Blog

‘BREXIT – An appeal to the ‘Remainers’

I share this excellent and comprehensive article, in the vain hope that the daft folk, who seem prepared to acquiesce to the throwing away of everything that is precious to the majority of sensible ‘commoners’ – will come to realise that there is more to this momentous decision than the concern of how they will still get their foreign ‘holydays’, their cheese and their wine.

 

 

The Present Situation

The British government has all but failed to fulfil the decision of the British people that the United Kingdom should be taken out of the European Union (aka Brexit). Under the Article 50 process we now have just 50 working days (even fewer Parliament-days, I believe) until the date on which the UK must, by law, leave the EU, that is 29th March 2019.

Our constitutional and political systems are in chaos and nobody has the first idea of the terms under which the UK will leave the EU – known as the Withdrawal Agreement; a sort of ‘divorce’ settlement.

The default position is that if there is no Withdrawal Agreement then, as far as trade between the UK and EU countries is concerned, we shift to World Trade Organisation rules.

In all other respects, the UK will no longer be a member of the European Union.

Like one of those scenes in a ‘Mission Impossible’ movie, where the screen is filled with a big, red LCD timer counting down, and you’re biting your nails to know if Tom Cruise will defuse the nuclear weapon in time, we’re all wondering what will happen on 29 March. Will the UK leave the EU with a deal? Will the UK ‘crash out’ of the EU with no deal? Will somebody pause the clock (extend the Article 50 process)? Will somebody stop the clock (terminate the Article 50 process altogether)? Nobody knows – which is an extraordinary failure of government and politics when you think about it.

The EU Referendum June 2016

Sad perhaps, but I had spent seven years before the EU Referendum of June 2016 teaching myself about the history, culture, workings and ambitions of the European Union. I did so after reading a book in 2009 written by Matthew Elliot, the Co-Founder and then Chief Executive of the Taxpayers’ Alliance (of which I’m a member); the book was entitled The Great European Rip-Off: How the Corrupt, Wasteful EU is Taking Control of Our Lives‘. I finished the book and was horrified. I resolved to find out as much as I could from multiple sources about the EU. The more I researched, the more horrified I became. Marta Andreasen’s ‘Brussels Laid Bare‘ made me shudder, but probably the definitive work on the story of the European Union is a book written and published in 2003 by Christopher Booker and Richard North entitled, ‘The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?‘ I read all 615 pages of this tome and by the end of it had decided that not only was the European Union a pernicious political construct, but also likely eventually – and ironically – to become the cause of the next serious conflict in mainland Europe.

I realised that the European Union was not some kind of benign ‘group-hug’ which existed for the pursuit of children’s happiness, animal welfare and world peace; rather, my research told me that the European Union was in fact the mother-of-all rackets, heavily disguised and cleverly promoted as Nirvana. It won’t surprise you to learn, therefore, that come the EU Referendum, I voted Leave.

The Power of the European Union

The impressive thing about the European Union is that over a generation or so it has seduced member nations through their ruling political and societal elites, establishment institutions, academia, press and media organisations, big business and so on into believing that ceding national sovereignty is synonymous with prosperity. The originators of the European Union founded the institution on the basis that if you play on people’s economic hopes and fears, you can do pretty much as you like with them politically.

We shouldn’t have been surprised, therefore, that the thrust of the Remain campaign in the EU Referendum was not to espouse the untold cultural, political and societal benefits of EU membership, but rather to argue that leaving the European Union would result in economic ruin. Indeed, even now as we approach the 29 March, the British government, the political class, the BBC and much of the mainstream media, big business, Uncle Tom Cobbley and All are telling us that without a Brexit-In-Name-Only (BRINO) Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom is without doubt doomed. Such is the power of the European Union marketing machine; such is its hold on our society after 40-odd years of subservience to its political and legal institutions. Please don’t accuse me of making biased, unfounded assertions here, by the way. Just spend a few years like I did studying the history and workings of the EU for yourself.

What Next?

