The EU has revealed its true nature: a federalist monster that will not stop until nations are abolished

It was always the aim of the European project, from its very inception in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris, signed on 18th April 1951 between Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France, Italy and West Germany to established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (which is traditionally regarded as the foundation of the EU because it led to political and economic integration to a certain degree in western Europe as well as providing the basis for the modern EU) and the March 25th 1957 signing of the Treaty of Rome to establish a fully integrated federal superstate called the United States of Europe in which the concept of individual national sovereignty for each member state is complexly destroyed and Europe becomes a single , centralised political entity ruled from Brussels. Ted Heath knew this full well when he conned the UK public into voting for entry into the then European Economic Community, supposedly just a free trading bloc and nothing else. He had been briefed by the Civil Service that membership would entail the eventual complete loss of the UK’s sovereignty and our eventual absorption into a European superstate. We were sold the European project on a tissue of lies (note well please, Anna Soubry.)

This deception continued in subsequent decades with politicians of all parties and political shades signing the UK up to various stages of integration into the EU.

The Premiership of Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) was, perhaps, the one notable exception. She negotiated a rebate for the UK on its financial contributions to the EEC (as it still was at that time) and generally resisted moves by European politicians to centralise power in Brussels. In 1988 there came the ‘Bruges speech’, often known by the alternative epithet of the ‘No, No, No’ speech after a line taken from it. In this speech she asserted:

‘We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.’

It pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party but dismayed the Europhiles.

However, even she was guilty of aiding European integration. She signed the Single European Act (1986). a treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC snd which revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of the single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation Agreement, the precursor of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.

This came against a backdrop of a government split over whether to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which harmonised the exchange rate between the currencies of Europe and was supposed to be a precursor to the establishment of the single currency, the Euro, which Thatcher eventually agreed to do in October 1990.

Whilst nominally a Eurosceptic, Thatcher’s successor John Major (Prime Minister 1990-1997) displayed an increasing pro-European tendency as his Premiership progressed. He signed the UK up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, after which the EEC (often abbreviated to just EC, the European Community) officially became the European Union.

The New Labour period of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010) witnessed a massive transfer of various powers from the EU to Brussels as the cravenly pro-EU Labour elite sought to aid the creation of a European superstate. They signed over great swathes of the UK’s sovereignty to Brussels in treaties such as those of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007). They were extremely enthusiastic about the single currency, the Euro, but didn’t get round to completing that before losing power to David Cameron in 2010.

Cameron’s (and Theresa May’s from 2016) Premiership (2010-present) saw the continuation of New Labour’s very Europhile approach to relations with the EU (and indeed a continuation of New Labour’s left-liberal policies generally.) Cameron continued to keep the UK tied closely to the EU, and he handed over substantial chunks of the UK’s sovereignty to Brussels, before agreeing to a referendum on our membership of the EU after having failed to re-negotiate the terms of our membership with the bloc. He backed Remain, but the country backed Leave, and he resigned as PM, to be succeeded by Theresa May. May was just as much an arch Remainer as Cameron and indeed was probably parachuted into the Premiership by the Remainers in the Conservative Party in order to attempt to sabotage Brexit (she’s been doing a good job of doing that so far.)

The UK public, which has expressed its desire to remain a sovereign nation on several occasions, most notably in the 2016 referendum , has been lied to and covertly forced into the EU superstate by the political and intellectual elite of all political persuasions for a very long time now. The time for complacency is over. If we let the politicians and their allies in the intelligentsia handle matters, we will be betrayed and effectively kept in the EU. The democratic majority must make their voice heard and stand up for what they want-a fully sovereign UK completely free of the EU superstate.

© 2018 British News Network.

The Islamisation of the UK’s prisons

The Reverend Paul Song came to the UK from South Korea twenty five years ago.

He became a chaplain in Brixton Prison in South London, teaching the inmates the Alpha Course, a guide to living the Christian life in modern Britain.

At first, his tenure went well and he helped many inmates reform themselves and become model citizens.

However, this situation changed with the appointment of a new head chaplain at the prison, a Muslim Imam.

