Category Archives: eu referendum

Latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and about the case to stop any extension to Article 50

Following the latest twists in the Brexit Parliamentary fiasco and my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament, I have written again to the Government’s lawyers as follows:-
Mr Jonathan Stowell
c/o Government Legal Department
Dear Sir
Re:  Proposed Action
        English Democrats – v – the Secretary of State for Exiting the          
        European Union
We refer to the above matter and to our letter of 20th March.  We note that, since that letter was dictated, the Prime Minister has written a letter to the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk, formally asking for an extension of the Article 50 Notice period.  This request for an extension has been made without the authorisation of an Act of Parliament. 
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, only have official power either on the basis of Statutory powers or on the basis of Royal Prerogative powers. 
A long line of legal authority, including the Gina Miller case, has repeatedly reaffirmed that the Prerogative powers only exist in the absence of Statutory powers.  The only relevant Statutory power was that set out in the EU Withdrawal Act 2017, which gave the Prime Minister power to serve a Notice to terminate the UK’s membership of the EU. 
It follows that on the face of it, the Prime Minister’s request for an extension is illegal. 
Also any agreement for an extension which might have been agreed by the European Council is also without any Statutory authority. 
We thought it only proper to raise these points in the light of on-going developments, especially in view of your not having fully responded to our initial Letter before Claim. 
Yours faithfully
Tilbrook’s

A follow up about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by Act

The follow up to my previous blog article about the case to stop any extension to Article 50 except by a full Act of Parliament is that I have had this letter from the Government’s lawyers:-
Dear Mr Tilbrook
Re:  Response to Letter Before Claim
1.    We write in response to your letter before claim dated 28 February 2019 in which you seem to argue that any extension to or revocation of the Article 50 Notice required an Act of Parliament.  This letter, sets out the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’s response to your proposed claim and has been written in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review.
The Proposed Claimant
2.    The proposed Claimant is Mr R Tilbrook:
Quires Green
Willingale
Ongar
Essex
CM5 0QP
The proposed Defendant
3.    The proper Defendant to this matter is the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union:
c/o Government Legal Department
Team B6
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
Reference details
4.    Our reference for the matter is Z1904738/JTZ/B6
5.    Jonathan Stowell has conduct of this matter on behalf of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.  Any further correspondence or service of documents in relation to this matter should be addressed to him at the above address.
Response to the proposed claim
6.    As you will be aware the pre-action protocol for Judicial Review provides that the letter before claim should contain the date and details of the decision, act or omission being challenged.
7.    Your proposed claim fails to identify any decisionmade by the Secretary of State or indeed any other person or public authority.  The reason you are unable to identify the date or details of any decision to extend or revoke the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union is because no such decision has been taken.  You have not, therefore identified a decision that is capable of being the subject of a judicial review.
8.    To be clear, the Government’s firm policy position is that the Article 50 Notice will not be revoked.  A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU and both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered this result must be expected.  The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and that instruction is being delivered on.
9.    For the above reasons your proposed claim is wholly misconceived and totally without merit.
Details of any other interested parties
10.You have failed to provide any details of the proposed interested parties.  As you will be aware should you decide to issue proceedings, you are required to serve the Claim Form on all persons you consider to be an interested party in the proceedings (see rule 54.7 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998). 
11.We have not identified any other parties who may have an interest in the proposed claim.
Alternative dispute resolution
12.N/A
Action
13.We have explained above why your proposed claim is misconceived, accordingly the Secretary of State shall not be taking any of your requested actions.
Response to requests for information and documents
14.N/A
Address for further correspondence and service of court documents
15.If, after proper consideration of this letter, you decide to issue proceedings, please arrange for all documents to be served on Jonathan Stowell at the above address.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Stowell
For the Treasury Solicitor
I have replied as follows:-
Mr Jonathan Stowell
c/o Government Legal Department
Dear Sir
Re:  Proposed Action
        English Democrats – v – the Secretary of State for Exiting the          
        European Union
Thank you for your letter of 14th March. 
We would point out that our letter of the 28th February was written not on the basis of any decision yet taken, but on the basis of comments made in the House of Commons which suggested that an illegal decision might be in prospect.
We note that you have not denied that only a full Act of Parliament would legally authorise any delay in leaving the EU beyond the 29th March 2019.
In the circumstances we are enclosing a Request for Further Information to request that you formally admit our case.
Yours faithfully
Tilbrook’s
Enc.
And enclosed a formal Request for Further Information as follows:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
__________________________________________
REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
___________________________________________
Of:-
“7. Your proposed claim fails to identify any decision made by the Secretary of State or indeed any other person or public authority.  The reason you are unable to identify the date or details of any decision to extend or revoke the United Kingdom’s notification to leave the European Union is because no such decision has been taken.  You have not, therefore identified a decision that is capable of being the subject of a judicial review.”
Request:-
Is it admitted that any purported extension of the UK’s Article 50 Notice beyond 29thMarch 2019 can only be authorised prospectively by a full Act of Parliament?
Of:-
“8. To be clear, the Government’s firm policy position is that the Article 50 Notice will not be revoked.  A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU and both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered this result must be expected.  The British people gave a clear instruction to leave, and that instruction is being delivered on.”
Request:-
Is it admitted that any Revocation of the UK’s Article 50 Notice can only be authorised prospectively by a full Act of Parliament?
Tilbrook’s of Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Solicitors for the Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
BETWEEN
THE QUEEN
ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
(REG. NO. 6132268)
Applicant
And
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION
Respondent
__________________________________________
REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
___________________________________________
Tilbrook’s
Quires Green
Willingale
Ongar
Essex CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Ref/Brexit