A couple of years ago, naively perhaps, I thought that UK would indeed leave the European Union, unfettered, on 29 March 2019. Today, I’m not so sure. Indeed, I’m rapidly coming around to the notion that there’s a very real chance that the UK will remain tethered to the European Union in some shape or form: either as a full member (Brexit is cancelled), or with some half-baked associate status, ie BRINO. In this context, I fear that our politicians are right now scheming to put their  EU Referendum II to the electorate. It would sicken me if this came to pass, but I’m what’s known in psychology circles as a ‘Defensive Pessimist’. I look at every situation in which I find myself and ask two questions: ‘What could possibly go wrong here, and how do I mitigate the effects of things going wrong?

From my Leave perspective, EU Referendum II would mean that things had gone horribly wrong. A second referendum would signal above all else that democracy was collapsing in the UK, if it hasn’t collapsed already, looking at the extraordinary antics of our ruling elites this past 2 years and more. A second referendum would signal that the culture of the European Union had indeed infected totally our British political institutions. The EU way is to arrange matters such that if a member nation conducts a referendum and comes up with the wrong result, the people must vote again. Denmark was required to vote again on the Maastricht Treaty; Ireland was required to vote again twice: first on the Nice Treaty and then again on the Lisbon Treaty. As José Manuel Barosso, erstwhile President of the European Commission once said, ‘They must go on voting until they get it right‘. Unbridled arrogance, I’d say.

An Appeal to Remain Voters

The point is that if our politicians succeed in engineering EU Referendum II, what are we supposed to do? Regardless of which way you voted in the EU Referendum, how would you react to being invited to vote again? For you can be sure that EU Referendum II would be constructed to make a Remain outcome a racing certainty, either in the way that the question was framed, or how the debate was controlled (rigged), or both. This is the way that the European Union works, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majorities of the British political class and the establishment are, to all intents and purposes, agents of the European Union; they make no secret of this fact for much of the time. If you throw in the state broadcaster’s bias towards the joys of EU membership (check out News-watch if you’re sceptical about the BBC’s pro-EU bias), then those of us who would like to see the UK leave the European Union would deliberately be heavily outgunned in EU Referendum II.

Reflecting the overall profile of voting in the EU Referendum, I would say that roughly half of my wider family and friends voted Leave, whilst the other half voted Remain. That said, recently a number of my Remain-voting acquaintances have let it be known to me that perhaps being in favour of having the UK governed by a foreign power wasn’t such a great idea after all. We’ve come to see the EU in its true colours over the past couple of years, and we’ve discovered that those colours are more pirate-like Jolly Roger than United Colours of Benetton.

So, here’s my appeal. If you voted Remain in the EU Referendum and are invited to vote again in EU Referendum II, please give serious consideration to placing your cross in whichever box is most likely to result in the UK regaining its sovereignty.

Bear in mind that the power brokers in the European Union are on an avowed mission to create a United States of Europe (‘ever closer union’); to emasculate member states and centralise EU power in the European Commission; to have EU foreign policy take precedence over member nations’ foreign policies; following on from that, to form a European Union Army [PESCO] to enforce EU foreign policy, inimical to NATO, the preserver of peace in Europe since NATO was formed in 1949; to set tax policies across all member states – a policy of taxation without representation; generally to convert sovereign nation states into mere regions of the United States of Europe. It was the Conservative MP Ken Clarke who said, ‘I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe‘.

An Existential Crisis

I hope you can you see that the apparently simple question of whether or not the UK should be a member of what was purported to be a trading bloc, is now in fact an existential crisis for the British people. The European Union absolutely is not a trading bloc. That was the original seductive intention when the European Coal and Steel Community was formed in 1951. Today, however, the European Union is a nascent empire without a demos. In other words, the 500 million people who make up the European Union have no allegiance to the European Union at all. They buy into it primarily, if not solely, for economic reasons.

That was always the intention of the founding fathers, led by the Frenchman Jean Monnet who said, as long ago as April 1952, that:

‘Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people realising what is happening. This can be achieved by successive steps, each disguised as having some ‘economic’ purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to ‘federation’

If you want your country, the United Kingdom, to become nothing more than a ‘region’ of a single European state governed by unelected, unaccountable people like Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, then if EU Referendum II comes to pass, by all means vote Remain. However, if you value everything that the United Kingdom stands for, I appeal to you to vote for the option which will ensure the recovery of our national sovereignty – a precious gem bequeathed to us by generations of blood, treasure and sacrifice.