This new head of religion at the prison took Paul into his office and declared his Islamising agenda, saying he wanted to

change what he described as the ‘Christian domination’ in the prison.

Over the following months, Paul and his fellow Christian chaplains were to undergo a severe trial of bullying, intimidation and even physical violence.

He was subjected to:

– Regular noisy interruption of his services with Muslim inmates shouting abuse like ‘Chinky’ and ‘crazy Christian’ at him aand even voicing support for violent Jihadism, including the killers of Lee Rigby.

– Constant attempts to convert him to Islam using intimidating verbal tactics.

– Physical violence, even from the Imam himself, who used his substantial physical bulk to intimidate Paul and once pushed him out of the way. Another Muslim innate also shoved Paul in the back in one such incident.

– All this verbal and physical abuse became too much for Paul’s fellow chaplains, who suffered in the same way as Paul and many of them left.

Paul had more staying power (he’d been a detective in Korea and wasn’t so east to force out) and he stuck it out. The head Imam continued his persecution of Paul.

Matters came to a head when the Imam called Paul into his office and banned him from preaching his Christian course as it was ‘too radical’, even though the Alpha course is taught at churches throughout the UK.

Reluctantly, Paul agreed, though he knew that he wasn’t an extremist of any kind. The Imam’s persecution continued and eventually Paul was sacked on false charges of calling an inmate a terrorist.

Responding to the above, a Prison Service spokesman said: ‘There is absolutely no evidence to support claims relating to extremist behaviour at HMP Brixton.’ So what about Paul’s evidence?

Paul has been re-instated after an appeal and the imam has been dismissed on matters unrelated to Push’s case, but he is understandably disappointed and perplexed by the whole affair.

Paul is now planning to restart his courses. ‘This has been a very difficult time,’ he said. ‘Not for a moment did I think that something like this could happen in England.’

Sadly, ‘something like this’ goes on all the time now in England, in many areas of life.

© 2018 British Network News.

Under Theresa May’s Chequers Plan, a post Brexit UK will become like Vichy France

After the defeat of France by Nazi forces in 1940, an armistice was signed between Germany and France. Paul Reynauld resigned as Prime Minister of the French government and was replaced by the aged Marshall Philippe Petain (who was even older than Churchill.) Petain was a popular figure and hero of the Great War-he had single handedly prevented the collapse of the French army in 1916 when it looked like the German onslaught would finally succeed and was perceived as being quite charismatic and a bit of a womaniser. He was an advocate of ending the war and seeking a peace settlement with the Germans. He was voted in as PM by the French cabinet and immediately sought and secured an armistice and surrendered to the Germans. As part of this peace settlement the Germans occupied only certain parts of Northern France, Paris and certain areas of the West coast (in order to gain access to the ports to base submarines there to harry UK shipping). There was also a fairly large ‘free zone’ in the South, which was not occupied by the Germans and was headed by Petain and Pierre Laval based in the spa town of Vichy-Vichy France.

Vichy France was, in theory, an independent country. It’s government could, in theory, decide its own policies on any matter. In reality, it was merely a vassal state of the German Reich that more or less automatically aligned its policies with those of Germany anyway.

This is the situation that would pertain under Theresa May’s Chequers Plan. It would turn the UK into a version of Vichy France- a vassal state of the EU that is technically independent of the bloc but in reality is informally subservient to it and that has its policies on many issues decided in Brussels with Theresa ‘Marshall Petain’ May complying with her master’s wishes by aligning the UK’s policies to those of the EU anyway automatically.



The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US hasn’t really existed for thirty years now

The ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US went South a long time ago. It was George Bush Senior, back in 1990, that first reviewed it and decided to downgrade it in favour of one with the European Union, which the US felt was the wave of the future and so had to be got on good terms with (though Bush had been vice President during the intense Reagan-Thatcher years in the 1980’s in which the relationship between the UK and US was very special indeed, which had influenced his outlook a lot and he was an Anglophile who was in no way antagonistic towards the UK. He just felt that the best interests of the US lay in pursuing a good relationship with the EU). The practice of the UK being given any priority or preferential treatment or consideration over other countries was quietly dropped. This policy (of downplaying the special relationship with the UK and seeking the favour of the EU) was continued and extended under the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton (1992-2000), who made several attempts to garner favour with the EU and was not overly enthusiastic or bothered about nurturing the special relationship with the UK. George W. Bush, a Republican (and son of George Bush Senior), president 2000-2008, was more enthusiastic about the special relationship than Clinton, but still felt that the EU was the primary place where the US’ best interests lay. Consequently, whilst in no way unfriendly towards the UK, he too didn’t particularly emphasise the special relationship, though it must be pointed out again that he was in no way anti-UK. Obama (president 2008-16) a Democrat with African connections, inherited anti-UK feelings from what he believed to be the UK’s colonial actions against his ancestors in Africa. Thus, under his presidency, once again, the special relationship was not at all emphasised. President Trump appears to be a little more positive towards the UK, but the days of the UK-US intense special relationship of the 1980’s are long gone, unfortunately.



Is it time to re-assess our loyalty to the Monarchy?

The UK Monarchy’s constitutional role is to act as a politically impartial head of state. It is this function that has given the UK its political stability over the years whilst continental Europe (and many other parts of the world) abandoned this device and suffered from recurring bouts of instability and tumult (look at France, for example, with its revolutions, political violence, extremism and dictators-Napoleon and Petain to offer two examples).

The younger generation of Royals ate ignoring this convention and getting involved in politics. William is being clearly pro-Palestinian by stating that the people of the UK ‘stand with Palestine’. Such political intervention risks the future of the Monarchy by making it unpopular with sections of the community that may feel that it is against them. The Monarchy must be completely politically impartial. It must stop interfering in politics. The young Royals are destroying the institution they belong to.

This trend of the politicisation of the Monarchy is also a general trend within The Firm. The Queen has, since the Blair years, engaged upon a course of increasingly appeasing the UK’s vociferous left-liberal lobby by increasingly adopting their outlook. This became apparent a few years back when, during a broadcast to the nation, she stated that ‘Diversity can be a source of strength’.

This trend is vastly greater amongst the younger Royals, all of which regularly break the impartiality rule to back politically correct causes. By far the worse is Harry and Meghan. Harry himself is quite politically correct.(after all, he did marry Meghan for PC reasons). However Meghan is off the. charts when it comes to political correctness and getting involved in politics. She has been very vocally left-wing in the past, supporting a number of left-liberal causes, feminism, for example. This augurs extremely badly for the future as it seems unlikely that she will be able to contain her zeal for such matters.

All the above also bodes poorly for the future of the Monarchy, which is trying to transform itself into a politically correct institution in order to ensure its future with the left-liberal youth of the UK.

Should we re-assess our loyalty to such a changed institution after the present Queen dies?

See the following article:

© British News Network 2018.

Should we support the Police in the current political climate?

Most UK citizen’s attitudes towards the Police are conditioned by their experiences of them during their childhood and adolescence and when they were younger, which,of course, took place some while ago now, Many people base their attitudes on how things were many years or even decades ago. It is natural to do this, but it has become increasingly apparent that the nature, practice and ethos of policing had changed dramatically in recent times and that subsequently it is now no longer wise to maintain the same attitudes towards them. Nobody who’s had any experience of the current Police force can possibly believe that they operate as they did in past years.

All modern UK police forces have been thoroughly re-structured and modern policing now follows an ethos that based on the left-liberal ‘policing by consent’ model. The reality on the ground of this shift is that the Police have become little more than the paramilitary wing of the multicultural cultural-Marxist elite and extremely antagonistic to anybody that is perceived to be against this left-liberal agenda. They see it as their job to run around making certain target groups, the ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, immigrants ETC happy and secure and largely ignore normal Police activities like preventing or investigating crime.

The problem is that vast numbers of the UK public refuse to recognize this shift in Police ethos and still treat them as if they are operating as they did in the past. Consequently, this politicisation of the Police is not effectively opposed and we have witnessed the virtually complete triumph of metropolitan liberalism in the UK Police force today.

The only way to defeat the left-liberal elite is to stop living in 30 years ago under very different circumstances and recognize the reality of the modern cultural-Marxist Police MO. Don’t just accept it. Like all bullies,if you hit back they (eventually) back down. What’s needed is for the public to withdraw goodwill and support from the Police and if you’ve been treated badly by them, automatically complain. Even if no action is taken, if many people put these left-wing Policemen through the stress of complaint procedures eventually they will become worn down and will become discouraged. It is stupid to keep showing them misplaced good will when they don’t reciprocate. Then there is a chance that normal policing can be restored.

© British News Network 2018.

We are not living in normal times

We do not live in normal times.The 70’s and 80’s  generation,especially men,face a number of strange new challenges from various sources-feminism, Islam, black power, the domination of the political scene by the forces of cultural marxism(due to the rise of the previous three factors) to name but a few.In recent years the ‘Conservative Pary”(a misnomer,nowadays, if ever there was one) has gone on a strange journey towards a cultural marxist destination and away from its conservative roots.This is typified by the call,not so long ago,from a CONSERVATIVE,for people to disinherit the 70’s and 80’s generation and leave their property and goods to the generation after them.And this person explained their views with the alarmingly left-liberal phraiseology that this would ’empower’ them(which shows the extent that the Conservative Party has been penetrated by cultural marxist ideology).

Consequently,as the 70’s and 80’s generation has all this to contend with,normal riules of engagement are suspended and we can’t be expected to conduct ourselves by the same old rules as under the previously prevailing conditions.We have to protect ourselves from the attacks of the left.If nobody else is playing by the normal previous rules,we can’t be expected to continue to observe these previous rules.

The Good Friday Agreement was a tawdry capitulation to terrorism and we should stop pretending otherwise

This article is nonsense.The Good Friday Agrement was a tawdry,highly conditional,surrender to Irish terrorism and represented the STRATEGIC victory of the IRA over the British Army.I’m NOT saying the British Army was militarily defeated,I’m saying that decades of first the Fenians in the Nineteenth Century,then the Official IRA then the Provisionals from the late 1960’s at last succeeded in their policy of persuading the British state to disengage from NI by a process of constantly jabbing away at her until the cumulative effect was that they would sign
virtually any agreement in order to get rid of the N I Troubles problem.The peace GFA brought was welcomed by all sides,UNDOUBTEDLY,but looking at the current low point that the GFA and devolution has brought to Ulster,with the Nationalists gaining the ascendency in Stormont and who will soon be in a position,under protocols attached to GVA,to begin calling one poll on re-unification after another until they get the result they want,I severely doubt that it could be judged worthwhile.NORTHERN IRELAND WAKE UP,YOU ARE SLEEPWALKING INTO RE-UNIFICATION.…/good-friday-agreement-what-…




The UK legal system is now so anti-male that all men are considered guilty until proven innocent in certain types of cases.

Let’s face facts.Ultra-feminism and their fellow travelers in the liberal left have weaponized human sexuality against men.They have began and ruthlessly advanced a tactic of encouraging as many women as possible to make complaints against men based on the McPherson principle of ‘she says and it becomes true’,even if there’s no proof,which their very often isn’t as it’s simply a case of ‘he said,she said’ and there’s no hard proof either way.The Police nowadays automatically believe a woman’s complaint of sexual misconduct against a man,even if there’s no proof.This is another facet of McPhearsonism.Consequently,even if the man is found innocent in 10 seconds flat by the jury,people say ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ and a cloud of suspicion remains around him that ruins his reputation and also therefore the rest of his life.Added to this,this tactic is made a 1000 times worse by the fact that very often females are encouraged to simply just completely make up complaints,it’s not just a case of embroidering the truth about some bloke touching your knee into a major incident a lot and pretending to be outraged and hurt.Also,again,even if the man is found innocent,the feminists like the idea that the accused has been put through the mill as it’s serves their ends of unsettling the individual and general male psyche.This anti-male bias in the UK legal system has been highlighted by several high profile cases in which mem have been cleared after it has been revealed that the evidence against them is non-existent and the Police have simply pressed ahead with the case on the word of the woman.

This is the reality of life in the UK in 2017 for men.

© 2018 Patriotic People’s Populist Media.