Removal of Dissent to One World Government and a Realisation of Who Globalists Really Are.

For a long time I've suspected that the Powers that drive the "One World Government" Globalist agenda are financing dissenting voices, but only on their terms.

A new example of this is Mark Steyn on the GB News channel and his refusal to return based on new contract terms handed to him that basically make him liable for the outcome of any "wrong-speak".

I've seen a trend for various actors to pop up as the "True Voice of Conservatism" and sound like they mean it, but several times when they come close to delivering a true alternative to the OWG/WEF, fail to deliver. 

GB News is just the latest in a long line of fake Conservative platforms and political parties.

I'd lump in Nigel Farage in with that, because when he came so close to winning, he quit. I understand he wanted Brexit, but after getting the referendum vote, he just up and quit. He could have ridden that wave all the way to the 2019 election and could and should have had an MP in Parliament, especially after the actions of MPs after the Brexit vote to weaken it with second referendums, constitutional malfeasance, etc.

Nope, he copped out and left. Then he created a new party, the Brexit (later Reform) party in competition with UKIP. Splitting the Brexit vote further. That's not the actions of a person that wants to win.

Now we have UKIP, Reform and Reclaim all vying for the same votes, weakening the anti-Globalist vote. Even David Kurten (ex-UKIP) has jumped in and formed the Heritage party FFS.

Not one party has bitten their tongue and agreed to form an anti-Globalist alliance. Too many egos? No idea, but the sponsors of these parties, if they really believed in the cause would knock heads together and push for a unified party.

It's almost like it's a deliberate policy to keep those of us wanting an end to globalism tied up and forever muted, because our split vote will never overcome the pro-globalist united front of the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties. (Yes, whichever one of the main parties you vote for, neither of them will change the course of the country).

Well GB News viewers, UKIP, Reform and Reclaim voters, enjoy the prison your globalist sponsors have created for you. A prison where various actors promise sunny uplands, better times ahead and a dissenting voice to the globalist narrative. But never, ever deliver their promise. Almost like the carrot on the stick in front of the Donkey. You never get the prize.

Don't forget, Turkeys don't vote from Christmas, and very rich political donors are very likely to be Globalists, not anti-globalists.

Oh you might say, we got Brexit done. And it's true, the Globalist's eyes were like saucers on the day of the result. 

But now I believe Brexit has been given some ulterior motive for the globalists. I haven't quite worked it out yet, but the detail is in the various agreements made with the EU. I suspect that for some Globalists a United Ireland and an end to the issues there would be an advantage. Also fomenting the separatist movement of the SNP in Scotland is another way to neuter the UK. 

By watering down Brexit and making it as bad as it can be, it forces us to either re-enter the globalist cabal, or we end up torn apart and neutered. 

Why would a neutered UK be of interest to the one-world-government types? Could it be revenge?

Globalism and Globalists in general are very dangerous people and you need to understand how dangerous they are. They are willing to kill millions of people, they are willing to crush major countries. They want the World. One World, One Party, One Government. 

Now that sounds familiar.... where have I heard something like that before?

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

Ah, that's where. Definitely revenge then...

I understand why the acolytes of the globalists follow them. It was an attractive ideology back in the 1940s and it's an attractive ideology now. The idea that you are above all, you belong to the elite, a super-race, among the supposed super-intelligent. Back in the Germany of the 1930's the Germans put themselves as a race above others in a similar way. 

Germany had superior ideas, superior scientists, superior technology. Sound familiar to the Globalist ideology? The science is settled, we own the science, do as we say...

As I said, VERY dangerous people, these Globalists.

The One-World-Government Globalists Fight against the UK public After Brexit.

Since the end of World War 2, there has been a pressure from the elites towards a one-world government.

Both World Wars had proved to the elites that although war provides lots of opportunities to make money, it would be a better idea not to ride the peaks and troughs of war and peace and instead have a long period of peace and expand markets to unify the trading world.

The great depression was the wake up call that solidified their desire to sort the world out as soon as they could.

The birth of the United Nations was a step towards the goal of one-world government as all Nations signed up and effectively became subservient to it. It also spawned other organisations to standardise regulations, standards and the like. 

Initially it sounds like a good idea and most of the time it is, or was.

For instance global standards make global trade easier (think shipping containers, they are the same all over the world) and any new market that wanted a piece of the action had to fall in line, because if they came up with their own standards their market would fail. No one wants to try and fit a 15 or 25 foot container onto a ship designed to take 20 and 40 foot containers. No one wants to have to buy a new mobile phone when they arrive in a new country because they work differently. See, it's convenient.

Other regional organisations like the EU were formed and countries joined and benefitted from shared standards, measurements, legal procedures, etc. trade could flow seamlessly everywhere.

But, where the elites went too far is political unions. To them it's the next logical steep. First you become a trading union, then in order to solve disputes across borders, you layer a legal union on top to regulate it all.

And that's where the EU was up to the Nineties. Then at the end of the eighties and early nineties there was a call for a political union. after all, the trading and legal unions had been successful, so why not political union?

But here's where the elites went too far. They decided that getting (say) the whole of Europe to vote for a European parliament, with twenty or thirty different countries wanting different things, they would engineer a solution that would.... smooth out the process and remove pesky democracy and accountability from the equation.

Thus the European parliament didn't have any real power to create laws. Instead a higher organisation called the European council, made up of representatives put forward by European politicians would make the laws, to then be handed down to the Parliament to discuss and eventually ratify. Effectively beaurocrats, not elected politicians created the legislation and laws, they got handed to the Parliament to accept and then they would be signed into law by the member countries.

But this irked the people of the United Kingdom, because their tradition of common law is entirely different than that in most European countries. In Europe they tend to sign up to Napoleonic or permissive law, which means that everything is illegal, except that which the government allows you to do. In the UK the tradition is you are free to do anything you like except that which the government (elected by the people) deems to be harmful to the majority. 

The UK system of law is more flexible than the European one, and the UK has gained competitive advantages by having such a system. By comparison the EU legal model seems clunky and overbearing. You have to wait to get permission for something before it can be considered legal and you risk committing money to it.

