The lie is that we, as a Nation, are bankrupt and therefore we must suffer massive public sector spending cuts to our military and public services in order to help balance the books. The lie is simple, but it is still a lie. Britain is not bankrupt. The International Banks are bankrupt and have hung their £6 trillion of debt around the neck of the British Nation.
When a company or sole trader becomes insolvent, receivers are called in to manage the companies affairs, to try and salvage the company as a going concern, and in the worst case, to pay off those who are owed money by the insolvent company. Having placed a company in Receivership, the existing company Directors are hardly the best people to leave controlling the company. A priority will be to remove the company Directors from their posts, or to monitor them in their execution of the receivers instructions.
Yet none of this has happened with the International Banks. Having passed through insolvency and into bankruptcy, the Banks have not only been allowed to continue to trade, their debts have been covered from the public purse. This would appear to be madness, but is in fact, much more serious. The failure of the banks is being used as the excuse to strip the UK of effective Armed Forces and a credible defence of the Nation State.
We do not need defence cuts, we should simply throw away the worst banks, write off the debts - vast as they are - and leave the bankers to suffer their well deserved bankruptcy. The Government should then print and issue its own money (charging a modest and necessary interest) to fund the Nation’s defence. The same should be done for funding of all other necessary public services and infrastructure. Aside from removing excessive bank interest, better known as usury, from the backs of the population, the government will then be able to more easily and effectively manage inflation, by direct control over the issue of currency, and the growth of the money supply.
Conservative Smokescreen Of Defence Budget Shortfalls
Piggybacking on the chaos deliberately created by the NuLabour Marxists Blair, Brown and Co, Cameron has quickly set the Armed Forces against each other. The Army, under huge pressure from conflict and deaths in the field, is played against the Navy and the Air Force, and all are forced to scrabble for a better share of an ever decreasing funding pot. Under the smokescreen of politically driven inter-service angst, rivalry and ignorance, the respective Chiefs of Staff have been duped into scrabbling for military assets, rather than standing back and first assessing the nature and scale of the threats against which Britain must defend itself, if we are to be safe in an increasingly turbulent world. The first threat they should recognise is subversion within the UK, funded, propagated and controlled by the privately controlled banks nested in the City of London - the majority of which are under supranational, and EU, not national control. What allegiance do these people have to Britain - if any? What is their background and have they been security been vetted? These questions are never considered by Chiefs of Staff, and certainly never answered. Instead they are pulled ever closer to the hypnotic effect of the disappearing ‘funding pot’, and ever further from the reality of banks creating money from nothing in the first place.
Decline of Independent British Military capability - Rise of the EU Battle Group
But why should NuLabour and Cameron’s NuTories drive such a destructive agenda. The clue comes from the ever increasing growth of the European State, which openly seeks to make itself a world power, and which therefore needs fully integrated European armed forces under centralised European control. Professional and powerful, the British armed forces must be reduced to a position of near impotence, so that they can only function by deriving ever closer integration and ‘partnership’ with European forces.
The EU has been steadily and stealthily moving towards the creation of 13 EU Battle Groups. These will be multi national, where national command and control is first divided and then buried in a nebulous network of partnered armed forces.
It was not until 1992 and the Maastricht Treat that common foreign and defence policy were made part of EU law. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty massively expanded the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy CFSP. The plot thickened in 1999 when the EU Political and Security Committee was established consisting of the EU ambassadors of members states and the Military Committee consisting of members states Chiefs of Defence Staff. When was the British public fully informed of this erosion of sovereign military power?
In 1999 under the Helsinki Headline Goal, the EU established an EU rapid reaction force of circa 60,000 men with self sustaining capability, including intelligence, air, naval and combat support, sustainable for a year up to 6,000 km from the borders of the EU.
By 2003 the idea of EU Battle Groups was first suggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet and was adopted in 2004. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with 1500 troops each. Allowing for rotation this equates for a force of some 156,000 combat soldiers. The Battle Groups have been given the authority to operate in any part of the world. Pity the British public have not been told of the details and the cost of these forces.
