Category Archives: EU

The Bruges Group meeting 28 March 2018 – Too many loose ends remain untied

 Robert Henderson 
 
There was a healthy attendance for the first meeting of 2018
The speakers were John  Redwood and the economist and journalist   Liam Halligan.  They were both good value judged purely as speakers but I ‘m afraid Redwood did what I  have seen him do so often, namely, play the role of the big bad Brexiteer then collapse when it comes to the difficult questions. 
 
During his speech Redwood went on about how the UK would gain control of this and control of that  in the abstract, but there was little solid detail. In particular he appeared to have a blind faith in technology  (and God knows, we  have had enough public sector IT disasters to cure such blind faith)   to handle the border problems,   including that of the Northen Ireland /Republic of Ireland  border in Ireland.   This led him to advocate what was essentially an open borders immigration policy. 
 
Redwood  started from a position that the UK should restrict low wage, low skilled labour while encouraging the high skilled. He then tried to fit this into a regulatory system enforced by work permits. Anyone, Redwood  said, could physically come into  country but if they did not have a work permit they would not be able to work. This is living in cloud cuckoo  land because (1) many of the low skilled already work off-the-books and  cash in hand and (2) many more would be willing to do so under such a regime.  It is also improbable that EU members state citizens coming after Brexit would be denied all benefits, either because they have dependents or more probably simply because a liberal internationalist dominated  political class and media would prevent them deporting EU citizens in large numbers. 
 
But the really telling point was not in  Redwood’s  speech but during questions. 
 
I wanted to put two questions:
 
1. What if  Theresa May agreed to a treaty which either thwarted  Brexit  by surreptitiously stitching the UK back into the EU , eg, through membership  of EFTA,  or simply gave the EU too much and the UK too little, for example, agreeing to a long and potentially endless “transition” arrangement. Suppose  May  threatened to get or got the treaty  through Parliament with the help of remainers from all parties, what would you [Redwood] do then?   
 
2. What would be the legal position  if the treaty May agreed was rejected by Parliament?  Would that mean the UK left without a deal or would it mean that the UK remained in the EU? 
 
I was unable to ask either question but someone else asked Redwood  question 1. Redwood replied that he thought it best not address that question at this time. This brought murmurings of dissent from the audience which  prompted  Redwood to make the incredible claim that Brexit was  in safe hands with Theresa May and she could be trusted with the rest of the negotiations. Outright derision resulted as the audience variously reminded Redwood that May had a capitulated on every single policy to date – the money to be paid to the EU, the right of EU citizens to come to the UK and acquire a permanent right to stay during the transition period, fishing rights during the transmission period etc. Redwood just repeated what he had said. 
 
I  think it reasonable to conclude that if shove comes to push  over a betrayal of Brexit   Redwood cannot be relied on to end up on the Brexit side of the  ledger.
 
Question 2 – “What would be the legal position  if the treaty May agreed was rejected by Parliament?  Would that mean the UK left without a deal or would it mean that the UK remained in the EU?  ” remained unasked.  
 
Many leavers are assuming that if the treaty May negotiates is not accepted by Parliament then the UK will leave without a deal and trade  under WTO rules. But this may not be so. It could be argued, as remainers doubtless will argue, that Parliament has been given a vote on the treaty and that their rejection of the draft treaty automatically means the UK remains in the EU. The EU might well support the contention because it would suit their purposes. 
 
Liam Halligan was forthright in rebutting all the nonsense found in the mouths of remainers and painted a positive economic future for the UK outside of  the EU. However, he seemed much too sanguine when it came to his belief that the UK would leave without a deal. Much more more probable than that is May agreeing to a bad deal either out of panic  as the dealine for leaving approaches or because it secretly suits her remainer beliefs. 
 
The other questions asked by the audience concentrated heavily on the plans for  UK fisheries, the EU bias of UK civil servants  and the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) organisation  which is a nascent EU defence force. 

Don’t listen to the ” keep Theresa May at all costs ” Brexit siren voices 

Robert Henderson 
 
There are plenty of voices saying stick with Theresa May because that is the best hope of achieving Brexit. This goes against all the evidence about her  intentions that we already have from her behaviour over the past eighteen months. 
 
 The danger with  May carrying on as PM is that  she will, either from panic (from time pressure and a terror of not getting any deal) or from a Machiavellian  desire to  surreptitiously sabotage Brexit,   lead us into a deal which is called Brexit but which in reality leaves us inside the coils of the  EU.  
 She has not stood firm on any issue. Her MO  is simple, make Brexiteer speeches for home consumption then cave in to EU demands when she goes to Brussels. To date she has committed the UK to paying £40 billion; agreed to a lengthy transition period; agreed that those within not merely the EU but the European Economic Area  who come before the end of the transition period  will have  the same rights as those who settled in the UK prior to March 2018;  conceded that UK control over UK fisheries will  not be established  until Brexit is complete (with plenty of hints that EU boats will still be able fish in British waters; given an unequivocal promise that there will be no hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and left the UK for at least another three years at the mercy of the European Court of Justice with an obligation to incorporate any new EU directives until Brexit is complete. 
 

I realise the dangers of unseating May,  but if she is  going to keep on throwing away Brexit item by item the idea that we should hold tight to nurse for fear of something worse  nurse  does not hold water.  Nor is it inevitable that Labour or a coalition of Labour and other parties would engineer a vote of no confidence if she left office.  Labour is  riven with  scandal  and ideology at present and it is telling that Labour have  not been able to build a healthy lead in the polls. Corbyn may be popular amongst certain sections of the public but he is mistrusted by many voters.      

 
There is no reason to believe  May will  not continue with the behaviour she has shown ever since the Brexit vote, namely, acting  in a way to sabotage it, from the initial delay in triggering Article 50 to the most recent concessions on  new EU migrants to the UK and fishing rights.  The details of the proposed transition deal will  give another  firm steer as to where she intends the UK to be going.  Even if it is only 2 years there could be a great deal of damage done  (especially in the area of immigration) . 
 
The other thing to bear in mind is that the latest  the next general election can be held is June 2021. Assuming that this Parliament runs its full course that could mean the election is  held only just after the 2 year transition period  ends or just before it has ended if the election is held earlier. It is also quite possible that the two year transition period might be extended or not start in March 2019  .  If Labour or a coalition of Labour and other parties wins that election it would be administratively easy even  at that stage to keep the UK in the EU because we would not have effectively left. 
 
If we are signed up to remaining in the EU by another name it is no good imagining that we can at a later date get a true Brexit because it is certain that after the next General Election there still  be  a remainer dominated Commons and a remainer dominated Lords plus all the dark state remainers in public service   and the mass media.

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER
In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution
It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 
In the debate he said:-
“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”
“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”
“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”
“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”
“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”
Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.
Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 
Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 
In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” – that’s 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.
Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted – a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.
For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!
It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 
In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 
Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 
Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.
The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box – getting only 29% support!
As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”
Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 
What do you think? 
Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 
A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.
The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.
Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 
Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.
This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.
I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.
We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.
The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.
My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.
Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.
A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate
Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.
The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 
That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,
Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?
They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 
This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.
As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,
I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.
Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so”.

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK (& England!)
 
Many thanks to the Campaign for an English Parliament for this intel:-

“Many initial responses to hearing that there is a Yorkshire independence movement and a Yorkshire Party is to pour scorn on the idea as being fiscally irresponsible or plainly unworkable. This is because it is obvious that without the British government’s subsidies Yorkshire Services wouldn’t function properly.

However, to simply dismiss these two organisations that have the same Liberal Democrat leadership is to underestimate the manipulation and the devious actions of the EU in supporting a new sounding name for the old EU Regionalisation project for Britain and for England. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/

First it is important for any patriots to realise that the EU is supporting the Yorkshire Party as it belongs to an EU umbrella organisation, called the European Free Alliance (EFA). That EU organisation gathers together 45 “Progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist” parties throughout Europe. This grouping can only be conceived as an EU attempt to break-up and digest those nations that the regionalist organisations work within. This is because the EU supports the Regionalisation agenda because it makes resistance to their EU federalism agenda difficult if the nation state is fighting on two fronts. (the EU commission and EU supporting regionalist voices within).

The structure in Catalonia and Spain is a good example showing how devious the EU truly is:- The EU has openly distanced itself from those Catalonian parties that have called for full independence but it fails to mention that some of these parties are also included in their EU, European Free Alliance organisation. In effect, they are funded encouraging Regionalisation behind the scenes but are publicly slapping down independence. That is because the regionalist within the nation state is an EU regionalist patsy!

Once you accept that Regionalisation is all about pushing the EU Federalist agenda then you realise that The Yorkshire Party is not about benefiting the people of Yorkshire but about promoting EU federalism. This makes the Yorkshire party dangerous because it is about creating internal divisions and arguments within England and the UK whilst the British Government are engaged in full Brexit negotiations.

The British Government is weakened by the Regionalist pro-EU parties of the SNP and Plaid Cymru but now the EUs promoting a Regionalist political party within England that is for continuing to stay in the EU.
http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/europe, http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/sign_our_petition_support_the_rights_of_eu_citizens_in_yorkshire

This is not new and any person should be able to see the 4 EU stages that have and are being attempted to create destabilise the UK:-

(1) Under the Blair Labour government the EU promoted regionalisation of the UK and of England but the idea failed to gain any momentum in England and they lost at the ballot box in the North East of England. (You only need to look at the EU zealot, Tony Blair’s current EU stance to realise what his regionalist agenda was not about better governance. It was about destabilising the UK for EU advantage by creating a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Irish Assembly and English Regional Assembly*). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Full_members

(2) Thus with Tony Blair’s help the EU had been successful in creating an unbalanced constitutional situation. Having created Regional Parliaments that could challenge the British government, the EU began to focus more on England. They started to support the term ‘Localism’ which really meant Regionalisation of England. If you break England up into EU Regions then you really have created an internal political and constitutional crisis for the UK.

Initially, it was Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists getting far more pro-EU media exposure than the actual support for their party would have commanded and now it’s the turn of the Yorkshire Party to be promoted. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15787239.Councillors_vote_to_back_devolution_move/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-leeds-42427906 ;

(3) Now we need to look forward to 2018, having helped establish the idea that Yorkshire can stand alone as a Region within the EU, they could allow the Yorkshire party to push for their own parliament with more fiscal autonomy and claim that Yorkshire doesn’t have any connection with the south of England and that the British Government has no more right to speak for them than for Scotland. http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk

(4) Then Yorkshire Party will demand the same powers as Scotland and it’s own independence referendum which states it wants to remain in the EU!
https://en-gb.facebook.com/voteyorkshire/

To fully corroborate the Regionalist agenda it is worth noting that the Leader of the Yorkshire Party, Stewart Arnold, was previously a liberal Democrat Councillor and Parliamentary candidate and he also worked as a Policy and Communications Director for the European Parliament between 2001 -2012. Mr Arnold was involved in establishing the “Yorkshire Independence Movement” and is its Vice Chairman as well as becoming the Yorkshire Party’s as its leader. Also added to this is Nigel Sollitt’s comments as, The Yorkshire Independence Movement’s Chairman, states that their aim is:- ‘a Yorkshire empowered to make her own decisions and determine her own destiny’. https://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/current-executive-committee.html

In conclusion, by not discouraging Regionalism, the British government is sleepwalking into the same problems that Spain now has with Catalonia but with the major difference being that the British government is about to start negotiations to leave the EU, Spain isn’t. The Spanish Government must therefore seem as an enemy of the EU whereas the British Government is.

Regionalisation is a process that the EU uses to promote its Federalist policy, if English Regionalism is encouraged then “dissolution” of the UK will occur. This puts the EU Regionalist party, Yorkshire party in direct opposition to the British government and the British State itself as well as in opposition to the continuance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!”


*

 United Kingdom Mebyon Kernow  Cornwall 2003
 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru  Wales 1983
 United Kingdom Scottish National Party  Scotland 1989
 United Kingdom Yorkshire Party[28]  Yorkshire 2015/2016

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE EU/UK TRADE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS?

When trying to work out what the British Establishment are up to in the Brexit negotiations it is worth bearing in mind that all the members of Theresa May’s Government have made their political careers, at least in part, out of claiming that they were Eurosceptics. The reason for that was clearly revealed in the EU Referendum when it appeared that over 60% of Conservative Party members voted for Leave and over 60% of Conservative Party voters voted for Leave.

It follows that anybody who was aspiring to be a Conservative Parliamentary Candidate or Minister before the Referendum would have destroyed their career if they had admitted that they would do what they actually did do during the Referendum – which was vote for remaining within the EU! You cannot therefore trust at face value anything that these people say about their politics. Let’s therefore look at what they are actually doing.

In analysing this it is worth thinking what you would do if you were a Minister in a Government which was enthusiastically committed to exiting the EU. The first thing that you would do would be get all of the research done as to what the difficulties, bottlenecks and obstructions would be in fully exiting the EU. David Davis is the “Brexit” Minister. Davis in many respects is admirable, but he nevertheless showed his compromising character in dropping his previously vocal support for an English Parliament, when it looked possible that he might become Leader of the Conservative Party and he was told that the Conservative Party would not support that. This is the same David Davis who has now admitted that in fact the Government has not done any proper research on the consequences of leaving without a trade deal. He admitted that this had not been done because the Government has no intention of leaving without doing a trade deal. That is a highly revealing indication of the Government’s agenda from somebody who is supposed to be one of the keenest “Brexiteers”.

The second thing that you would of course have done was to have opened up negotiations with all those countries that are interested in doing a trade deal with us and also with the World Trade Organisation and any other entities that we will need to be dealing with immediately upon exiting the EU. None of this has been done! That is another highly revealing fact as to what the Government is actually up to.

Another thing that any Government truly committed to exiting would be at the very least thinking about doing is reverting to England’s historic, strategic and diplomatic position in trying to make sure that no one power dominated in Western Europe. At the moment that power is of course the EU and therefore a Government committed to exiting the EU would be looking for allies and working with any opportunity to break-up the EU block. Obviously that would have meant supporting Catalonia and using our potentially massive trade leverage with Southern Ireland to force them out of the EU. In addition we would of course be seeking to work with the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, to reinvigorate that as a block which could counter the EU. It hardly needs saying that none of that is being done and, indeed, Theresa May’s Government backed the Spanish repression of Catalonian Independence and has not even shown any support for the Eastern Europeans opposition to EU policies on mass immigration.

Last, but not least, a truly Brexit orientated Government would absolutely refuse to pay the EU a single penny that we didn’t owe them, let alone over £50 billion of English taxpayers’ money.

Let’s not forget that any talk of payments to remain within the EU single market is actually talk of the use of ordinary English taxpayers’ money to subsidise big business in maintaining their access to the EU markets. It is not as if membership of the EU single market is of net benefit to the UK already because although we can buy as consumers (if we have the money!) Audis, Mercedes Benz, etc without paying a tariff the fact is that not only do the Germans and the French, etc., sell us more cars than we sell them, but also there has been a balance of trade in favour of the EU for almost all the last 30 years. This means that actually when considered a national economy the EU profits more from UK trade than the UK profits from EU trade. It would also mean if we went to tariffs that substantially more tariffs would be paid to our Government than would have to be paid out to the EU. Concessions are therefore not being given in the interests of ordinary people, or of our Nation, they are being given in the interests of the Conservative Party’s backers in big business corporations and in the City.

So where are we going I hear you ask? I thought one of the most interesting conversations that I have heard recently was one in which it was being suggested that the Westminster rumour mill is talking about Theresa May having gamed the DUP into refusing any different treatment for Northern Ireland than for the rest of the UK over the proposal that Southern Ireland and the EU had signed off on, which was that Northern Ireland would retain “regulatory alignment”. The rumour is that Theresa May wanted the DUP to refuse that for Northern Ireland only so that she could apply pressure on members of the Cabinet to accept “regulatory alignment” for the whole of the UK. If that remains accepted then we will not have properly have left the EU. The only plus of that situation is that as Michael Gove has been saying, then we won’t be constitutionally part of the EU and that means that a future Government (with more spine than the current one) can change anything that is being agreed at this stage.

IRELAND THREATENS BREXIT DEAL

IRELAND THREATENS BREXIT DEAL
Two weeks ago the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic made the entirely credible threat that, if the Irish Government didn’t get what they wanted in keeping an open border with Northern Ireland, then they would veto any proposed EU trade agreement with the United Kingdom. 
The reason that such a threat is entirely credible is that for any EU trade agreement to be ratified it has to go through the process of ratification, not only by the EU institutions, but also by all 27 remaining Member States of the EU. 
This is part of the reason why the EU has been so very slow over the years at entering into trade agreements.  In the case of the trade agreement with Canada, the vast majority of terms were agreed relatively quickly, but the ratification was then held up for years because the Belgium Walloons were being difficult about an obscure point and until they agreed the Belgium state could not ratify the agreement. 
We may also have difficulty with the Walloons, who are, of course, notorious about being difficult about almost everything.  There has also been a direct threat from Spain of vetoing any EU trade agreement with the EU unless they get what they want over Gibraltar. 
Then in terms of troubles ahead there is the problem that Germany is currently politically rudderless. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor for so many years is no doubt focussing all her efforts on internal political considerations (and her own future!) rather than thinking about issues relating to Brexit!
As things stand under Article 50 we are out of the EU in March 2019.  That is just 16 months away!
Even if we were already agreed on almost every aspect of the trade agreement negotiations that would be an almost impossibly short period to succeed in getting all the EU institutions and also all the Member States to all ratify the agreement. 
As it is, we haven’t even begun the trade negotiations because of the EU’s approach to negotiation – that the divorce package must be agreed before any trade negotiations can begin.  This negotiating approach was always intended to minimise the British Government’s negotiating position. 
The EU will be left desperately short of money as a result of us, one of its major cash cows, leaving the EU which is why they are trying to get us to agree to pay a vast ransom before they will even agree to discuss any trade deal, so that we cannot use our financial position to extract any concessions from them.
In addition to our financial position our Government’s negotiating team throughout that the question of the EU migrants who are here would be helpful.  In many cases they are sending back to their home countries a significant proportion of what they are earning, plus child benefit and other remittances which help keep their home countries financially afloat. 
Our negotiating team also thought that it would help us that our security services are more effective and sophisticated than most of the rest of the 27. 
All of these issues seemed to give potentially strong negotiating positions.  That is why all of which points the EUs current negotiating stance is intended to strip away from us!
When you couple all of this with the relative weakness and incoherence of Mrs May’s Remainer dominated Government – it has never looked very likely that she was going to be able to deliver a good deal on trading terms between us and the EU countries!
If the Irish deliver on their threat it would be politically impossible (not to mention – politically suicidal!) for any British Government to negotiate away the integrity of the United Kingdom, let alone a Conservative and Unionist Prime Minister whose very Party, as it currently stands, was formed on the question of Ireland in 1922 when Conservative and Unionist MPs came together in the original 1922 Committee to vote to withdraw from Lloyd George’s National Coalition over the question of Ireland. 
There is also the electoral dynamic in the House of Commons which requires the support of Arlene Foster’s Democratic Unionist Party who would not agree to what Ireland is asking for anyway.  So Mrs May’s Government has even less ability to agree what Ireland is demanding than any other British Government would be able to!
So it would appear that no deal is really the most likely outcome. 
If Mrs May’s Government are really sensible it would be currently planning for that and certainly not parting with any English Taxpayers’ money to buy the possibility of having trade negotiations, when those trade negotiations are clearly going to go nowhere in the long run.
Brexit, membership of the EU and properly implementing the referendum decision combine in a cluster of issues which are very important to a lot of people.  They are perhaps more important than traditional party loyalties. They also cut across the line of the political spectrum represented by the Post War two party system British Establishment Parties. 
Therefore we have a real prospect that the Remainiac manoeuvres that we see going on in Parliament may lead to a smash for the Establishment. That means that there is to a real prospect on re-alignment of the political spectrum, hopefully more in accordance in delivering what ordinary people really want out of politics.  In my view, that is patriotism; coupled with welfare for our people; control on immigration; coupled with higher wages for our people; support for traditional values; an end to political correctness; integration not multi-culturalism; a land in which there is room for difference and innovation; self-improvement without the dead weight of bureaucratic “Equality and Diversity” quotas.  In short an England that would truly make you proud to be English!
As against that majority view we do, on one end of the spectrum, have perhaps no more than 25,000 corporate globalists supporting the Tory Party, but they are armed with vast resources and control of big business and much of the print media.  On the other end there are certainly no more than 600,000 internationalist, socialist, statists supporting Labour again armed with influence in the state hierarchy, academia , teaching, Social work and in the media – especially the BBC.

CATALONIA AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT SPAIN, THE EU AND THE UK


CATALONIA AND WHAT IT TELLS US ABOUT SPAIN, THE EU AND THE UK

Catalonia is now amongst the leading nations on Earth in demanding National Sovereignty, National Independence and National Liberty and has done so in the face of outrageous bullying by the Spanish Government and by the EU.

On Sunday, 22nd October the Spanish Foreign Minister, Snr Alfonso Dastis, in his interview with Andrew Marr on the BBC’s flagship current affairs programme, The Andrew Marr Show described the Catalan Government as:- “A group of rebels trying to impose their own arbitrariness onto the People of Catalonia.” And he also said that the outrageous behaviour of the Spanish Police was a “provoked use of force”.

The language spoken about “rebels” must not only have been carefully thought out as it came out of the mouth of the Spanish Foreign Minister who would have been thoroughly briefed by his officials as well as worked with English language interpreters to ensure what he said was exactly what the Madrid Government thinks. For a Senior Spanish Government Minister to use the word “rebels” is therefore highly significant.

From a psychological point of view that is in the same area of words in our language as “civil war”, “guerrillas” etc. It thus portrays a very senior Spanish Minster, and therefore the Madrid Government, generally to be thinking in terms of civil war.

Last time such language was used about the Catalonian nationalists it was from the mouth of Francisco Franco, later to become the Spanish Dictator, el Caudillo.

In short it seems evident that the Spanish Government is gearing up to the point where they will not only send in the Guardia Civil but also the Army. Once the Spanish Army is sent in you can be sure that the consequences will be Civil War. It is hard to imagine the Spanish Army coping with the degree of provocation they are certain to get from the Catalonian nationalists without opening fire.

This is the same army that when my father was the Defence Attaché in Madrid that one of its officers shot dead a conscript soldier on parade whilst inspecting his troops guns because he found that this soldier’s gun wasn’t clean enough. The response of the Spanish Military was to back the officer as being within his rights! You can imagine how that kind of attitude is going to play out on the streets of Barcelona!

The leadership of the EU has already disgraced itself by supporting the Spanish Government in sending in the Guardia Civil to beat up large numbers of citizens trying to vote in the Catalonian Independence Referendum. The EU yet again showed that it is bizarre for any genuine nationalist to support membership of the EU – take note Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party!

So far as Catalans are concerned this is particularly a stark betrayal because it is the EU Regionalisation policy which has been busy ever since the Maastricht Treaty trying to create the demand for separatism in the “Regions” of all the bigger states of Europe, including of course Spain.

I expect that most Catalonian nationalists probably originally thought that the EU would support them. If so how misguided they were!

But also how misguided is so much of the multi-culturalist agenda of the EU which is partly responsible for the regionalisation agenda.

Also the UK Government under its inept Remainist Leader has turned its back on the Catalans demonstrating that Theresa May hasn’t really got out of her pro-EU mind-set.

Now that we have voted to come out of the EU, all our leaders should be considering the basis of our foreign policy post Brexit.

For centuries it was England’s policy to ensure that no one Power ruled over continental Europe. All the negotiations with the EU demonstrate, if demonstration was ever needed, that that policy was pure common-sense for England. We ought therefore to be encouraging all the nationalists within the EU to be breaking away, thus dissolving the EU and restoring the balance of power on the continent. 

Catalonia is now also leaving the EU as well as Spain and should be welcomed with open arms by any of our leaders who have any strategic vision or understanding!

The logic of Brexit

Robert Henderson

Remainer  determination to subvert Brexit  is shamelessly alive and kicking. Since the referendum on 23rd June 2016 those who voted to remain in the EU have given a ceaseless display of antidemocratic and profoundly dishonest  behaviour in their attempt to overturn  overtly or covertly the result of the referendum.

The favourite tune of the Remainers is  “I respect the result of the referendum  but …”, the’ but’ being  variously that the “British did not vote to be poor”, the electors were suffering from  false consciousness , and the most absurd of all, that electors  made their decision to vote leave solely on  the leave side’s promise that £350 million a  week would be available to spend on the NHS. (This was a clumsy piece of leave information because the £350 million was what the UK as a whole paid as a net figure (after the rebate) to the EU each year and included money such as the subsidies to UK farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy.  Nonetheless, it was factually true in the sense that once  the money was not paid to the EU the British Government would be free to use it, with Parliament’s approval, in any way they saw fit.  What was a an outright and unambiguous lie  was the Remainer claim that the UK receives money from the EU each year.)

To give  substance to the Remainers wishes to stay in the EU  there has been calls for  a second  referendum once a deal with the EU is made (this is official LibDem policy); suggestions that if no deal is made after two years  the UK should remain in the EU (a surefire way to ensure that the EU will come to no agreement with the UK);   proposals to keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union (which would effectively mean no Brexit) either by direct treaty with the EU (SNP Leader’s policy) or through  the UK joining EFTA, and calls for Brexit to be simply  overturned, most notably by Tony Blair. Perhaps most dangerously  all the major UK parties now  have as their official policy a transitional period, including The Tories after Theresa May’s Florence speech.   This has real dangers  for Brexit because apart from committing the UK to at least another two years of paying into the EU, accepting free movement, being  bound by  new  EU  laws and being subject to the European Court of Justice,  thetransitional period could  turn into a permanent condition or at least be extended   so far into the future that a Remainer government might use to effectively  bind the UK  permanently into the EU.

To the domestic attempts to sabotage Brexit can be added the internationalist institutions which have  continued to fuel project fear with dire economic warnings, the most recent case being the  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD)  which urges a reversal of Brexit with a second referendum to improve the UK economy. .

More formally, there has been the legal case brought  by Gina Miller which  forced the Government to consult Parliament on the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There  has also been the  failed attempt  by  Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland  requesting the High  Court  to  in effect direct the Government to hold a Parliamentary debate and vote on leaving  European Economic Area on the grounds that that the issue  not  on the referendum ballot paper.  A third court case which sought to reverse the triggering of Article 50 was  started in the Republic of Ireland  with a view to getting a favourable judgement which would then provide a  basis for further action in European courts was started but stopped.  Doubtless there will be further legal attempts to interfere with what is a quintessentially political matter before Brexit is completed.

The   most serious current attempt  by Remainers to  delay and  sabotage Brexit  is to  try to amend the  EU Withdrawal Bill so that Parliament have the final say on whatever is the final outcome of the Brexit process.   There is also probably  something of the McCawberish principle of waiting for something to “turn up” in this attempt.

The remainers  attempt to  justify this behaviour on the spurious ground that the referendum  result was about returning sovereignty to Parliament. This is to ignore the logic of the referendum for the form of the referendum placed the will of the people over the will of Parliament and, indeed , of government.

Why Brexit is not like a business negotiation

A main plank of  Remainer cant is that the Brexit negotiation is just like any old  business  negotiation where the two sides come to the table hiding what their bottom lines are before agreeing to a compromise. But the  Brexit negotiation is very different because  the British people were offered a chance to vote to take us out of the EU by voting in a referendum.

That referendum was simple and   unequivocal : there were no caveats required   to make it valid such as requiring  a minimum percentage of the electorate voting about Brexit or a minimum percentage of those voting to vote to leave. It was a straightforward one-vote-is enough yes or no ballot.  The  question on the ballot  paper was  beautifully  straightforward : “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Consequently,  the  leave result was an unambiguous instruction to  the Government and  Parliament to take  the UK out of the EU, no ifs,  no buts. The  vote  did not mean  deciding during the course of  the post-Brexit negotiation with the EU how many  of the EU  shackles which  currently   emasculate the UK as a nation state  should be removed and how many retained .  In short it   was simply  a question of leave meaning  leave,  just  as leave means leave when someone cancels their membership  of a club.

That being so the Government  is bound to have red lines and  cannot  go into the negotiations with a free hand  to barter away things as they might do in a business negotiation. The Government has no authority to pursue anything other than a true Brexit,   which means  out of the customs union, out of the single market,  away from the jurisdiction of the court of the European Court of Justice, control of our borders ,  free to make our own trade deals   and  paying no money to the EU.  Anything less than this would be a  betrayal of the referendum result .

The referendum was binding on the Government and Parliament

Remainers have also  tried to pretend that the referendum was merely advisory. Amongst the  many  falsehoods and deceits attempted by Remainers this is arguably  the most shameless because the position is clear cut.

The fact that the referendum was intended to be binding on both Government and Parliament  rather than merely advisory  was repeatedly  made unambiguously clear from well  before the referendum .   The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015  Page 72 said this about the referendum: “We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”

In opening the second reading debate on the European  Union Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said “This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”

and

“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

In the light of this  MPs cannot have believed  that the referendum would  not be binding from the very beginning . Moreover, at the third reading of the  European Union Referendum Bill  the Commons voted 316 for and   53 against with 52 of those against being SNP Members.  Only one Labour MP voted against.  It was an overwhelming  acceptance, direct  or tacit,   by MPs of all parties barring the SNP  that the referendum was binding.

Finally, in the course of the referendum campaign the government spent £9.5million of taxpayers’ money on printing a leaflet and distributing it to all households in the United Kingdom.  It included these words:

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.” (Page 2)

And  it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic:

“This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide.” (Page 14)..

The problem with Brexit  is Remainer politicians  still holding  the levers of power

We have a Remainer PM, a Remainer dominated Cabinet, a Remainer dominated Government,  a Remainer dominated House of Commons (with remainers dominant in the Tory, Labour, LibDEms and the SNP parties) and a Remainer dominated House of Lords.

A recent  report by the Daily Telegraph  found that the Cabinet is overwhelmingly Remainer. They asked all Cabinet members  whether they would vote leave  if another referendum was held. The result was :

– 16 Cabinet members either  refused to say whether they would vote leave  now or failed to respond to the question.

– Two Cabinet ministers who backed Remain,   Elizabeth Truss, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury  and Jeremy Hunt, the Health secretary,  said they would now vote Leave.

– Five other Cabinet ministers who voted Leave – Priti Patel, David Davis, Andrea Leadsom, Liam Fox and Michael Gove –  said they would still vote to leave the EU.

– The PM Theresa May  has  repeatedly refused to say whether she would be a leave voter if a referendum was held.

The overwhelming Remainer sentiment of those occupying the leading roles in the Government  automatically undermines the Brexit negotiations because the politicians of the  other EU member states and  the politicised  EU bureaucracy will think that at  best the UK Government will be happy to concede a great  deal  of  ground to the EU  and at worst will not push for a true  Brexit because their hearts are simply not in it.

The only way to change matters is to have a committed leaver as PM and a  Cabinet comprised only  of committed leavers. Anything less and  serious Cabinet disunity will continue.

Such a Government should lay down  the redlines listed above and commence immediately and with all speed the  preparation  to trade if necessary under WTO rules . That  provides a ready made template for our trade with the EU  . More boldly we could walk away from the EU now by invoking the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which includes the provision to  throw aside a treaty where the other parties o the treaty are acting in bad faith. The fact that Article 50 exists means that the other EU members have to act in good faith over a member state’s withdrawal. Patently they are not honouring that obligation.  Bad faith is  shown amply by both Eurocrats and EU political leaders since the referendum decision.

Remainers need to think  about what  is likely to happen if a true Brexit is denied by the multifarious machinations which Remainers have attempted.  That would be saying to the British electorate it does not matter how you vote the only thing you will ever get is what the ruling elite wants. At best  British politics would be poisoned for a very long time  and at worst political violence  could result.

After more than half a century of internationalist politicians and their supporters in  the media, universities and the civil service  the concept of treason is out of fashion in  the UK.  But treason is a crime like theft or murder,  which always exists whether or not there is  a law on the Statute Book for it  is the ultimate betrayal. If Brexit is thwarted  the cry of  treason may  be on people’s lips again in earnest.

THE NATIONS ARE REVOLTING! (AND WANT INDEPENDENCE!)

THE NATIONS ARE REVOLTING! (AND WANT INDEPENDENCE!)


Many of us have now seen the results of the dramatic intervention of the Spanish Prime Minister who ordered the heavily armed Guardia Civil to storm the Catalonian Government Buildings and to arrest ringleaders of the Catalonian Government, who were saying they intended to go ahead with an Independence referendum for Catalonia (since they have been repeatedly democratically elected to hold one!). 

 The Spanish Prime Minster and the State system are claiming that holding an Independence Referendum is illegal, which of course merely goes to show that the Spanish constitution itself is undemocratic.

Memories of the Guardia Civil’s actions when Barcelona was captured by Franco’s Spanish Fascists are regularly reawakened by the discovery of more pits of the remains of executed Republicans and Catalonian nationalists.

Now there has been a violent police attempt to suppress the referendum with injuries to about 900 people. Just as telling has been the anti-nationalist and authoritarian statist reaction of the EU which is supporting the Spanish State in suppressing the democratic nationalism of the Catalans.

Meanwhile in the Middle East a further consequence of the Iraq war is played out with the Kurds holding a referendum on independence from Iraq.

The Kurds were one of the victims of the post First World War settlement in the Middle East, since a just settlement would have given them their own Nation State since they were and remain self-evidently a Nation. Since that time they have suffered horribly from being divided partly into the post 1919 countries of Iraq, partly into Iran, partly into Syria and partly into Turkey.

Any nationalist who believes that the natural state of a nation is to rule itself must wish both the Kurds and the Catalonians well in their struggle to become free and independent Nation States.

Here is an article drawn to my attention by a patriot:-

>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/kurdistan-independence-referendum/hopes-for-a-new-kurdistan/

Our patriotic supporter rightly asks me:-

“Why is independence wonderful for Kurdistan, a country in excess of 74,000 square miles, but England is too big at just over 50,000 square miles?”

And so now what was that about England and the English Nation? What about our own Nation State?

EU NEGOTIATIONS – DEAL OR NO DEAL?


EU NEGOTIATIONS – DEAL OR NO DEAL?


I have been watching the news reports about the British Government’s negotiations with the EU’s negotiator, Michael Barnier, and also their dealings with Jean-Claude Juncker.

The interesting thing is that, despite predictions of common-sense negotiating at the behest of German car makers, it seems evident that the EU negotiators are behaving in exactly the same kind of way as we are used to EU negotiations taking place in the past.

Had the EU been a different organisation where negotiations could take place flexibly and sensibly and on a common-sense basis, then there can be no doubt that David Cameron would have brought back a far better compromise package, which would probably have resulted in there being a narrow majority for Remain in the referendum.

So the lack of the EU’s willingness to negotiate on anything of significance is part of the reason that we are where we are at the moment.

Almost inevitably the EU is now again adopting an intransigent approach to negotiation, whereby they are not prepared to discuss the financial settlement before the terms of the divorce have been settled. That thinking would be muddled even if we were talking about a real divorce of a married couple.

In a proper divorce the first stage is merely to decide whether or not the situation is one where divorce is proper. In an English court that is now done quite simply. It is more or less taken for granted that if the couple want to divorce they will be able to, provided they can make suitable allegations.

Once the divorce has been ordered, then the court will be prepared to go on and deal with the financial settlement. Clearly there is little intention of having further relations between the divorcing couple except for looking after the children.

This is not the kind of situation that we are in with Brexit. It is not equivalent to a divorce despite some of the rhetoric that claims that it is similar.

If it was a divorce it would be one where the EU were saying that they won’t ever discuss what the arrangements for the children will be until we have settled how much we are going to pay them! That is simply not a way which the court would accept was proper for divorcing couples to behave.

So the EU is not behaving in a proper way. 

It is however behaving in exactly the sort of way that you would expect EU apparatchiks to behave, that is in a demanding and dictatorial way the purpose of which is about protecting the EU as an entity, rather than looking after the interests of EU member states, let alone EU citizens!