The British never felt easy with the European legislative model. The lack of direct accountability, the inability to vote for the people making the laws, the fact that the legal framework was restrictive and peered into ever more areas of our lives, when we had been used to just getting on with things without government interference, came to a head in 2016.

In the years running up to 2016, a certain Mr Nigel Farage had run a successful subversive campaign to disrupt the EU by using their own rules against them. The elections to the European parliament were done by proportional representation. So all he had to do was get a proportion of the people to vote for his party (UKIP) and he would get seats allotted to it in the European Parliament.

While there he highlighted the futility of the Parliamentary organisation. The lack of real democratic accountability by the council the inability to refuse laws provided to the EU Parliament. In effect it was a talking shop, a façade providing an illusion of democracy. 

As an aside, this is how the elites control things. They provide the illusion of democracy, but when you peer closely at what is happening, you see behind the facade  and you don't see democracy. Not as we know it in the English legal sense.

Anyway, Ol' Nige puts so much pressure on the UK government with news of a European Army, an Eu-wide tax, etc. that the UK government takes a risky move. They announce a referendum on EU membership. A referendum they believe they can win. After all they have control of the media, most of the politicians are in favour of the EU political edifice and well, Nigel Farage is just a windbag and doesn't have the support of the nation. He's tried to get elected to parliament a number of times and failed. The elites thought they could manipulate the result without anyone knowing.

And then we voted in the referendum.

The shock on the faces of the Politicians was clear. The people in the media reading out the result were ashen. Whet was supposed to be a foregone conclusion was turned against them. Not by much: 52% for leaving, 48% for remaining. 

The elites didn't like it. Something, anything had to be done. So, there followed months of plots against Brexit and the people of the UK.

In Parliament there was unprecedented behaviour as Politicians tried to get a second referendum agreed. A second referendum in which we would vote the correct way. The shenannigans inside and outside Parliament caused a constitutional crisis. The Government was taken to court again and again, in order to try and force it not to enact Brexit.

The people saw this rightly as undemocratic.

Theresa May, the Prime Minister at the time, appointed a Brexit negotiator, David Davis. He was so good he negotiated a Brexit deal very favourable to the UK.

Theresa May eventually called a summit at Chequers and instead of enacting Davis' carefully crafted and skilfully negotiated Brexit deal, she decided to go with a deal decided behind Davis' back in a few days. It was horrific. MPs were called to chequers to sign off on the terms of the May deal. If they didn't they would be sacked and would have the ignominy of ministerial cars removed from them. They would have to walk down the mile-long drive of Chequers to the road, where hundreds of reporters were waiting.

Davis resigned that evening after taking the trip home in the ministerial car.

The cat was out of the bag and the terms of the May deal so far negotiated effectively handed power in the UK over to Europe. Northern Ireland was effectively annexed by the EU so it didn't quite belong to the UK any more.

Luckily enough there were enough Conservative MPs in Parliament that supported Brexit to oust Theresa May and install Boris Johnson as PM.

He promised a better Brexit deal. The people believed him and in 2019 the people gave him a landslide victory in the election with an 80-seat majority. 80 seats. That majority allowed him to get any legislation liked through parliament.

But instead the globalist EU lovers immediately started plotting against him. I'm even convinced his then girlfriend and eventual wife was installed deliberately in order to give him bad advice.

Numerous stories of his previous infidelities hit the news - none stuck. Ministers that he had installed were likewise compromised and removed from office, leaving him only globalists to pick from to fill the cabinet.

Then Covid hit. The whole time Boris was given unsound advice. Initially the health "experts" prattled on about natural immunity and kept the borders open. Only after Covid was established inside the UK was natural immunity was a taboo subject. The UK government saw the death toll in Italy unaware that the virus had been in that country for months and locked the country down.

Globalist chancellor Rishi Sunak began borrowing money to pay people to sit at home. A radical idea that initially saved and then later ruined the country.

Boris and the UK muddled through Covid, but then once the dust had settled and the virus was almost beaten, the briefing against him started again. This time he had had a party in number 10 whilst he had enacted laws that kept everyone else in their homes and away from loved ones in hospital. 

When his chancellor Rishi Sunak failed to support him, Boris eventually resigned and we endured last summer's tortuous and orchestrated Tory party leadership contest. Orchestrated so that the final two candidates were: The Globalist Rishi Sunak and the politically naïve Liz Truss. 

Liz Truss pledged to reduce taxes and and return to Conservative values. Sunak promised more free money.

Truss won the contest, became PM and almost immediately the globalists started briefing against her. The only respite being the two weeks of mourning after the Queen died.

As soon as the Queen was buried, the plotting restarted.

Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng, her chancellor came up with a radical emergency budget. They would freeze energy prices for two tears by paying the difference between the price being paid now and the price being charged by the supplier. They also stopped a raise in corporation tax, a measure that would have helped small to medium businesses recover after Covid.

Then Truss and/or Kwarteng made a mistake. They listened to their globalist partners. The globalists said they wanted a cut in the top rate of tax. If they got that, they would ease the pressure and Truss could continue helping those in dire straits due to rising energy prices.

It was a trap. Immediately they implemented the budget, the dropping of the top rate of tax was used as a cudgel to beat Kwarteng and Truss. Under pressure she fired her chancellor. In his place was  put the globalist Jeremy Hunt. Then it was quite clear that Truss was doomed. She'd fallen for the trap and been outmanoeuvred by the globalists. Then the home secretary Suella Braverman also went, replaced by globalist Grant Schapps.

It was quite clear that Truss had been beaten politically. A couple of days ago she resigned as well.

Now the Tories are having another leadership contest. The contenders are Globalist Rishi Sunak (again), Boris Johnson (again) and Globalist Penny Mordaunt.

See the picture emerging?

Since 2016 and their miscalculation, the globalists have burned this country to the ground politically in order to try and get us back on their globalist track. 

We are now left with two globalists and Boris, whom they've already outmanoeuvred once. 

I'm sorry to say the Brexiteers, the ordinary folk may have lost the political war. Since 2016 the political elites and their friends in the media have fought tooth and nail to reverse Brexit. They have schemed and plotted for six years now.

If you wonder why it feels like politics isn't working for the little guy, the ordinary person and even working against you, this is why. You are not mad, you are not alone. 

