May shoots down the referendum & democracy is dead
So now we know why she said and did nothing for the last two years.
Saying nothing meant she avoided lying to us until the very last moment, she was always a remainer.
“Brexit means Brexit” was always a shallow lie hidden behind her meaningless words.
Instead of accepting the referendum result, she is supporting big business, bankers, hedge funds, the bankrupt EU who are all shouting, at her, louder than we can.
She is supporting anybody it seems, other than we who voted for Brexit, who won the vote but lost to the politics.
Don’t forget dear reader, “politics” today means “party politics” but the referendum bypassed the party bit and the MPs in parliament.
We now need the hard Brexit which probably does mean a bit more pain for a year or two, but businesses will soon sort themselves out, that’s what they always have done!
Then we can all watch as Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain fail to repay their bailouts to the bust central German European bank.
Come on Jacob, unsheath your sword, swash your buckle and take to the streets of Westmonster just outside your new £5m house.
You are our last hope.
PS: Hurrah for Gareth, his waistcoat and his beautiful English footbal team.
PPS: If you have not heard it, please, please use iPlayer to listen to Dead Ringers episode 5 broadcast today on Radio 4. Brilliantly funny. Click here for the best laugh of the summer
The words anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic suffer from obfuscation (lies), misdirection and at its very heart, an absence of a rational definition.
The current row about Anti-Semitism, and what most people think it means, is flawed and dishonest. It is made far worse by sensationalist journalism. Truth and a rational debate is almost impossible to find and to quote almost all the media, “We are all very upset and angry about all those nasty people who are anti-Semitic, particularly those in the Labour party.”
It’s a trick says Shulamit Aloni – former Israeli cabinet minister (Click on picture to go to source)
The current issue of anti-Semitism is confused and is being manipulated by some very clever people. In the main, those people are career politicians & journalists. The Israeli government misuse it too, see below and in photo opposite.
The BBC is failing to inform us, as it should do, because whilst journalists are talking about anti-Semitism, none preface their statements with an explanation of what they understand it to be. What is very clear, the BBC says, is that anti-Semitism is very bad! But nobody is actually dealing with it honestly.
What follows is the result of my listening to Jewish voices, Israeli voices, Zionist voices, Corbynite voices, Momentum voices, Palestinian voices, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia and my own “still small voice”.
We all think it means, but without actually saying it, “anti Jew”; as opposed to anti-Judaism or anti-Israel or anti-Israeli government.
However, even anti-Jew is completely inaccurate, as we shall see later, even though the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA ) re-defined the word “anti-Semitic” in 2016. The IHRA felt it necessary to explain that “… criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”
Shulamit Aloni (pictured above) was an Israeli cabinet minister and a minority Jewish voice pointing out the misuse of the word by the Israeli government. She makes it quite clear that the word was used by the Israeli government to deflect criticism from itself. Please click on her picture to see more detail of her statement.
The UK government was one of the first governments to adopt the fallacious IHRA definition. History and truth is corrupted yet again. The IHRA definition is deeply flawed in that it conflates any criticism of Israel to be be anti-Semitic.
The simple fact is that the word anti-Semitic did not exist before the late 19th century and was then *2 as now, used by journalists and politicians as a euphemism for “Anti Jew”.
However, the very use of the word outside the study of ancient languages is deeply flawed and intentionally misleading.
Why? Because many Arab Muslims, certainly those living in the prison camp called Palestine, and many other peoples originating from the Middle East, are also Semites, and yet they are not seen as the targets of the word anti-Semitism.
Semitic refers to a language group, which includes, in small part, Hebrew amongst five or six others, but does not infer race or religion. (See *1 below)
Furthermore, the International snowflake generation of political worthies agreed with the IHRA definition of the word in 2016 so that nobody had to say “Anti-Jew”.
The term is a political smoke screen and apparently targets the Jewish religion rather than the Israeli government. Who, by the way, are currently guilty of the flagrant disregard of at least 45 UN resolutions instructing them to stop their land grabs in Palestine.