Those of us who understand what is written here are already working hard to ensure a permanent change for the better in our method of government. Please refer to:

http://www.theharrogateagenda.org.uk

where our SIX DEMANDS for a total reorganisation of UK government are set out. If you care to download and peruse the ‘FLEXCIT’ publication (a pdf 400 pages long, but well worth the time ) or contact us via ‘info@theharrogateagenda.org.uk’ for a copy of the synopsis version entitled ‘The Market Solution’.

With once again a hat-tip to our contributor ‘moraymint’

The Definitive EU Exit Plan for Britain

Working together with ‘The Harrogate Agenda‘, we share a vision for the United Kingdom as a self-governing, self-confident, free trading nation state, releasing the potential of its citizens through direct democratic control at national and local government level, so providing maximum freedom and responsibility for our people.

The history of Britain, for close on a thousand years, has been as a merchant and maritime power, playing a full role in both European and world affairs while living under its own laws. It remains our view today that the UK can flourish again as an independent state, as well as developing other relationships throughout the world as trading patters evolve.

For an age, the UK has freely engaged as an independent country in alliances and treaties with other countries. We have a long history of entering into commercial agreements and conventions at inter-governmental level. This tradition we wish to uphold.

The ability of the people of the United Kingdom to determine their own independent future, and to use our wealth of executive, legislative and judicial experience, to help inspire and shape political developments by means of international bodies (so improving both world trade and enhancing the well-being of all people) remains our aim and purpose; this can, however, only again be possible once we are free of the undemocratic and moribund European Union.

The prosperity of our people depends on being able to fulfill the fundamental need for, and right to, self-determination, allowing us to retake control of both our opportunities and our destiny. With such an international global future comes the ability to swiftly correct and make improvements where errors do occur.

Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people, as they take on greater participation and control of civic duties and public business at both local and national level.

That vision embraces the need to foster a truly sovereign people as the bedrock of a true democracy. If this is a vision you share, come work with us and make first contact via info@livingstones.uk or on the website at http://www.theharrogateagenda.org.uk

How scared should we be?

This was the headline for a post in a recent ‘Spectator‘ publication, as the contributor made a valiant effort to differentiate between ‘doom-mongering’ and ‘common sense’:

‘Food shortages, diabetics going without insulin, outbreaks of salmonella and swine flu: a no-deal Brexit has become a dystopia of the imagination that gives even the Old Testament a run for its money. [Exodus 8:1 – 12:36]. To lend it extra credence, the doomsayers are not muttering men with long white beards but business leaders and figures from respectable-sounding thinktanks.’

The fact is that the nation stands, with bated breath, at a significant point in our history, so tantalising in its possible portent, that the mighty media’s ‘bean counters’ are in danger of overload, so many copies to be sold, so short a turn-round time between each pulsating article.

So here are the options for us, the dithering dollards, who have taken two generations to realise what the ‘European Union’ scheme is really all about .

First time round, when the Austrian ‘painter/decorator’ and his cohorts saw that their plans for territorial aggrandisment were about to crumble, it transpires that there was already a Plan B prepared (couldn’t we do with one of those today??), which could succeed where Plan AH had failed, by offering financial incentive and appealing to the vanity of self-important leaders. Does “You’ve never had it so good!” ring any bells?

Now, second time round, it is no exaggeration to say that we are again being placed on a ‘war’ status. The methods may be modernised but the threats are similar – just the ‘pen’ rather than the ‘sword’ is now being used.

There are, no surprise, two main camps to consider:

ONE – the militant ‘pitchfork and scythe’ brigades, whose seething desire is to burst the gates of Westmonster and send every disagreeable incumbent off to meet his/her Maker.

TWO – the steadier thinkers, equally sincere in their desire to see an end to the ‘Tussles with Brussels’ – to break free from its tiresome tentacles , but at the same time, musing on how best to steer Britannia, once she finally gets clear.

One fact is clear from this persistent parliamentary pantomime – the Party system is killing the once united Kingdom stone dead. We are faced with the same serpent, just wearing a different mask, but, alas, our so-called ‘leaders’ will not desist until they see the whole voting public lying in vassal servitude to a well-organised enemy.