We will most likely find in a couple of weeks we have a globalist Prime Minister and a Globalist cabinet. I've a feeling we will see amnesties for illegal immigrants, we'll see wages suppressed, inflation will be bad and we'll be bled dry. 

The government will help, but will require it's pound of flesh in return. That's what the globalists want. they want you to be ever thankful for their intervention. All they want in return is your freedom.

Hey Joe Biden, Fuck You!

 As above.

As two sovereign countries, the UK and Ireland can work out our own borders thank you. We don't need lessons from sleepy ol' dementia Joe.

If the EU force Ireland to impose a hard border, then so be it. We don't care either way, just so long as we're out of the EU.

You know, that thing we voted for in a democratic election. Not that you'd know much about those, eh Joe?

The Absolute Contempt of The Political Elite.

The contempt of the Political Elite knows no bounds. Here in the UK we had 3 years of the elites trying to overturn the referendum result to leave the EU. Three years in which they used Parliament in league with the speaker of the house John Bercow to try and reverse the Brexit vote.

After seemingly siding with the voting population and enabling article 50. It's almost as if they knew a general election was coming up later in 2017.

However, after enabling article 50 and then saying they would honour the referendum result in the election of 2017, we had attempt after attempt to try and get a second referendum, they tied Parliament up in knots refusing any legislation to leave the EU. Some MPs changed sides or created new parties and basically shat on the voters that put then into Westminster.

We even had non-politicians involving themselves in the political process. Gina Miller used the courts to give MPs a say in the process, which spectacularly backfired on her. She was also involved in the case to prevent the proroguing of Parliament. For 5 extra days. Having won that case, Parliament sat for that extra week and used the time to do sweet F.A. Well worth taxpayers money to defend in court and pay the attendance money to the MPS and Lords.

Parliament for two years was a shambles, brought about by the political elite in the UK refusing to accept the decision of the people. MPs thought they knew better, they thought the people had made the wrong choice.

THAT DECISION WAS NOT FOR THEM TO MAKE. THE PEOPLE HAD SPOKEN.

Of course 2016 had another bombshell popular vote. The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the USA.

And again, the political elites on both sides of the political spectrum in the US were appalled. How could a non-politician be voted into such a position?

Again they thought the people had made the wrong decision. Again they were against the people. Again, they plotted (and continue to plot) to overturn the vote by the people.

Ostensibly led by the Democrats, but not really opposed by the Republican side, there was the initial "Russiagate" investigation. Which came to nothing.

Then when "Russiagate" petered out and no wrongdoing could be found, the Democrats started the impeachment process, with no evidence whatsoever. It was doomed to fail, but  hey, it was worth the Political Suicide of the Democrats. Now the people have seen what desperate measures the political elite will go to in order to overturn popular public decisions. Will the public vote for those politicians in enough numbers next time?

In the UK, ALL the turncoats that changed party or created new parties and shat on their voters in the 2017 election were removed from office. In some cases so badly they lost their deposits. The most famous being Jo Swinson, the Lib-Dem party leader who was very public in saying her party would just ignore the 2016 referendum and just continue to stay in the EU. Wrong move as it turned out.

In the USA, if I was a democrat politician that had been very vocal in trying to overturn the publicly elected President, I would be having sleepless nights. The people might have something to say about your conduct and your attitude to democracy.

Finally the real indicator of the Snooty, stuck-up, condescending attitude of the Political elite was highlighted by Nancy Pelosi's tearing up of Donald Trump's State of the Union speech. A stunt she had planned in advance.

This is a President democratically elected by the people. By tearing up the speech she highlighted her contempt for the democratically elected leader of the US and the office of President. She doesn't care, she just disagrees with the people's choice and nothing else matters. She thinks the people are wrong and she will do everything she can to overturn their decision.

She showed her contempt for the President and the contents of his speech including the praising of those who put their lives on the line in the name of duty, she showed her contempt for the numbers of new jobs created by the President's policies.

She showed her contempt for everything the President stands for and the people that voted for him.

Just like with Brexit, it is not for her, or her fellow politicians to say whether the people of the USA were wrong to vote for Trump or not. It is her job to accept the democratic will of the people and get on with her job. Without contempt or prejudice.

So, 2020 will be interesting. Will the Democrats now accept the will of the people and accept the President is here at least until the next election? Will they try and pull another stunt to remove him from office? Will (as the conspiracy theorists theorise) Donald Trump be assassinated?

Anything is possible in the next 12 months.

The Northern Powerhouse: How Northern Voters hold Sway in the 2019 Election.

With a week to go to the election, a very curious scenario is unfolding.

Northern voters, who predominantly vote Labour have so far been ignored by the Labour party. It seems Labour is just taking the Northern labour vote for granted.

But Northern Labour voters (who also predominantly voted Leave) have a huge amount of power in this election. They have the power to ditch Labour's remain policies for one election at least and give a huge boost to the Leave cause. By not voting Labour and instead voting for the Brexit party they have a colossal amount of power to upset the political Apple cart.

If the Northern Labour voters voted for the Brexit party, the Brexit party could gain a number of seats in Parliament. Even if it was a protest vote and only for one term, it would send a shockwave through the political establishment. An establishment that steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the working class Northern voter.

This is a chance to give Corbyn's Labour a swift kick in the goolies, grab their attention and hopefully make them mend their working class ignoring ways.

Only a handful of Northern seats turned over to the Brexit party will not only hurt Labour, but it will also send a message to the Tories. The DUP held quite a sway over the Tories for the last three years with only 8 MPs. If the Brexit party had a similar number of MPs, it could significantly change the outcome of Brexit and sway the Tories to a no-deal scenario and we can be free of Europe immediately, rather than the long drawn out Brexit in Name only that is planned for the next half-decade.

The Labour party are frightened of the Northern Labour voters understanding what power they have, that's why they've ignored them and left them to vote Labour as they assume they always have done. The sense of entitlement, the arrogance is palpable.

The best example of which is Barrie Gardiner. The smarm, the presumptuous attitude, the sense of entitlement that oozes from the man should put any working class voter off the guy.

