here’s another classic:
Dishonest journalists hope this photo suggests huge quantities of poisonous gases being released into the atmosphere. But, of course, these are just cooling towers and the billowing clouds are just steam which has absolutely no influence on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
All this photo shows is that we’re wasting a huge amount of energy as this steam could be used to heat tens of thousands of homes by doing what they do in Denmark and Sweden, pump this steam through pipes which heat exchangers in people’s homes transform into central heating. This is what I used to have in my house in Copenhagen meaning I didn’t need any gas or electricity to heat my home.
By David Craig, on November 2nd, 2014 You’re probably aware that “scientists” at the IPCC today release their latest report claiming catastrophic consequences unless humans reduce their output of CO2. The BBC are already creaming themselves with delight. So, amidst the torrent of hysteria about to be manufactured by a politically-correct, over-excited media, let’s remember a few basic facts:
1. It isn’t our fault – humans are only responsible for a tiny 3.6% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere:
– Around 800 gigatonnes of CO2 enters the Earth’s atmosphere every year (give or take a few gigatonnes).
– About 439 gigatonnes of CO2 come from vegetation and the land – nothing to do with human activity!
– About 332 gigatonnes come from the oceans – nothing to do with human activity!
– Only around 29 gigatonnes come from human activity – burning fossil fuels and farming.
2. No relation between CO2 and temperature – as the quantity of CO2 being emitted by human activity has shot up, the earth’s temperature has remained largely unchanged for 17 years:
So there cannot be any causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and temperature. The “scientists” have come up with ever more implausible theories – for example, “the heat is hiding at the bottom of the oceans” – to try to explain why their Global Warming theories have been so thoroughly discredited by reality.
3. Growing panic amongst Warmists – the more evidence there is that mankind’s CO2 emissions don’t cause any Global Warming, the more insistent the desperate gravy-train-riding, grant-hungry “scientists” have become:
4. Over 97% of scientists agree – the claim that “97% of scientists agree that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming” is garbage achieved by a totally dishonest manipulation of the data. Here’s how they did it for those who are interested www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/archives/6722
5. Arctic ice cap disappearing – there is evidence that the Arctic ice cap is shrinking. But, at the same time the Antarctic ice cap is reaching record levels. As most of the Earth’s land mass is north of the Equator, the change in Arctic ice may influence the climate for many people. But what we are seeing is just Climate Variation, not any overall warming.
6. It’s the Sun what did it – the Warmists have repeatedly refused to investigate whether there is any relationship between solar activity and the Earth’s temperature as, if this relationship did actually exist, then their luxury lifestyle of receiving almost limitless research grants and jetting off to international conferences in some of the world’s best holiday resorts would come to an abrupt and unwelcome (for them) end.
In 50 or 100 years, historians will look back in amazement at how our useless, grandstanding politicians ever swallowed the “Man-made Global Warming” fraud and how the West committed economic suicide fighting against something that wasn’t even happening.
By David Craig, on November 1st, 2014 You’ve probably noticed that the BBC is gearing up for its annual CHILDREN IN NEED appeal. The big night is Friday 14 November.
The BBC claims that “every penny you give makes a difference”. But a difference for whom? The children in need? Or the BBC bureaucrats and pen-pushers?
Before you hand over your money, let me just tell you a few inconvenient truths about this great charitable event. Then you can judge for yourself whether you really should be throwing your already heavily-taxed cash into that great, corrupt, politically-biased, left-wing, steaming cesspit of parasitical, self-serving, overpaid, over-pensioned bureaucrats that is the BBC.
The BBC’s CHILDREN IN NEED charity only has 75 employees. But they seem to be awfully lucky employees indeed. While the average employee cost (salary, NI and pension contributions) at our larger charities is between £20,000 and £30,000, the employee cost at the BBC’s CHILDREN IN NEED is a wonderful £48,973. That’s more than double employee costs at charities like Oxfam and Save the Children and massively higher than employee costs at the Red Cross and Christian Aid:
Moreover, the CHILDREN IN NEED boss managing these 75 people (probably all based in comfortable offices in Central London) pocketed about £110,440 of our ‘charitable donations’ last year. That’s more than the boss at Oxfam who got just £109,000 for managing 5,046 employees across the world, many of them in some of the world’s most dangerous countries.
Current employees at the BBC’s CHILDREN IN NEED are fortunate enough to be eligible for one of the most generous pension schemes in Britain – the BBC’s ‘final salary’ pension scheme, which will give them guaranteed, inflation-protected pensions for the rest of their lives.
Sadly for us licence-fee payers and for contributors to CHILDREN IN NEED, the BBC’s pension scheme is so unbelievably generous to BBC employees that it doesn’t have enough money to meet its liabilities. No problem – the BBC has decided to fatten up its own pension scheme with our money. Over the next 11 years around £905,000,000 extra of our money (in addition to the regular contributions the BBC makes each month for each employee) will be put into the BBC pension scheme to ensure all BBC employees can have a comfortable, secure, well-rewarded retirement at our expense. In fact, the BBC has already begun this glorious (for BBC employees) fattening with an extra £110,000,000 of our money being shoved into its pension scheme on 28 March 2011.
As for the CHILDREN IN NEED part of this pension scheme, it was also underfunded and so in 2012 got an extra £186,000 of our money and then an extra £247,000 of our money in 2013.