War needs coalition. War calls for unified opposition. If these self-important clowns won’t do it, the populace will have to rally under a different banner. In the days when ‘Junker’ was the name of a high-speed bomber, rather than a ‘two-faced’ drinker -(remember the comment to his tame press corps “I will talk to her, then you can bury the body” – Mrs T would have smashed him in the crotch with her handbag and walked away) – our nation was scared but united. Ration Books saw us through.

As a footnote, let’s suppose the fear-mongers are correct – a NO-DEAL departure will bring some hardship. The human body can survive for three days without any water to no lasting damage, and six weeks without ANY food at all – likewise without lasting detriment. I know this is true, having experienced proper ‘fasting’ (not this current ‘kissing the pavement’ charade); after just three days, the body adjusts, and one feels no more hunger pangs. As the Rastafarian followers say

                        “Those who are in earnest are not afraid of consequences”,

and we know that, as in 1939, we again have RIGHT on our side. Let us then not dither, but steel ourselves against the WRONGDOERS and get ourselves organised in coalition to meet the future. If we accept the Exodus account, 600,000 males plus families left the slavery of Egypt – that’s about the same number as voted for UKIP in 2017 – and the nation is much better than that, so let’s not be shy about rooting out the duplicity within the House.

Please check us out at [www.theharrogateagenda.org.uk] or you can email us at [info@livingstones.uk] for further information.

 

“If you follow what I May mean..”

With a hat-tip to The Slogger – from La Belle France

This morning I was up, out and away early to visit my local tax office. The word ‘local’ is more of a received metaphor than a fact – it takes 40 minutes to drive there. As from January 6th, it’s moving to somewhere 50 minutes away, but this is only a temporary arrangement. After that – some time in 2020 – it’s moving to another place that is two and a half hours drive from here.

I went there because today is a working day, and the internet site promised they were open, so I followed that advice. They weren’t.

The tax I went to pay had been €719 in 2015. Today it is €1488. I went in person not to talk to the fonctionnaires about that, but rather because so far – (a) they have taken directly from my bank account €1360 – (b) then sent me a letter saying there would be a supplement of €128 and then – (c) sent me a bill for €1488. But the person in charge of updating the website’s opening hours forgot to do it.

Last week, a large UK financial institution sent me a letter by express mail saying that I had £00.00 in its Online Saver Account and this had attracted £00.00 interest, which sort of follows. Six months ago they renewed a smart card, and sent it by express for me to sign. I don’t have a Savings Smart Card with them, so that doesn’t follow at all.

Now all of these events will have the AI (artificial intelligence) mob jess a-whoopin’ an’ a-hollerin’ for their product….except that AI is briefed by human intelligence. Human intelligence is not the same as logic, emotional intelligence or compassion, because most bureaucrats lack some of that, and pointy-head geeks lack all of it. Sadly, they are the people briefing the AI software into the robots.

So very soon, nothing will follow. Do you follow?

—————————————————— 

I was quite surprised to learn yesterday that Germany has formally recognized a third gender. This is because I still speak a sprained-to-fractured form of German, and  it has always had three genders – der, die and das – he, she and it.

But the move is to do with people, not language: as from yesterday, Deutschland is once again ‘über alles’ in that it now has three types of citizen – male, female and diverse.

In a previous outing, The Third Reich also had had three typologies of humanity: Aryanische, Untermenschen and Jüdische. It was like the Cleese and Two Ronnies sketch about social status, but with fewer laughs and more concentration camps. However, exceptional Nipponese people with yellow faces were designated honorary Aryans.

Most German ideas do not end well. This has been particularly true of the beloved Führerprinzip that gave us the Austrian asylum-seeker and Merkel – and equally of their open welcome to Islamic refugees, whom Berlin sees as the next generation of Gästarbeiter – whereas the general citizenry has its doubts.

A German bloke who on Monday drove his van into a crowd of Muslims has been designated a ‘Xenophobic killer’ by the media. But the Islamic knife nutter who yesterday severely injured three Brits in Manchester has been filed under ‘possibly terror related’. He was yelling “Allah u Aqbar” – which could just be a major clue to his motive.