Nope. If you live in the North, for this one time only, vote Brexit party instead of Labour.

Send a message to all the parties that you want a proper Brexit, send the people into Parliament to help get that done and finally send a message to the Labour party that you will not vote for a party that ignores you and assumes you will vote for them regardless how badly they treat you and how badly they work against your interests.

Do not be a useful Labour-voting idiot.

Beware False Brexit Idols...

It seems Labour are shit scared of the Leave-voting (previous) Labour supporters switching to the Brexit party, so they are now making more definite noises about Brexit policy and what Labour would do.

Let's be clear: a vote for Labour is a vote to remain. Just like a Lib-Dem vote. Maybe Labour aren't as clear on the subject, but let ME be clear:

Labour haven't taken Remain off the table, so it remains a viable option in any future referendum. Also, if they get into power, would negotiate a new, supposedly better deal and then the majority of Labour MPs would campaign during a second referendum campaign against the deal that they themselves negotiated, because they feel the UK would be better within the EU. As nonsensical as that seems.

What Labour's policy is, is a back-door attempt to remain.

The Lib-Dems, are quite clear that they would revoke article 50 without a referendum, instead relying on the mandate of the general election win to reverse the referendum result of 2016.

Labour instead would have a people's vote or second referendum, with options to remain and any number of leave options. Thereby splitting the leave vote and artificially generating a remain result.

Instead what we should be hearing from ANY party offering a second referendum is to offer a referendum on leave only. The LEAVE/REMAIN issue was settled in 2016: we voted to leave.

So now the issue should progress and move on: we voted leave, so what leave option do we prefer?  Do we like any deal that the government negotiates with the EU, or do we reject the deal and go for a clean break and sever ties with Europe immediately?

Instead of taking no-deal off the table, MPs should have taken remain off the table. The fact that all the actions of MPs over the past 3 years was exactly the opposite, tells you volumes on where the majority of Previous MPs stood. They all want to be tied to Europe and will negotiate the worst deal in order to make being in Europe appear better than being outside.

The Rise of the Corporates: Fascism in a Velvet Glove.

Very slowly and gently, over the past 5 decades or so, the big corporations have taken over the world. 

This is just not evident from the current debate about Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google manipulating the debating space, but it's been going on for decades with the big arms corporations, the petrochemical industry, the city traders and the banks.

Once the corporations attain critical mass and a percentage of the country becomes dependent on their industry, then governments become sensitive to their requests. It's a pretty damn obvious statement really: the corporation become big enough to influence a proportion of GDP, the government is going to bend over backwards to avoid losing that revenue.

And this is where the corporate power has risen from. Such that certain corporations can dictate to HMRC how much (if any) tax revenue they will pay to government. With us normal plebs, it's the other way round: HMRC tell you.

Now they have control of public debate in the form of the online tech Giants, the machinations of the big corporates is more public than ever. Yet government seem powerless to enforce some sort of moratorium or enact legislation to protect free speech.

In fact we're seeing a movement of young people cosseted by the corporate cabal that actively protest AGAINST free speech! They might think they are independent thinkers, but when you trace the tenuous lines back to the source of the money that props them up, it ALWAYS links back to the big corporations or their owners. The obvious name seemingly with fingers in dozens of anti-democratic corporatist authoritarian "peoples" movements is of course George Soros. Yep, the guy that almost bankrupted the UK during the ERM fiasco.

If only those independent thinkers would look up the dictionary definition of corporatism..

corporatism

NOUN

1. the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

   "fascism was the high point of corporatism."

That last statement hits the nail on the head. The level of control the corporations have over the state, their ability to stand up against the democratically elected government, the influence they have directly over normal people, is tantamount to Fascism. Especially this new wave of authoritarian corporatism, encapsulated by the extinction rebellion and the push to prevent Brexit and gain freedom from the antidemocratic EU.

 

These are indications of the way the corporates want things to go in the future: no borders, no barriers to global trading, one world government, one currency, no dissenters, no free speech, no pointing out the strings being pulled around the world.

 

This is fair warning as to what awaits the young if they keep doing what they are told and don't start to think for themselves.

 

All those cosy benefit you get with Apple products, while surfing the web checking Facebook and posting YouTube videos while drinking your coffee from Starbucks whilst protesting that the government should have more control over what people do and calling for an end to hate speech....

 

All of those are leading you into an authoritarian, fascist world of the future.  Don't blame us oldies for ruining your life. We voted to leave the EU so we could get away from corporate control of politics and the appointed crony commission. We wanted freedom, you want the opposite.

 

 

 

 

Election: Pro-Brexit Party Strategy Needs to be Clear.

In an ideal world, Boris Johnson would do a deal with the Brexit party so that Conservative MPs are not contested by an alternative candidate to split the pro-Brexit vote.

Failing that, Nigel Farage needs to unilaterally stand aside in seats where there is a confirmed pro-Brexit Conservative candidate.

That way the pro-Brexit vote shouldn't be split and allow the Remainer Lib-Dems and Labour into what could have been pro-Brexit wins.

It's time to swallow some humble pie in order to get Brexit done.

Of course in labour and Lib-Dem seats, the Brexit party should go to town and put up some strong candidates. Preferably local candidates, so they can make good points about supporting the majority vote for Brexit in the North and hopefully fielding candidates the voters would feel happy voting for.

The absolute worst thing the Brexit party can do is to parachute Tory-looking middle-class candidates into working class wards. I know that Nigel likes his middle-class cohorts, but they won't work in Labour-held areas.

He needs to employ some good, strong identifiably working class candidates in those Labour heartlands in the North preferably with a local accent. That way he can hopefully sway those people that have voted Labour just for the sake of not voting anyone else.

Because let's face it, why would a working class person vote Labour today? A Labour party that has now gone out of it's way to signal it cares not for the poor working man in the UK, but instead for the poor of the rest of the world. By voting to have open borders and to give benefits and free NHS treatment to immigrants, including illegal immigrants, Labour have finally shat all over the poor working class. Those people struggling to make ends meet, those on minimum wage, those competing with the unskilled workers of Europe for scraps handed out by corporations that screw down the bottom line and would just like to have a free (read slave) workforce. Or a workforce paid for by the taxpayer.