The purpose in writing in this way is to set up an application to the High Court for Judicial Review in the event that an Act of Parliament is not passed authorising an extension of the Article 50 Notice period beyond 11.00 p.m. on the 29th March 2019.
So if the Government fails to get an Act through by then we shall need to be ready to immediately apply for the High Court to rule that the UK has left the EU with no Withdrawal Treaty or Agreement.  We do therefore need help with a fighting fund to make sure we can do this without delay, given its huge constitutional importance. 

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COMES A STEP CLOSER!

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM COMES A STEP CLOSER!

Although the “Mainstream Media” (AKA “Legacy Media”) newspapers and broadcasters, such as in the article below by Alan Cochrane, focus on the risk to the Union (of the UK) from Northern Ireland and Scotland, it may well be that the more important longer term “threat” to the Union will be from England and from English Nationalists.  As William Hague when he was the Leader of the “Conservative” Party said:-  “English nationalism is the worst of all nationalisms” for the future of the Union!

The constitutional position about Theresa May’s agreement, if she manages to get it through Parliament and ratified by all the relevant parts of the EU will be interesting, because, if that happens, with the majority Leave vote in England, of well over 15 million English people voting for Leave, can then only be satisfied by the dissolution of the United Kingdom!

From a legal and constitutionalist point of view this works because the dissolution of the UK as the contracting state means that the deal is dissolved too.  This was threatened against the Scottish Nationalists, in the run up to the Scottish Independence Referendum, when the then Commissioner Barosso pointed out that, if Scotland left the United Kingdom then (because the United Kingdom would be dissolved), Scotland would be a new State and therefore not an ‘Accession’ state and so not part of the EU. 

The EU is composed of “Member States”.  If a Member State is dissolved and ceases to exist, then the arrangements with the EU also cease to exist.  The EU is not a territorial entity, nor an entity of individual people, nor of peoples, it is an entity only of accession Member States.  This means that the general legal principles on dissolution or death of a participating entity in an agreement apply.  Generally that means that the agreement itself ceases to exist as well as the dissolved entity upon its dissolution (or death).

I explained this in my Blog article quite a few years ago.  Here is a link to that article >>> https://robintilbrook.blogspot.com/2012/12/england-to-be-free-of-eu-in-2014.html

The article below by Alan Cochrane is also interesting but is of course yet again looking at the Union from the Scottish perspective rather than from the point of view of English nationalists. 

In short I think Theresa May’s proposed deal may actually fill the sails of English nationalists and of English nationalism because our way of thinking will then be the only practical way of coming out of the EU. 

What do you think?  Here is Alan Cochrane’s article :-

Warring Tories have put a hurricane in the sail of the nationalists 

With the Conservative Party tearing itself and the government of Theresa May asunder last night, one of its hitherto more successful parts appeared to be also heading for the intensive care ward.

In a bitter, and unprecedented Cabinet-level war, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party accused resigning Brexiteer ministers of threatening to wreck the United Kingdom. In one of the most outspoken attacks one senior minister has ever launched against colleagues, former or otherwise, David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, described Dominic Raab and Esther McVey as “carpetbaggers”.

Just for good measure, he claimed that Mr Raab’s departure was more about a future leadership bid than the Brexit deal.

In their resignation letters, the former Brexit and Work and Pensions Secretaries had both cited the threat to the Union posed by the fact that special provisions were proposed for Northern Ireland in Mrs May’s withdrawal deal.

And there is little doubt that this escalation in insults reflected the fact that the Northern Ireland aspect of the deal has put immediate and intense pressure on Mr Mundell and, also to a lesser extent, Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Tory leader.

Their partnership has been largely responsible for the revival of the Conservatives north of the border – leaping from one MP to 13 at the last general election and forming the official opposition to the SNP at the Scottish Parliament.

However, significantly, at least in terms of their current embarrassment, both signed an open letter to the Prime Minister last month in which they threatened to resign if there was a “differentiated deal” agreed for Northern Ireland. And, no matter how you cut it, that is precisely what is contained in the deal Mrs May put to her Cabinet on Wednesday.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed in Scottish Tory circles that Mr Raab and Ms McVey used the threat to the Union as “cover” for their resignations. And I can also understand Mr Mundell’s intense irritation that many of the most ardent Brexiteers care little for the maintenance of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, I can’t remember any of them making an appearance during the Scottish independence referendum campaign four years ago.

That’s neither here nor there now, however. No amount of name-calling and foot stamping will alter the plain fact that, by including a distinctive feature for Northern Ireland after Brexit in the deal, the Prime Minister has done two things: she’s delivered a major boost to the SNP, whose sole aim is the break-up of Britain, and she’s ignored the warnings she received from Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson.

In one of the great ironies of the situation, the nationalists claim that Scotland should be given a different deal from the rest of the UK but haven’t got it, whereas Northern Ireland is getting one but its majority party doesn’t want it. And yesterday First Minister Nicola Sturgeon claimed that Ulster’s special treatment would give it an unfair trading advantage over Scotland.

There is a hope within Scottish Conservative circles that Mrs May might yet be able to retrieve the situation by clarifying and playing down the differences in the deal for Northern Ireland. But given the furious reaction from DUP MPs yesterday, she has a mountain to climb in that direction.

Nevertheless, the Scottish Tories’ main problem is that threatening letter sent to the PM and signed by Mr Mundell and Ms Davidson. It was seen at the time, by some observers, as a silly piece of grandstanding and it has now come back to bite them – hard.

Ms Davidson is on maternity leave and, last night Mr Mundell said he was staying put, insisting that he would fight on for the maintenance of the UK, adding: “That’s what I’m focused on, not being the heart of some soap opera of resignations and I’m not going to be bounced into resigning by carpetbaggers.”

Notwithstanding his determination to fight on and his angry words about his now former colleagues, I’m sure that he wishes he hadn’t signed that letter. It’s boxed him in, good and proper.

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit
As I made clear in a previous article I think that many members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are making the error of thinking that their dishonesty over Brexit is going to be quickly forgotten just like all their previous lies to the electorate.  I think that they are making an order of magnitude error in thinking that this is the case. Brexit is the first time that the public had really focussed on a political issue for many decades. 
It is perhaps worth recalling that David Cameron of the Conservative Government promised repeatedly to implement the outcome of the referendum.  This was not least in the booklet which Cameron used £9m of taxpayers money to print and distribute to every elector in the UK promising to implement the outcome of the referendum.  Instead almost immediately after the referendum he and Osborne resigned. 
The Conservative Parliamentary Party, after a period of unprecedented backstabbing and careerist manoeuvring managed to choose two candidates for leadership, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May, both of whom it seems lacked any personal leadership qualities whatsoever. 
The forgettable Andrea Leadsom when subjected to some nasty criticism over her comments about having children giving her motivation to do the best for the country, apparently spent the weekend in tears before giving up her leadership challenge (and was ironically rewarded by being made the Minister in charge of waterworks and floods!).
Theresa May was then anointed as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister on the back of promising to implement Brexit with her opaque slogan of “Brexit means Brexit”.  Since then we have been treated to a series of broken promises on top of her longstanding track record of claiming to support reducing immigration to the tens of thousands, when in fact allowing the largest influx of immigrants since Blair swamped us with millions of Eastern Europeans! 
Here are just some of Theresa’s whoppers (with acknowledgment to Guido Fawkes):-
“She broke her promises on calling an election and not triggering Article 50 until the UK had an agreed strategy – two decisions that the history books will not look upon kindly. She promised to put Dexeu in charge of the negotiation and make sure a Brexiteer was doing Brexit – that didn’t happen. She promised not to raise taxes – tax rises are coming in the autumn to fund her NHS splurge.
“There should be no general election until 2020.” General election: 8 May 2017.
“There should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear.” Article 50 triggered: 29 March 2017. Cabinet Brexit strategy agreed: 7 July 2018.
“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.” NHS spending increase, funded by “us as a country contributing a bit more [tax]” 17 June 2018.
In her 2017 party conference speech May made the promise again: “With our economic foundation strong – and economic confidence restored – the time has come to focus on Britain’s next big economic challenge: to foster growth that works for everyone, right across our country. That means keeping taxes low.”
“I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.” Theresa May takes personal charge of Brexit talks: 24th July 2018.
“Now is not the time for me to set out my full negotiating principles – that will come later.” Not sure people would have inferred two years later.
“I will dedicate my premiership to fixing this problem [housing]…
 as Prime Minister I am going to make it my mission to solve this problem. I will take personal charge of the government’s response, and make the British Dream a reality by reigniting home ownership in Britain once again.” We’re on our second Housing Secretary this year, a damp squib of a housing policy and silence from May…
“The Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.” (sic!)
You can see why Tory members might have quite liked her promises to stay true to Brexit and not raise taxes are disillusioned now! Who isn’t?

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

Is David Lammy the supreme Remainiac clown?

David Lammy has recently written about his idea that Brexit being the Will of the People is “bollocks”.  Here is what he posted on the 27th July:-

David Lammy

27 July at 16:36 ·

Why the government’s “will of the people” Brexit mantra is bollocks:

1. Vote Leave cheated.
2. It was based on lies e.g. £350m for NHS.
3. Only 37% of the electorate voted for it.
4. Scotland & London voted against.
5. 69% say Brexit is going badly.
6. Public supports a #PeoplesVote.
7. Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against.
8. Russia interfered and influenced the result.
9. The referendum was advisory and non-binding.
10. The government has no mandate for Chequers or No Deal – the only options left on the table.

Here is what I have to say in reply to him:-

1. “Vote Leave cheated” – No they didn’t.  The fact of the matter is that the main “cheat” was by Remain, as the Electoral Commission has recently reported, with the £9m mailshot by the Government of their dodgy leaflet. 

The system of controls on spending are in any case politically motivated and amorally illegitimate attempt to stitch up the result.  Any minor breaches of the expenses rules are of no significance as regards the outcome.  Personally I think Remain’s concerted campaign between the various entities that were campaigning for Remain are a much clearer instance of breaking the spending rules than the piffling instances that have been brought against the Leave campaigns by an Electoral Commission that is rapidly becoming a byword for bias.  See >>> https://brexitcentral.com/priti-patel-dossier/

2. “It was based on lies e.g. £360m for NHS” – For any Remain campaigner to claim that the Leave campaign based itself on lies is a breath-taking hypocrisy, given the absolute blatant nonsense that the Remainers talked about the catastrophe that would be Brexit and misusing the machinery of government in order to produce such nonsense.  In fact the £360m a week for the NHS is a good political figure to use because it is justifiable and it usefully triggered idiots like David Lammy into arguing about the exact number of pounds that was going to the EU, whilst revealing to the public that even the Remain campaign accepted that it was a vast number of millions.

The political usefulness of the claim was to trigger Remainers to argue about the detail. The factual defensibility is that the £360million is the total going to the EU per week. The rebate comes back with strings attached so it couldn’t be spent on the NHS. The NHS point is therefore key to the defensibility of this claim.  So far as England is concerned the rebate goes almost all to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in what is known as the EU ‘Conduit Effect’ so an English Nationalist could remove the NHS element of the claim and just add the expense of belonging to the EU to the £49 billion plus per year cost to English taxpayers of being in the Union of the UK.

3. “Only 37% of the electorate voted for it” – For David Lammy to make anything of that when no elected government has ever received the votes of 37% of the electorate, just shows the extent of his idiocy.  Since Parliament voted, including David Lammy, for a referendum in which this result would be decisive, his argument is not so much boll@cks as bullsh1t!

4. “Scotland and London voted against” – Is there any relevance to this comment?  So far as London is concerned London remains part of England which voted overwhelmingly to leave.   
So far as Scotland is concerned I am more than happy for them to make something of it and become independent.  The only relevance to his comment might be a definition of who the “People” are?  So far as I am concerned the only “People” that I am interested in are the English nation. England was and remains overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. 

5.  “69% say Brexit is going badly” – Given the ridiculous incompetence, dishonest and lack of patriotism of the Conservative Government I agree they are making a mess.  If you follow my blog then you will have seen that I am rather licking my lips at the prospect of seeing the dying body of the Conservative Party circled by hungry vultures! 

6. “Public supports a #peoplesvote” – No they don’t.  We have already had a People’s Vote and that is it.

7.  “Brexit threatens peace in Northern Ireland, which also voted against” – I don’t believe that Brexit does threaten any peace in Northern Ireland.  One of Theresa May’s many mistakes was to get involved in commitments over Northern Ireland which she was never going to be able to deliver, given that she is dependent upon the DUP following her ludicrous decision to have a General Election when she didn’t need it. 

As an English nationalist I am more than happy for Northern Ireland to either become a separate independent state or to join with Southern Ireland.  In any case what opinion polls do show is that most English people would prefer to lose Northern Ireland rather than lose Brexit.  I would certainly agree with that opinion!

8.  “Russia interfered and influenced results” – Ridiculous nonsense for which there is no evidence of any actual influence.  Given our history it is utter hypercritical of British politicians to complain about outside interference.  Blithering on about this is probably however a measure of Remainer desperation!