All 45 of those resolutions continue to be ignored or side stepped by the USA using its veto. The UK is a bit quiet on the issue too.
Israel’s latest murder of 60 or so Palestinian stone throwers has been almost ignored in the UK, the EU & the USA.
Shame on us, shame on them and the so-called impartial, informative BBC!
What then has Jeremy Corbyn actually done to deserve his almost total vilification in the press? Well, he has stood up for Palestine consistently over the past 30 years and has criticised Israel for their inhumane and illegal land grabs in contravention to those United Nations resolutions.
So then, calling him anti-Semitic is just stupid because most Palestinians are Semites too!
But, it is what Corbyn has not done which does deserve criticism. He has not removed or criticised the minority of loony members of Momentum who really are quite nasty, ill informed Twitter trolls. The evidence is out there if you wish to find more detail.
By his inaction, Corbyn reveals himself as a weak leader, a self serving party politician, greedy for votes however gained. (Ed: Gosh? I never heard that before.) My opinion of Corbyn has changed dramatically from when he first appeared on the scene.
What can we learn from this deliberately confusing issue?
That an unhealthy fear of criticising religion is curtailing freedom of speech and our ability to think rationally.
That religion is, yet again, being used by powerful corporate interest groups to protect politicians who, of current necessity, are financed by them.
*1 I quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica:- “Semite, person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include most Arab speaking peoples, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews.
*2 Encyclopaedia Britannica again: “Anti-Semitism, hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group. The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time. Although the term now has wide currency, it is a misnomer, since it implies a discrimination against all Semites. Arabs and other peoples are also Semites, and yet they are not the targets of anti-Semitism as it is usually understood. The term is especially inappropriate as a label for the anti-Jewish prejudices, statements, or actions of Arabs or other Semites. Nazi anti-Semitism, which culminated in the Holocaust, had a racist dimension in that it targeted Jews because of their supposed biological characteristics—even those who had themselves converted to other religions or whose parents were converts. This variety of anti-Jewish racism dates only to the emergence of so-called “scientific racism” in the 19th century and is different in nature from earlier anti-Jewish prejudices.”
Click hereto read more on this from the same Encyclopaedia Britannica article.
There are no funny cartoons in this post, there are no jokes either.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse it did! The humiliation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain is now complete.
If anything exemplifies the disconnectedness between “we the people” and the inhabitants of the Westminster bubble (politicos & journalists) it is these two “stories” separated by 35 years.
Story Number 1 (March 22nd 2018): (Ed: surely April 1st?)
The new blue British passport is to almost certain to be made by a French company in France.
Donald Tusk, Macron & Juncker must be crying with laughter into their coffee and croissants, this morning. Theresa May’s resignation should be demanded by both all journalists and Tory & Labour parties immediately.
Who will stand up for the United Kingdom of Great Britain? Please step forward.
Story Number 2 (1983):
Who wrote the paragraph below, in 1983? Answer at the foot of this post.
Britain and the Common Market
“Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour’s international policy.
The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.
For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain – to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.
We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not ‘withdrawing from Europe’. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy – one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments – both in the EEC and outside – on a common strategy for economic expansion.”
Answer: Tony Blair in his 1983 election manifesto strategy for Britain, his legacy is now complete.
We have been, and continue to be, led, lied to, administered by hypocrites and vision-less, self interested, myopic ignoramuses.
Message: to any MP left in Westminster with a half a brain, any conscience and a vestige of common sense – WAKE UP!
As Nigel Farage has said today “We sold out fisheries when we joined the EEC and we’re selling them out now as we leave.”
I could not agree more, but it seems that almost nobody else can see that “we the people” are being screwed both by the EU and our own government.
I think the two cartoons below tell the story better than I can but where would we be without a sense of humour? (Answer: at foot of this article)
The journalistic coverage by the BBC and most daily papers is truly extraordinary in its quiet acceptance of U turn after U turn by our our truly pathetic government Brexit negotiating team.
