Can we expect Boris Johnson to deliver BREXIT – probably NOT [at best it’s BRINO]?

When Boris Johnson stood for the Tory leadership in June, he did so on a platform of ‘Theresa May’s deal is dead and the UK would leave the EU on 31 October’, didn’t he?

Yep, it may have secured him a landslide victory, but the news on the wires is that to all intents and purposes, his negotiations with the EU on his ‘do or die pledge to leave on time, involve nothing more than a reheated dish of May’s totally unacceptable Withdrawal agreement that has been rejected in Parliament three times.

[Remember it was the same Boris Johnson who resigned in July last year as Foreign Secretary, the 3rd highest Office of State. saying Theresa May’s plan ‘sticks in the throat ‘and that the UK was headed “for the status of a colony”]

His vehement demand that “our friends (?) in Ireland, and in Brussels and around the EU” completely ditch the anti-democratic backstop [which would forever keep the UK in the same customs territory as the EU, and Northern Ireland closely tied to EU regulations] and “do a deal without checks at the Irish border” has been replaced by yet another dire concession of replacing all that by isolating and marooning Norther Ireland in the EU Single Market ad infinitum – resulting in the need for new customs checks of being in a different custom’s union. Oh yes, the obtuse EU won’t accept just that, so you can expect, just like May’s, Johnson’s further capitulations, can’t you?

Apart from NOT having a genuine bottom line, May’s biggest negotiating mistake was allowing the EU to make the Irish border an issue and one which indeed eventually caused the negotiations to founder – surely she knew the obvious truth that the rest of Europe didn’t give a shit about the Irish, just as the Irish Republic don’t give a damn about the Good Friday agreement which was just a vehicle to get them a long way to an United Ireland

A supposed strong PM Johnson replacing an undoubtable weak one of May, would seem to have achieved little since Boris, whether by his own mistakes or not, has got himself in exactly the same set of circumstances as Theresa, hasn’t he? As feared, the electorate have indeed got a Theresa May mark2 Prime Minister, eh?

Yes, his proposals mean though we would have legally left the cartel, Britain is kept locked in the EU for ANOTHER 2 years, making a total of over 5 years total since we voted Leave, we then pay them a king’s ransom of dozens of billions in return, and when they unilaterally can change the rules we have to follow in ways that harm us without any say from us whatsoever, plus we will not be able to strike new trade agreements to gain the benefits of being outside the EU, either?

We will still have no ongoing trade deal with Brussels and there is no way that they will give us an acceptable one as they hold all the cards while they are in control – France and Spain will demand the continuing right to steal our fish, Spain is determined to make the UK handover Gibraltar to them without the consent of its people, the Republic of Ireland [that already gets away with calling itself simply Ireland] will succeed in its quest to take over NI without the agreement of its Protestant population [declining as the Catholics breed], and doubtless others will insist the continuation of free movement, all as just part of the price? The only way the UK can get a fair-trade deal with the EU is a ‘clean break’ BREXIT followed by negotiations as an independent country with ‘currently’ common standards, surely?

Moreover, Johnson equally is heading a government that doesn’t control parliament and doesn’t command a majority – only more so. His authority as Prime Minister is undermined by a Commons Speaker intent on thwarting BREXIT and using his controlling role to alter operational procedures to sideline the Executive, avoid parliament working normally, and permit the diehard Remainers to control the Order paper. Once more a PM has failed to stop parliament passing a law forcing them to ask the EU for an extension – this time even worse as it is the EU that is allowed to decide on the length, eh? Once again due to that folly the UK sat naked at the table, allowing the EU the inestimable advantage of knowing we could not walk away and would have to accept any crumbs offered – the Benn surrender bill was fully intended to have such an impact with an ultimate objective of getting BREXIT cancelled altogether

As any diplomate will tell you, Britain’s negotiations with Brussels have been nothing short of a shambles since June 23 2016

Like May, Johnson is in the same position of being corralled into an inescapable public commitment to exiting the EU on a certain date, so has to abandon all principles and agree to anything the EU proposes in order to get a deal on the table, doesn’t he? Even if he achieves such a result, he then has to get ‘immediate’ parliamentary approval which means he has to employ the same strategy as his predecessor by standing at the Dispatch box threatening MPs with the same phraseology as May ‘this is the only deal in town and if you don’t take it NOW then there will be no BREXIT!’

Now, Johnson may well get away with it because prominent Eurosceptics and leading figures of the ERG are on-board – like Jacob Rees-Mogg, seduced into government as Commons leader, who now claims MPs will back a deal to get it through parliament even though the PM is yet to secure any agreement from Brussels

Because of his full-blooded vows, Johnson knows full well that his political career is finished if Britain doesn’t leave the EU on time this Halloween. Equally, the Conservative Party recognises that it electorally is a dead duck in the water and will be for a decade if it doesn’t meet its EU Referendum obligation before the next election – that’s why there’s such desperation to take any path however unacceptable, towards the destination of a so called ‘deal’, which isn’t one as it only deals with withdrawal and not a trade deal – that is the only basis for an ongoing relationship, isn’t it?.