For a well written and thoughtful  explanation of the result read >>>> https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

9.  “The referendum was advisory and not binding” – Given the way that the British constitution is fitted together that remark, from a legalistic point of view, would have to be true of almost any democratic input. The issue is about legitimacy of the Establishment.  If the mask drops and the Establishment proves that voting doesn’t achieve anything, the only sensible future recourse is to the natural way of settling disputes i.e. force. 

10. “The Government has no mandate for Chequers or no deal – the only options left on the table” – I agree that the Government has no mandate for Chequers but it certainly has a mandate for “no deal”.  The mandate is, and it is a mandate from both political parties which also campaigned on this at the last General Election, to implement Brexit in full and unequivocally.  Personally I will be very happy with a “no deal” outcome. 

More generally I think David Lammy falls into the category of the type of Leftist that is simply not a democrat and therefore rather likes the internationalist, multi-culturalist, statist elitism of the EU.  So I am not surprised that he is on the side of remaining in the EU at all costs and of welshing on the Labour Party’s manifesto in the last election previous commitments to an in/out referendum.  David Lammy is not only thick but also dishonest. 

The perfect illustration of David Lammy’s intellectual initiative is shown in his staged appearance on Celebrity Mastermind where he was thrown as many soft balls as possible to try and build him up but he still flunked it! 

Here is the priceless link to Lammy’s lamentable Mastermind performance. 

The 13-Point Mastermind:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwyVQ2IQuE▶

Enjoy!

ARE THE CONSERVATIVES MAKING AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ERROR OVER BREXIT?

 
ARE THE CONSERVATIVES MAKING AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ERROR OVER BREXIT?
It is commonplace amongst political commentators that the voting public is not interested in politics and does not spend much time thinking about it.  In fact the best example of how this has been explained that I have come across over the years was a commentator who said that the public only see politics out of their “peripheral vision”.  If somebody actually manages to get the public to look directly at them then politically that is a game changer. 

So this means that the current parliamentary parties of the British Political Establishment and, in particular, the Conservative Party, which I want to talk about in this article, have lived their whole careers, up until the Brexit vote, in at most the peripheral vision of the voting public.  This has always meant that as long as politicians are looking as though they are going to say the right things whenever they come into view in the public’s peripheral vision, the public’s gaze flicks away from them and they are allowed to get on with it unchecked.

It is because of this lack of attention that the public does not hold Establishment Politicians properly to account and does not put any serious effort into thinking critically about the politicians that are being elected.  This is the situation in which the current generation of parliamentarians have grown up and in which they have developed their careers.

So if, for example, you take Theresa May, she is a politician who has basically been able to get away with lying about what she stands for throughout her whole political career.  Thus in order to get selected by the Conservative constituency party, any Conservative MP who is not genuinely a Eurosceptic has had to lie to claim that they are a Eurosceptic otherwise they would not get selected by the predominantly Eurosceptic Conservative Party membership.   Once selected, in order to get elected, they have had to continue lying and pretending that they are Eurosceptics, because in most Conservative seats they would not get elected if they said that they were Europhiles. 

Theresa May, for example, when she became Home Secretary, on any objective basis she did an appalling job of being Home Secretary. On almost every promise that she and the two Conservative Governments that she got elected but she failed to deliver on almost any of the policies that had been promised.  The most glaring of which of course is on immigration, where they were elected on promises to keep immigration down to the “tens of thousands”.  In fact, she presided over the biggest influx of mass immigration in the history of England, with, in her last year as Home Secretary, more immigrants arriving in that one year than had come to England in the entirety of the thousand years before 1939!

However whenever the public’s political vision flicked over her, there she was saying that was what she wanted to try and achieve a dramatic reduction in mass immigration.  That was enough to satisfy the public so that their gaze moved on and so no critical analysis was brought to bear in holding her accountable for her actual lack of achievement!

This current generation of parliamentarians might have continued to live out their whole political careers just as previous ones had done, without there being a moment where the public would be willing to make any effort to properly hold them to account.  That would however have been without the Brexit vote! 

As a result of the EU referendum on leaving the EU, the public, for the first time in at least a generation, really focussed on a political question and gave an unequivocal answer based upon the largest turnout that has occurred for decades.  The unequivocal expectation of voters was, and is, that the public’s decision would be implemented.  This is where trouble has occurred for our dishonest and deceitful Remainer MPs, who had comfortably expected to be allowed to continue making decisions that suited them and their agendas without any proper accountability to the electorate for the rest of their careers. 

Theresa May is just one of those parliamentarians who had expected to be able to carry on lying her way out of any inconvenient situation. 