Bailouts are illegal under Maaastricht but never mind eh? What’s for lunch? Ah yes British cod fillets YUM!
The smile of apparent pleasure on David Davis’ face yesterday raised my blood pressure to unknown levels. He should instead be hiding his head in shame.
Our Brexit “negotiating(?)” team has repeatedly shown us the way things will go, which is all in the favour of the laughably incompetent and corrupt EU management team of tax avoiding specialists headed by the biggest tax avoidance criminal of them all, Jean Claude Juncker.
Just a reminder of why we are leaving the EU:-
First and foremost, the British people voted to leave, with a bigger percentage of the vote than any serving UK government has enjoyed in decades.
The Maastricht treaty, signed by that complete idiot John Major which;-
created the Euro, a truly daft currency which has no economic merit, and which is actually designed to
force a federal Europe on European citizens who never even knew it was happening,
outlaw bailouts of failing member countries but has, to date, allowed 7
create a EU parliament which has no power what so ever!
allow Great Britain to keep just 40% of its own fish!
The EU’s own accounts have NOT met auditing standards in the last 22 years. They are either completely financially incompetent or hiding corruption. WHICH IS IT? Does anyone care?
Still continuing is the farcical, fortnightly convoy of lorries between Strasbourg & Brussels carrying all the files required to enable the administration to continue in two separate places. The convoy then picks it all up again and returns from whence it came.
The EEC made sense, the EU never has and we the people were never asked. The EU does however work for multi-national big globalised business.
Democracy? A distant memory …
We want to keep curved bananas! (If you are under 40 you won’t get that joke. But, it was very nearly not a joke)
David Davis – can’t even see the joke
I have a further 15 or so reasons for leaving the ridiculous EU – they are all in this blog’s articles over the last 7 years or so
I may have to give this up, I have almost lost my sense of humour ;-(
Acknowledgements: To VoxEurope who can see what is happening
The latest utterances from a so-called think tank called “The Institute for Global Change” blames Populism for the incorrect result of the Brexit referendum. This needs to be challenged along with today’s poppycock spouted by Lord Adonis after his resignation as Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission. Adonis said in his letter of resignation “Brexit is a populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump” (full text of his letter here).
Blair agreed with Jeremy Corbyn then! See the full text extract from their 1983 manifesto at the foot of this post. An interesting read because it sounds just like today’s news!
This preposterously and egotistically named organisation, fronted by Tony Blair and funded by globalised multinationals (but try and find out who!) is a poorly camouflaged attempt attempt to make the call for a second referendum on EU membership seem reasonable.
You just have to follow this link for the Twitter response to his Christmas message on Twitter. The responses are enough to gladden the heart of any curmudgeon like me 😉
Lord Adonis, a Labour peer, was the last Blairite sympathiser to have remained anywhere near the seat of current political power and has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. Both he and Blair are Remoaners but look how Blair’s views have changed since 1983 when he was a Labour leadership candidate. Lord Adonis, who was transport secretary under Gordon Brown between 2009 and 2010, has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. The commission produces a report in every Parliament advising the government on spending in areas such as transport connections and energy.
Lord Adonis sparked anger earlier this year when he compared Brexit to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s, and has repeatedly called for last year’s referendum vote to be reversed.
Pope Blair on why he lied over the invasion of Iraq. A good Catholic convert from Anglicanism, just like Robert Mugabe…
The article appears so logical and is indeed very well researched, but fails to even consider the real reason for so-called populism, which is the proliferation of lying (sorry, of course I meant to say disingenuous), duplicitous self-interested scum-bags like Blair! The rise of the bland, but ‘clever’, career politician who never answers the question, who are trained to waste our time but who have at last succeeded in pissing off an entire generation of voters. We the people have nobody to vote for but we are all a bit too lazy to revolt, so we must take our share of blame. Any politician with integrity, balls and vision has either retired or cannot stomach what is now required to be today’s party political leader.
