What I like about Pete's commentary is that he is asking "the insurgent Right" to clarify its positioning, which coherence would help to bring the movement together, singing from the same hymnsheet, consolidating strategic aims and strengthening its influence. We should for example treat with the EU neutrally: they have shown themselves perfectly capable time and again of being friend or enemy (eg France post-Brexit particularly threatening on trade, Ireland leveraging the delicate position in Ulster). There is no benefit in pandering or prostrating to them in the hope of benign treatment, nor crawling to them in expectation of generosity or potential favours. Our interactions with the EU - indeed all countries - should be neighbourly: mutually beneficial; judged strictly on their merits; weighed and measured in profit and loss and how they fit with our national long-term interests and objectives. That is the only basis for the UK's future as an accountable democracy and sovereign nation in an ever-changing multipolar world
"..we need a coherent foreign policy which is linked to trade, immigration, industrial and defence policy.... Ultimately you’ll never have a coherent defence policy unless you have a coherent foreign policy."
I couldn't agree more but as you seem to suggest, Reform will not take us there, but then neither will the Uniparty. Is Heritage or Reclaim likely to?
We need something new, but how can we bring it about?
The Heritage Party manifesto reads well, but is a bit simplistic in places, eg: there is no mention of NATO. The Party embraces PR which to me, is a non-solution to a non-existent problem.
On Sovereignty:
"To truly regain our sovereignty, we must re-think our membership of international organisations and agreements which previous governments have signed. We should remain members of international bodies, treaties and conventions which are beneficial to our national interests, but we should not join or continue to be part of globalist arrangements which dilute our sovereignty and interfere with our democracy by imposing conditions and policies on the nation which the people never voted for. These include the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the World Health Organisation (WHO)."
Is this all just wishful thinking without substance?
“… national sovereignty must be reasserted over the “international rules based order””
Now that’s a tough one! Given the power of the Globalist Elites is it even possible?
If One World Government is the ultimate destination of the Globalist Elites then is that not entirely an undesirable destination? In that scenario there wouldn’t be friction between Governments.
I'm unclear what you are saying. Are you saying that the lack of friction between Governments under One World Government is to be strived for, even if it isn't quite what we would prefer, or what?
Yes, I understand that, but are you saying that the lack of friction between Governments under One World Government is to be strived for, even if it isn't quite what we would prefer, or what?
What I like about Pete's commentary is that he is asking "the insurgent Right" to clarify its positioning, which coherence would help to bring the movement together, singing from the same hymnsheet, consolidating strategic aims and strengthening its influence. We should for example treat with the EU neutrally: they have shown themselves perfectly capable time and again of being friend or enemy (eg France post-Brexit particularly threatening on trade, Ireland leveraging the delicate position in Ulster). There is no benefit in pandering or prostrating to them in the hope of benign treatment, nor crawling to them in expectation of generosity or potential favours. Our interactions with the EU - indeed all countries - should be neighbourly: mutually beneficial; judged strictly on their merits; weighed and measured in profit and loss and how they fit with our national long-term interests and objectives. That is the only basis for the UK's future as an accountable democracy and sovereign nation in an ever-changing multipolar world
"..we need a coherent foreign policy which is linked to trade, immigration, industrial and defence policy.... Ultimately you’ll never have a coherent defence policy unless you have a coherent foreign policy."
I couldn't agree more but as you seem to suggest, Reform will not take us there, but then neither will the Uniparty. Is Heritage or Reclaim likely to?
We need something new, but how can we bring it about?
The Heritage Party manifesto reads well, but is a bit simplistic in places, eg: there is no mention of NATO. The Party embraces PR which to me, is a non-solution to a non-existent problem.
On Sovereignty:
"To truly regain our sovereignty, we must re-think our membership of international organisations and agreements which previous governments have signed. We should remain members of international bodies, treaties and conventions which are beneficial to our national interests, but we should not join or continue to be part of globalist arrangements which dilute our sovereignty and interfere with our democracy by imposing conditions and policies on the nation which the people never voted for. These include the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the World Health Organisation (WHO)."
Is this all just wishful thinking without substance?
“… national sovereignty must be reasserted over the “international rules based order””
Now that’s a tough one! Given the power of the Globalist Elites is it even possible?
If One World Government is the ultimate destination of the Globalist Elites then is that not entirely an undesirable destination? In that scenario there wouldn’t be friction between Governments.
I'm unclear what you are saying. Are you saying that the lack of friction between Governments under One World Government is to be strived for, even if it isn't quite what we would prefer, or what?
I’m referring to One World Government as being a single entity that has absolute sovereignty over the entire globe.
Yes, I understand that, but are you saying that the lack of friction between Governments under One World Government is to be strived for, even if it isn't quite what we would prefer, or what?
I'm confirming with One World Government there wouldn't be another comparable Government to have friction with!