It is in that context that she has dishonestly conducted her own hidden Brexit policy which she unrolled to the startled gaze of her Cabinet colleagues at Chequers. 

Theresa May’s Chequers’ proposal is not only completely contrary to the public’s expectations following the Brexit vote, but is also directly contrary to Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech about her “red lines” when she was still repetitively chanting “Brexit means Brexit”.  Now the public is turning its eyes towards Theresa May and is focussing and so is noticing that she is a dishonest and incompetent Remainer, who is, in Jacob Rees Mogg’s words “a Remainer who has remained a Remainer”.  This is despite the public’s vote and despite her pledge to implement it in her otherwise ill-judged General Election manifesto.

This leaves me somewhat torn between two conflicting feelings! 

For the country, and as a patriot, I think that what Theresa May is trying to do is a travesty and a terrible missed opportunity, but as the Leader of what The Times newspaper was kind enough to call an “insurgent party”, I cannot help but relish the prospect that the parliamentary Conservative Party led by Theresa May could well be now heading irrevocably in a direction in which the public will clearly see that the leadership of the modern Conservative Party is composed of dishonest, incompetent, and unpatriotic Europhiles.

When the public truly realises what the modern Conservative Party leadership stands for, I think it likely that the public will regard them as unfit to hold Government Office ever again. 

It may well be that many of the seventy plus per cent that Professor Sir John Curtice of Strathclyde University has identified as being “Leavers” who have been voting Conservative will decide not to come out to vote for the current alternative Establishment party (i.e. Corbyn’s Labour) but that does not mean that they will vote again for a Conservative Party that has so clearly and now noticeably betrayed the trust that was placed in them. 

The purging of the Conservatives from being a Party of Government is the first step required for a reconstruction of our national politics. 

We need a politics more in line with the two opinion blocks of real voters.  These are for the patriotic, anti-mass immigration, pro-Brexit, pro-traditional values and pro-welfare and NHS nationalists.  Against this block is the internationalist, pro-EU, anti-patriotic, liberal values, pro-mass immigration, individualistic cosmopolitan block. 

The current mishmash of views is one in which the Establishment parties are at cross purposes with most voters.  Most of us like some of what Labour has to say and also some of what the Conservatives have to say but we don’t like all of what either of them have to say.  So, at the moment, voters have the awkward and unappetising choice at elections of having to choose between the least worst party, rather than being able to choose a party they actually fully agree with.  Changing that ladies and gentlemen would be a reform of our politics well worth seeing!

‘The Times’ describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”!

 

The Times Political Editor describes Leave votes as:- “Xenophobic Insurgents”! 