It is extremely difficult for us outsiders to comprehend what hand Johnson is playing because he and his cabinet continue to claim the Country WILL leave on this October AND will obey the law – two things that would seem to be mutually exclusive if there is no agreement with the EU, eh?

Do the Government have a Houdini type escape plan for the Benn bill extension straightjacket, do you think?

The other non-congruity is the fact that the dominant government force of Johnson’s Chief of Staff Dominic Cummings, who ran the official  Leave campaign in the Referendum, is an ultra-committed BREXITEER so it is difficult to see how he could stomach the deal that is being mooted, isn’t it?

 

[If ‘Boris Johnson’ dishes-up BRINO (BRexit In Name Only) he can forget about winning a General Election for the Conservatives, as Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party will cut massive swathes from the Tory vote as well as scupper Labour in their heartlands]

 

 

‘If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas’ – yet ‘Mo Farah’ claims he is being victimised?

sportcoincriminal

For scholars, the equivalent quote to ‘if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas’ in Latin would be qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent, both of which provide the sound advice of being cautious of the company you keep, as associating with those of low reputation may not only lower your own but also lead you astray by the faulty assumptions, premises and data of the unscrupulous.

You see Mo Farah blatantly and publicly flaunted such proverb advice by his close association with Alberto Salazar – his athletics coach for some half a dozen years.

Salazar from Cuban was a child immigrant to the US, who became a world-class Marathon runner and subsequently an American track coach. He headed up the ‘Oregon Project’, a Nike secretive hideaway elite training group for long-distance runners established nearly 20 years ago, primarily for the benefit of American athletes. It has now folded because Salazar, its long-term head coach, together with the project’s doctor Jeffrey Brown, are disgraced by a 4-year violations ban from all athletics involvement – imposed early this month by the US anti-doping agency for their trafficking of testosterone, the prohibited use of L-carnitine, and tampering with doping controls.

Somalian born Farah, himself is a renowned and revered British distance runner [1500 m, 3000 m, 5000 m, 10,000 m, Half marathon, and Marathon] with 19 Gold medals, plus 4 European and 1 World record to his credit. His wealth is accrued from his athletics performances and results, but even more so from lucrative commercial deals, and is probably in the region of £4 million. He was honoured with a knighthood two years ago

It is an unfortunate truth that in modern times the sporting world, including athletics, is blighted by the fact of too many competitors are willing to deviously cheat their ‘clean’ opponents, by taking performance-enhancing drugs or treatments which secures their ongoing success, and hence enormous financial reward.

Unmasking of the cheats can be a problem because sportspeople can only be tested for the substances ‘known’ to be in use as performance enhancers and efforts are constantly being made by the charlatans to find and use substances that aren’t on the banned list

The whole problem is compounded by the complicity of the sports’ authorities in regularity covering-up drug misuse to ‘protect’ their sport’s public image, as well as them handing out totally inadequate punishments that do not deter offenders nor keep them sidelined for long (exampled by the 2015 Beijing World Athletics Championships, where four of the supposedly top eight athletes in the 100 meters men’s final were reinstated drug cheats and in the 200 meters final there were two –all these athletes finally caught-out but who have been allowed by the IAAF to get away with it, eh?)

[Major sports suffering from drug cheating include: cycling, football, baseball, weightlifting, volleyball, judo, wrestling, rowing, equestrian, gymnastics, field hockey, athletics track & field, rugby league, basketball, snooker, boxing, cricket]

Now, the point is that Farah, due to his close links with Salazar, has now needlessly got himself embroiled in the sewer of athletes’ widespread drug cheating controversy, yet he clearly has been misadvised in again using the world’s media to loudly proclaim total innocence of wrongdoing. You see, that doesn’t aid him because like all criminals, even those with previous convictions, sport druggies always deny ‘everything’ even when they are ‘banged to rights’, as the old saying goes, eh?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Hamlet

Mo made a major mistake in not immediately severing his training relationship with coach Salazar when a female two-time Olympian whistle-blower went public about Salazar’s non-clean principles and his programme on a BBC Panorama exposé documentary in 2015.

Instead, he made a bad call by staying-on for another 2 years, although that didn’t mean of course that he himself was implicated in any transgressions, did it? No, but nevertheless however unfairly, people unfortunately will have doubts about the past performances of ALL the athletes who have been involved in Nike’s Oregon programme, and more so the ones who hung around during and after the four-year anti-doping investigation and two-year court battle behind closed doors over Salazar’s Oregon set-up, eh?

Last week, Mo Farah made claims that he is being victimised and naively said that his reputation has not been tarnished at all by his involvement with Salazar’s programme. He disturbingly even played the race card by claiming the scrutiny he is naturally under was motivated by a racist media agenda – yes, it is true that there are still vile pockets of racism in sport, but that is a worrying attitude coming from a man who has been taken close into the hearts of the British public over many many years, isn’t it?

The basic truth is that it is Farah who has put himself in the firing line by constantly being confrontational and aggressive in interviews, while he has for years defended Salazar and their relationship – he has never voiced any criticism whatsoever of the coach and even now he talks about ‘they are only allegations’, notwithstanding that millions had to be spent by Nike providing legal defence council, despite finally the guilty verdict, or the imposition of a ban, nor the closure of the project, plus the banning of the project’s medical consultant, and indeed Mo’s personal physiotherapist being sacked as UK Athletics’ head of performance for his woeful refusal to acknowledge the legitimate concerns about Farah’s relationship with Salazar and the project. Why has Farah personally risked his personal credibility in that way, one wonders?

In this day and age, when big money is readily available to clean competitors through athletics meeting organisers worldwide, conglomerate sponsors galore, untold commercial businesses, and indeed an enthralled paying public, the elite professional athletes would be wise to maintain a squeaky-clean image, wouldn’t they?

Farah hasn’t done that with his inclusive relationship with the Nike Oregon Project and its coach has he? No, it may have brought him greater success, but that has come with a price of greater scrutiny and public distrust, hasn’t it?

Yep, all these elite athletes are up for it in pushing the regulations to the wire to gain a competitive advantage over their opponents, and Nike’s programme is a case in point isn’t it?

Too true, as it has examined devious ways of endurance athletes’ performance enhancement like intravenous treatments, and it has in particular actually implemented an accommodation system for its residents that simulate high altitude living conditions. The point is that the oxygen in the air is less there so those athletes who live at altitude develop more red blood cells, increasing their athletic performance when performing at a lower level. That poses the serious question of is it ethical and fair for the athletes from low countries, who are sufficiently rich and famous, to gain a special advantage over ordinary opponents by using such special conditioning, solely designed to improve their race results and steal records, eh?

Over a decade ago, the World Anti-Doping Agency was even minded to ban use of such high-altitude houses, claiming that ‘altitude doping’ was an equivalent to blood doping, but it backed-off – probably because there was no realistic way of policing a ban, nor preventing athletes training at altitude, eh?

These days, elite athletes need to be especially careful to distance themselves from the cheats who use banned substances, if they are themselves to avoid any potential suspicion of their own use of non-legal means to achieving high performance.

Regrettably, Farad hasn’t been all that successful in that quest, has he? No, so doping allegations have surfaced a number of times during his track career and that’s the root of his current problems. resulting in his unjustified lambasting the British press. He has maintained he has never used banned substances and he has been frequently tested with no recorded failures, which of course helps to build public confidence that he is indeed clean

However, his current abject failure to support the authorities and their dealings with the Salazar issue, typifies his head-in-the-sand attitude to the reasons for the intense scrutiny he vehemently complains about.

Nearly a decade ago he missed compulsory random drug tests – two in a twelve-month period when three would have resulted in an anti-doping rule violation. That inevitably raised questions, didn’t it?

Four years back, at the time of the doping allegations first being raised against coach Salazar and distance runner Galen Rupp, pictures were published of Mo training in the company of Hamza Driouch, a banned athlete guilty of doping violations, who the year before had been officially banned from attending training sessions in any capacity for two years. If Farah puts himself in situations like that, mixing with low-life cheats, he was hardly justified at the time to hold a press conference to voice anger that his name was “being dragged through mud”, was he?

Also, some two or three years ago some official athletics database information was a leaked, which had recorded that an expert had deemed some of Farah’s blood values suspicious regarding doping, and though Farah was cleared of wrongdoing when his records were flagged as having become normal, that kind of controversy is inevitably damaging to any athlete, isn’t it?

 

[A couple of years ago Farah issued a statement in which he recorded that he was a “clean athlete” and while the wider UK public are prepared to fully accept his word, he has to be more circumspect about doping in his sport if he is to protect his substantive reputation]

 

 


 [i1]

The unelected and unaccountable UK Supreme Court’s outrageous constitutional decision – Boris Johnson is ‘GUILTY’ of breaking a law it has only just invented?

ABANDONED (but only ‘temporarily’) the longest sitting parliament for 400 years

We ordinary laymen don’t know much about the machinations of the law, and indeed our interests are generally restricted to avoiding any infringement, however minor, on the criminal side of it, but it is becoming increasingly evident to us that the judiciary here are secretly intent on increasing their power and influence to gain unwarranted control and advantage in British society.

That latter matter has become self-evident with the latest radical interference by the law in parliamentary affairs in the form of the Supreme Court acting as a constitutional court. It is a further incursion into the world of high politics, when on a judicial review application it pontificated and passed judgement on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to advise the Queen to prorogate parliament, over the annual conference season when traditionally it is suspended anyway. Its intervention to extend the law’s influence and power over parliamentary processes has caused untold damage to the British modus operandi that operates in the absence of a written constitution, as indeed has its mind-blowing arrogance in declaring that it had the right to overrule the Monarch’s prorogation, although already de facto in place, so consequently it was simply a mirage that hadn’t happened at all – an act that allowed self-omnipotent, villain, Speaker John Bercow, to order the falsification of Hansard records, the official verbatim report of proceedings of the House of Commons, and to totally erase the event of prorogation

Partisan Bercow will go down in history as the anti-BREXIT, 5 foot 6 bully-boy Speaker, of spending scandals, relentless grandstanding and pontificating on all matters, and one who has turned a role of studied neutrality into one of being an active participant, one who has repeatedly made unprecedented rulings, ripped up the Commons rulebook to discard and upend centuries of precedent against the advice of his parliamentary experts, and unilaterally changed the rules – a totally destructive meddling when the smooth operation of Westminster is critically dependent on everyone understanding and adhering to unwritten conventions, eh?