We have to signal to the big corporations that enough is enough. Brexit has to be down to smash the globalist coprporatist conspiracy to put everyone on third-world wages. By voting for the Brexit Party instead of Labour, we get the double-whammy effect of doing the above and also hopefully shocking Labour into supporting the working class people of this country, like they were set up to do in the first place.

Brexit has to be done to force the Starbucks, the Googles and the Facebooks of the world to pay tax here in the UK and not some offshore tax-free haven. Then we can get the billions in tax revenue into the country's coffers and start spending it on helping those less well off. In this country.

Prevarication, Def: See UK Parliament.

Well, talk about mixed messages... last night Parliament said they liked Boris's deal, but.... then voted to delay implementing it until at least January.

And who among us believes that Parliament will agree to implement the deal in January?

Who amongst us believes that Parliament will instead request yet another delay if the EU haven't included the UK the new phase of the Lisbon treaty that comes into force in 2020?

Who among us are suspicious that the delay to January allows the full force of the Lisbon treaty to come into force and nullify article 50 and keep us in the EU indefinitely?

What I'm alluding to is the change that comes about in the Lisbon treaty in 2020. Instead of a country leaving unilaterally by implementing article 50, the method of exit changes to a country having to request an exit and the EU voting to allow the exit.

Despite the protests to the contrary by pro-EU websites, I suspect that this is the case and that the part of the backstop that removed the ability to exit unilaterally and instead required us to be subject to a unilateral vote in the EU was actually in place to align us with the Lisbon treaty post-2020.

It changes to being a permissive system: the country has to request permission to leave, which would almost always be refused.

Guess what? Although we have triggered article 50, we're still in the EU. Not only that, we are still in the EU well past the article 50 deadline of two years.

Now it can be argued legally that although we triggered article 50, we never (as a country) intended to leave, as witnessed by the multiple requests to extend and stay inside the EU.

So legally it can be argued that our article 50 request is null and void, thereby committing us to continued EU membership without a unilateral exit procedure.

Topsy-Turvy: Flipping the EU Debate on its Head Gives Clarity.

I've said before that all this turmoil over the Brexit referendum is better if we just for a second imagined that the result was 52/48 in favour of remain.

Would we still be talking about the result three years later? Would Parliament actively be working against the Government to secure an exit from the EU on behalf of the referendum losers?

No, absolutely not. The losing voters would have been told that the matter is settled, we were staying in the EU and a mere few months after the referendum, government process would have turned away from the question and life would have continued as before. The Status Quo would very much be in place.

Any losers would have been told vehemently to "suck it up" and just carry on as if nothing had happened.

Of course because the result was the opposite, we have had the opposite reaction: a Parliament that has time and time again conspired against the Government, and who is now taking about not settling the matter with an election, but going to the lengths of deposing the incumbent government and anointing the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister in order to defer the exit from the EU.

For three years we have had obfuscation, delay, chicanery and bending of laws and precedents in order to oppose leaving.

For what purpose? What sunlit uplands do those that conspire to keep us in the EU see in the UK's future as part of the EU? We know that remainers say there will be catastrophyThere is very little said about what a future for the EU looks like with the UK as part of it. All we hear is how bad exiting the EU will be, we never hear of the real tangible benefits of staying in the EU.

For instance, there is no mention of the stronger European Defence Force envisioned for the future of the EU, no mention of the harmonised income tax regimes planned for the future, no mention of harmonised national budgets. No one on the remain side is putting forward the positive effects of these at all. just that the status quo is better than the unknown quantity of change. I wonder why, is it possibly that those things are precisely what made UK voters vote to leave the EU? Are they net benefits after all or not? From the actions of the remainers and their reluctance to offer tangible benefits, I suspect not. All was talked about briefly during the referendum, but due to Brexit have been put on the back burner by the EU whilst we thrash out a possible deal.

And in that last sentence is the clue certainly to what a future EU would look like without the UK is a member. So frit are they of rocking the boat, the most ambitious plans of the EU have been put on hold for three years, with only moderate advances in those areas. Where before the referendum there were great and ambitious plans coming from Brussels.

Without the UK, the EU would collapse. So desperate are they to have us as a member, they are willing to forestall all major plans so that those in the UK that plan to keep us in the EU don't have anything adverse happen that could give ammunition to the leavers. Nothing that could allow a leaver to say "Aha! Told you so!".

THAT is the great tell, the thing that you look for in a Poker game when sizing up the hand of your opposition.

In another Poker analogy, the EU has a weak hand and they are bluffing.

The EU are busily working under the table to garner support. There are already reports of MPs working with EU representatives to table legislation in the UK Parliament. We already have reports of UK civil servants working with their EU counterparts as well.

Sadly Boris Johnson's government is too weak to propose legislation to outlaw this. But at least the civil servants conspiring against government policy and working with the EU should be removed from office. MPs will face their voters and be made to defend their actions.

But as the title states, by turning things on their head, you can see more clearly why the actors in the Brexit saga are playing the roles they do.

I suspect the EU has more to lose if we leave without any agreement. I suspect those that clamour for us to remain and the organised protests to do the same are a good indication that the EU and their supporters are desperate for us to stay not for our sake, but for the EU's.

As the clock ticks closer to the 31st of October, the lengths that the EU supporters in Media, Parliament and now the judiciary are stooping to is a great indicator if you can step back and see the big picture.

I suspect that things will escalate further as the month progresses without a capitulation to the EU.

I just wonder if so petitioned by the public, the Queen could announce the dissolution of Parliament instead of giving a speech announcing governmental policy. After all the government can request a dissolution and they are classed as the voice of the public in Parliament. Could the public have the power to petition the monarch directly I wonder?  It would be wonderful to see the massed ranks of members of Parliament be dismissed and told to put their case to the voters.

If Democracy is Dead, do Voters have a Legitimate Recourse to Violence?

Okay, so today the Courts overruled a democratically elected government on a point of law that was previously assumed not to be justiciable.

The Supreme Court has now ruled that they are above a democratically elected Government, they are above even the Monarch and  can rule that a government's motives have to be considered when proroguing Parliament. They have also ruled that the Monarch's decision to Prorogue Parliament is unlawful, because the motive for the advice she was given was in their eyes unlawful.

