• Would you buy a four pint carton of milk from either of these men?

      0 comments

    A scenario: You are staying in a small village in a holiday cottage and you’ve just discovered you are fresh out of milk. Rather than get in the car and drive to the supermarket, you decide to walk the furlong down to the village shop. The shop is run by two men, partners, a Mr David Cameron and a Mr Alex Salmond. You walk in and the two men are both behind the counter each with a broad beaming smile. Messrs. Cameron & Salmond are traditional shopkeepers (no self service aisles). You ask for a 4 pint carton of milk – full cream.
    “Certainly Sir/Madam!” replies jovial Mr Salmond who turns round, opens the door of a refrigerator and gets out a carton of milk.
    You look at it and notice that the carton is only a quarter full!
    “Excuse me,” You say, “But that only has around a pint in it! I want a full one.”
    At this point Mr Salmond’s partner speaks, “All our milk is supplied with three quarters removed. This has great advantages as one pint of milk only has a quarter of the cholesterol that four pints has!”
    Mr Salmond nods approvingly, smiling at his partner’s wisdom.
    You are somewhat taken aback. Briefly at a loss for words, you reply with a question, “So, if I want four pints of milk, I purchase four, four pint cartons each containing a pint?”
    “No. I’m sorry. We would be unable to supply four cartons to any customer at a time. Health and Safety.” replies Mr Salmond.
    You are flabbergasted. “What do you do with most of the milk?”
    “We get the milk delivered like this from our supplier, Merkel Van Rompuy Aktiengesellschaft. It is flown over from Berlin each morning to the regional airport and delivered before midday. They only supply cartons 25 % full.”
    “So how much are you selling these cartons for?”
    “The normal price. £1.45.”
    “So why should I not go to the supermarket and pay the same price for a full carton?”
    “Well you would not be a customer of Messrs. Cameron & Salmond in that case.”

    By now Dear Reader you will know exactly the point this article is making: That three quarters of the laws affecting these islands are made and imposed by the European Union. Therefore the debate about Scotland’s so called “independence” is about who gets to decide on the remaining quarter.

    At this point, this organ asks the reader to ask this question: “Why have successive British and Scottish governments committed treason handing most of the governance of the Queen’s realm over to a foreign power?”

    The answer is that they desire to be counted as leaders of a Great Power. A power with a Permanent Seat (with veto) on the Security Council of the United Nations. This is why Heath joined what was then the European Community. Remember Labour’s longest suicide note in 1983?

    Another scenario: Following Argentina’s invasion of the Falkand Islands, President Reagan decides to act on the strenuous recommendations made by Jean Kirkpatrick.

    Jean Kirkpatrick was a member of Reagan’s Cabinet at sat on the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the Defense Policy Review Board, and chaired the Secretary of Defense Commission on Fail Safe and Risk reduction of the Nuclear Command and Control System.

    Mrs Kirkpatrick was firmly of the opinion that the USA should remain neutral and offer no support whatsoever to the UK in its attempt to reclaim the Falkands. This was because Mrs Kirkpatrick felt that the USA should put its interests in the American continent before its interests in Europe.

    In the real world, we all know what happens. Reagan does not take Mrs Kirkpatrick’s council but agrees with his Secretary of State, Alexander Haig who had threatened to resign were Reagan to take Kirkpatrick’s council.

    Now let us suppose that Reagan had taken exception at Haig’s “gun at your head” attitude and decided to take Kirkpatrick’s council?

    It is likely that the Royal Navy would have failed to retake the Falkands. Argentina would have been victorious and the UK humiliated. The political fallout would be dramatic. The Thatcher government was one of Reagan’s staunchest European allies. The British people would have seen how the US walked away. It is entirely possible – especially if the news that Roy Jenkins had had some sexual relationships with some other men in the run up to the 1983 General Election – that Michael Foot’s Labour Party (committed to withdrawal from the European Community) – would have secured a majority and have repealed the European Communities Act. 1972. NB: The UK’s withdrawal from the EC would have been quite straightforward at the time – say 1984 – as the Single European Act had not been effected which meant that the UK was still a member of the WTO. It would not be so now.

    With the UK outside the EC, the EC would have moved more rapidly towards closer and deeper integration. NATO would have been a busted flush and would have collapsed. The USA would have become isolationist when the one term Republican President Reagan was heavily defeated by his Democrat opponent.

    When the EC became the EU and adopted its Common Foreign & Security Policy the USA and the USSR/Russia would have seen to it that France and the UK were removed as Permanent Members of the Security Council and replaced with the European Union and India.

    This is a scenario that many British Gazette readers probably would not be unhappy with. We would have lost the Falkland Islands, but the islanders would have been handsomely compensated as the Argentine junta wanted the islands and not their inhabitants. The UK would however be in full possession of its Sovereignty. The UK however would be just an ordinary member of the United Nations. Reality would confront British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries. They would discover that they could not walk on the World’s stage like their predecessors, Asquith and Grey.

    However, we are where we are and Reagan did not take Kirkpatrick’s council. The facts about what happens should the UK leave the EU remain however. Accept the UK would leave (along with France) the Security Council as a Permanent Member at that point. The vacant seats would be filled by the European Union (AKA Franco-Germany) and India.

    So the question the Reader has to ask is this: Is there any way back? Back that is to the UK’s Great Power status?

    Well, the BG is happy to report that there is. Be under no misunderstanding. The UK’s current status as a Great Power is an illusion, a deception. Just as much as the illusion/deception that it is a fully independent Sovereign State. Be under no doubt, the UK (and France) hold their PM status under sufferance of China, Russia and the USA.. We are sure that the Reader would want a situation whereby the UK can reacquire it’s Sovereignty and retain it’s PM status.

    The BG regrets to report that this is not so. But is pleased to report that lawful government CAN be restored to these islands long with TRUE Great Power status!

    “Excuse Me!” We hear you shout. “You are contradicting yourself!”

    No we are not. Allow us to redefine Lawful Government. The BG now suggests that Lawful Government can be re-defined as: The Government of Her Majesty the Queen, not restrained or constrained by Treaty that would cause Her Ministers to be in breach of their Oaths as Members of Her Privy Council or their Oaths as Members of Parliament.

    The fact of the matter is this: That the now eternally damned Edward Heath had a point: The UK can only retain its Great Power status as a member of a greater union. This is because Heath recognised one reality: That TRUE Great Power status can ONLY be acquired and maintained by being a Great Power and not pretending to be one.

    So how do we move forward?

    Well there is a union that the UK could be a member of which would be fully lawful. One where the three quarters of laws that are made outside the UK’s parliament would continue to be made outside the UK’s Parliament and yet NO Privy Councillor would be in breach of their Oath!

    We suggest that consideration be given to establishing the following supra-national union whose Sovereign powers would be the same as those of the European Union:

    The Union of Commonwealth Realms (UCR) made up of:
    - a newly formed West Indian Federation: (Area 81,133.4 sq mi Pop. 7,036,851) [Comprising: Anguilla 35 sq mi 13,452; Antigua and Barbuda 170 sq mi 81,799; The Bahamas 5,358 sq mi 319,031; Barbados 166 sq mi 277,821; Belize 8,867 sq mi 334,297; Bermuda 20.6 sq mi 64,237; British Virgin Islands 59 sq mi 27,800; Cayman Islands 102 sq mi 56,732; Dominica 290 sq mi 71,293; Grenada 132.8 sq mi 109,590; Guyana 83,000 sq mi 1,200,000; Jamaica 4,244 sq mi 2,889,187; Montserrat 39 sq mi 5,164; Saint Kitts and Nevis 104 sq mi 53,000; Saint Lucia 238.23 sq mi 173,765; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 150 sq mi 103,000; Trinidad and Tobago 1,981 sq mi 1,225,225; Turks and Caicos Islands 238 sq mi 31,458]

    - Australia (Area 2,969,907 sq mi Pop. 23,416,740)

    - Canada (Area 3,854,085 sq mi Pop. 35,158,300)

    - New Zealand (Area 103,483 sq mi Pop. 4,242,048)

    - Ireland [Irish Republic 27,133 sq mi + 4,593,100 & N. Ireland 5,345 sq mi 1,837,938] (Area 32,478 sq mi Pop. 6,431,038)

    - Malta (Area 121 sq mi Pop. 416,055)

    - England (Area 50,346 sq mi Pop. 53,012,456)

    - Scotland (Area 30,414 sq mi Pop. 5,313,600)

    - Wales (Area 8,022 sq mi Pop. 3,063,456)

    - Falkland Islands (Area 4,700 sq mi Pop. 2,932)

    - Gibraltar (Area 2.6 sq mi Pop. 30,001)

    The Union of Commonwealth Realms would have a combined area of 7,134,692 sq mi and a combined population of 138,123,477

    That is an area 51.76 times the size of Germany and a population 1.71 times the size of Germany.

    Were this union to be formed, the UK’s PM status on the SC would be transferred to it along with France’s PM status to the EU.

    Write a comment