Andrew Brons on Mrs Margaret Thatcher (née Roberts)
"It would not be quite true that I have nothing positive to say about Mrs (later Baroness) Thatcher’s political record. I have two remarks about her that might be considered, at least, to be a mitigation.
She was followed by those, who were even greater scoundrels: Major; Blair; Brown; and Cameron.
Secondly, there are reasons to think that her ‘Iron Lady’ image was, at the very least, misleading. She certainly acted aggressively towards those in her Cabinet, whom she had been persuaded were her political enemies. However, the word ‘persuaded’ should not be forgotten. For all of her apparent aggression, she was supremely capable of being manipulated. Those who knew how to manage her, controlled her. For all of her academic prowess in the natural sciences, she was a babe in arms when it came to Real Politik.
She had her favourites, who knew where they and their policies were leading: Sir Keith Joseph, who saw himself as the populariser of Milton Friedman’s ideas. Sir Keith had other (non-economic) ideas that were much sounder but that is another article for another day. She adopted ‘austerity policies’ before they were called ‘austerity policies’ and delighted in the prospect of workers being forced to lower the wages for which they were prepared (or forced) to work. Unemployment was a Grantham, non-conformist lesson in humility.
Her election victory in 1979 was largely fuelled by the strikes of the ‘Winter of Discontent’. There were pernicious Communists in the trade union movement, like Red Robbo who helped to destroy our car industry. However, the strikes of 1978/79 however disruptive and counter-productive, were against the ‘Social Contract’ agenda of wage restraint.
Her destruction of Britain’s manufacturing industry, and later our coal mining industry, were, by some quirk of reasoning, seen as positive. The National Union of Mineworkers was certainly led by the appalling Marxist, Scargill, but the other Non-Marxist leadership candidates were just as defensive of miners’ jobs – as they should have been. Coal is a lost British resource for the loss of which, Thatcher is personally responsible. She was persuaded by shadowy political gangsters to refuse negotiation and to follow the failure of the strike with the destruction of the industry.
“But at least she was patriotic,” I hear you say.
She affected to be a Euro-Sceptic but one of her first acts as Conservative Leader was to campaign for a ‘Yes’ vote in the 1975 referendum. In 1986, she embraced the Single European Act with its erosion of our sovereignty. In the late 1980s, she was apparently ‘unaware’ that her Chancellor, Lawson, was manipulating the value of the £ to shadow the Deutschmark. In 1990, in a last desperate attempt to remain Conservative leader and Prime Minister, she allowed her Chancellor, John Major, to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism – the fore-runner of the Euro. She rated the retention of her job as more important than her Nation’s sovereignty.
“Well,” I hear you say, “at least she was an inspirational war leader, during the Falklands War”. That cannot be denied; it helped her to win the 1983 (and perhaps 1987) General Election. However, she had been conniving for two years with her Foreign Office ministers to hand the Falklands to Argentina on a plate. It was those negotiations that emboldened the Argentinians to invade. Her ministers’ negotiations led to the invasion; the invasion led to the Falklands War, which led to the deaths of 255 British servicemen. Their blood is on her hands.
“On the most important issue of immigration, Mrs Thatcher must, at least be seen as sound,” I hear you suggest. She undoubtedly said a lot to create that impression. In 1978, she explained how she understood the fear of British people being ‘swamped’ by immigrants of a different ‘culture’ (by which she meant ‘race’). In reality, as many unassimilable immigrants landed on our shores and to our airports after she was elected as did do before she was elected. On immigration, as on everything else, she was a practised fraudster.
I must revise my earlier ‘commendation’ of her. I implied that her successors were worse than she was. They at least were (and are) openly Anti-British. Thatcher pretended to be a patriot. She was an unmitigated scoundrel.
5th April 2013: Over the Ester weekend, Andrew Brons wrote to the editors of newspapers in Bradford and Keighley concerning a report they published on combatting the sexual exploitation of children.
"So Angela Sinfield claims (Thursday 28th March) that she and Ann Cryer were the only people fighting to expose the problem of grooming. In fact, it was Nationalists who were the first to expose grooming. When they did, Angela Sinfield was prominent among those (including Kris Hopkins) who denied that it was taking place.
"The response of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service was to prosecute, unsuccessfully, two prominent members of the late BNP for incitement to hatred, despite their urging the public to fight the battle against grooming through the ballot box.
"Angela Sinfield’s denial, was in spite of a 2004 Channel 4 documentary that demonstrated that it was indeed taking place. The reaction of the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Colin Cramphorn was to take the outrageous step to lobby Channel Four, successfully, to have the programme postponed until after the June 2004 local and European elections to prevent Nationalists from being elected.
19th March 2013: Last weekend, Andrew Brons wrote the following letter to the Editor of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus newspaper.
So the Conservative leader has discovered the problem of grooming? (Telegraph & Argos 15th March 2013). It is ten years since Nationalists brought the public’s attention to the problem. Seven years ago Nationalists on Bradford Council proposed action against grooming. All of the other parties, including the Conservatives, voted against the motion on the ground that grooming was not taking place.
The response of West Yorkshire police to Nationalists raising the subject was to prosecute them (unsuccessfully) for saying which population group was predominant among the perpetrators.
14th March 2013: You can see, and listen to, Andrew Brons delivering his speeches in the European Parliament on the official European Parliament.
Clickhere and you will find the list of his speeches in date order.
You can also hear Andrew's hard hitting speech on the Preparations for the European Council Meeting made yesterday in which he savages the charlatan, opportunist and multicultural collaborator, Nigel Farage.
Click here, go to Wednesday 13th March and listen at around 11.35am.
11th March 2013: At the beginning of last week, Andrew Brons wrote the following letter to the editors of Britain's national newspapers as well as the editors of the newspapers covering his Yorkshire and the Humber Constituency.
Under the heading 'UKIP Rumbled' he wrote:
"UKIP is not so much a political party as a safety valve for the Political Class. It is not in business to stop immigration or to get Britain out of the EU but to stop others from doing so.
On Good Friday 2010, on Radio Four’s Any Questions, UKIP leader, Farage revealed the achievement of which he was most proud. Getting thirteen MEPs elected? Raising the issue of the EU on the political agenda? No, it was “stopping the (now late) British National Party from ever becoming a large political party”.
However, at least UKIP is anti-immigration? Alas no. On the Daily Politics Show on 4th May 2010, Farage said, “We would need a minimum of a quarter of a million work permits annually”.
Well, at least he is speaking out in our interest in the European Parliament? His attendance record in the plenary (full Parliamentary session) has been 141 days out of 196 days. He ranked 708 out of 754 MEPs. It was recently revealed that he did not attend his only committee (the Fisheries Committee) once during 2011 and 2012.
"Vote UKIP for a change? No, vote UKIP for more of the same.
8th February 2013: Andrew Brons has been contacted by a London-based research and advisory group seeking an interview for a research project.
They were researching voting trends in the European Parliament focussing on MEPs from the EFD and non-attached members, using data from the organisation Votewatch, to produce a report which would be disseminated to opinion-formers, policy-makers and the media.
The questions they asked Andrew were as follows:
- What do you see as your primary purpose in the European Parliament?
- What is your experience of working on a day-to-day basis with other MEPs in the European Parliament (e.g. participating in committees, informal meetings and communications with other MEPs)? How friendly are your relationships with other MEPs?
- Have you tried to form transnational alliances (formal or informal) with like-minded MEPs? If so, how successful have these alliances been?
- To what degree do you consider drafting reports and opinions in the European Parliament a priority? How often do you have opportunities to participate in the policy-making process and would you like more?
- To what degree do you consider asking questions or delivering speeches at the plenary sessions a priority? When delivering speeches, who is your primary audience (is it the other MEPs, the media, UK voters, etc.)?
This is his response:
What do you see as your primary purpose in the European Parliament?
My first purpose on being elected was to discover information that would bring the EU Project into disrepute and to enhance the reputation of Nationalists for discovering it. I have unearthed admissions that the Lisbon Treaty was a new version of the Constitutional Treaty but that was hardly a state secret and we received no publicity from the admissions. I have stimulated discussion in AFCO about the status of what Tony Blair referred to (inaccurately and possibly untruthfully) as a British ‘opt-out’ from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I have asked what the purpose of Protocol 30 attached to the Lisbon Treaty was, if it is not an ’opt-out’. Was it simply a cynical device to win support for the Lisbon Treaty in the House of Commons but known to all concerned as worthless? However, I have received no publicity for this ferreting of information.
A second purpose has been to gain publicity from speeches that I have given but I have received very little, apart from some newspapers in fishing ports for our opposition to the CFP. The media in Britain show little interest in the European Parliament, unless the speaker descends to infantile personal remarks, like those of UKIP about Van Rompuy.
A third purpose was to develop policy on a wide range of issues for the benefit of Nationalist listeners at home. This has been successful.
A fourth purpose is to show fellow MEPs (including those who are well-disposed to the EU) that the policies of the EU will not achieve what is claimed of them. This applies particularly to the Euro experiment: that a single currency value cannot be appropriate for seventeen different economies: that the EU is not focused on European interests but on Global interests; that Third World immigration will turn parts of Europe into the Third World.
A fifth purpose is to consider carefully all legislative proposals and vote on them appropriately. This very occasionally makes EU legislation slightly less toxic. However, mostly the votes of the Non-Attached have little effect on the outcome. Nevertheless, I can demonstrate that Nationalists take their legislative role seriously.
Perhaps my overriding purpose was to show that Nationalists elected to senior office take all of their responsibilities seriously. My attendance and voting record in the plenary is very high. My attendance in my committees is much higher than most. My few absences are because a meeting is held on an isolated half day and the expense of travelling to it would not be proportionate or because my committees are held at the same time. My speaking record in the plenary was in the highest 10% when Vote Watch recorded such information.
What is your experience of working on a day-to-day basis with other MEPs in the European Parliament (e.g. participating in committees, informal meetings and communications with other MEPs)? How friendly are your relationships with other MEPs?
My relations with fellow Nationalists are very good. My relations with other MEPs are professional and business-like but not usually cordial. However, when attending events abroad, I have had some interesting conversations with other MEPs
Have you tried to form transnational alliances (formal or informal) with like-minded MEPs? If so, how successful have these alliances been?
We have not had success in forming a formal group in the Parliament. That would require more participants than we have. However, we have formed a European Alliance of National Movements.
Informal relations between Nationalists are sometimes more valuable than the formal ones.
To what degree do you consider drafting reports and opinions in the European Parliament a priority? How often do you have opportunities to participate in the policy-making process and would you like more?
This would be appropriate for MEPs who support the EU Project but much less so for those of us who oppose it. Philip Claeys of Vlaams Belang did raise the question in LIBE of Non-Attached MEPs being made rapporteurs and he was appointed to produce a report on a question involving the integration of immigrants. However, his report was doomed from the outset to be opposed by nearly all other LIBE members.
To what degree do you consider asking questions or delivering speeches at the plenary sessions a priority? When delivering speeches, who is your primary audience (is it the other MEPs, the media, UK voters, etc.)?
I ask questions regularly of the Commission and occasionally the Council. The purpose is not so much to elicit information, although that would be a bonus. It is primarily to expose EU bodies as being unwilling to answer questions directly.
I give a high priority to making speeches in the plenary. They are made for many distinct reasons:
- to show my fellow Nationalists in the UK that I am working hard;
- to demonstrate to the British media and (indirectly to the British public) that it is worthwhile electing Nationalists to public office because they are willing and capable of doing what they are elected to do;
- to advance policy development both within Nationalist circles in Britain and Europe, among MEPs in other parties and among the public generally. The latter might be rare but my arguments against globalisation and against the current financial system are sometimes listened to by other MEPs.
We in the Non-Attached are at a disadvantage in obtaining speaking time because much less time is allocated to us per member. This means that most of the speaking time that I have been given has been under the 'catch the eye' procedure which has necessitated my being present during whole debates.
"It is appalling that the EU has even entered entry negotiations with a country, Turkey, whose army still occupies part of one of the bloc's current member states, writes MEP
Is it consistent for me, as a person who does not want his own country to remain a member of the European Union, to care about which countries join it? Well, a new country's citizens will eventually, if not immediately, have the right to move freely throughout the EU including to Britain.
While I would prefer it if the United Kingdom were not a member, I have no say at all in whether or not our membership should continue. Furthermore, if it must continue, I should prefer my country to be an involuntary member of an international organisation that is more European than of an international organisation that is less European. Turkey's people are not European by ancestry, culture or religion and not very European by geography.
Quite apart from Turkey's ancestry, culture, religion and geography, the behaviour of its army is not exactly what we might expect. It remains in illegal occupation of a sovereign state, Cyprus, that happens to be a member of the EU. However, far worse than the mere fact of its 39 years of occupation, have been the atrocities that it has committed following the invasion and during its occupation.
According to the secret report of the European Commission of Human Rights in 1974 alone, seven articles of the European Convention on Human Rights were broken. There were murders, rapes, looting, executions of men, women and children, forced labour, torture, forced expulsions, and imprisonment in concentration camps. The report said that the object "was to eradicate the Greek population" and that the atrocities were because of their "ethnic origin, race and religion".
It said that there were 3,000 people missing at the time of the report. While the main atrocities were committed nearly four decades ago, Turkey has allowed subsequent desecration of sacred and ancestral Greek Cypriot property, including churches and graveyards and allowed the sale of the spoils of this looting on international markets.
Turkey does not have a record for atoning for past wrongs. It has prosecuted the Turkish author Orhan Pamuk for describing the killing of Armenians in 1915 as genocide. The fact the Turkish law is mirrored by an equally insane French law that makes it an offence to claim that the 1915 killings were not genocide, does not excuse Turkey. It simply makes France equally contemptible. Meanwhile Turkey has made no attempt to return the property belonging to Greek Cypriots or even to offer them compensation.
One does not have to be a supporter of the EU to find it appalling that the bloc has been negotiating with Turkey about its possible membership, when its army is still in occupation of part of a member state. The Cypriot government was remarkably restrained during the six months of its presidency of the Council of the EU last year but the Turkish government refused to have any dealings with it during that period. Should it be possible for a candidate country to be a continuing aggressor against an existing member?
Andrew Brons is a British non-attached member of the European Parliament
11th January 2013: Last week, Andrew Brons sent the following letter to the editor of The Independent concerning his newspaper's report on Britain First.
He wrote . . .
I do not know whether Professor Nigel Copsey’s first research centre into contemporary fascism was the source of the ‘information’ that I was to become President of Mr. Dowson’s Britain First (The Independent, Friday 28th December) but I am afraid that you have been misinformed. If he was the source, his organisation has not got off to a good start. It is essential that he should understand, for example, the difference between the Judean Popular Front and the Popular Front for Judea.
Similarly, the mad and indescribably evil mass murderer, Anders Breivik might have had links with British Neo-Cons but he had no contacts with British Nationalists. Professor Copsey has shown that the approach of his organisation will be to smear Nationalists by lack of association.
20th December 2012: Andrew Brons has had the following article published in Zur Zeit which is publication of the Freedom Party of Austria.
"To be a Euro-sceptic in the European Parliament is to be seen as troublesome. To be a Euro-sceptic from the United Kingdom only compounds your guilt. You are held to be individually culpable for all the perceived sins of Euro-scepticism that your Nation might have committed. Indeed, on one occasion my speech in the plenary provoked a not insignificant German CSU MEP to shout at me and ask why Britain did not leave the EU, as though it were in the scope of my discretionary power to bring about that withdrawal. I could remark only that I had already advised Her Majesty’s Government to take this course of action but it had not, so far, taken my advice.
"It would not be true to say that Britain has been indifferent to other European countries. However, it has often considered itself to be adjacent to Europe and concerned with its problems, rather than being part of Europe. The Euro-scepticism of many Britons might be attributable to this feeling but it would not be true of mine.
"I would consider myself to be EU-hostile rather than Euro-sceptic. I am certainly not Anti-European. We have overlapping, though not conterminous, ancestries, similar cultures and a shared history. However, we do not constitute a single demos capable of being a single democracy. We are a series of nation states, with significant differences – some objective, others subjective.
"The perceived Euro-scepticism of successive British Governments has been rather more cosmetic than real. Labour voted against EEC accession in 1972, when the same Labour leader, Harold Wilson, had applied for Britain to join in 1967. Labour Leader Neil Kinnock was consistently opposed to British entry during the 1980s but then underwent Damascene conversion in time for him to become a Commissioner in 1992. Mrs Thatcher and her handbag were famously Euro-sceptic but her scepticism did not prevent her from advocating that Britain should remain an EEC member in the 1975 Referendum. It did not dissuade her from signing up to the Single European Act in 1986 or the ERM in 1990. Her successor, John Major, was endorsed by Mrs. Thatcher for his supposed scepticism but this did not prevent him from signing the Treaty of Maastricht which later mutated into the Treaty on European Union.
"I am opposed to the European Union because of what it does and not because of what it affects to be – European. I am opposed to the EU because it undermines national sovereignty and the democratic control of decision-making that exists to varying degrees in each member state.
"I am also opposed to the net financial contribution that Britons, even poor Britons, have to make to the EU Budget. This is responsible for a pent-up fury among Britons that is often misdirected towards our neighbours rather towards the EU itself.
"Far from being critical of the EU for being European, I would argue that, in important respects, it is not European enough! It embraces the political and economic ideology of Globalism and it acquiesces in the process of Globalisation. This involves importing cheap manufactured goods, often made by workers suffering in slave labour conditions, and the relocation of manufacturing plants to Third World countries. These polices are already destroying the manufacturing sectors of European states and will eventually eclipse them altogether. European states will be able to compete with the so-called emergent economies only by reducing our wage rates to meet theirs.
"Its policy of trying to compensate for falling birth rates and ageing populations by importing immigrants from the Third World will succeed only in turning parts of Europe into the Third World.
"So, our policy is to withdraw the United Kingdom? Yes…… but. But what? I would prefer to see the European Union dissolved, so that our friends can be rescued from it, rather than simply being isolated from it and them. I am not a David Cameron, prepared to see political, fiscal and economic integration imposed on our friends, while we remain unaffected by it."
7th December 2012: On Wednesday, Andrew Brons sent the following letter to the editors of newspapers covering his Yorkshire and the Humber Euro-Constituency and to all the national newspaper editors.
"Last week my daughter in Australia sent her ten year old niece (my granddaughter) a birthday present. It was valued at eighty Australian dollars (about sixty pounds).
The Post Office informed us that the parcel could not be delivered until customs charges had been paid. This was in the form of £10.31 in VAT. Not to be outdone, the Royal Mail charged an £8 handling fee. So, in order to be able to collect my granddaughter’s birthday present, I had to pay a total of £18.31.
Fortunately I could afford it, but in these cash-strapped times there are many who would not have been able to pay that amount and the parcel would have been returned at extra expense to Australia.
Does the Chancellor really need to tax the birthday presents of ten year olds?