‘Migrants’ (a form of behaviour now rapidly becoming a slightly more active form of vagrancy) are eyeing up Blighty as yet another land where welfare is readily available. Desperate infant asylum seekers, unaccompanied by adults, are heading for Britain in droves, and so our Home Secretary Avid Rabid has returned home from his safari jaunt holiday, and immediately ordered two HM Naval destroyers to take up positions in the Channel, because his enemies in the Tory Party forced him to do so.

He appeared to think that the ships were being deployed to stop criminals from smuggling rings into England. However, The Slog can exclusively reveal that, actually, the issue is the smuggling of discerning criminals, not rings.

Having realized that there were not always nice people involved in this issue, Belovid Jihavid said he doubted the motives of those unwilling to accept the first safe haven they found, and affirmed that the sending of warships to the area would send a strong message to those migrants who would, naturally, be processed in the normal way on arrival in Britain.

The discernment of these ne’er-do-wells is to be admired given that – just like those who rejected Greece, Hungary and Italy on their way towards Germany – they have not allowed their desperation to lower their level of aspiration. Having found France less than welcoming, they now stoically sail towards our Sceptred Isles.

Surely it is our duty to welcome shrewd folk with open arms. Our banking system, for example, will always have vacancies for those with such an obviously ambitious focus.

Do you follow?

—————————————————— 

That sort of gritty determination is what sets Theresa May apart from the general run of political leader, because she and she alone alone leads by following.

Our Prime Minister has been following EU leaders around from Pilau to Positano – from the yacht moorings of the Virgin Islands to the deregulated sands of the Bahamas – in an unstinting and unsparing pursuit of the unspeakable. Indeed, such has been her indefatigable prostration, NASA has decided to rename its next Voyager Probe ‘ComeWhatMay’ – in recognition of her ability to find a lump of ice somewhere way beyond Pluto, and conclude that it is warming to her Chequers Plan.

Optimistic as ever, I present here the full text of her New Year’s message in the hope that somebody somewhere waiting for a pension, a bus, an operation, a Brexit, a direction or a star to fall – might find inspiration in her avowed exculpation:

“My fellow Britannic Europeans, we must now come together and follow each other in order to turn the third sharp corner that lies ahead, leading directly back to where we were before my spineless predecessor asked The People what they wanted, and they gave the wrong answer. You followed your own personal thoughts, adding up to a risible majority. And where did that get us? Getting on for three years of chaos before reason prevailed.

“So now is the time to follow a leader who follows all the important leaders and ignores divisive extremists. Now is the time to Leave on a bold new journey with zero risk – and Remain in the safety of our port of departure, minus only the cargo and the Captain”.

The choice is yours, fellow citizens. Do you follow?

The Chartists Revisited

“When the State calls for defenders, when it calls for money, no consideration of poverty or ignorance can be pleaded, in refusal or delay of the call. Required, as we then are universally, to support and obey the State laws, both nature and reason must entitle US to demand that, in the making of those laws, the universal voice shall be implicitly listened to. If we perform the duties of freemen/women, we MUST have the privileges of freemen/women”

Cited here as an extract from the original Chartists’ petition of 1836

Whilst here, at LIVINGSTONES UK, we are busy drawing together INDEPENDENT candidates, for every constituency seat in the UK, we confirm that we are also happy to endorse and support the work of The Harrogate Agenda, in continuing the cause of our 19th C predecessors, to once more reform the now crippled democratic system in the UK.

It is clear to most mature UK citizens that there is public anger at the brazen betrayal, over the course of the past 40-odd years, of our nation’s sovereignty, democracy, judiciary and military status – to an unelected body of intruders. Understandable too is the desire of many thousands to ‘storm the ramparts of Westmonster’ and ‘sort things out’.

We should, however, also have a clear Plan B in mind; exactly what is our next step, after the ‘pitchforks and scythes’ brigade have done their worst? The following SIX DEMANDS are here presented, to show what is needed, if the nation’s wounds are then to be healed.

