Does the UK Provide Funding for Executions?

Rose reminded me of something. One, Andrew Black, used to work for anti-tobacco UK. Some readers might remember that he intervened (had to intervene) when Minister Soubry, who is now a crazed Europhile but no longer a Minster, got herself in a terrible mess over what the EU directive said about ecigs. She thought that ecigs had been removed from the directive when in fact draconian clauses made a terrible mess of ecig’s value.

Without being sure, I believe that the said Andrew Black, an Australian, now works for the UN. I do not know in what capacity. What is true is that the UK taxpayer pays for the vast majority of the costs of the FCTC Organisation.

But those costs are only millions of pounds. It is not as though they are billions. Why should a Minister bother his head if a few million pounds are siphoned off into international execution squads when those millions are only a tiny part of his Overseas Aid budget?

Why executions? Perhaps Andrew Black has since told Bhutan that its penalty for possession of tobacco products, being execution, is just a tad over the top. Chopping both hands off would suffice. Perhaps he told them that UN (aka UK) funds would not be forthcoming to fund good times for the Elite unless ‘bad press’ ceased.

You could replace the word ‘execution’ with any other word, such as imprisonment, and it would be the same. The UK is funding the FCTC to vilify, fine and imprison people for nothing.

The casual attitude of politicians was revealed by the ignorance of Soubry and continues to be revealed by their ignorance of the meaning of Brexit. Brexit means that The People of the UK do not want to be subservient to a Federal Overlord. The federal system works well for the USA because its principle motivation is to be strong in international affairs. It also works well as regards inter-State crime. It did not work well as regards Prohibition. That was a step too far.

The EU has gone in the opposite direction. It is all about avoiding international repercussions, despite its pretensions otherwise. It is about regulating States. That is what the directives have always been about. But, at the same time, the EU is in cahoots with the UN. It is enthusiastic about the FCTC, IPCC and ‘Health’.

The casual attitude to Brexit of MPs must change. Trade matters can be sorted very easily as can the overflights of aircraft etc.

It is the relinquishing of our right to govern ourselves which is the important question.

2 Responses to “Does the UK Provide Funding for Executions?”

  1. beobrigitte Says:

    Why is Bhutan poor?

    Natural Disasters

    Bhutan is often struck by natural calamities due to its mountainous landscape. Floods and landslides make it impossible for any major infrastructural development to take place. This also increases the cost of goods and services. These natural disasters also affect residents’ health by causing an increase in diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. This can prevent already poor families from going to work and increase medical costs.

    Where do the so-called smoking-related diseases fit in there?
    What deal did the anti-smokers strike with Bhutan’s elite? In order to avoid yet another of the poorest countries being exploited by the anti-smokers, TRANSPARENCY is something to demand!

    • junican Says:

      Agreed, but the chances of getting transparency are almost nil. Nothing in writing and indirect approaches.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: