YouGov's poll for The Sun gave the 2 April 2014 Farage v Clegg debate to Nigel by 68 per cent to 27 per cent and an ICM poll for The Guardian gave it 69 per cent to 31 per cent to the UKIP leader.
"Nigel is a conspiracy theorist... I wouldn't be surprised if he told us that Elvis isn't dead…
If you do what Nigel Farage recommends and you isolate Britain, sort of Billy-no-Mates Britain, well it will be worse than that - it will be Billy-no-Jobs Britain, a Billy-no-Influence Britain…
My passion is what I think is right for Britain in the modern world. I don't think turn the clock back to a world which doesn't exist anymore. I think we're always better when we work with other countries on issues. Climate change - I know Nigel Farage denies climate change exists. terrorism, crime, all the kind of things we can't deal with on our own in this modern world of ours."
Farage said this:
"I want the EU to end but I want it to end democratically. If it doesn't end democratically I'm afraid it will end very unpleasantly…The Daily Mail's Andrew Pierce tweeted thus after the debate:
Let's free ourselves up and in doing so let's give an example to the rest of Europe. I know the people are behind this. I would urge people - come and join the people's army. Let's topple the establishment who got us into this mess…
This country, Nick, has had enough of getting involved in dangerous foreign wars. There is no evidence that our military intervention in these countries is making things better. With you as deputy prime minister we bombed Libya and it is worse now than it was then…
By saying 7% of our laws are made in Brussels, you are wilfully lying to the British people about the extent to which we have given control of our country and our democracy."
On 3 April 2014, Edward Thomas contributed this perfectly put offering to the Guardian letters page:
“Watching the televised debate, I realised why Nick Clegg has difficulty with a 70-year-old like me who grew up in Hackney in the 1950s. There the local population lived contentedly enough in a monocultural society in a cockney setting reflected by Broadway market round the corner, cinemas in Mare Street and a straightforward English way of life.Amen to that Edward. Amen to that.
Mr Clegg made great play of how he wants us to live in the present rather than the past. The problem is that the elements he cited in his wish were all foisted on us. We never asked for mass immigration. We never asked for multiculturalism. We never asked for diversity. We never asked for political union with 27 other countries of Europe. Mr Clegg therefore necessarily begins from the weakest psychological stance in expecting people to accept situations which were forced on them.
That is why his views carried little weight with me on Wednesday. I make no bones about it. I do not want mass immigration. I do not want multiculturalism. I do not want diversity. I do not want political union with 27 other countries of Europe. Rather, I wish to be allowed to continue to live my life immersed in my own culture, with all its foibles and its faults as well as its joys, and not immersed in a melting pot of other people's cultures, no matter how beneficial that is perceived to be for my own culture.”
Edward’s contribution inspired long-time British Nationalist, Martin Webster, to comment thus:
“That letter in The Guardian…gets to the nub of the two great post-WW2 issued which have bedevilled our country: Immigration and Europe. It echoes the continual refrain of my late friend Lady Birdwood: ‘We were never asked’…
Neither Immigration nor joining the Common Market/EU had any of what self-styled ‘democrats’ squawk on about… Democratic Legitimacy…
The Sunday Times published an extensive review of Andrew Roberts’ book, ‘Eminent Churchillians,’ on 31st July 1994. This review gave special coverage to the book’s final chapter about how the late Sir Cyril Osborne MP attempted in 1955 to get the issue of immigration discussed and voted on in Parliament by means of a Private Member’s Bill, which was designed to close the immigration door.
Roberts relates how the Conservative party leadership exerted huge pressures on Osborne not to push his Bill and thus provide the first-ever debate, and a vote, on the issue in the House of Commons.
All manner of pressures were applied on Osborne, including telling him that the debate would coincide with a formal visit by Princess Margaret to Jamaica, and would thus cause ‘great embarrassment to Her Royal Highness’ and engender a spat within the Commonwealth.
Eventually Osborne was persuaded to feign illness. He was unable ‘for health reasons’ to attend the House of Commons on the appointed day to present his Bill. Some time after that fiasco Osborne was knighted.
As Roberts remarked in the closing passage of his book:
‘Thus the only opportunity parliament had to vote on immigration was lost and a major ethnological alteration of the nation took place without any democratic ratification whatever.’No opportunity to vote for or against immigration was presented to Parliament again, and so Parliament has never voted to approve the conversion of Britain from a mono-racial into a multi-racial society. Furthermore, none of the major parliamentary parties have ever advocated in any of their general election manifestos that it was their intention to convert Britain into a multi-racial society by means of virtually unrestricted alien immigration.
Not only has Parliament been denied an opportunity to vote on this issue, the three main parties were ‘whipped’ by their leaders to pass a sequence of ever more stringent Race Relations Act amendments to the Public Order Act designed to criminalise expressions of opposition to immigration and the multi-racial society.
All those amendments were drafted and promoted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, indeed, the first (1965) version of the Act was developed from a document circulated by the Board in the 1950s under the title of ‘The Group Libel Bill.’
I wrote a summary of Roberts’ book for issue 25, 1994 issue of Choice, which Jane Birdwood elected to publish on the front page under the heading: ‘TREASON – by dither and cowardice.’
This came to the attention of Andrew Roberts, a so-called ‘right wing Tory’ but who was desperate to keep in the good books of the Jews, so he got his pals in The Londoner’s Diary of the Evening Standard to write an item attacking the review.”
'All those amendments were drafted and promoted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews,' says Martin.
Anyone out doubt his honesty? Do you think he might be making this up? How on earth could the representatives of just 1-in-200 British citizens wield such extraordinary power?
How could they get those whom we imagined we were electing to stand up for OUR interests to impose raft after raft of debilitating race law upon us? Well, whatever the reasons behind such institutionalised treachery, that the Board of Deputies managed it is a matter of record.
"THE BOARD HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSALS FOR RACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION IN THE UK…
The Defence Policy and Group Relations Division, which monitors the activities of political extremists and racists, HAS URGED SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS TO ENACT AND STRENGTHEN RACE RELATIONS LEGISLATION… It has also sought allies and made common cause with other religious and minority groups.
THE BOARD PLAYED A FUNDAMENTAL PART IN URGING UPON GOVERNMENT THE FIRST RACE RELATIONS ACT which was based, in part, on reports prepared for the Board by Professor Geoffrey Bindman and LORD LESTER of Herne Hill. Subsequently the Board has provided written and oral evidence to enquiries which preceded the passage of the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1994 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998...
There remains some scope for improvement. We regard the proposals of the CRE for legislative change to be well thought out and substantiated… In particular we draw attention to proposed 1B… We would support the extension of the RRA to all government and public bodies. These organisations play a leading role in FORMING PUBLIC OPINION on social issues…
The Board can also see the case for NEW LEGISLATION to combat discrimination and incitement on religious grounds… We are also shortly to respond to the Government’s request that it might consider introducing specific LEGISLATION TO OUTLAW HOLOCAUST DENIAL.”
He is a close friend of Tony Blair.
Lord Anthony Lester's considerable contribution to the demotion of the British people in their own land may be perused here.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment