Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

Published by: Frank Furedi, SPiKED, on 16 November 2020.

Hungary’s war on woke.

Western cultural elites hate Hungary because it challenges their values.

Since the outbreak of the Covid pandemic, the Western campaign of disinformation against Hungary has become a crusade.


Indeed, I thought I could no longer be shocked by the invective hurled at Hungary by the Western media until I came across an article in the British Medical Journal, the world’s oldest peer-reviewed medical publication . . .
. . . At first sight, it looked like a piece of medical reportage, but it is in fact devoted to promoting a tendentious vision of Hungary. It refers, for example, to Hungary’s ‘maligned single-party government’, a phrase that cannot help but invoke the totalitarian spectre of one-party states, be they Communist or fascist. To be fair, it does refer to Hungary’s single-party government, rather than system, but then, in this sense, Britain is a ‘single-party government’ too — though, of course, no one would think of referring to it as such. So why do so in relation to Hungary, if not to conjure up the spectre of historical tyranny?

The BMJ goes even further, quoting Ferenc Falus: ‘There is virtually a military dictatorship in Hungary.’ Falus is Hungary’s former chief medical officer, and an avowed opponent of Viktor Orbán’s government. He is not a disinterested observer. Besides, how can a nation be virtually a military dictatorship? Does the ‘virtually’ mean it is a little bit of a military dictatorship? Or almost one? Or not quite one?

As it happens, the Hungarian government has merely been using the military resources of the state to deal with an extraordinary pandemic emergency. Which is exactly what the British state did when using the army to construct the Nightingale hospitals or to provide assistance with testing and other Covid-related operations. But nowhere does the BMJ suggest that this makes Britain ‘virtually a military dictatorship’

The BMJ’s anti-Hungarian rhetoric is relatively restrained compared with that of other Western media outlets. ‘Victor Orbán’s power grab in Hungary heightens fears of dictatorship in EU’, screams a headline in The Times. In the Telegraph, Ben Kelly rants that ‘if the EU cannot rein in Hungary’s dictator Viktor Orbán, it will rot from the inside’. And as far as The Economist is concerned, ‘Mr Orban has in effect become a dictator – in the heart of Europe’.

Why is Hungary the focus of woke propaganda . . . ?

It is not a love of democracy or concern about Hungary’s health system that motivates this propaganda war against Hungary and its government. It is the fact that, from the globalist standpoint of the Western cultural and political establishments, the values promoted by the Hungarian government are antithetical to ‘our worldview’. In the Hungarian government’s upholding of traditional values, many of which are associated with Christianity, or its defence of national sovereignty, the likes of the European Union or Big Tech see something archaic and threatening.
The EU establishment, in particular, regards tradition as either irrelevant or as an object of scorn. And it is especially hostile towards traditional customs and practices associated with family life, the socialisation of children, and sexual relations between people.

This is why, in recent months, its crusade against Hungary has focused on what it describes as the culture of ‘heteronormativity’. According to the woke dictionary, heteronormativity is to sexual relations what xenophobia is to national pride. So, just as pride in one’s nation is denounced as a form of xenophobia, so the conviction that heterosexual relations are the norm is now condemned as a form of bigotry.

In reality, the Hungarian government is far from alone in taking the view that heterosexuality is the norm. Nor is it alone in retaining the centuries-old belief that there are two sexes, male and female. Yet this view is now considered not only old-fashioned but also transphobic by supporters of Western identity politics . . .
. . . If the Hungarian government remained discreet and diplomatic about its views on chromosomes and sexuality, it would not have provoked the wrath of the West’s woke elites. But it has not been discreet or diplomatic. Rather, it has incorporated its views on chromosomes and sexuality into its public programme.

This came to a head when the Hungarian government submitted a proposal to amend its Fundamental Law, which is the cornerstone of its 2011 constitution. The amendment affirmed the view that in a family relationship, ‘the mother is a woman, the father is man’. If this amendment to a nation’s constitution was proposed 30 years ago, there would have been no international outcry. Indeed, most commentators would have wondered why Hungary had made a law stating the obvious. But that was then. Today, such a statement has been denounced by the EU oligarchy as an outrage.

The amendment also aims to protect the right of children to ‘identify as the sex they were born with’, and specifies that only heterosexual couples should be able to adopt children (although it exempts single people in certain circumstances). The principal aim of this law is to codify prevailing ideals about heterosexual norms, and affirm that the biological distinction between men and women is the basis for human relations.

The amendment is not motivated by anti-gay prejudice, as some Western commentators suggest. The right of homosexual couples to cohabit is also enshrined in the Fundamental Law, and gay life flourishes in Hungary. Rather, the aim of the amendment is to protect ‘the institution of marriage as the association between a man and a woman and the family as the basis for the survival of the nation’.

Not that this has stopped the Western media or the EU from viewing the amendment as an attack on gay people. Hence the EU has responded with its LGBTIQ strategy, complete with plans to enact an EU law designed to ‘protect the rights of rainbow families so that their parenthood and same-sex partnership is recognised throughout the union’. This means that the decision of Hungary’s elected parliament about the conduct of family life can be nullified by the EU’s bureaucratic diktat.
This should not come as a surprise. Since the turn of the 21st century, the EU has consistently sought to realign the political culture of Eastern European societies like Hungary’s with the EU’s globalist, anti-traditionalist ethos. According to Ian Klinke, a geographer at the University of Oxford, it is difficult to miss ‘the neocolonial overtones that reverberate throughout the EU’s Eastern enlargement, particularly through the ideologically coloured aims of “Europeanising”, “modernising” and “liberalising” a space that was deemed economically and politically inferior’ (1) . . .

The EU’s proposed LGBTIQ strategy is a perfect example of this neocolonial project, or what some critics of the EU’s attempt to impose its values on new member states have termed ‘normative imperialism’ (2). However, this normative imperialism is not the act of a confident cultural force. The EU oligarchy is actually quite defensive about its normative power. It is aware that it faces a democracy deficit, that it lacks legitimacy, and that it has failed to win the loyalty of European citizens. After Brexit, this crisis of moral authority has only intensified.

This partially explains why the EU has responded so aggressively towards Hungary’s traditionalism. Hungary’s defiance plays on the EU’s sense of weakness. Moreover, the EU sees the Hungarian government as a threat precisely because it voices sentiments and values that remain popular, and which resonate with millions of people throughout the world. Hungary is a reminder that there is still considerable resistance to the woke values of our global elites.

Orban.jpg


 
Nothing for Brits in France unless you are a taxpayer here, and have paid social charges too.
Even then your jobseekers is linked to how much you have paid in to your fund and is also time limited.

Same for the French, your benefits are linked to your last salary, but time limited and depends on how much you have paid in during your working life up to then.
Saying that the system is complicated here, at least one social charge/tax is payable up front in advance when you are working, depending on what the fonctionnaires think you should be earning for your trade.
That one alone is responsible for over 60% of new small enterprises failing in their first three years.

Harmonisation of taxes and social charges (think National Insurance) isn't really uniform across this country with an awful lot of variants.
Even thinking that harmonisation of certain other taxes is possible across the EU will be yet another of those aspirations that quietly fades away into the distance.
 
Published by: Paddy Hannam, SPikED, on 27 November 2020.

Carole Cadwalladr’s failed war on democracy.

Another wheel has fallen off her crazed Brexit conspiracy theory.

So, Carole, whodunnit? We now know it wasn’t Arron Banks who corrupted the EU referendum, or Darren Grimes, who was another of your targets. But it must have been someone, right? So, which mastermind was really behind the dark-money attempt to steal the referendum result?


For anyone who hasn’t heard, Carole Cadwalladr has bottled it. The Observer columnist has been embroiled in a libel battle with Leave.EU boss Arron Banks since last year. Now, according to Guido Fawkes, she has effectively admitted she has no evidence to back up her claims that Russians funded the Brexit campaign, and that Banks lied about his relationships with them. She has also agreed to cover her opponent’s legal costs, starting with a substantial downpayment of £62,000.

This is not the first time one of Carole’s Brexit conspiracy threads has collapsed. Previously, she went after Darren Grimes, who founded BeLeave, a pro-Brexit student organisation. In 2018, Grimes was fined £20,000 after Vote Leave was accused of using BeLeave as a vehicle for getting around referendum spending limits. Vote Leave itself paid a fine of £61,000. But Grimes’ fine was overturned last year, and the Electoral Commission had to pay legal costs of over £200,000 – 10 times the value of the original fine. The Metropolitan Police dropped its investigation into Grimes and Alan Halsall – another Vote Leave official – earlier this year, and the witch-hunt has slowly ground to a halt. Another aspect of Carole’s grand theory fell apart.

Cadwalladr was the most prominent journalist to pursue the ‘dark money’ line of attack on Brexit. She turned Cambridge Analytica into a household name. She believed that this data company was key to the ‘corruption’ behind the vote to leave the EU. But this story, too, fell apart a few months ago when a report found no evidence the tech firm had misused data to affect the vote for Brexit.

Cadwalladr is running out of people to blame Brexit for. The wheels are coming off her crazy conspiracy-cart. But will she be deterred from similarly manic theorising in the future? I doubt it (in fact, she says the Banks case is ‘far from over’).

But the truth is, it’s not all about Carole. She is merely one part of a much larger pro-Remain establishment which stopped at nothing to try to discredit the democratic revolt of 2016. The forces of the status quo threw all their weight against Brexit. They accused Leave campaigners of having links to malevolent foreign powers, and accused ‘uninformed’ voters of being duped by devious political masterminds.

Cadwalladr had an audience. People took her seriously. She even won the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2018 for her mad theories. The chair of the judges, David Bell, said of her work, ‘Orwell would have loved it’. Talk about doublethink.

This is why, though we may toast Cadwalladr’s humiliation, we must remain vigilant: there is a constituency for her undemocratic rants, and it is a dangerous one. The anti-democratic impulse behind her campaign against Brexit is alive and well. Even as the arguments around Brexit itself recede from view, the threat to democracy has not gone away.

1606505939700.png


 
An old acquaintance worked and lived in France, he lost his job and received as I recall 2/3s of his salary for quite a while. However foreign workers in Italy, that have paid tax receive very little, to the point our local village used too have a food collection for Macedonians out of work.
The Dutch are very well looked after if made redundant, to the extent that even normal people were saying it was a bit too generous.
 

philc

LE
Published by: Paddy Hannam, SPikED, on 27 November 2020.

Carole Cadwalladr’s failed war on democracy.

Another wheel has fallen off her crazed Brexit conspiracy theory.

So, Carole, whodunnit? We now know it wasn’t Arron Banks who corrupted the EU referendum, or Darren Grimes, who was another of your targets. But it must have been someone, right? So, which mastermind was really behind the dark-money attempt to steal the referendum result?


For anyone who hasn’t heard, Carole Cadwalladr has bottled it. The Observer columnist has been embroiled in a libel battle with Leave.EU boss Arron Banks since last year. Now, according to Guido Fawkes, she has effectively admitted she has no evidence to back up her claims that Russians funded the Brexit campaign, and that Banks lied about his relationships with them. She has also agreed to cover her opponent’s legal costs, starting with a substantial downpayment of £62,000.

This is not the first time one of Carole’s Brexit conspiracy threads has collapsed. Previously, she went after Darren Grimes, who founded BeLeave, a pro-Brexit student organisation. In 2018, Grimes was fined £20,000 after Vote Leave was accused of using BeLeave as a vehicle for getting around referendum spending limits. Vote Leave itself paid a fine of £61,000. But Grimes’ fine was overturned last year, and the Electoral Commission had to pay legal costs of over £200,000 – 10 times the value of the original fine. The Metropolitan Police dropped its investigation into Grimes and Alan Halsall – another Vote Leave official – earlier this year, and the witch-hunt has slowly ground to a halt. Another aspect of Carole’s grand theory fell apart.

Cadwalladr was the most prominent journalist to pursue the ‘dark money’ line of attack on Brexit. She turned Cambridge Analytica into a household name. She believed that this data company was key to the ‘corruption’ behind the vote to leave the EU. But this story, too, fell apart a few months ago when a report found no evidence the tech firm had misused data to affect the vote for Brexit.

Cadwalladr is running out of people to blame Brexit for. The wheels are coming off her crazy conspiracy-cart. But will she be deterred from similarly manic theorising in the future? I doubt it (in fact, she says the Banks case is ‘far from over’).

But the truth is, it’s not all about Carole. She is merely one part of a much larger pro-Remain establishment which stopped at nothing to try to discredit the democratic revolt of 2016. The forces of the status quo threw all their weight against Brexit. They accused Leave campaigners of having links to malevolent foreign powers, and accused ‘uninformed’ voters of being duped by devious political masterminds.

Cadwalladr had an audience. People took her seriously. She even won the Orwell Prize for Journalism in 2018 for her mad theories. The chair of the judges, David Bell, said of her work, ‘Orwell would have loved it’. Talk about doublethink.

This is why, though we may toast Cadwalladr’s humiliation, we must remain vigilant: there is a constituency for her undemocratic rants, and it is a dangerous one. The anti-democratic impulse behind her campaign against Brexit is alive and well. Even as the arguments around Brexit itself recede from view, the threat to democracy has not gone away.

View attachment 524232


When I was at the Telegraph, she was on the Travel desk, dogsbody, coffee fetcher and Er that was it. She has risen and fallen in spectacular fashion. In some ways I think she was allowed to, no responsible paper would of allowed her allegations to surface with out serious proof.
 
Ignoring anything that disturbs your delusions is fine, posting only to agree with people who agree with you is fine, advising people to ignore people who have a different opinion is fine, claiming to ignore a person then posting a reply to them simply to make an insult is fine, acting as a blood thirsty member of lynch mob is fine, having no sense of humour is fine, the inability to understand political and economic matters is fine, denial of reality is fine, screaming and frothing at some pixels is fine, thinking that Britain will be better off without the EU is utterly stupid.

3020966500_e972a5a51e.jpg
 
After 90 years, today was the last day of Unilever trading on the Amsterdam exchange. The long-standing dual listing has been "rationalised", Unilever delisted from Amsterdam, and is now listed solely on the LSE. That is a very heavy political blow for the NL government, as maintaining the local Unilever listing was a "sacred cow".

I've often commented that "financial news" from the main national broadsheets is almost entirely fiction, including from the FT.

As an example, in Sep 2018, the Irish Times wrote on the matter:

"[The] plan [to delist in London] has landed Unilever squarely in the furore over Brexit. It has crystallised a dread that the City’s army of bankers, lawyers and accountants have long felt but have been too slow to articulate – that Brexit could have immediate, tangible and possibly dire consequences for the UK as a place to invest in, and for London as Europe’s financial and corporate powerhouse."

See Unilever’s exit from London is loaded with Brexit symbolism

That same Irish Times is now, as it might put it, "slow to articulate" on the Unilever move to a sole London listing.

Curiously, a rhetorical flourish about how a London consolidation might have "immediate, tangible and possibly dire consequences for the EU as a place to invest " now goes entirely unreported.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
After 90 years, today was the last day of Unilever trading on the Amsterdam exchange. The long-standing dual listing has been "rationalised", Unilever delisted from Amsterdam, and is now listed solely on the LSE. That is a very heavy political blow for the NL government, as maintaining the local Unilever listing was a "sacred cow".

I've often commented that "financial news" from the main national broadsheets is almost entirely fiction, including from the FT.

As an example, in Sep 2018, the Irish Times wrote on the matter:

"[The] plan [to delist in London] has landed Unilever squarely in the furore over Brexit. It has crystallised a dread that the City’s army of bankers, lawyers and accountants have long felt but have been too slow to articulate – that Brexit could have immediate, tangible and possibly dire consequences for the UK as a place to invest in, and for London as Europe’s financial and corporate powerhouse."

See Unilever’s exit from London is loaded with Brexit symbolism

That same Irish Times is now, as it might put it, "slow to articulate" on the Unilever move to a sole London listing.

Curiously, a rhetorical flourish about how a London consolidation might have "immediate, tangible and possibly dire consequences for the EU as a place to invest " now goes entirely unreported.
What does that actually mean in practical terms for London and Unilever?
 
What does that actually mean in practical terms for London and Unilever?

OK, the reality of it was this:
  • 90 year old dual listing wasn't fit for purpose as it made the company slow to react given two sets of inconsistent governance rules (NL and UK);
  • NL Government tried every trick in the book to "encourage" (tax bribes etc.) Unilever to delist in London and consolidate in NL;
  • UK based institutional shareholders, who collectively control the company, said FOAD.....so a cunning plan to consolidate in London emerged;
  • Vote was put to investors in the NL entity, and 99.4% voted to move to a sole London listing;
  • Red faces all around the NL Government, and opposition parties are tabling a retrospective "exit tax" to prevent or punish the move;
  • Sole UK HQ will have little practical imact on day-to-day operations, but will improve UK corporate tax take and company profitability (UK has lower corporate tax than NL).
The major impact is the timing and symbolism of Europe's 12th largest manufacturer electing to HQ in London rather than in NL. It also reinforces how money (in this case, the interests of UK based instituional investors (i.e. pension funds)) trumps politics in the corporate world.
 

Oyibo

LE
OK, the reality of it was this:
  • 90 year old dual listing wasn't fit for purpose as it made the company slow to react given two sets of inconsistent governance rules (NL and UK);
  • NL Government tried every trick in the book to "encourage" (tax bribes etc.) Unilever to delist in London and consolidate in NL;
  • UK based institutional shareholders, who collectively control the company, said FOAD.....so a cunning plan to consolidate in London emerged;
  • Vote was put to investors in the NL entity, and 99.4% voted to move to a sole London listing;
  • Red faces all around the NL Government, and opposition parties are tabling a retrospective "exit tax" to prevent or punish the move;
  • Sole UK HQ will have little practical imact on day-to-day operations, but will improve UK corporate tax take and company profitability (UK has lower corporate tax than NL).
The major impact is the timing and symbolism of Europe's 12th largest manufacturer electing to HQ in London rather than in NL. It also reinforces how money (in this case, the interests of UK based instituional investors (i.e. pension funds)) trumps politics in the corporate world.

'Despite Brexit':

 
'Despite Brexit':


Standby for Shell to do the same...............(also dual listed).

It's that pesky Dutch dividend tax that causes the problem.........although the NL Gov't did offer to repeal it in order to retain Unilever.

Level playing field huh?
 

Humperdoo

Old-Salt
I must apologise to those here who voted for brexit. I took the liberty, single handed, to inform you all how wrong you were. I expected a bit of flak but feel shocked that it appears to have had a serious affect on some... A couple of you have become obsessed.

Please forgive me. Mental bullying those vulnerable people was not my initial intention...only to show an alternative view.

If it makes you feel better, I agree that Britain will win the negotiations and provide a wonderful deal, much better than before brexit. The EU will pay compensation of billions for the turmoil and within a year we will be the most powerful country on the planet. The whole world will be clambering to buy our fish. The Scots will be gainfully employed rebuilding Hardrian's wall and the Paddys will dig a mega tunnel under the Irish Sea. Not sure about the Welsh but those slate mines are just waiting to be converted into migrant accommodation.

There now...we are on the same side...s
Thanks higgzee, I feel much better now knowing my vote wasn't wasted! You sure you're not Carole Cadwalladr in disguise?
 

Latest Threads

Top