[Most modern states have a codified constitution, whereas Britain ‘does not’, but instead the system here relies on an informal one, heavily dependent on precedent, plus convention, Acts of Parliament, and court judgments]

We already have a situation where our Judges get appointed and promoted, all the way up to the Supreme Court, by their elite cronies behind closed doors without any public scrutiny, while they remain in-post notwithstanding crass mistakes, manifest misjudgments, and when even reprimands or law breaking is swept under the carpet. All that will have to change now, won’t it? It is a system that needs urgent reform and that will include judges being selected and vetted by proper open means

In past times, the political persuasion of judges haven’t normally been relevant, or been seen to be so, but when they stray into the political arena which they are increasingly eager and being encouraged to do, it becomes highly pertinent, wouldn’t you say? The days are numbered for judges to avoid public examination and critical judgement on their attitudes and performances – they will live to regret not keeping their heads down, and enjoying their relative untouchability while avoiding political controversy, won’t they?

The wheel has turned full circle, the public’s acceptance of courts’ impartiality has been crushed, and ongoing respect for judges will now depend on our right to know what are the private opinions, racial attitudes, religious beliefs, political leanings, and voting intentions of the current judiciary and BEFORE the new ones get appointed to their highly paid lofty positions.

When one considers the 11 Judges of Supreme Court sitting on the prorogation issue 2 weeks ago, you will know that they are a central part of the Establishment and are reportedly politically ‘anti-BREXIT’, and that together then with their ruling that the PM broke a law that never previously existed but was retrospectively implement by the eleven though they have tried to obscure that truth, their published judgement becomes perhaps less surprising, but nevertheless it amply demonstrates the rise of the courts’ intrusions that are linked to the demise of politics, don’t you think?

What is shocking though to us non-legal eagles is the sheer hypocrisy of its unprecedented, unanimously fishy ruling, in saying that the pros and cons of BREXIT were nothing to do with the Court, when the issue was ALL to do with BREXIT, wasn’t it? Moreover, the gall of giving a written judgement that asserted in one paragraph that the Court was not concerned with the PM’s ‘motives’ for the prorogation, only to contradict that just three paragraphs later when it decided it was in fact illegal because there was ‘no good reason’ for the PM to do it – do the Justices really think that we are all uneducated serfs that can’t read or don’t know that the synonym for ‘motives’ is ‘reasons’ or understand that their conclusion depended on them having assessing Johnson’s motives/ reasons/ grounds/ etc, and having failed to even second-guess them, eh?

[Judgement Para 58 “We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did.”

[Judgement Para 61 “It is impossible for us to conclude…..that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament…… It follows that the decision was unlawful.”]

There has previously been no control exercised over prorogation of any parliament anywhere!

Do not believe the assertion of the anti-BREXIT others who say that prorogation in the UK is usually routine and is never used for political ends, eh? Just take the case close at hand when ridiculous ex-PM John Major also joined in on the Supreme Court prorogation action to blisteringly assert that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament for 5 weeks was unjustified and so unlawful. That contribution was nothing short of bare-faced cheek, considering that not only was HE the PM that committed the UK to a binding international Treaty that passed political control of our Country to the EU without any consultation WHATSOEVER with the people, by him, by the government, by the MPs, or by ANYONE else, but HE was the person who himself prorogated parliament in 1997 immediately before an impending General Election simply to avoid parliamentary debate and public disclosure on a report into the Tories’ cash-for-questions scandal and that prorogation resulted in a parliamentary shut down of 6 WEEKS, the longest since 1924 – however he still lost the Election in one of the largest electoral defeats since the Great Reform Act of 1832!

We have the former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, previously lecturing about his lamenting on the rise of the courts and the decline of politics, but then demonstrating his personal bias on TV just a month or so ago by claiming that Johnson’s prorogation was ‘outrageous’, while nevertheless he arguing that it was actually lawful, but he now says that the Supreme Court was right to change the law – that’s typically judges closing ranks, isn’t it?

Or regarding the successful Miller UK constitutional law case of 2017 against the Brexit secretary, in a dissenting judgment from the majority of the justices, Lord Reed recorded that the legalisation of political issues was not always appropriate and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary, yet he switched horses and supported this latest Miller Supreme Court escapade against the Prime Minister – WHY? Legalised skullduggery?

This Supreme Court came up with their shockingly ‘non-dissented’ judgement that overruled the esteemed High Court’s ruling to throw out Miller’s bid to block the suspension of parliament when it judged that Johnson had been within his rights to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks.

The High Court application was heard by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

(Note: The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of England and Wales

[High Court Judgement Para 1 (part): We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable. It is not a matter for the courts]

This particular controversy needed to be settled politically without any intervention of the courts, as it was a matter solely for parliament, which is perfectly capable and empowered to deal with it, isn’t it? Yes, and since all ministers including the Prime Minister, are accountable to parliament, it could have halted any prorogation in its tracks by tabling a motion of no confidence in the PM and government

In our country Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, forbids judicial intervention in the domain of parliament but bizarrely the justices decreed however that the prorogation was ‘nothing’ to do with parliament, eh?

[The ‘prerogative’ powers of dissolution, foreign affairs, defence of the realm, and surely indeed ‘prorogation’, are not matters that lend themselves to outrageous rise of the unconstrained judicial review]

There is current unprecedented chaos in politics, by which democracy cannot operate and whereby Britain has a ‘minority’ government under siege that’s not in control of its parliament, it cannot run the Country, it cannot legislate, it cannot conduct foreign affairs, it is in limbo and is blocked from getting a mandate from the electorate, and all that is compounded by a parliament suffering an opposition that is led by someone that its own MPs won’t stomach as their PM, and it daren’t bring-down the government because it will get trounced in a General Election, plus a House of Commons infected with a debilitating virus of parties and rogue MPs unfazed by manifesto promises, who can’t accept that Remain lost the EU Referendum, so are intent on overturning the result at any constitutional and democratic cost to their Country.

How has this come about you may wonder? Well, there are some easily identifiable individuals who should be chained in the stocks.

Well, John Major is complicit in it all and belongs in a pillory rather than the lesser punishment device of the stocks, as his crimes against British democracy as outlined above were even greater than the others.

David Cameron cannot escape the public humiliation of the stocks, not because he called an EU In/Out referendum but because he didn’t enshrine into law the outcome, deliberately didn’t make any preparations for a Leave outcome, and then scurried away like a rat when the electorate sussed out his Project Fear lies

Take Tony Blair who was responsible for many misdemeanors apart from the most disastrous one of taking the UK into an illegal war with Iraq – he was also responsible for controversially sweeping aside of 1,400 years of history by replacing the frugally funded but effective Law Lords, who knew their legal place was to stay out of politics, with the failed 2009 experiment of an ultra-expensive [x5?] Supreme Court operation.

The Court instead of just undertaking the traditional tinkering with laws made by parliament, it in the absence of existing statute, now makes new law without any heed of parliament. It is a totally inappropriate legislative body for a country that doesn’t have a defined constitution for it to police

Our Supreme Court has been shown to be the prerogative primarily for benefit of the mega-rich using surprisingly unfettered Judicial Review and is not accessible by us normal mortals, is it?

Unfortunately our unwritten constitution, though prized for its flexibility, has nevertheless helped political Luddite types to created a chaotic situation at Westminster

Blair’s contribution to the Country’s political demise is further secured by his traitorous behaviour in becoming the modern day William Joyce voice of the EU in the UK as well as its adviser in chief on keeping us trapped in its institutions. As well as that, he surrendered to the IRA with the Good Friday agreement that has empowered the Republic of Ireland to pursue jurisdiction over the whole island against the will of the Northern Ireland people – and furthermore it has provided a block to BREXIT as Blair, aided and abetted by the republic’s Taoiseach, counselled Brussels to make it a sticking point. [Conversely, it has been a long-standing Unionist position that it is the EU’s backstop protocol that would wreck the Good Friday agreement]

Then there is Nick Clegg ex-LibDem leader, who as deputy-PM in the coalition government got his pieces of silver in the form of a 5 year fixed-term parliament, which he wanted from David Cameron as a quid pro quo for him and his MPs abandoning their principles and entering into government in support of the Tories. Clegg needed the guarantee of time because he didn’t trust Cameron and feared being ditched after a couple of years when the Conservatives could call a snap Election and get an absolute majority so not need the LibDems.

The disastrous effect of the act is evidenced by the comatose state of the UK government which resembles more like that of a banana republic than an advanced nation with the mother of parliaments and a country renowned for its democracy. This has come about by the unforeseen consequences of the significant transfer of power from the PM and Executive to the Commons, which has coincided with its infestation of a not so secret cabal of renegade MPs whose noses were put out of joint by their power being usurped by the public voting in a referendum in a way they didn’t agree with. The fallout of that is the population’s trust in politicians is at an all time low in a belief that they are self-serving, while there is no longer any confidence in the legitimacy of parliament itself

The Act also has allowed MPs elected for a particular party to defy the policies that they got elected on and then skip-off to join a different party of totally different ideals and policies without any reference to their electorate while enjoying the comfort of a full 5 years of power and position as a highly paid and expenses supported MP – plus racking-up a gold-plated pension to boot

It is an act that needs to be repealed immediately by the next government

Furthermore, Clegg and the LibDems fought in the first place to have a EU referendum but when the result was ‘Leave’, the followers- on declared “Bollocks to Brexit”, didn’t they?

On gender equality ground, we really shouldn’t leave out of the stocks, one Nicola Sturgeon leader of the SNP and first minister of the Scottish Assembly, who although not in Westminster in person, still pulls the strings of her party there. She has helped fire-up the furnace of chaos in the Commons in her quest to overturn the TWO referendums the SNP lost – that on Scottish Independence and that on the EU, eh?

 

[TODAY parliament will indeed be ‘prorogated’ and that uncontentious suspension comes ahead of a Queen’s Speech scheduled for next Monday. What did the Supreme Court’s unprecedented prorogation intervention and parliament recall achieve and what critical matters were dealt with in the Commons over the extra 2 weeks’ sitting, then? Answer: NOTHING and NONE respectively?]

 

 

 

You may have voted for BREXIT but you ‘cannot’ have it – well BECAUSE?

 

  • The IRA said NO
  • The Civil Service said NO
  • The Irish Republic said NO
  • Big Business said NO
  • Speaker Bercow said NO
  • The SNP said NO
  • The LibDems said NO
  • The Remainer Tory Rebels said NO
  • The LABOUR party said YES / PERHAPS / GENERAL-ELECTION / MAYBE / NO / NO TO NO-DEAL THEN GENERAL-ELECTION / NO TO NO-DEAL THEN NO TO GENERAL-ELECTION / WE WILL NEGOTIATE A NEW DEAL AND VOTE AGAINST IT SO NO
  • TIGfC said NO
  • Plaid Cymru said NO
  • Green Party said NO
  • The BBC said NO
  • The National Press said NO
  • Michael Barnier the EU negotiator said NO
  • Jean Claude Juncker President of the European Commission said NO
  • Donald Tusk President of the European Council said NO
  • Olly Robbins the UK’s Chief BREXIT negotiator said NO

WHY IS THAT THEN? – Well, the views of this lot above are to be truly ‘trusted’ aren’t they, eh?

    1. Like the IRA, rebadged Sinn Féin, for 30 years home to Catholic indiscriminate bombers and killers in the name of religion and in their quest for destruction of Protestantism in Ireland, and the absorption of Northern Ireland into the South. They were so deeply infiltrated by Britain’s security forces that they were on the verge of defeat in their war on Britain, but were rescued by warlord Tony Blair with the Good Friday agreement of twenty years ago that awarded them safe passage to three quarters of their destination, no retribution for their atrocities, a role in NI for Southern Ireland, a major Executive role for it in the NI Administration and with slots for its unrepentant terrorists to govern and run the police. In return the IRA/Sinn Féin merely ‘promised’ to completely halt the offensive, ridding themselves of ALL explosive material and weaponry but unverified, and support governance of their country. How did that work out then, eh? Not too good perhaps? Dissidents carried-on uncountable terrorist attacks, MPs were elected to Westminster who took the pay but didn’t turn-up or participate, Sinn Féin dropped out of the Stormont Legislative Assembly intermittently, once for 4½ years and has currently has had it suspended now for nearly 3 years

      [Atrocities in the past decade alone include: a Londonderry bomb, attacks on police with petrol bombs in Strabane, an attempted killing of police with an exploded bomb in County Fermanagh, attempted murder a viable device of police officers in County Armagh, a bomb under a police car in Belfast, a mortar tube and command wire found in County Down. journalist shot dead in Londonderry, five explosive packages found at locations across Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, bomb in a van explosion in Londonderry, two AK-47s, two sawn-off shot guns, a high-powered rifle with a silencer and three pipe bombs recovered from a house in Belfast, a significant amount of dangerous weapons seized during a search operation in counties Armagh and Tyrone, petrol bombs thrown at police vehicles in Londonderry, a man shot dead in Belfast, a female journalist shot dead in Derry, AND MANY MORE DOZENS OF OTHERS THAT COULD BE LISTED]

    2. The Civil Service don’t agree with politicians being in charge of government as being elected they have to be responsible to voters, which is inconvenient to running things the Civil Service way. Also, they admire the fact that the EU administrators are unburdened by elected politicians so can stop them implementing laws they don’t like. Furthermore, being in the EU allows them to thwart proposed departmental plans with the excuse “it’s against EU law/regulations Minister so it can’t be done”
    3. The Irish Republic provided safe haven for terrorists during The Troubles, and has willingly allowed itself to be a pawn in the EU’s destructive treatment of the UK during BREXIT negotiations
    4. Big business and its advocate the CBI raking it in by being in the EU, has been a major pusher of Project Fear for 3½ years
    5. John Bercow driven by vanity is deemed to be one of the worst House of Commons Speakers in history, is vindictive, hypercritical, biased, totally against BREXIT, and he has trashed precedent to encouraged the Commons to become the swamp home for wild dogs – even timing his impending resignation to ensure the next parliament is tainted with the poisoned blood of this one to deny the right of new MPs to elect a their chosen Speaker
    6. We have the mad Scots in the form of the SNP who don’t realise that Scotland is financially dependent, who forget their predecessors were slaughtered at Culloden, that they lost their independence referendum, that the EU referendum result was a Union outcome applying to the whole UK, that they have MPs at Westminster because the British parliament controls all major issues like BREXIT, and that they need to sort-out their poxy incompetent assembly led by the ridiculous Nicola Sturgeon at Holyrood Edinburgh
    7. Then we have the dishonest, ‘never-to-be-trusted’ LibDems of broken pledges infamy, who have dragged politics into the gutter not least with their ‘BOLLOCKS TO BREXIT’ slogan and their repetitive denial of democracy
    8. What can be said about the Remainer Tory Rebels who won’t accept that they lost the Referendum but who nevertheless signed-up to their party’s platform and manifesto and then ditched that to defeat their own Government’s commitments, possibly get it replaced by a Corbyn one, and quite likely cause the complete demise of Conservatism in Britain, eh?
    9. Many may wonder what game the Labour party is up to these days, but the explanation is quite simple – it has been well and truly infiltrated by Marxists so is following their principles of creating a climate for revolution by causing mayhem, uncertainty, dissatisfaction, and utter distrust in current governance
    10. Then we see a group of unprincipled cuckoo MPs, 8 Labour and 3 Conservatives, who early this year abandoned their parties to form a new ‘independent group’ because they said all current political parties were crass and out of touch. Their total failure in the EU elections meant 6 of the incumbents dropped-out with 2 of them joining the LibDems which they had previously decried. They then joined the Commons sewer-rats to try to block BREXIT and to destroy the government, but not one of them has had the guts to re-stand in a by-election to get the endorsement of their constituent voters, have they? [the group is on its 3rd name of TIGfC in under eight months!]
    11. Consider Plaid Cymru of Wales with 4 MPs, which like the SNP wants independence but contradictorily requires to stay in the EU and still be controlled by Brussels, eh?
    12. The Green Party couldn’t even stick together as a UK operation but has 1 MP who wants to stop BREXIT with a all female Cabinet coup – that’s green feminism for you?
    13. The BBC hasn’t even bothered to hide its anti-BREXIT role but it presents a false ‘façade’ of equality, while paying men more than women, and opinion ‘fairness’, whence for its political output, it includes MP representatives of Government policy [Leave], Tory rebels [Remain], Labour [Remain], SNP [Remain], LibDems [Remain], PC [Remain], Green [Remain], Independent Grp [Remain]. Hence its panels and its programmes are ‘by coincidence’ of course, dominated by anti-BREXITiers and for some inexplicable reason a TV and Radio daily platform is provided to ‘non-entity’ but strident wreckers who are never off our screens like Kenneth Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Anna Soubry Oliver Letwin, Chuka Umunna, Rory Stewart, Sam Gyimah, Philip Hammond,etcetera, and of course the BBC presenters et al are all well briefed and rehearsed in their ‘rubbish-BREXIT’ script because they know that their mega salary and pay increase depends on their successful performances
    14. A large influential section of the National Press is anti-BREXIT and has continued to promote a Remain message in its news and opinion articles, despite the vote of the 2016 Referendum, so it has undermined it and encouraged their readers and diehard Remainers to not to accept the BREXIT result and this has stopped the population’s deep division on the issue from healing
    15. Michael Barnier the EU negotiator has trounced the UK’s negotiators at every turn primarily because Theresa May conceded in every negotiation topic because she stupidly believed that Barnier would proceed to grant a trade deal, which he never had any intention of ever doing since the EU plan was to visible ‘punish’ the UK to put the fear into the other countries that are minded to leave
    16. Jean Claude Juncker President of the European Commission is answerable to nobody so doesn’t care about the damage that will result to EU countries when Britain leaves particularly if that is with a clean break
    17. Donald Tusk President of the European Council is like Juncker one with no accountability and is determined to try to force the UK to withdraw Article 50 notice and so rescind its decision to leave the bloc
    18. Not only was Olly Robbins an experienced senior Civil Servant so tainted with the anti-BREXIT brush, but at Oxford Uni he was president of a group promoting a ‘federal European Union’, so it is a bit surprising that past-Remainer Theresa May chose him from all others to be her personal representative leading negotiations for ‘Exiting the European Union’ from 2017 to 2019. It is less surprising then that he gave the federal EU exactly what they asked for and provided May with a Withdrawal deal that screwed Britain and despite intense pressure parliament repeatedly rejected, is it? Nevertheless, she gave him a kinghood for getting her the sack, eh?

 

[The winners of the BREXIT battle won’t just be decided by those listed but ALL of us hope it will be over soon and we can get a respected and responsible parliament with trustworthy MPs – fat chance?]

 

 

 

 

Disingenuous ‘Remainer’ MPs vote to AGAIN delay BREXIT – ignoring the UK public’s decision to ‘Leave the EU’ a full 3 Years 2½ Months ago?

 

The Country voted in the June 2016 Referendum to Leave the EU

ALL the Westminster political parties had campaigned for Remain – but they LOST! The ‘People’s vote’ was that the UK would Leave

The majority of MPs in the Commons had been in favour of Remain so it was rightly tagged as a ‘Remainer Parliament’. Subsequently, a General Election was held in June 2017 when the Conservatives stood on a manifesto of delivering BREXIT and were retained as the Government, while the Labour Opposition’s manifesto claimed that they would respect the decision of the Referendum.

But a large gaggle of Tory MPs and the bulk of Labour MPs were diehard Remainer lying gits who conned their constituents, as they were in fact committed Remainers so we still have a ‘Remainer Parliament’, don’t we?

Yes and consequently, it has pulled every trick in the book to delay BREXIT with an end goal of overturning the result of the Referendum and cancelling BREXIT altogether – as indeed was identified in a post here some 3 years ago!