I couldn’t let Francis Elliott, the Times Political Editor, get away with outrageously describing Leave voters as “Xenophobic Insurgents” without responding.
Here is my letter to him:-
Dear Mr Elliott
Re: Times Article, July 18th:- “Tory turmoil could lead to Far-Right revival” 
With respect, your heading betrays the unanalytical nature of your article.  You used the smear expression “Far-Right” which is intended to obscure rather than to highlight actual policy positions.  You then claimed a “revival” despite the fact that for several decades now there has not really been any patriotic or nationalist challenge to the British Political Establishment Lib/Lab/Con which has dominated “British” politics since the Second World War. 
You rightly discuss the likely consequences of the Conservative Party’s destruction of its own creditability over Brexit as either competent or patrioticor honest.  It is also true that, if Corbyn’s Labour was to be given a chance at government, Labour would prove to be internationalist, anti-patriotic, multi-culturalist and pro-immigration.  This is virtually a checklist of the very things that English blue collar workers most despise.  Such a Labour Government would be very likely to complete the divorce between the traditional “white working class” and Labour – a path which has already been trod by almost all of Labour’s sister parties in Western Europe!
The anomaly of the UK State is that it is a unique, unfair, unequal and illogical mishmash of nations.  This constitutional anomaly has to be sorted out before England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland can become fully normal modern democratic nation states. 
If in the process of sorting this out our politics can shed our grandiose “Legacy Parties” and replace them with a modern party structure where policies chime with the various blocks of ideological opinion rather than cut across them – as our current ones do – then so much the better.  Whether that amounts to “fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents” well that is – “hard to know”! I will leave you to resolve your own loaded question!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
Here is Mr Elliott’s article
Tory turmoil could lead to a far‑right revival
Leave voters’ sense of betrayal over Brexit and fear of immigration create the perfect conditions for a new protest party
Our views on race, immigration and Brexit are full of contradictions. But taken together, this jumble of prejudices and ideas is about to change the shape of British politics.
The return to dominance of the two main parties, which saw Labour and the Conservatives share around 80 per cent of the vote, was one of the most surprising consequences of the referendum two years ago.
It left many in the centre ground pining for a new party. But it now seems likely that it’s on the right, rather than on the middle ground, that a new force will appear.
In three recent polls, Ukip has seen an uptick at the expense of the Conservatives. It could be the first sign of the governing party’s electoral coalition unravelling as voters react negatively to Theresa May’s Brexit compromise agreed at Chequers.
Although Ukip is the current beneficiary, the moribund party riven by factionalism looks no more able to revive itself than the Liberal Democrats. Prepare for a new organisation entirely.
At first sight, immigration doesn’t appear to be a factor in the discontent felt by voters. The number of Britons identifying immigration as the most important issue has declined steeply since 2016, while the number identifying Brexit has risen on a similarly striking gradient. But taken together, concern about immigration and the delivery of Brexit mark those who feel disenfranchised by the Westminster establishment, and explain the outrage felt by some voters towards Mrs May’s Chequers plan. It is an uncomfortable truth that just over a quarter of respondents in a recent British Social Attitudes survey said they were “very” or a “little” prejudiced towards people of other races.
Brexiteers react with fury to any suggestion that race played a part in the vote to leave the EU. They are also the first to suggest that a betrayal of the referendum result will unleash an ugly populist backlash.
Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire, is the latest to sound the alarm. “The Chequers deal has disenfranchised voters,” she tweeted this week. “People tell me . . . that it was the ‘last straw’ and if a charismatic figure stood heading a new party they would vote for him/her. Sounds like we could be heading for our very own Trump/Macron/Robinson.”
She was criticised for appearing to treat Tommy Robinson, former leader of the far-right, anti-Muslim English Defence League, as a mainstream politician. Robinson was jailed in May for contempt of court and his appeal against his sentence is due to be heard today. As Ms Dorries later made clear, her tweet was a warning, not an endorsement.
But Robinson’s anti-migrant creed has no shortage of high-profile supporters. Here is Donald Trump, speaking alongside Theresa May after their Chequers summit last week, on the damage the president believes migration is doing to the cultural fabric of Europe: “I just think it’s changing the culture. I think it’s a very negative thing for Europe. I think it’s very negative,” he said.
“And I know it’s politically not necessarily correct to say that. But I’ll say it and I’ll say it loud. And I think they better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security.”
Sam Brownback, the US ambassador for international religious freedom, is reported to have warned Sir Kim Darroch, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, that “if Britain did not treat [Tommy] Robinson more sympathetically, the Trump administration might be compelled to criticise Britain’s handling of the case”.
Mr Trump’s son, Donald Junior, has tweeted support for Robinson. A US think-tank, Middle East Forum, helped to organise a rally in support of him in London and sent a Republican Congressman, Paul Gosar, to speak in his support.
Robinson is just one possible candidate to lead whatever replaces Ukip as the repository of protest votes, powered by alt-right cash. Generation Identity, an Austrian nationalist movement, is hovering at the political fringe. With slickly produced YouTube videos and clean-cut provocateurs, it is waiting to leap on any grievance in Britain that can serve its narrative of an apocalyptic clash of civilisations.
It is worth imagining what British politics will be like if Mrs May does, after all, squeeze a version of her Chequers compromise through Brussels. For most of the period between March 29, 2019, when we formally leave the union, and the next general election in 2022, Britain will be paying its full dues to an organisation over which it has no control. What’s more, every politician other than Mrs May will have a vested interest in stoking discontent over the terms of our departure. It is probable that she won’t even be in No 10 to defend it four years from now.
If this isn’t fertile ground for xenophobic insurgents, it’s hard to know what is. For the Tories, it could get even worse. Those now urging a delay in our departure next March are ignoring one large obstacle. If we are still in the EU, Britain must take part in elections to the European parliament next May. These polls are already causing great anxiety in Brussels, where the Commission fears they could return a majority of Eurosceptic MEPs from across the member states, with fatal consequences for the federalist dream.
Senior ministers say that Brussels will find a way to refuse any request to extend our negotiating period because it fears that Britain’s participation in the Euro-election would only inflame the Continental populist revolt.
Just as likely, they know that the Conservative Party would suffer an almighty drubbing in such a poll because it would be outflanked on the right by a populist nationalist party offering a “real Brexit”. That day of reckoning may simply be postponed until the next general election. By then, Labour may find itself in a corresponding bind to the Tories, if a new centrist party ever gets its act together.
The outcome of that election will be determined by which of the two main parties suffers most from the unravelling of forces responsible for their current dominance.
Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-turmoil-could-lead-to-far-right-revival-thw8slrq5

WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?

WILL THE EU COLLAPSE BEFORE THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REMAINERS CAN GET US OUT OF IT?
I read an interesting article recently in the Daily Telegraph entitled “The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes – but Remainiacs just don’t see it” by Professor Gwythian Prins who is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE and applied historical methodology to the task of trying to work out what the risk of the EU’s collapse is likely to be.  

I thought the analysis was both interesting and quite compelling.
Here is the article:-
The Brussels empire is collapsing before our eyes – but Remainiacs just don’t see it 
There are two strange things about ‘remainiacs’ – the self-important 5% of the country who are trying to halt Brexit. The first is well known. It is their disrespect for the biggest winning democratic vote for any issue or any government in British history. But the second is not. This is their weird attitude to the EU. 
Their frantic ‘virtue-signalling’ finds all fault with Britain and none with the unelected Brussels machine in our mud-wrestling ‘negotiation’ to leave. But what is the actual state of health of this institution to which they would keep Britain shackled in a ‘Hotel California’ Brexit – one where you can check out anytime but you just can’t leave? 
I am an historian and cultural anthropologist, so I decided to compare the EU to similar complex social systems in the past, using the academic tools of my trade. 
My main finding should worry Mr Selmayr, the German uber-bureaucrat who just took effective charge of the EU in a surgical coup d’état last month. And it should reassure everyone who voting to leave the EU in 2016. 
By getting out now we may just avoid the cliff-edge of major crisis in the EU. And the ‘remainiacs’ just don’t see it. 
If we apply a famous technique for analysing the risk of collapse in complex societies to the EU, we find that it is squarely within the zone of that risk. How so?  
First, we have to identify what sort of institution the EU is. Well, it looks like an empire. It walks like an empire. It certainly talks like an empire – listen to Mr Tusk. It treats its subjects like an empire. They grumble rebelliously, as vassal-states do. Its rulers, the Brussels elite, feather their nests just like their predecessors in function did in the USSR. In 2007 the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso actually called it an empire. I think we may safely say that the EU is an empire. And empires collapse. Is this one facing that risk? And if it is, how would we know? 
The leading methodology today for analysing the risk of collapse in empires was first used by an American archaeologist in a comprehensive review of mainly ancient empires. He borrowed it from the world of finance and adapted it to measure the perceived marginal benefit that you either do – or do not – get if you increase the complexity of a social structure. 
Professor Tainter’s point is that empires are only strong when the benefits from increasing complexity are positive. It is when more complexity yields less benefit that an empire enters the zone of risk of collapse. So I ran the detailed history of the European ‘project’ through this methodology and the results show pretty clearly that since the introduction of the Euro, the ‘project’ has been badly on the slide. What’s happening? 
Across the EU – not just in Britain – we, the peasants, are revolting! The facts are stark. In referenda and increasingly in national elections too, since Denmark and Sweden rejected the Euro, we have had almost twenty years of rejection after rejection of the EU’s wishes by the people. 
The premature introduction of the Euro to try to force the pace towards political union was the Federalists greatest mistake. It infected the entire ‘project’ with a wasting disease that remorselessly destroys its legitimacy. 
The next crisis was 2005/6 when the Dutch and the French rejected the ‘EU Constitution’ only for it to be rammed through as the Lisbon Treaty. 
The Irish bridled, so they had to be whipped over the fence at the second attempt. The Brussels elite reran referenda when they could because they believe their own Vanguard Myth which tells them they know best. 
Or, in 2015, they simply ignored the Greek referendum and imposed even harsher terms on this troublesome colony. The biggest cluster-crisis started then, grew with Brexit and Germany’s immigration crisis. 
The revolts in Italy and now in Hungary are just the latest and possibly most threatening. All this evidence of citizen rejection while Brussels responds with further bureaucratic complexity, has plainly taken the EU into the Zone of Risk of Collapse where it now stands. 
In order to deter any other prospective escapees, Brussels is shaky but defiant, bullying, hoping to dishearten the British (some hope!), intent on punishing us for taking back control. Hardly a sign of self-confidence. 
Across the EU, the cost in terms of alienation mounts as citizens, resentful of being treated so contemptuously, rationally choose less complexity at the national level. Less complexity is no catastrophe. It’s the historical norm. And that’s the key. If people don’t regard an empire’s power as legitimate, they rebel. Empires are like Peter Pan’s fairy friend Tinkerbell. They can only live if all the children clap. And across Europe, the people aren’t clapping any more. This empire is collapsing before our eyes but it’s no crisis for the ‘Brexiteer’ Many, only for the ‘remainiac’ Few. 
The Government should understand this evidence. We are by far the stronger party facing this rickety EU. Stop being so timid. Thank goodness that ordinary people had to good sense to get us out in the nick of time. 
Gwythian Prins is Emeritus Research Professor at the LSE. His report is published on the university-based website ‘Briefings for Brexit’ set up by academics who back the majority decision to leave the EU.
What do you think? 


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.