By extension this could also be applied to legislation. For instance if a government brought forth legislation that someone with enough money disagreed with, they could if they had enough money and time, run the Government's policy decision through the courts, to the Supreme Court and overrule the government.

So, democracy itself ceases if a Democratically elected Government can be overruled by the Supreme Court. We now have the law.

Democracy is the thing that allowed the UK to change in a peaceful manner for 1200 years. Maybe we've only had truly representative one-person-one-vote democracy for less than 100 years, but we still had accountability even way back at the beginning.

The Supreme court has no such accountability. If it now has, by dint of the law it has passed, primacy over the Government and the Monarch, then by extraction they should be voted in to office and also out of office by the people to keep them accountable.

So, given that democracy as we understood it to be, is actually not available and democracy is de-legitimised, does that mean the means by which we settled arguments before (violence) now re-legitimised?

I don't know. These are interesting constitutional questions. The one thing that does come out of this is that there is a lot of constitutional change that needs to happen so that this does not happen again.

Personally I think the Supreme court have overstepped their remit by overruling the Government and the Monarch.

In effect the Supreme Court have now given themselves the power to scrutinise and overrule any piece of legislation that goes before the Queen, irrespective of whether it is arrived at by a democratically elected Government. They have the power to rule on it's legitimacy, rather than the legitimacy being given to the rule of government by democratic mandate.

There is much do to repair the injustices of the past 3 years.

Firstly either the FTPA needs to be heavily modified or abolished. MPs moving from Government to opposition or vice versa should automatically trigger a by-election.

If a government loses a working majority in Parliament it should automatically trigger a general election. No zombie governments should ever be held in place by opposition MPs.

The Supreme Court should also be abolished and the Law Lords reinstated so they have the ability to scrutinise legislation as it is being made. No legislating after the fact.

There is so much more to be thrashed out...

The Case Against a Second Referendum....

...is simply that if the public vote to leave again, the MPs will simply ignore it again. Or worse still conspire against it. Again. They are only hoping for a different outcome (remain). But then can we not have the excuse that it's now tied 1-1 for Leave and Remain, so now we go for a tie-breaker referendum? Of course not, as soon as they win, then everything clams shut again.

There has to be an election. Let each MP stand on a truthful pro or anti Brexit stance. No hiding behind party lines this time. Each MP must state where exactly they stand on Brexit on an individual basis.

We had the liars last time get in on a false premise and then swap parties, vote against their own party and effectively work in opposition to the stand that got them into power.

Clear house and start again, hopefully with a bucketful more integrity than the current shower.

No Deal....

So, a question I have is: how does Boris get out of the corner Parliament have painted him into.

Now that he's being forced to ask the EU for an extension and additionally forced by Parliament to accept any extension to article 50 - no matter how long, just how does Boris exit the EU on October the 31st?

Does he do all they command, get an extension and then trigger an immediate election, so he can revoke any extension by Christmas?

Does he sit on his hands, refuse to ask for an extension and face prosecution?

Does he go to Brussels, mumble to himself he'd rather like an extension but no-one hears him and he comes back with a clear conscience?

Does he ask for the extension, then fail to complete the necessary paperwork in time thus automatically exiting on the 31st?

Does he ask for the extension but  say there will be no more payments to the EU after the 31st?  Under those circumstances do the EU call his bluff and agree an extension or refuse?

It's quite obvious Boris' government think October 31st is the deadline. There's a huge, expensive ad campaign on TV and radio going on at the moment. The 31st of October is the end, it's the finishing line... be prepared.

Like for the businesses that are involved with trading with the EU, they need to take heed. For the vast majority of businesses it will be carry on as usual.

I'll have to have a look at the repeal of the European Communities Act, to see when that kicks in. If that's on the 31st, then Boris doesn't have any legitimacy in the EU after that date anyway, as EU law is not valid in the UK and we have no obligations to the EU either. EU law fails to be prime and we revert back to good ol' UK law.

If that kicks in on the 31st, we don't pay any money to the EU, so the EU are bound not to extend beyond the 31st and all our MEPs get kicked out of the EU Parliament.

I suspect if Boris goes to the EU, asks for an extension and doesn't give anything back in return, the EU will tell him to sod off. But he's fulfilled the remit of the Bill Parliament have forced upon him. The Bill only compels him to ask for an extension and then accept any extension the EU propose. It doesn't compel him to give anything in return. If Boris and the EU fail to agree anything by the deadline, then exit is triggered.

Not the best way to exit, to negotiate past the deadline and  default out, but I think that's what Boris is relying on.

Prorogation

Prorogation

Noun

meaning:

the action of discontinuing a session of a parliament or other legislative assembly without dissolving it.

The media has worked itself into a frenzy over the prorogation of Parliament. The fact is that prorogation is an entirely legitimate mechanism of Parliament.

The other salient fact is that Parliament hasn't had a Queen's speech (and with it any new legislation) for THEE YEARS.

For the past two years critics have been saying that Parliament has been paralysed by Brexit and they are right. No new legislative proposals have come out of government for three years. Current legislation harks back to a time when the Maybot scraped through the election. That's before article 50 was enacted, before any deals had been done, before chequers, before the Olly Robbins stitch-up, before the withdrawal agreement, before the backstop.

All we have had in the intervening time, is Parliament and private individuals like Gina Miller attempting to stop Brexit and thwart the role of the government enacting the very thing the people had told them to enact. .i.e. leaving the EU.

It's been Brexit, Brexit, Brexit. It's time to settle the matter and move on.

The media is calling it a government coup.
How can it be, when all the government are doing is suspending Parliament until the Queen's speech. There are no tanks on the lawns of Westminster, there are no soldiers barring MPs entry to the Houses of parliament. They will have plenty of time to debate whatever new agreement comes out of talks between Boris Johnson's government and the EU.

What they won't have time for is unnecessary shenanigans like votes of confidence and other delaying tactics put in place by MPs.
 The media are calling it undemocratic. How can it be undemocratic to move ahead and leave the EU when commanded by the people? The referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. The biggest ever vote. The people spoke. How can it be undemocratic to follow their instructions?