  1. Recognition of our sovereignty: the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland comprise the ultimate authority of their respective nations, where they themselves are still the source of all political power. That fact shall be recognized by both the Crown and the Governments of our nations, as by our Parliaments and Assemblies.
  2. Real local democracy; the foundation of our democracy shall be the counties (or such other local units as may be defined) which shall become constitutional bodies, exercising, under the control of their local peoples, all those powers of legislation, taxation and administration, which may not otherwise have been specifically granted, by the people, to national government.
  3. Separation of powers; the executive (the Government) shall be separated from the legislature (the Parliament). To that effect, prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; they will then appoint their own ministers, (albeit with the approval of parliament), to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. No prime minister, nor their ministers, shall also be members of parliament or of any legislative assembly.
  4. The people’s consent; no law, treaty or government decision shall take effect without the declared consent of the majority of the people, (by positive vote, if so demanded), nor shall any such decision continue to have effect where that consent may have been withdrawn by the majority of the people.
  5. No taxation or spending without consent; no tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorized, nor shall any sum be borrowed by any national or local government body, except with the express approval of the majority of the people, to be renewed annually on presentation of a budget, which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures.
  6. A constitutional convention; Once members of the executive are excluded, Parliament must host a constitutional convention to draw up a definitive codified constitution for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It shall recognize their sovereign status and their inherent, inalienable rights and shall be subject to their approval.

Please give serious thought to these Agenda demands, and make contact  for further details via

‘info@theharrogateagenda.org.uk’

or the website address

http://www.theharrogateagenda.org.uk.

We also recommend that you follow the daily blog of Dr Richard North – to be found at http://www.eureferendum.com – for a grown-up approach to sorting out this confused mess.

‘A Merry Brexmas and a Deja vu Year’

Posted with permission from the writer, John Ward

The early Christmas present you’ve all been waiting for: the complete print out and keep guide to Theresa May’s Long & Winding rock n roll Road Show to nowhere.

Theresa May has learned nothing from her General Election débacle. Strong and Stable as a mantra has been replaced by The only deal available that defends British jobs gives us back control of our borders and honours the 2016 Referendum. It’s longer, but none the wiser.

Its other flaw is in being completely false. As a threader here remarked yesterday, “She has negotiated a Withdrawal Agreement which is neither a withdrawal nor an agreement”. That is indeed true. But as ever, she is convinced that if she repeats it enough, people will come to believe in it.

If only I could be nicer about the rentagobs who disagree with her. I watched yesterday morning as Baron Astonish burbled on at Adam Boulton: it was the Baron’s best illustration yet that he is a man in need of mental help. He discussed six separate aspects of the Whadawedonext debate, and concluded for each, “This is the sole reason we are in this mess”. To be able to divide one into six and get one as the answer is as certain a sign as you’ll ever see of madness.

The equally bald but even more gobby bloke standing next to Admonish was not so much mad as muddled. He was, he insisted, a believer in democracy, and thus felt the Second Referendum was the only way to go. Boulton needled him only slightly on this obvious cognitive dissonance before Baldy2 said – in a zero irony response – that “What we need is for the People to decide what sort of Second Referendum they need”.

“You see Minister,” said Sir Humphrey, “the People need to tell themselves what kind of referendum they need by voting about what they want to say next time, prior to reaffirming in a third referendum what they said the first time.”

As the May Commons update approached yesterday, Jeremy Corbyn announced that he would call a non-binding vote of no confidence in Mrs May rather than the Government, but then almost immediately dropped the idea. Even the ghost of Sir Humphrey would struggle with that episode, but let’s see how he manages it, with his usual wry smile:

“Minister, Mr Corbyn is merely signalling that he has confidence in Mrs May’s ability to inadvertently screw the EU which he hates although for tactical reasons must pretend he likes but equally doesn’t want to be handed a crown of thorns with a chalice of poisoned wine by becoming Prime Minister just yet, and so wants to be assured that in the unlikely event of him winning such a vote of no confidence only Mrs May would go, thus leaving the Conservative Party in a pickle clumsily wrapped in fibreglass which he can then condemn at PMQs every Wednesday, however at the last minute John McDonnell told him the idea is to go for a Second Referendum and so, being a man of rigid principle, unstinting consistency – but chiefly inestimable survival wisdom – Her Majesty’s Leader of the Opposition bowed to his advisers”.

Came the hour, came the Daft Mare. Some are born to be leaders, some have leadership thrust upon them, and some steal leadership from others vastly better qualified than they. Mrs May told us that the vote she backed out of on December 11th will now take place – with Commons debates beforehand – on January 14th.