World Socialism In The Shadows
Cameron is already hastening this, and other EU defence integration plans by calling for British tanks and armour to be withdrawn from Germany. He intimates that there is no threat for them to face in mainland Europe. He is a fool or a liar, or probably both. The Soviet Socialist system of Russia remains alive and well, and heavily armed. It just remains hidden under the cloak of Glasnost. The World Socialist movement still seeks World Domination under a single One World Socialist Government - just ask any member of the Fabian Society. If we remember the roots of the European Union are socialist, the jigsaw begins to come together. Why can’t our highly paid Chiefs of Staff see this?
In Plymouth it has taken a small group of senior ex-servicemen to stand up and fight the treasonous Tory proposals to shut Devonport Naval Base - 330 hectares of the most capable naval facilities in Europe. They have also exposed the Cameron lie that the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers are too big to enter Plymouth Naval Base. The carriers can enter Plymouth just as other large older carriers were able to. The real argument is not should we retain Plymouth or Portsmouth as our only naval base outside of Scotland - we need both if we are to maintain the necessary size, capability and credibility of our armed forces. We also need to retain credible naval facilities in Scotland.
For Cameron to propose scrapping the Royal Navy / Royal Marines Amphibious capability is another wanton act of treason against the safety of the nation. Not only are HMS Ocean and Bulwark highly capable amphibious ships, they are effectively ‘new’. To scrap this capability, removes not just the hardware but the know-how and operational experience. Military equipment, including ships, can be replaced, but trained, experienced manpower is grown over more than one generation.
Despite over 12,000 people signing a Plymouth petition against Cameron’s disastrous naval cuts, local Tory MP Oliver Colville is largely silent. It is rumoured he has been warned by Tory central office to keep quiet - the last thing Cameron needs is the local MP reacting to local concerns and actually supporting his constituents.
Wave Bye Bye To The British Independent Nuclear Deterrent
Over 5 years ago the staff of the UK Column warned that it was EU policy to emasculate British conventional armed forces and to strip Britain of its independent nuclear deterrent. More recently we asked serious questions concerning the collision between the British nuclear deterrent submarine Vanguard and its French counterpart Le Triomphant on the 3 or 4th February 2009. Just how was it possible for these two ballistic missile submarines to collide in a vast Atlantic Ocean, particularly when Vanguard is equipped with the very best submarine detection equipment? It has to be to do its job.
To collide, these submarines must have initially been operating in adjacent patrol areas, or other close proximity - a highly unusual situation for secretive nuclear deterrent submarine operations, where vessels aim to hide away from other units. Noting that NuLabour has already given away the British nuclear industry to the French, another clue emerges as to the fate of an independent British nuclear deterrent.
Barely reported in the press, Gordon Brown held talks in London in early 2010 with French President Sarkozy, concerning the ‘sharing’ of nuclear deterrent submarine patrols. As is usual, the talks were covered by the smokescreen of “Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.”
The Guardian reported on 9 October 2010 that:
A report dismissed on both sides of the channel as speculation and therefore probably true, that the UK and France are negotiating an agreement which would see British nuclear warheads serviced by French scientists.” True to form the EU aligned Guardian shows its true colours as a government propaganda machine by adding that the report “does not go far enough......French defence analysts rightly say for this to happen Britain would have to break its special relationship with America in this field......It makes eminent sense for two European military powers, both of whom have nuclear deterrents which are independent in name only, to operate with each other on warheads and joint submarine patrols.
Smooth as silk, the Guardian slides out the intended future EU policy on the back of speculation. In reality the collision of Vanguard and Le Triomphant is almost certainly the result of joint nuclear deterrent operations gone wrong. Both submarines were close. Close enough to collide. The stunning silence concerning the collision, the true extent of the damage and the lack of any visible board of investigation or Court Martial, underlines political maneuvering in the dark. Far from future policy, the traitors within the LibLabCon are already giving away Britain's nuclear capability, whilst frantically dismantling independent conventional capability. We will all suffer unless we wake up fast.
National Front 2010