Of course, we should support worthy charities. But there is really no need to allow greedy, money-grabbing, self-serving BBC bureaucrats to take a cut of everything we give. Why not just find a local charity and give directly? These over-paid, over-pensioned, self-regarding BBC bureaucrats are laughing at our stupidity and gullibility while grabbing huge amounts of our supposed ‘charitable donations’ for themselves.
Maybe it’s time to put an end to their party?
And if you know anyone who might be tempted to give their money to these lucky BBC bureaucrats, perhaps you should send them a link to today’s blog?
(click on title to leave a comment or to see comments)
By David Craig, on October 31st, 2014 I’ve pointed out in a previous post how the well-fed, utterly corrupt, thieving rulers of the Ebola-hit countries will be laughing all the way to their offshore banks as they get the chance to steal much of the money flowing in to supposedly fight the Ebola outbreak. Here’s a reminder of the number of deaths in the Ebola-hit countries, how much they get in foreign aid each year and how much their elites are estimated to steal from their countries each year:
But there are other people laughing too. In fact, most of the world will be howling like hyenas on speed as they watch the US and British governments pour their taxpayers’ money into the fight against Ebola, while other countries give either nothing or next to nothing. The worthless corrupt UN has asked countries to stump up $1bn and looking at the various promises made, one might think this money will turn up, with us stupid Brits being among the largest contributors (click to see more clearly)
You may notice a few things:
1. China, the country which is colonising much of Africa and which has 152 billionaires compared to Britain’s 47, has pledged less than half what the UK has committed to
2. Rich Germany with its 80 million population has pledged much less than us stupid Brits
3. Most of the oil-rich, cash-rich Arab countries will probably be giving nothing. They’re using their money to fund ISIS and to buy up companies and luxury homes in Britain
4. The EU is forever trying to extend its power, but with the fight against Ebola, the EU’s ambitions seem more modest. They’re letting us idiots in Britain pay the most
But there can be a rather large gulf between what self-regarding politicians promise in front of the TV cameras and what they give in reality. For example, while the US has actually given about $200m and the UK about $20m, China has coughed up just $8.3m, France only $7.4m, Italy $2m and Spain a pathetic $540,000.
I guess most of the countries in the world are rather hoping that the US and Britain will sort out the Ebola mess caused by African leaders’ incompetence, greed and corruption and then other countries will be able to say that they really really wanted to give money but sadly their money is no longer needed.
How the whole world must be laughing at our grandstanding politicians’ stupidity and our gullibility as our money pours into African kleptocrats’ bank accounts and the BBC gushes on about how Britain is fighting Ebola without mentioning how their beloved EU and other countries are doing next to f*** a**.
By David Craig, on October 30th, 2014 Our eurocrat masters love Ed Miliband. He’s their chosen man. He has all the right credentials, not least that he is inept, uncharismatic, unimaginative but most of all an ardent Europhile.
He has everything the EU needs or wants of a national leader and will sycophantically do whatever his EU masters command. But that means that he is not so popular with UK voters.
But that doesn’t matter. The EU can easily fix that small problem
It helps them that Cameron is almost equally reviled by the UK electorate. All that is necessary to ensure Millipede wins is to bring down Cameron enough so that Labour can take advantage of the built-in electoral boundaries advantage. (Idiot Cameron should have made sorting this a priority while Clegg was still playing at being onside and helpful, not wait till the full extent of Clegg’s fifth column activities became apparent, even to Dopey Dave).
Of course, UKIP are a complication, but a complication the EU will face in other countries where there is also a rising tide of anti-EU feeling such as the Front National in France and AfD in Germany.
In the EU the end justifies the means and there are no means that are too abhorrent, too underhand not to be used. We were sold the EU as a Common Market by Heath who knew full well but lied and imposed a stricture of secrecy on the true objectives – ever closer union and loss of national sovereignty.
Faced with the refusal of some nation states to surrender sovereignty when asked nicely, the EU ignored the results of referenda forcing the few countries which did vote against the EU Constitution to vote again when they gave the “wrong answer” first time round.
This is the EU which does not care how much individual suffering it causes, which does not much care for democracy and which has no qualms about doing whatever it feels is necessary to achieve its own objectives. It’s no coincidence that every time “Cast-Iron” Dave makes one of his promises, he’s immediately slapped down by one of the hideous trio – Barroso, Merkel or Juncker.
The brutal way the £1.7bn demand, with penalties, was handled by the EU can be seen as a deliberate dirty trick by the EU to destroy any pretensions Cameron may have about being influential (as was also shown by the way Merkel suckered him over the appointment of Juncker) and why they have shot down in no uncertain terms all Cameron’s promises on controlling immigration from the EU. Not politely. Not diplomatically. But crudely and bluntly. It is their clear message to the UK electorate that they are in charge and that Cameron is not going to be able to deliver on a single promise.
But the more our EU rulers hector and bully us, the more people see the EU is an unreformable, corrupt, wasteful dictatorship and the more they turn to UKIP.
So long as votes for UKIP looked like splitting the Right and delivering a Labour government, the EU’s “destroy Cameron” policy was working wonderfully. But with Miliband being increasingly exposed as a buffoon, with Labour Party support falling, with Labour likely to lose 20 or more formerly ‘safe’ seats in Scotland to the SNP and with UKIP performing much more strongly that our EU masters ever imagined, we may end up with a Tory/UKIP-dominated parliament.
This is precisely the opposite of what the EU’s dirty tricks campaign against Cameron intended.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha…….
|
|
