My attention was drawn to an article in the ‘Philadelphia local news’ (H/T whoever):
The author rips the UN apart. He describes it as a socialist/communist organisation which is damaging America, and asks why it is ‘nested’ in the USA. He suggests that perhaps it ought to be relocated in Gaza. Personally, I think that it should be relocated in Somalia or The Congo – somewhere where delegates from Europe and America would be happy to live. The same goes for the WHO, which is presently located in Switzerland. Perhaps it could be relocated in Bangladesh. The IMF could move to Venezuela and the World Bank to Vladivostok. I’m am sure that they would be welcome in those places.
Locations matter. I doubt that the FCTC would be calling upon the Syrian regime to introduce plain packaging of cigs if it was located in Syria. Nor would it fare well if it was located in the middle of an area where the predominant crop was tobacco. Perhaps North Korea would be suitable location.
I am not sure that the effects of Brexit and the election of Trump have been properly or fully understood. I hope personally that the UK continues to have a continuing part in ‘The Common Market’, but without ‘the strings’. A ‘string’ which denies the UK’s ability to trade with the rest of the world is a fault of the EU. That ‘string’ should not exist. But, one might reasonably ask, who decided that the UK’s ability to trade with the rest of the world would be circumscribed by EU rules? That only the ‘Commission’ could make such deals?
But what is becoming more and more obvious is that the EU Commission is ‘thick with’ the UN Commissariat. The UN Assembly is a joke. On the face of it, the UN operates a ‘one nation, one vote’ system. The FCTC zealots claim that it is important that 160 countries have signed and ratified the FCTC. But the USA has not so ratified. What does the ratification of tiny countries matter is the USA has not ratified?
So we in the UK must rely upon the good sense and intelligence of our politicians. Note that that does not include apparatchiks in the Civil Service and Universities.
If Theresa May and her Cabinet had any sense, they would ignore the EU Commission and negotiate with each nation separately. Does Germany want to be able to export its cars to the UK without tariffs? Then ‘free trade’ between the UK and Germany must be agreed. Bejasus, there are only 27 countries in the EU.
Another thing. I cycled through France and Belgium in 1957. There was never any limit on ‘free movement’ at that time. All you needed was a passport. What is important in that sentence is ‘needed … a passport’. I do not doubt that I would have been able to work in any country Western Europe, at that time, merely by virtue of having a British passport. Had I been stricken down by illness, I doubt that I would have been refuse treatment, even though there was no such thing, at that time, as ‘medical insurance’ which mattered.
The EU and supine politicians have produced very dangerous anomalies. On the one hand, airlines and holiday companies have almost DEMANDED that travellers have health insurance, but, on the other hand, there is an EU wide ‘health agreement’ whereby all citizens of the EU get free medical treatment. I have a health card for myself which says so. But the way it works is that you pay for treatment and then claim back the cost. Right. But what if you do not have the money to pay the cost in the first place? The answer is that the ‘authorities’ have to let you go. They cannot detain you. They have to write the cost off. So, it is all a confidence trick.
Had the EU been organised in a manner which was not the equivalent of the USSR, it might have worked. Maybe, given the passage of time and mutual agreement, Italy and Greece might have amalgamated their people and become one unit economically with a common currency. Spain and Portugal might have done the same. But such changes happen slowly over time. Weird though it might seem, it is only a few decades since Scottish banks issued their own pound notes. I don’t just mean the appearance of the notes. I mean control of the currency. In simple terms, the more that the population increased, and the more that economic activity increased, the greater the need for more currency to be in circulation. ‘Money’ was created to facilitate economic transactions. And there was a formula which dictated how much new money Banks could create. But, decades ago, there was a hit and miss situation.
Try to put that currency control into the EU machine, and you get chaos, because the EU machine cannot cope.
Ideally, if you save your money, you should be able to expect that your saved money should be able to purchase the same amount of goods as it could when you put that money on one side. If you put that money into a bank account at interest, the you should be able to expect that ‘THE VALUE’ of your deposited money will grow in terms of what you can buy with it.
Not many people know that it is in the interests of Government that your savings should depreciate in what they can buy. That is how ‘The Elite’ preserve and enhance their wealth. They replace their money with valuable objects, like shares in companies and real estate, but always having enough money to satisfy their comforts.
What is weird is that The State benefits from ‘inflation’ (reduction of the value of money) just as much as The Elite do. But The State is supposed to stop such transfers of value, if it is democratic and not despotic.
Since The State in the UK does not stop such transfers of value, it is despotic. It must be so. It is even worse that The State takes advantage of the inflation which it permits.
But there as a contrary argument, and it is a good one. The idea is that few ‘assets’ do not deteriorate over time. Why should not money deteriorate likewise?
The lesson is that TC has become ‘inflated’ over the last few decades to such an extent that it has lost any real value. it costs a lot of inflated money to produce less and less.
The only thing that we can hope for is that Brexit and Trump attack the WHO, UN, World Bank, IMF, etc, and destroy the ‘One World’ concept.
For the ‘One World’ concept can only result in the mother of all Civil Wars.