I suggest that the Johnson government needs to let dissenting anti-Brexit MPs in leave-voting constituencies understand in no uncertain terms that they will not get the PMs full support and they will be left to fight against the Brexit party on their own.

Where MPs have voted in accordance their leave-voting constituency, I believe that the Brexit party should leave well alone.

The rump of remain constituencies should feel the full force of a Brexit party PR campaign, blasting out the message that despite them voting to remain in the EU, the majority voted to leave. The majority decision, like all previous majority decisions in political history, should be carried by the government of the day and those that voted leave have no mandate to thwart the view of the majority.

The result of the referendum was clear, with no ambiguity: the people of the UK wish to leave the EU. The government has leeway in HOW they leave the EU, but leave it they must. And leave it in a way that satisfies the electorate, otherwise they will not be in government after the next election. Boris Johnson understands this and is trying his best to move forward with the will of the people.

Its something that Theresa May, the House of Lords, Gina Miller and all the anti-Brexit MPs in the commons fail to understand.

Project Fear Releases the Hammer of Yellow...

It seems this weekend there was a serious leak in Government. The most loosely guarded secret is who actually leaked the "Project Yellowhammer" documents. The why is obvious: to cause panic and add fuel to the remainer fire.

In the end, all it does is describe a few worst case scenarios. Good. So we all know the worst that could happen. Now produce a plan that prevents the worst case scenario from occurring.

All it is, is good project management: expect the worst and plan to avoid it.

But of course all the remoaners are now saying "I told you so" and predicting even more dire consequences of a no deal Brexit that the best minds of Yellowhammer could come up with.

Mass suicides, Sinkholes, Armageddon, nuclear war, the return of the Devil incarnate: all could appear because we leave the EU according to the hysterical media. (I must remember to check Nigel Farage for evidence of cloven hooves the next time I meet him).

In the end, fuck all is going to happen. If the Frogs want to close the channel ports, let them. If the Dutch do the same under EU orders, so what?

We have links to Norway if necessary and if the EU strongarm them into blockading our products too, them we will turn our backs on Europe and cut them loose.

I always thought that freedom from the anti-democratic EU would come at a price. I understood that price was worth paying. In times gone by that would have meant pulling on a uniform, grabbing a rifle and if necessary paying the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and democracy.

Brexit means we go without French wine and cheese for a while until they come to their senses. Hardly a national crisis (unless you live in Chelsea).

If the worst comes to the worst, we start buying British produce. Those firms that export will have to quickly reconfigure and start to export to everyone except the EU. Those that are unable to do so may just be the weakest of the bunch and may deserve to wither.

The company that I work for imports from the European mainland, but we also import the bulk of our products from outside the EU. So our customers may go without some parts from Germany for a while until trade routines can be re-established. We get a delivery a month and hopefully it won't take longer than 4 weeks for the EU to come to terms with the lack of UK money paying for EU products.

We need to grow a spine Britain, we need some testicular fortitude and as long as we know the pitfalls, we can plan for them and mitigate the effects of a closed EU border.

Fuck 'Em.

And Fuck the spineless bastard that released the Yellowhammer documents in an attempt to create panic.

Catastrophe

My gut instinct as I said yesterday was for a general election in May, so the issue of Brexit can be somewhat settled.

Basically the MPs can't decide and have no mandate, so call the election and get the voters to obliterate the true Brexiteers like UKIP. Tory and Labour get voted back in with a mandate to persue May's deal and Bob's your uncle, everything falls into place and the UK get locked into the EU machine, without the pesky politics.

But.....

Something in the back of my head, the department of dirty tricks bit that always likes to pop up at these sort of moments, says "what if there were some sort of catastrophe?" "How easy it would be to suspend the Brexit process".

The slight resurgence of the "IRA" (I've yet to be convinced they are the real IRA and not some make-believe version) sending letter bombs to incoherent targets sends warning messages to my dirty tricks gland.

A resurgence of real IRA bomb-making with a successful device planted like in the old days in the centre of Canary Wharf, or Whitehall would serve a number of masters.

First the catastrophe itself could be  a legitimate reason for suspending Brexit.

Second the "message" that revitalised IRA sends about the Irish border issue can be used to great advantage by our politicians to weaken Brexit or to stop it completely.

I have a vision of the puppet maters that trained some young spotty youth how to make bombs slapping him on the back of his head. "We spent all that time and effort showing you how to make a bomb and all you do is send some envelopes to airports? Is that it??" (slap on back of head)  "Do better and bigger next time. Here's the number of a truck hire company that don't ask questions and here's the number of a bulk fertiliser supplier, now get cracking. I want all the windows in Canary Wharf put in by the end of March!"

Now then, just ask yourself... are our Politicians desperate enough to be let off the hook that they would plan such a scheme?

You betcha!

Response To Theresa May's Speech.

Theresa,

I DO NOT STAND WITH YOU. You may say you stand with me, but I fear that you are at odds with the majority of the nation. You are deluding yourself if you actually think you are in step with the majority of people outside of Parliament.

The majority wish to leave on the terms set out leading up to the 2016 referendum. Those terms were clear and unequivocal: We were told if we voted leave, The UK would leave the EU apparatus, we would leave the customs union, we would leave the single market and we would leave the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

These were couched as threats prior to the referendum. If we voted leave, we would suffer the consequences of exiting all of the apparatus and institutions of the EU politically, economically and legally.

And we still voted to leave, because those terms were exactly what the majority of the country wanted.

However, the deal that you have  done with the EU reneges on every one of those threats or promises that the Conservative party made prior to the vote.

If MPs vote to accept your deal, we will be tied all of the above for at least 2 years and possibly for ever. Especially if the backstop is triggered.

The people were clear in June 2016 on what they were threatened with should we dare to vote leave. We know what we were promised. We voted leave anyway, because that is what we wanted.

Your cowardice after the vote is clear for everyone to see. I know you are scared, I know you fear being the person responsible for legislation. But that's what the people want: someone responsible that they can vote in our out of office. We do not want unelected beaurocrats in the EU making our laws.

