Voting for UKIP

Today I sent off my postal vote for UKIP both in the local election and the European one. I also managed to persuade herself to do likewise. I have no expectation that the local councillor will not be re-elected. This tends to be a conservative area and he is a pretend conservative. In reality, he is a Zealot of the Church of Tobacco Control. He was partly responsible for the Bolton Hospital reversing its decision to build smoking shelters. He will almost certainly be re-elected. But that is not the point. It is more a matter of not voting for any of the ‘big’ three. Had only the big three figured in the ballot, I would not have voted.

The trouble is that I am not really an out-and-out europhobe. What I am is 100% against the way in which the EU was set up and how it operates. I detest the ‘de facto’ existence of what amounts to a ‘politburo’ of the elite being in charge. I detest the system of appointments which could make such a complete cock-up of, for example, the appointment of Catherine Ashton as the equivalent of “EU Foreign Secretary”. She has no experience whatsoever of foreign affairs. None. I suppose that she must have been a Gordon Brown favourite at the time of her appointment.

As “Foreign Sec”, she must have been partially responsible for the fiasco in Ukraine. You might like to read this from Anna Raccoon:

The method of appointment rather reminds me of the appointment of Milton MP as a Health Minister. May I remind you that this was a person appointed as a minister who did not know that a Treaty is just an agreement between parties. It has no legal force at all, but she claimed that the UK ‘was legally obliged’ to conform with the FCTC. What on earth convinced Cameron (and Clegg, I suppose) that she was up to the job? And what about the other incompetent who has been ‘promoted’ – Soubry? That minister thought that e-cigs had been removed from the tobacco directive. It almost has one believing that the appointment of incompetent and inexperienced people is deliberate; that they are appointed to carry the can for the time being until they are replaced.

The Common Market was a great idea. It removed barriers and enabled trade with less of the expensive customs regulation. The prosperity of all the parties improved as a result. The Common Market was a great success – no doubt about it.

What has been an abject failure has been the attempt to standardise laws and customs, as well as the Euro. The different economies of European countries were not ready for the euro, and we have seen the consequences. What would have made more sense would have been to have created the euro as a commonly accepted alternative currency. Thus, visitors to the UK from any EU country could expect to be able to spend euros anywhere at a given ‘official’ exchange rate. For example, one can spend euros on the aircraft coming home from Spain. There is no difficulty. The only thing is that Monarch do not accept coins, which is understandable, and change is given in sterling. Thus, you can hand over a 10 euro note to buy something costing £5 and expect to receive about £3.20 in change. When I worked in the bank, there were certain countries which we recommended customers to take US$ travellers cheques to when holidaying in them, even though they were not part of the USA. Those countries were far more familiar with US$ travellers cheques than sterling.

It may well be that it is impossible to reform the EU, in which case the only alternative would be to withdraw. Do not believe anyone who says that this is impossible. They are lying. The whole of the EU is dependent upon the Treaties which formed it. The UK can simply ignore the treaty at any time. It does not even have to follow some sort of agreed procedure. It can just stop. Of course, there would be consequences, but it would be for the EU to enforce something or other.

The bluff needs to be called, but don’t expected terrified people like Cameron, Clegg and Milliband to call it.

I wonder if Farage would.


But I still like the idea of the EU as a FACILITATOR. It has value in that there are far fewer barriers between European countries. What I detest is the fact that the EU is turning out to be a barrier itself. For example, the ban on snus is self-evidently stupid and is ideologically driven by anti-tobacco zealots. That fact alone shows how extensively the EU has been penetrated by paid Zealots.


Finally for tonight.

I would much rather see UKIP demanding that the UK follows its own ‘nose’ and just ignores the demands of special interest groups. These groups include not only the EU but also the WHO, the IPCC and the UN in general. Stop giving these people money. It is so, so simple.

The UN has fulfilled its original purpose. It has helped to avoid wars to some extent. It can now be abolished. It is a joke that some ‘country’ like Trinidad can have an equal vote with the USA. And how did the EU get the status of a country?

Pretty soon, I expect the Gov to tighten up the rules for ‘Charities’.I expect that they will be required to specify clearly what their objects are, and not be allowed to include ‘general purpose’ terms. For example, CRUK is ‘Cancer Research UK’. It’s object is finding cures for cancer. It’s objects do not include financing TOBACCO CONTROL. People do not donate to CRUK for those purposes.

We must wait and see, I suppose.





4 Responses to “Voting for UKIP”

  1. MikeUK Says:

    I’ve always thought that CRUK was a wonderfully descriptive acronym for the bansturbators in that lobbying organisation charity.

    (…And I don’t believe for a minute that they are researching for a ‘cure’ for cancer; how would they pay the mortgage if they found it?)

    • junican Says:

      Done it.
      It may be that CRUK is a genuine organisation which has had a tobacco control department grafted onto it. Heart and Lung Foundations seem to have the same sort of grafts. In that way, press releases from different sources can be constructed and released according to a time-scale, which gives a false impression of great support for whatever cause it the current one. EG, PP.

  2. MikeUK Says:

    HTML tags don’t work… ‘lobbying organisation’ in the first sentence was supposed to have been struck through…

    • junican Says:

      I don’t know what html tags are supposed to work, except that bold and italics do. I was able to ‘strike out’ by editing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: