Trump won because he cared- letter from Levittown

love Him or hate Him Trump gets on with things unlike May & Corbyn with Trump We would be out of the EU system by now Our prosperity would be better and Our Military would be rebuilt no one would walk over us the last real We had was Thatcher

If you read Margaret Thatcher’s autobiography, you would find she campaigned to keep us in the Common Market purely on economic grounds, and at the time did not foresee the dangers of European federalism that lay within it. She later came out firmly against EU integration and any idea of us losing our sovereignty. She eventually campaigned for what she called a looser single market, free from any ideas of federalism, that included the US and Japan. Margaret Thatcher worked wonders for the economy, drastically improved living standards, and was a committed Eurosceptic. What’s not to like?

Mrs Thatcher’s economic policies were also a failure for the most part. This should come as no surprise since they were borrowed from classic 19th Century Liberal Party ideas of the so-called inherent value of unrestricted free trade and free markets. SENSIBLE NATIONALIST countries like Japan have free market economics WITHIN their national territory but put moderate restrictions upon this operation of free market forces so that they combine them with their national interests and thus have a robust NATIONAL economy still. Maggie was more of a market radical than a true Tory. Her own party had a history (as recent as the 1930’s) of believing that it should be possible to have a moderate degree of protectionism to protect British manufacturing industry. She dispensed entirely with that history.

No, the last time we had a non-globalist in No10 was when Neville Chamberlain was PM. He was a British patriot who done what he did through a sincere conviction he was protecting our longterm national interests (I believe some members of his own family, like many from his era, died in World War One) Sadly, his actions were naive with the benefit of hindsight but no one should accuse him of being an appeaser for appeasement’s sake. I get annoyed when people compare the tawdry likes of Sharia Maybe/Mayhem with Neville. As I said, he was a patriot, she isn’t and as a result of that isn’t fit to lick Neville’s shoes.

Even most lefties would agree that Thatcher’s economic policies worked. During her time in office, thousands of people could finally buy their own home, the pound was strong, and unemployment was at a record low. She stood up to the undemocratic trade unions and the people loved her.

Chamberlain, on the other hand, was willing to allow Austria and Czechoslovakia to be overrun by Nazis, so we could remain at peace. If we had acted in 1938 instead of 1939, millions of lives would have been saved. We didn’t, the Nazi menace grew in strength, and by the time Belgium and the Netherlands were subjugated, it was so clear his policies were a failure, that his position became untenable, and he chose Churchill as his successor. If Churchill hadn’t got in, we might all be living under a Nazi regime now.

The mania for political correctness with its associated naked disrespect for true freedom of speech and freedom of thought also started to gain a real grip on British society in her period of office through her government’s passing of measures like the tyrannical Public Order Act of 1986.

I believe that Enoch Powell said in 1983 that if we failed to leave the then Common Market around that time we would never leave it. Sadly, his prediction is probably correct. It would help if we had someone utterly committed to leaving the EU but we have a Remainer in the position of the most powerful politician in the land and also as Chancellor of the Exchequer so it is no wonder the EU is currently taking the mick and walking all over us.

I would say politcial correctness began properly under Blair and New Labour. Thatcher was committed to freedom of speech.

I have great respect for Powell though; he and Thatcher were basically agreed, it’s just that he had the foresight that she lacked. The years have certainly proven Powell right.

Yes, PC got totally out of control during Bliar’s time in office but Mrs Thatcher laid additional foundations for it (the first restrictions were before her time) with the passing of that act of legislation which should never have passed.. It was and remains a terrible blueprint for tyranny and should be removed from the statute books so as to allow true feedom of speech and thought.

The only aspect of the act which could really be seen as verging on political correctness is its stated purpose to “control the stirring up of racial hatred.” Most people find racism abhorrent, which is what the act set out to tackle. The trouble is that the lefties have deliberately made racism an umbrella term, leaving its original definition as the belief of the superiority of one race over another, and encompassing anyone who believes in restricted immigration, or even those who simply patriotic. It is these people who need to be stopped from threatening freedom of speech. Last time I checked, though, even they can’t restrict your freedom of thought.

Chamberlain did not allow Austria to unify with Germany. He allowed Germany to INVADE Austria the night before a crucial referendum which would determine the fate of the Austrian state. Since the Germans were so afraid of what the result might be, one cannot concusively say that Austrians were in favour of unification, especially given the fact that the referendum was never held. As the Austrains have not tried to unite with Germany since the war, I would say most Austrians value their independence.

It is a matter of historical record that the vast majority of Austrians welcomed the Anchluss with open arms as can easily be seen by watching old Youtube videos depicting these events. To these people, Hitler’s joining together of Austria and Germany was in no sense an ‘invasion’ even if in the strict sense it was. The nationalist
Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) which currently shares power in Vienna used to contain a significant ‘pan-German’ element under its former leader of Jorg Haider but now ho longer does.

Generally-speaking, I am not in favour of interventionism in foreign policy if it doesn’t serve the most essential British national interests. To me, this is just another manifestation of globalism to which all our main political parties adhere to. There are many forms of this philosophy – economic, political (EU membership), social (mass immigration). This country would be wise to learn to wean itself off it.

Austria had a long history and a wonderful culture ( e.g. the music of Mozart), which certainly contributed to a national identity before the war. Even if no identity had existed, there is still no justification for Hitler’s actions. The Austrians only properly considered unification when the Nazis threat toward them was growing as a way of retaining peace. Once Austria was captured, its 180,000 Jews were made to suffer dreadfully, and some were put in the concentration camp at Mauthasuen. Videos capturing a few seconds of the Anschluss cannot adequately show how the terror most Austrians felt.

Whilst military intervention is not always the answer, there are times when it is a country’s duty to defend those who cannot defend themselves, especially to save lives. A few months later, Hitler used the same excuse of a German minority to annex Czechoslovakia. Nation by nation was knocked off one by one until Britain found itself isolated and alone because of its disastrous peace policies.

I’m afraid I do not agree with your apparent contention that Britain or any other country has a “duty” to help others to defend themselves. If this were taken to its logical conclusion Britain would be at war almost constantly. Our armed forces (if Britain were a normal country which unfortunately it isn’t) would be used ONLY to defend our own nation at home or abroad and our MOST VITAL NATIONAL INTERESTS and not for any other reason. Ultimately, it is up to each individual country to defend itself and to ensure it has sufficient military capacity to do this.

Hitler only overstepped the mark when he took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. We agreed to let him have the part with a large number of people of German ethnicity and this was a good policy of Mr Chamberlain (at least at the time). Of course, after the Versailles Treaty many borders were drawn-up which could be considered to have been drawn badly and not in accordance with the spread of various ethnic groups and their national identities/interests.

I do not argue that Britain has a duty to help other countries defend themselves, but that it is morally right to aid an innocent, defenseless country, especially when they do not have the military capacity necessary. Austria had no desire to be invaded, otherwise they would not have spent the early 1930’s in intense military preparation and rearmament. In the end, this was not sufficient to withstand the German Army, and they were forced to rely on the Italians, who eventually deserted them.

If nations invaded on the basis of the existence of ethnic minorities, Poland could invade France, India could invade America, and Pakistan could invade Britain, all of which have significant minorities of the aforementioned nationalities . If every nation simply did as they wished, world order would crumble and tyranny would rule. As a result of the appeasement policy of Chamberlain, we ended with a far stronger enemy than we started with because we let it grow, and Hitler believed we would do nothing to stop him. The principle of looking out for “number one” does not work.

No doubt Chamberlain’s intentions were noble, indeed, Churchill says as much in his book on the war, but the key point is, he was wrong. He actually resisted rearmament for years despite Churchill’s warnings, and as I have said, because he beat around the bush for so long, he excacerbated the problem. As for Hitler, in his book Meine Kampf, written before the war, he talks a lot about the restoration of Germany and its pride. The argument about a German minority was a facade for a much darker ideaology which restored Germany’s prestige whilst taking revenge on those who damaged it in the first war. He was not simply unreasonable, he was evil.

I do agree though about the need to prioritise British interests, and of course it was this attitude which propelled Trump to the White House. I have friends who have lived in Japan, and the system is absolutely rigid, with no thought to individuality. The economy is strong not because they have rejected globalism, but because they force their workers to work extraordinarily long hours with no holidays ever. As a result, the suicide rate is one of the highest in the world.

Without a doubt, Mr Shinzo Abe of Japan and his predecessors are pretty nationalist and their primary concern is to put Japan and the Japanese people first.

Japan’s economic success is built on the same foundation as China’s; an extremely strong industrial base with labourers that quite often work hours from about six a.m. to eleven p.m. seven days a week, combined with some elements of capitalism. It’s also worth pointing out that the biggest economy in the world, America, openly subscribes to free trade and capitalism; that is why the left hates it, because it is a clear example of the benefits free trade brings. The U.K, which adheres to free trade principles, is a larger economy than Japan, with a larger GDP. During the Thatcher years, Japan’s GDP growth was dwarfed by the U.S. and western European economies GDP growth, and growth was so strong, some were worried the economy was growing too quickly. Leaders like Thatcher showed it was possible to be patriotic and put the interests of Britain first (like her brave stand on our unfairly high monetary contribution to the EEC during the 80’s) and still believe in free trade. Protectionism, on the other hand, benefits producers over consumers. If you start bailing out ineffecient industries, the price of whatever that industry produces automatically goes up without cheaper imports. Jacob Rees-Mogg compelling makes this point on a number of videos on Youtube. This is why we must leave the EU, because it is a protectionist organisation.

For many people, Brexit was about the economic benefits of leaving the EU. Once we’ve left the protectionist bloc, we can forge free trade agreements with other countries. This kind of “globalism” will deliver huge benefits for the economy and for the general population. With our newly regained sovereignty, we can be a far bigger player on the world stage. We can achieve Thatcher’s goal of free trade with Europe, Japan, and America. We will have reached Churchill’s “broad, sunlit uplands.” I, for one, can’t wait.

if Britain is to compete once outside the EU regime the unemployed must be helped find Work I have been there myself it is horrible and stop big business from employing Foreigners over Britons once the Conservatives have the brains to wisely ditch May the liability

Absolutely right. It is completely unacceptable that EU citizens and immigrants can get jobs here but there are still thousands of unemployed Brits. I think most people would actually prefer British people to do a lot of the jobs immigrants do; it’s not right that some people can’t understand what their Eastern European doctors are telling them, or that some delivery drivers can’t read the name of your house. Credit to Theresa May though, unemployment is at a forty year low.