I hate almost everything about Tony Blair and just cannot understand why so many regard him as some sort of wise elder statesman. I have been unable to write about him for some years because the very sight of him just makes me feel sick. Most of us over the age of 40 will remember the first few weeks of his first term as PM and thinking “At last, a politician (see the glowing teeth of the young man to the left) with vision, integrity and the energy to change the status quo”.
How wrong we all were! The first clue as to his real nature, for me at least, was when I heard his smarmy utterance “I feel the hand of destiny on my shoulder (Diana’s death)” issuing from his loathsome face.
That realisation morphed into my disdain of everything he and his consumerist wife became and still are.
OK, back to his article on populism where the most important thing to know is who funds ‘think-tanks’. (You try to find out yourself!)
They were invented by a few clever, but conservative, strategists just before Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister. Their rise is probably the most significant event in recent British political history along with Special Advisers and the party whip system. I can heartily recommend Owen Jones’ book “The Establishment (and how they get way with it)”, in which he analyses the rise of the think tank in forensic detail. You won’t believe how they ever so cleverly changed public opinion.
‘A dissection of the profoundly and sickeningly corrupt state that is present-day Britain. He (Owen Jones) is a fine writer, and this is a truly necessary book’ Philip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials)
1983 Labour Party manifesto (extract)
It explains why we should have left years ago & demonstrates why we can’t trust Corbyn, and we all know we can’t trust Blair (I hope?)
This from 1983 is so reasonable and is fully supportive of Winston Churchill’s (Tory) and Clement Atlee’s (Labour) views in the 1950s despite Adonis and Blair saying otherwise.
Britain and the Common Market
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour’s international policy.
The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.
For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain – to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.
We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not ‘withdrawing from Europe’. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy – one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments – both in the EEC and outside – on a common strategy for economic expansion.
The process of withdrawal
On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.
Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession – thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.
There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption – and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.
Such an important issue this, as is evidenced on front pages everywhere last week and Questiontime on BBC 1 last Thursday.
Opinions ranged from Rory Stewart(*1) saying “Kill them, there is no alternative” to the leftist intellectuals saying “understand them, hug them but then imprison them” to the Questiontime audience saying “don’t let them back in, they have lost any rights, they might have had as British citizens”, by going out there to fight for ISIS etc.
The earth is flat and I’m in charge! Source NY Times
What I think what Rory Stewart might have been trying to say, follows on from an insight by Jonathan Swift (author of Gulliver’s Travels)
“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into“.
This wisdom applies equally to all those ‘of faith’ but more particularly, these jihadis really do believe that Allah has told them to kill anyone who is not a true Muslim. You have to be the Sunni variety of Muslim to avoid death which explains why so many of Muslims are being killed by ISIS.
If you want to know why we have this relatively recent emergence of Sunni Islamism (ISIS and Al Qaeda etc.), just read a brief biography of the Egyptian poet, writer & political theorist who started it all in the 1980s, Sayyid Qutb.
If a person accepts a primary falsehood as truth, then seemingly rational and possibly violent actions may well follow.
So then, having quietly accepted from childhood, that the Qur’an is the unalterable word of god, it is the Muslim’s duty to fight for a universal caliphate under sharia law, however long it takes. (*2)
Our home grown jihadis are therefore following, quite logically (to them at least), the endlessly repeated calls for jihad in the Qur’an. *7
Some of these returning jihadis may well have been disillusioned by the reality and cruelty of ISIS, but most will be still motivated to return and kill the Kuffar, that’s you if you didn’t already know.
Atheists, like me, are the worst ;-( of course. We don’t even get a mention in the Qur’an whereas the Christians and Jews get quite a pasting!
Most so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ don’t want to establish a caliphate, they just want to educate their kids and put food on the table and live in peace. Most of those Muslim families now living in the West came here originally to escape the misery of corrupt, socially primitive Islamic states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many more.
Our own monarchy invented a new religion some 500 years ago, with the help of Martin Luther. This was because of a need to extend male succession to the throne and the need to divorce a few wives because they could not provide male heirs. The priests of which religion, appointed by Henry VIII still sit at the centre of our, gentle but imperfect ‘representative democracy’ and cannot be removed.
Our current queen is head of that religion and still retains the title of Defender of (the) Faith assumed by Henry.
Our god is better than yours – because I say so! Oh dear me, this sort of makes my case?
Our next monarch, god forbid (ahem), wants to become Defender of All Faiths, completely ignoring the advances in human philosophical thought developed into maturity during the European Enlightenment because he thinks its all a bit old fashioned (my source is an article in the Spectator) and comes from a speech he made a few years ago in St. James palace.
Words fail one!
I do appreciate that short term measures are needed and must be taken, but I am content to pass that responsibility to our government and the rule of law.
But nowhere, last week, did I read or hear of any proposed long term solution to the misguided and corrupt ideology of ISIS.
Here then, is my much repeated long term solution and the only one that I think will or can ever work.
Sadly it cannot be implemented or accepted by those currently in power, particularly here, in the second of only two remaining theocracies (*3) in the world; the other one being Iran!
The rest of the world are republics *4, monarchies, usually without an established religion *5, tyrannies *6 or failed states.
The real underlying problem to all of this, is that faith is an irrational state of mind, absorbed from childhood, and, like all forms of brain washing, is very difficult to remove.
My solution therefore cannot currently be accepted because we would have to challenge and defeat the idea that Anglican Christianity is a valid part of the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
We would have to:-
remove the monarchy, in order to
disestablish the Anglican Church of England, so that we could then
remove the teaching of religion as if it were a truth, from all schools, so that we can then
challenge the idea that faith is a desirable human attribute, so that we can
merge existing faith schools into a mainstream secular education system (as in France) , so that we can then
remove the existing and future divisions in society caused by faith schools, so that we can then
allow our children’s minds to be formed by access to philosophy, by asking questions and not to be given dogmatic answers, so that they may
grow into adults who no longer are socially divided by having to believe in something in order to belong
I do not propose the abolition of religion because so many people draw comfort from their faith BUT I do insist that ONLY by removing it from public life and the education of our children do we any chance of a harmonious society and a peaceful future.
*1 Rory Stewart is Minister of State at the Department for International Development and as Minister of State for Africa at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. He has extensive knowledge of the middle and far east. Wrote a book on his notorious 32 day walk around Afghanistan in 2002. Eton and Oxford and ever so posh.
*2 I have read the Qur’an twice in different versions over the last few years and from my western eyes and ears it has a belligerent tone, a monotonous repetitive style and is even more scary than the Old Testament. If you want a real Halloween scare story just read Deuteronomy & Numbers, yikes!
*3 Theocracy:- A form a government where priests from a country’s established religion form part of the legislative process of government by right!
*4 Republics:- First formed by the ancient Romans two thousand years ago following on from the Greeks who developed the first forms of democracy although not quite as we know it today. The Greeks, even then, realised that monarchies were a bit old fashioned, inefficient, led to corruption and had seen their day!
*5 Monarchies:- The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Belgium, Bahrain, Brunei, Japan etc. In all about 43 remain.
*6 Tyrannies:- North Korea, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Scotland (OK, just joking, I have a thing about Nicola Sturgeon, and no, not in that way), Zimbabwe and quite a few more.
*7 Jihad originally refers to an inner struggle that all Muslims must endure in order to submit to the word of Allah in the Qur’an, but has latterly become associated with an external violent fight for the universal Caliphate that Allah requires.
Perhaps you may be wondering why the TV, radio and papers are so full of endless discussions about the need for a deal with the EU and why we are “getting nowhere” and “time is running out”?
That is, unless like me, you are so heartily sick of it that the news has lost its onetime appeal 😉 Those who report the “news” inhabit the same bubble of unreality as do most of our MPs. They feed off each other for their raison d’etre (did you see what I did there? – hehe).
Winston Churchill was one of the main architects for the creation of a European community that would stop Germany from starting a third world war, but you Mrs May and your clueless government, have no grasp of history and no idea how to negotiate with Brussels.
Mrs May, please heed the advice of our two best former prime ministers:-
You do not need at all, as a government, to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. We are leaving in 2019 and there really is little to discuss.
Mrs May: Read his words again and internalise them. If John Major had only understood those words, he would never have signed the Maastricht Treaty. Maggie Thatcher would never have signed, remember her “No, no no!”?
Accept & proclaim that we ARE leaving the EU and stop placating remoaners (unless of course you are one of them?), it is a waste of time and energy. The sooner you tell them to shut up the better and then get on with implementing the will of the British people. Businesses will then have the clarity they need to sort themselves out, which is what they have always done.
Since you have never actually run anything that makes a profit and have no clue at all about business, it is probably best to let business get on with it. (See *1 below)
By refusing to negotiate with the ridiculous Brussels Mafia you will save your time and our money and you will be able to concentrate on what your government should be doing, i.e:-
Implement border control systems now so we are actually ready by 2019.
Yes, I know that’s breaking the rules but that is what the EU does itself, time and time again, with no recriminations (e.g: ahem, Maastricht prohibits debt bailouts for members of the EU ).
Start saving our money now:
Give our MEP’s three months notice and then reduce our payments to the EU by that amount. There really is no reason for our MEPs to be there at all. They never had any power anyway 😉
Stop importing foodstuffs NOW from the EU that we don’t actually need and start supporting our farmers and in doing so become fuel efficient, carbon saving & promote “local is better”:-
Milk
Eggs
Chicken
etc.
Clement Attlee commenting on the Schuman plan. He could see the dangers too! See *2 below
Tell EU & non-EU businesses that they can just start dealing with the UK now, just as before, because we have not changed any laws yet and probably won’t change many, other than to make things a bit simpler over the next few years.
Tell the European Court that they are now irrelevant to our legal system and remove our financial support for that bloated court.
Tell Euratom that we will continue to support them as now as they have nothing at all to do with the EEC or EU.
Tell Erasmus that we will continue to support them as now. For some strange reason, Erasmus was hijacked by the EEC & EU – so let’s set it free!
etc.
It really is that simple, just requires the vision and the can do attitude that Churchill & Attlee both had.
*1 Only 5 times in the last 100 years has any UK government spent less than they planned to receive in taxes; unbelievable and continuing financial incompetence from all political parties.
*2 The Schuman plan established the Iron & Steel Community (precursor to the EEC) in 1952, and was the first step in the process to stop Germany from murdering everyone all over again.
Acknowledgements: Leave the EU campaign for reminding us of the wisdom of our two finest prime ministers.
“We are so sorry to have upset you Mr & Mrs EU, but now we see that your requests for all our money were quite justified.”
How to make a corporate tax avoidance specialist happy. The photo also makes me want to barf or vomit as we say in England. Mrs May gives him all the British money he wants! JC Juncker (if you didn’t recognise him is in charge of a bit of the EU’s weird management structure).
“The fact that you, the EU, have proved your financial ineptitude on so many occasions means that we should have foreseen your desperate need for our money and we are so sorry to have caused you pain, so here it is.
Please come and take all the cash you need for as long as you want.”
“We quite understand that your need to support all the globalised corporations (for whom most of you work) while NOT upsetting the banks, is key to delaying the inevitable financial meltdown which will cause the daft Euro & EU to fail.”
Meanwhile, the voices of sanity are out there but well hidden or absent from the pro-EU BBC news departments.
Jacob Rees Mogg is politely calling May stupid, by calmly exposing all the flaws in her speech yesterday. (Google is your friend; Well, OK, no it isn’t, but you know what I mean (I hope))
Nigel Farage (Ed: Who he?) was talking sense yesterday in reaction to her pile of claptrap.