What is likely to happen between then and now, apart from Christmas?

The Prime Minister told the Commons:

“I know this House is still deeply uncomfortable about the backstop. And I understand that. And I want us to go further still in the reassurances we secure. Discussions with my EU partners – including Presidents Tusk, Juncker and others – have shown that further clarification following the Council’s conclusions is in fact possible. So discussions are continuing to explore further political and legal assurances.”

Sir Humphrey intervenes once more:

“Minister, it is important always to remember that a backstop is really nothing more than (if I might put into words what the Prime Minister said) what insurance companies never want to insure against, that is – something which seems very unlikely to happen but always does. It is clear that the Prime Minister believes – while it has been emphatically stated by Brussels that no such possibilities exist – certain plausible but meaningless clarifications might be forthcoming. This could mean, more or less, that a meaningful vote can occur on January 14th about meaningless side letters in such a manner as to reassure persons of a less than discerning nature that continuing explorations of assurances are in fact meaningful and thus likely to bring concrete meaning to hitherto and to fore ethereal considerations.”

I make only one firm and convinced prediction about what will happen in due course: somebody with gumption and a sharp mind will write a script about this saga when it finally comes to some sort of end, and Hollywood will be falling over its knickers to buy the rights*.

I nominate Helen Mirren to play May, John Slattery to play Corbyn, Corbyn to play Sir Humphrey Appleby, Diane Abbott to play silly buggers with the statistics, and Billy Bragg in a cameo role as the inevitable busker singing All Around my Hat outside the railings of Downing Street.

But while we’re waiting for that End Game, whassnext?

—————————————————————- 

Several million citizens appear to think that the next major event will be full-on Armageddon….and have begun panic buying. Apart from the likelihood of most of them being Remaindeer, I am at a loss to know why. Whatever the answer, this has hilariously coincided with a decision by Britain’s retailers to slash prices, the hard up British consumer seemingly displaying little interest thus far in the Christmas splurge. So now, websites and shops are heaving with dingbat Remain flappy-bottoms and Leave bargain hunters.

Rather than being a movie in real time, the Parliamentary process is taking on all the features of a third-rate amdram provincial pantomime. Yesterday we had “Oh yes he will/won’t!” shouted by Corbyn Labour, and today his ugly sister across the divide is taunting with “Oh no you daren’t!”, to which the Peter Pan lad isself insists, “Oh yes I do….look behind you!”

But behind She Who Must be Obeyed, the rebels have shot their bolt, and Labour knows it. Corbyn himself admits the motion will fail….and there aren’t anywhere near enough Tories prepared to put Nation before Party and vote with the Opposition. The sad reality is that, behind the Ugly Sister herself, there are 280+ equally wart-riddled Uglies who want to put off the inevitable burning of their backsides.

The Conservative Party wants to have the cake and eat it too – and those with double standards always want double helpings. What we should have is a General Election once the Withdrawal Bill fails again on January 14th. But we won’t.

Yet again however – and this is so typical of May – she has boxed herself into a corner by openly insisting several times on camera that a second referendum would not solve anything, and represent an insult to democracy. In truth, what she fears is that Leave would win another victory, and force her into a “harder” Brexit….something, as a dyed in the wool geopolitical Remainoid, she is anxious to avoid at all costs.

My suspicion is that she will try one or both of two tactics to keep the clock ticking nicely down towards Brexit-Day, by when a Government (not necessarily hers) will ask for cooperation from Labour Remainers to achieve an extension to Article 50.

First, between now and January 6th (ish), Whitehall will look – in concert with their oppos in Brussels – to come up with a form of comfort side-letter suggesting that only a plague of boils would trigger the backstop. This will be leaked to the press in its best light, and declared by both UK, European and US media as the Big Breakthrough for which we’ve all been waiting….and scrape through the Commons on the 14th.

For myself, I  don’t think a convincing ‘budge’ by the Eurocrats will be forthcoming – and even if it was, I doubt if it would have a snowball in Hell’s chance of getting a Commons majority without being so mauled, it would then be unacceptable to the Sprouts. (Bear in mind that Dominic Grieve has already clearly established Parliament’s right to add amendments and change content that alters the substance previously negotiated by Überstürmbannfuhrer Robbins in Brussels).

Second, once the Bill fails, May will (I’m sure) give yet another speech about her “unsparing” determination to carry on negotiations, hoping again to keep running down the clock.

I have a sneaking hunch, however, that behind the public facade, the Remain candidates for her job have no desire to get another year of Theresa May. I think there is every possibility that she will face a Remainer Cabinet revolt forcing her to resign (if she resigns, the Tories can have another leadership contest) – and she will give way to another Remainer PM….who will call for an extension to Article 50, get that through Parliament relatively easily, and then….and then….God only knows.

—————————————————————- 

Once the ides of March are upon us – and Brexit is looking increasingly remote – probably one or more of two major events will occur.

First, the Blairite breakaway from Corbyn Labour will probably have happened. And second, the Faragist anti-Brexit Party will almost certainly be launched.

There is also a third matter – the political career of Boris Johnson. If he were to join forces with Nigel Farage, there could be serious chance of other Tories following, and a bloc of ‘Independence’ seats created in Parliament if and when another election is called, or by elections occur.

Last but not least, there is the econo-fiscal storm still brewing around the world that might itself be triggered by eurozone crises in one for or another. That crisis is, I still maintain, infinitely more important than anything served up by a bunch of tin-pot dictators in Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt.

For the time being, I recommend taking the kids to a real pantomime and forgetting Brexit entirely until Boxing Day is behind us.


Comment        Like

Authority or Slavery?

Attached below is a small extract from Locke’s clear analysis of ‘Authority’ – in all aspects similar to what had been conceived by the Barons of England, 400 years earlier, and to which the then monarch, King John (Lackland), gave his consent at Runnymede.

Article 61 could not have been more definitely expressed.

(With apologies to the 17th Century textual definition of ‘authority versus slavery’, we have reproduced it here in slightly modernised vocabulary. Just because a truth becomes aged, it does not thereby become false.)

“Whenever the Legislators may attempt to take away, and destroy, the Property of the People, or try to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any further Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence.

Whenever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, conspire to grasp for themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People, then;

By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, which the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and the Power then devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

(John Locke (1632-1704) – Two Treatises of Government) – (Magna Carta Article 61).

These then, are the foundational principles upon which our nation had relied, and grown strong in the world, for the following 750 years, until our civil representative, the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, took it upon himself to lead the public astray by introducing a foreign element.

There is clear documentary evidence, well understood by those who have taken the time and trouble to unearth it, that the man Heath knew exactly what his decision entailed, knew which foreign elements were actually going to be involved, and why they were offering to the then Tory government something which was to be presented in the guise of an ‘economic’ benefit to all concerned. (See banner statement above this page)

Here we are now, 45 years on, our national slumber finally disturbed, our spirits aroused at the arrogance and intransigence of the same political party’s continued determination to force upon a free nation such slavery as was, and which remains, totally contradictory to everything upon which our British nation still (currently) stands.

The democratic vote, on Thursday 23rd June 2016, has split the nation into two camps, those who have seen the Light – and those who seem intent on throwing a large dark blanket over it.

There were 323 Members of Parliament (MP) supporting the Tory cause, and no-one seems keen to mention that 138 of these had seen the Light, and had voted with their conscience to LEAVE the European Union (EU).

On the other side of the Chamber there were 228 Labour MPs, of which, apparently, only 10 (ten) were sensible enough to see what is going on and to vote ENOUGH, the remainder happy to continue hiding under a (red) blanket.

For those of you who are paying attention, we are then left with a rag-tag assortment, (99 in number) which, with just ONE notable exception, seem determined to hang on to the EU coat-tails, or had sent in a ‘sick-note’ on the day of the Referendum Vote.

We know now that, of the general public, some six million Red Flag adherents also voted OUT, which contrasts sharply with their Party position. When the word this weekend got out that Mrs Mayhem is sniffing around, undemocratically, for so-called cross-party support for what has become ‘HER’ Brexit deal, we can conclude that Party Politics is dead.

Those of us, who do not agree with Richard Dawkins’s theory that we all took X-billion years to develop a conscience, will now be fasting, watching and praying that Truth will prevail over Lies, that Light will overcome Darkness, as we wrestle to get our country’s head out of the ‘tiger’s’ mouth.