We voted leave in 2016, despite the warnings, despite project fear. We gave a clear mandate to the government, YOUR Government to leave the EU. It was then the job of government to manage the process of leaving.

It was not for government to keep us in the customs union, despite the threats and promises government made to us.

It was not for Government to keep us in the single market, despite the threats and promises made to us by Government.

It was not for Government to keep us in the EU tariff area. We wanted a clean break so we could start negotiating deals around the country.

It was not for government to tie us to the ECJ. We wanted rid of the idiocy and bias of the European Courts.

We wanted to be on our own.

Last night, your speech proved to the population of the UK that you had not understood a single iota of what we wanted and voted for back in June 2016.

You do not stand with us. You stand apart. You stand alone. You have no support from the majority of the population, nor the majority of MPs in Parliament.

It is time you considered your position and the position of your government.

Delusional Government or Stitch-Up in Progress?

All I'm hearing from Government ministers (including Liz Truss on tonight's Peston programme) is that the Government only lost the vote because of poor presentation.

They expect to re-present the deal to Parliament and this time carry the vote.

How can that be? The deal will be exactly the same unless the EU make concessions. Letters of intent do not make legally binding documents, so various EU members can write as many letters as they want, but if the legal wording of the deal is not changed, the deal is not changed.

So, what is happening?

Is this just smoke and mirrors and a fake fight? A theatre to provide the illusion of disagreement until suddenly a change is faked and everyone gets behind the deal? Just exactly what will change in the next week or so?

I get a bad feeling about this. I did say shortly after the referendum that we would need to be wary of a stitch-up. I get the feeling that stitch-up is almost upon us.

M.I.6 Former Head Sir Richard Dearlove Speaks Sense.

This is one of the best and most measured interviews of someone linked to government I've seen in a long time.

Some interesting points. He aligns with my views on Brexit and everything else in this interview, which is no surprise. Free from the shackles of government and I presume happily retired and independent financially he is free to speak sense rather than any government line.

He was pretty critical of the government line when it came to the dodgy dossier regarding Iraq and has always talked sense in my book.

There's nothing more to say really.

Dear Prime Minister.....Why I Voted for Brexit and WHAT I voted for.

Dear Theresa May,

I would like this opportunity to explain to you why I have decided to in future elections vote for UKIP at every opportunity and for the first time ever in my life, have become a member of a political party; UKIP.

First let me explain that on the 26th of June 2016 I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU because it is undemocratic: I cannot vote for or against members of the EU commission, they are appointed.

I voted to leave because if we are to hand over more power to the EU in the future such as budget oversight, taxation, control of Armed Forces, etc. then by the same token the EU comission should become more open and democratic and allow the election of its members.  But there are no plans to do this in tandem with increased power.

I voted to leave because we cannot control our own economy and public services. How can we plan future spending on the NHS, Housing and welfare if we have no control over the numbers of people using those services?

I voted to leave because when David Cameron went to the EU and explained the risk of the UK leaving the EU was high all the concessions he asked for were rejected. Our own democratically elected leader was overruled and refused by an undemocratic elite.

I voted leave because on the balance of probabilities, I decided that we would be more free to make decisions that affect our lives out of the EU than in it. That we would have the freedom to make deals around the globe on our own terms, without having to drag the other countries of the EU along with us.

I voted leave because I believe that any short-term financial losses will be recouped several times over once we are free to make our own way in the world.

I voted leave to end free movement of people and regain control of immigration. Without control over the number of people entering the country, how can a government project future expenditure on public services?

Having set out why I voted to leave, please let me explain why I will not now vote for your party in future, despite having voted Conservative many times before.

I believe the proposal in the Chequers White paper does not deliver an exit from the EU apparatus. Although you can spin it as leaving the EU (which in essence we will do as we leave the EU Parliament and the EU Council etc.) it is not leaving the influence of the EU political elite.

The EU Council, Comission and Parliament will all continue to make laws, rules and regulations that we would be mandated by the Chequers agreement to comply with.

Being forced into regulatory alignment (sticking to the EU's rules) is not leaving.the EU.

Regulatory alignment forces us to produce goods to EU specifications regardless of whether they are destined for sale in the EU. Only 15% of our economy is reliant on trade with the EU, the rest is generated internally and by trade with the rest of the world. So why should 15% of the economy dictate how the other 85% trades, effectively adding a tariff to trade within the UK.

Regulatory Alignment also assumes that we will accept EU tariffs on goods imported, so as not to undermine imports into the EU. I would think that the EU would take a dim view if we imported goods into the UK at lower tariff rates and then shipped those goods into the rest of the EU.

Such restrictions prevent us setting our own tariff rates and agreeing deals on imports with other countries. Such restrictions on imports and international trade can only damage our prosperity after March 2019.

Collecting tarriffs set by the EU on behalf of the EU is not leaving the EU.

Not allowing the freedom to trade on our own terms with other countries  is not leaving the EU.

This one critical restriction within the Chequers proposal is enough to prevent me from supporting your party or any other party that votes in favour of it.

Another is border control. One of the key promises from yourself when you took power was to take control of our borders. However, the chequers proposal is actually the opposite. It works to keep an open border between the UK and the EU. I can understand the thony issue of the border in Ireland was forefront in your mind regarding this issue, but teh Chequers propoal does not address how the transfer of people as opposed to goods across the border can be controlled.

Regulatory alignment assumes an open border. An open border assumes free movement of people. Free movement of people and uncontrolled immigration was supposed to be a red line. It has been crossed, so therfore I cannot vote for a party that supports it.

In essence I suppose I wanted a more dynamic and refreshing approach to the issues caused by Brexit
and a harder and more pragmatic approach to the negotiations. I can see that I have been let down.

My own preference would be for the 15% of the economy that needs to trade with the EU countries and requires regulatory alignment, to have an independent regulatory verification system funded by themselves to allow frictionless trade. The form the regulatory body takes and its remit to be agreed by negotiation with the EU.

That way 85% of the economy is free to trade without encumbrance from the EU and we have the best chance of prosperity.

But the Chequers proposal crosses several supposed red lines as outlined in several speeches you had made previously. Exssentially you have gone back on every one of those speeches and red lines. You have broken promises made to the electorate and the wider world.