Boris had a pre-emptive strike in his 4000 word essay in last Saturdays Telegraph, most of which made sense. Such a pity he has not grown up yet – but sadly he and Jacob are our best hope to avert the disaster of the current Tory position.
There are many more voices out there too, mine included, all trying to overcome the insanity that is Theresa May’s ridiculous climbdown and betrayal of the British people’s voice.
Those voices are being drowned out by the remoaners who are holding sway in the public sphere due to their dependence on the EU’s support for globalist mediocrity and access to news channels.
I can’t remember a general election where I have found it so difficult to summon up the enthusiasm to vote, and I have voted in every general election since I was in my mid twenties.
Both May & Corbyn look and sound like geography teachers instead of British leaders in whom we might have pride. As of today, the polls lead for the Tories has dropped to 4% (Times) or 2% (Guardian) from 20% of a few weeks ago.
“No election needed” – May’s first U-turn of many
Theresa May is robotic in her endless “strong & stable” meanderings containing little detail and has no interesting vision for Britain. She has repeatedly shown she cannot handle ordinary people whereas Corbyn has scored well.
The election May has called was a blatant opportunity to increase her hold over the UKIP Tory wing, but it has backfired beautifully 😉
Jeremy Corbyn does have a vision and some interesting policies (of which more later) but is surrounded by hypocrites (Diane Abbot to name but one) and he himself is the other. I say that because for the last 30 years he has been anti-EU (as have I) and then U-turned when Brexit became a reality. Diane Abbot proclaimed the benefits of state education until she had a child, became a single parent family and promptly employed private education. Abbot’s manner is so damn irritating and pontificatory (Ed: Is that actually a word?) that I find it impossible to listen to her.
The only hope I saw for the Labour Party was it being led by Tristram Hunt, but he recognised a lost cause when he saw one and left politics.
The Liberal Democrats (my former intellectual and perhaps natural home) are currently led by a twerp who looks 13 years old, talks bollocks and thinks the EU is great. The Lib Dems were ruined by their former twerp of a leader Nick Clegg who managed to alienate a whole generation of intelligent students.
UKIP without Farage are pointless and direction-less. Nigel Farage was a brief, breath of fresh air in the smoke filled room of party political fog but he, like Tristram Hunt, knew when the game was up.
In short – we have no person in today’s party politics for whom I can vote with any enthusiasm.
A fact of which you might be unaware: Every government from Thatcher’s era onwards has managed to double the national debt they inherited from the previous bunch of incompetents!
Labour & Tory governments have both proved endlessly to be financially and economically inept, based simply on the evidence of their inability to sort out the deficit and debt!
So, I had a look at their future policies instead to find some direction …
Education: The Tory manifesto wants to massively increase divisive “free” schools and thereby promote societal disunity. Labour does too.
Economics: The Tories are being a bit more honest in their spending plans but are not proposing to tax the real criminals like Google, Facebook, Sir Crooked Philip Green and Vodaphone to name but a few. Corbyn has done even less well in explaining how his tax plans will actually provide the cash for his hugely increased public spending plans.
Privatisation: I have always found Thatcher’s privatisation of our Water and our electricity grid to be one of the greatest crimes committed by a serving politician see here. So, I am happy with Corbyn’s desire to renationalise the railways (as in many European countries, e.g Germany for one) and reverse water privatisation.
Defence: The Tories seem to have the more robust policy here but the reality of the matter is that we are minnows compared to the USA. Therefore, Britain having nuclear weapons is almost pointless. I don’t mind paying the USA a few billion to keep theirs up to date which is, in my humble opinion, more useful and realistic than either party’s policy. I might even fund NATO more, but the time when we could afford a British nuclear arsenal is long past.
Neither manifesto is realistic or addresses any of my main concerns over debt reduction. Both private and public debt are HUGE, at about £1.6 Trillion quid, and yet the banks are lending more with PPC (we used to call it Hire Purchase 40 years ago) but neither party has a plan to stop it.
