Friday, 23 November 2018


There's a bit of fluff in the News that Nigel Farage has criticised the current leader of UKIP Gerard Batten for appointing Tommy Robinson as an advisor on Muslim Rape gangs and Prison Issues.

Now firstly, Tommy is most eminently qualified on those matters having spent more than a decade shouting from the rooftops about grooming gangs. He has also been put in prison both legally and illegally by the UK justice system. So he knows a bit about that too.

Now, I agree with Gerard that Tommy is probably the most qualified person to advise on these matters, I don't agree with Nigel that we should not discuss these matters at all. Muslim integration will be a major topic in the near future. No-one is talking now, it needs to be debated.

Where I have issue with Gerard is the timing. This news and Tommy's appointment should really have happened after the 29th of March. Gerard could have done any number of deals with Tommy quietly, sworn all parties to secrecy, whatever. But the week of the release of the transition/withdrawl agreement is not the time.

So in my books both have made errors in this respect. Nigel for stating categorically that the issue of Muslim multiculturalism is off the table and Gerard for the timing.

Nigel needs to spend a bit more time with the working class and get away from London a bit more and talk to his grass-roots UKIP supporters and Gerard needs to be a bit more politically savvy.

As it is, I hope the news doesn't distract UKIP from the job of setting politicians straight on the terms of Theresa may's so-called "deal". Capitulation is a better word. Or if you need a phrase how's about  "Minimum Legal Definition of Brexit".

It's quite clear that the referendum question framed in general terms "Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU" gave a lot of room for weaselly legal interpretation.

During the debate before the referendum we were told that leaving the EU also included leaving the customs union, single market, free movement of people and the primacy of the ECJ.

What UKIP need to be stating categorically is that the withdrawl agreement is NOT what we were told what voting to leave would entail. We voted to leave based what we had been told prior to the referendum including the government's £9m leafletting campaign.

UKIP need to be banging this home on every media outlet they can get on, not squabbling about taking someone as an advisor. That's the priority over the next few months.

Thursday, 22 November 2018

The Transition Agreement; a Massive Betrayal.

Well as more comes out of the 500-odd pages of the transition agreement, the more evidence comes out of the complete lack of "negotiation" that has been going on over the past two years.

We have no unilateral exit option (so no article 50 equivalent), we have signed over rights to our fishing grounds, Spain gets control of Gibraltar's airport, locked into the customs union and single market without representation in the EU, continuing primacy of the ECJ, parity on tariffs, compliance on standards, payment of £39Bn for no concessions, the list goes on.

The agreement is not Brexit. It  is a small step away for EU representation but all the other baggage remains. It's the smallest step the government could do towards leaving. It is not leaving because the majority of EU rules, regulations, laws, justice, etc. remain in place.

Basically it satisfies the smallest legal definition of leaving the EU organisations, but it does not remove the UK from the influence of the EU. Very fucking weaselly.

In fact the only thing we remove outselves from is the ability to have any influence within the EU. Remember the phrase "be careful what you wish for"? Thise deal represents that in spades.

It's as if the Government, Parlaiment and the Civil Service said "Oh you want to leave the EU eh? Well fuck you, we'll make it as difficult, as hard and possible and give you as little as we can get away with.

Rather than negotiate from the position of "fully out" and then get the EU to concede points in order for them to trade with us, the government and civil service teams have started from a "fully in" position and then conceded on every point in an attempt to stay as "in" as possible.

The best analogy I can think of is if an adult asked a child to move away from a plug socket and they moved a centimetre further away, but didn't move across the room just to spite the adult.

It just isn't a full exit from the EU.

It's not what I voted for.

And I just wonder, what concessions to leavers would the government have made had the vote been 52/48 in favour of remaining. Yep, fuck all. So why are remainers getting so many concessions in this deal?

The Elite are such sore losers...

Maybe the Brexiteer majority need to give the elite child a big fucking slap, top show them who is calling the shots. Let them get away with this and you can kiss democracy goodbye for ever.

How do you give them a slap? Don't vote for their representatives in Parliament. Vote someone else in. Anyone else, whether it's someone from UKIP, an independent, just anyone as long as it is not a current sitting MP.

Brexit Betrayal March

There is a "Brexit Betrayal" march in London on the 9th of December. I urge anyone that is disgusted with the non-Brexit agreement that Theresa May has come up with to attend.

Unfortunately I fly out to Dubai the day before, so I'll miss it.

But if you understand that the agreement presented to Parliament is not in any way shape or form the Exit from the EU, the customs unit and single market we were promised, then get to London for the March.

Lets put the Remain side to shame.and get numbers marching through London that show in no uncertain terms that we do not agree with the betrayal of the Brexit vote that this agreement signifies.

Monday, 19 November 2018

What The Fuck... This Brexit Business gets Weirder and weirder Dominic Raab Interview

Okay, just watch this video of the Dominic Raab interview on the BBCs Andrew Marr programme.

Questions instantly come to mind:

Of the changes to the transition agreement:

How can the changes be made to the Transition agreement without his knowledge?

Who has the authority to go above the minister in charge?

Who are they working for?

Who authorised and signed off on the changes?

What political mandate do they have? i.e. are they an elected official or unelected?

Of his support for Theresa May:

Why the Fuck Would he?

What has She got over this cabal of spineless pricks in the Conservative Party?

EU Land Grab

I think I mentioned this before a while back, but the "Issue" of Ireland being promoted by the EU is nothing more than a land grab.

They've tried it in the East with Ukraine (and rightly pissed off the Russians) and now they are trying it on with Northern Ireland.

Basically it's attached to Southern Ireland, so they want it and it's citizens to be under EU control. Any excuse to keep land along with the added advantage of giving the British a bloody nose.

Well, fuck 'em. Let's have a hard no-deal Brexit. Let's make it a bloody difficult for them to ship goods to us as possible.

And that's the thing: on TV debates, it's always about OUR trading with the EU, but never about THEIR trading with us. They trade more with us than we do with them.

Currently they have tyhe upper hand and the agreement favours the EU. That's if we accept it. But no-one in their right mind would accept such a poor deal for the UK. If we reject it, the EU would suffer more than us and to be honest because they have pushed such a punitive deal on us, they deserve to lose out.  The EU technocrats are crowing that this is the deal, there is no re-negotiation. They forget the resolve of the British.

So lets reject the deal and force them back to the table.

I've already emailed my MP (Alan Mak, Conservative, remainer) requesting that he reject the deal.