So there we are.
If I vote, and I suppose must, I will vote for Corbyn and hope that someone comes out of the woodwork with some common sense and statesmanlike leadership qualities soon!
Acknowledgement: Peter Brookes for his insightful cartoon
The Supreme Court is today ruling on something that really does not matter very much to ‘we the people’.
Lawyers, who form the largest and probably the most vocal part of our so-called democracy have missed a very simple fact, on purpose.
We know best you peasants
That fact is that a referendum is a direct approach to the people, and is the most powerful democratic tool that ‘we the people’ have. The executive, that is our government ministers, devolved the question of EU membership to ‘we the people’.
Logically therefore, the result of a referendum transcends the normal but gently flawed process of “first past the post” elections and party politics, and that is why MPs are in such a tizzy.
Many MPs are lawyers, just over 10% in fact, according to a recent YouGov poll, and they just hate being bypassed by us, ‘we the people’.
Remoaners have involved the legal system and the Supreme Court for several deeply flawed and suspect motivations.
Flawed argument 1) “Parliamentary supremacy is what the Brixiteers wanted, therefore parliament should therefore have its say”.
Logical response 1) Nonsense! We Brexiteers voted for the supremacy of Parliament over the EU, not the supremacy of Parliament over what the people voted for! See how easily they misrepresent and twist the facts?
Flawed argument 2) “The result was so close (52% to 48% of those who voted) that therefore we must ensure that the remainers have a big say.”
Logical response 2) More people voted in the referendum than voted in any general election in the last 70 years. Just imagine if Parliament wanted to adjust the result of a general election result because it was so close? General election results usually place a political party into power who have far less than 52% of the vote! The current conservative government has just 37% of the vote!
Flawed argument 3) “The devolved parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated differently and Scotland in particular should have a new independence referendum because a majority of ‘Scots’ voted to remain in the EU”.
Logical response 3) Firstly, we are all part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and therefore the British Parliament sitting in London is supreme. The fact that the majority of people voting, in say Watford, wanted to remain in the EU does not mean that the people of Watford should be allowed to remain in the EU. That is just plain potty!
Flawed argument 4) This is the unspoken one, underlying most of the other spoken reasons. “The people are ignorant of the facts and just cannot be given this amount of power.”
Logical response 4) We the people understood exactly why we wanted rid of the deeply flawed EU:-
It supports ever bigger corporations, we don’t
The EU is completely undemocratic, by design, we have spotted that too
the EU wants a federal government of Europe, we don’t
The EU is run by flawed and failed politicians, we spotted that too
Jean Claude Juncker, The president of the EU commission, is a tax avoidance specialist for global corporations, we don’t think that makes him qualified
The EU is financially incompetent and its lack of financial transparency has caused its accounts audit to fail each year for the last 20 years
The Euro was a daft, flawed and costly invention designed to promote a federal Europe which we don’t want
The EU breaks its own rules, repeatedly, the biggest example are bailouts for failing members: 3 for Greece, 1 for Ireland, 1 for Portugal, 1 for Cyprus and perhaps the largest was for Spanish banks
The main issue here is that bailouts are specifically outlawed under the Maastricht treaty, but never mind that, eh?
The Supreme Court is today ruling on something that really does not matter very much to ‘we the people’, it just matters to the lawyers, journalists and politicians.
I realise that this is a simplistic response BUT my main point is that the whole legal ‘story’ is irrelevant fluff in a bigger picture!
Bah POO & piffle!
PS: Just heard that the Supreme Court got it wrong ;-(
The law is indeed an ass
But – three cheers for the three judges who dissented from the small majority – I think we should demand a recount because the vote went the wrong way 😉
PPS: Just seen Prime Minister’s questions – unbelievable bollocks from all sides on this question – Corbyn was a disaster – the Westminster bubble folk are living a LaLa Land.