The latest subterfuge by these wreckers is to jump on the passing bandwagon of taking a Clean Break (so-called ’No Deal’) BREXIT off the table in the UK’s negotiations with the EU, and get another pointless extension from Brussels. The base objective of this is to ensure that Brussels DOESN’T give Britain an acceptable deal at all, so that it will tie the UK to EU control FOREVERMORE – without any vote or say

To that end they have betrayed democracy and hijacked our Parliament, with advice and agreement from the EU’s legal department, to first pave the way for legislation to block a no-deal Brexit and then pass the bill, expected to come into Law tomorrow, which sets-out to delay BREXIT until 31 January 2020 or later, by forcing the prime minister to ask the European Union for a delay to Brexit to prevent the UK’s departure, if by 19 October this year MPs have not approved a new deal or voted in favour of a no-deal exit.

By their very actions the MPs responsible know full well that there is absolutely NO chance of either of those conditions being met, so the PM will be required by law to ask for an extension, which doubtless the EU will eagerly grant to increase the chances that the UK will decide to actually stay

Who are the perpetrators of this outrage you might wonder? Well, the orchestrators without doubt are a group of bloody-minded, elite Tory scoundrels from the Commons swamp, who have brought shame on their party and have humiliated Great Britain on the world stage, simply because they would not accept that the voters had a legitimate democratic right to decide who runs Britain – they innately believe that they are better educated and more knowledgeable than the ignorant masses who should never ever have been given the vote in the first place, you see?

The leader of this pack of some forty feral dogs is staunch Remainer Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer (2016–2019) – a top schemer certainly, but one of the most formidably boring speakers in British politics. In the 2016 EU referendum he was the leading-light campaigner for the Remain side and even carried the nickname “europhil”. He was so convinced the UK should have voted to remain that unlike the Conservative party itself, he didn’t unhesitatingly accept the result but immediately said he would fight it – and he has. That has included refusing adequate funds for BREXIT arrangements and also under Theresa May being collectively responsible for throwing away the UK’s strongest playing card – walking away, and he has just repeated that stupidity immediately Boris Johnson took up task of getting BREXIT done

Then there is another ex-Chancellor, ’old enough to know better’ Kenneth Clarke, avid cigarette supporter, one of the world’s leading tobacco lobbyists, mouthpiece and indeed employee of the cancerous tobacco industry. At the outset he said he would block BREXIT, and has used his status and considerable Party influence to try to do so since summer 2016.

Or, the real brain within the Tory rebels, Dominic Grieve, unceremoniously sacked as attorney general in 2014 for he believed of his unfettered support for the European Court of Human Rights, so one with a chip on his shoulder and the person able to provide the essential legal drive to their BREXIT wrecking plan. Mother is French, father worked for de Gaulle, he was educated at a London French school, seems to have more allegiance to France than Britain, is president of the Franco-British Society, a holder of the Légion d’honneur, the highest French order of merit for militart and civil merits, has a house and lives partly in Brittany France and owns building land there, he regularly broadcasts on French radio and television, is apparently in receipt of large EU grants, and he has hosted the French Europe minister and other senior French politicians to plot against the UK to get BREXIT cancelled – despite getting re-elected two years ago on a commitment of ‘the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it’.

Also we should identify BREXIT basher and proponent of Parliament’s “indicative votes” fiasco, Oliver Letwin who has been one of the leading figures in the rebel group and has had well lapsed key roles in government and is a failed policy maker, but is now just another shit-stirrer

Let’s not leave out the traitorous oldie Nicholas Soames, a heavily built political lightweight who’s only ‘claim to fame’ is that his grandfather was Winston Churchill, while his most ‘dishonorable deed’ was to disgustingly lie through his teeth about Prince Charles’ adultery and publicly criticising Diana, Princess of Wales for her accusation, and saying that it was because she was mentally ill and in the advanced stages of paranoia – he only appologised after Prince Charles owned-up. [He denied though threatening Diana and warning her, “accidents happen” in the months before she died in a car crash in Paris, eh?]

Those Europhile fanatics above are amongst 21 Tory rebels who have had the whip withdrawn by Boris Johnson for their voting decision to initially sideline the Government and then to bring it down.  [They are barred from running as Conservative candidates in future general elections]

They were warned of the consequences of such action and those which would be absolutely normal under a strong competent administration, but they still went ahead and some like Hammond are now squealing like stuck pigs about it, as are their fellow travelers like Jo Johnson and Amber Rudd both who disgracefully have jumped ship despite committing to the hard-line Government policy just weeks ago– at least all won’t now be in the next parliament to carry on with their shenanigans, eh?

Well, on the Bill to enact the deed, the Tory mutineers were joined by others using the smokescreen of blocking a no-deal Brexit to hide the undeniable truth that their objective is to overturn the Referendum result itself.

So we had 237 Labour MPs doing so when the Party has now rebadged itself as a Remain party that will ‘in government’ renegotiate a deal with the EU and will present that in a second Referendum when it will then vote AGAINST the deal it actually negotiated and campaign for Remain. Crass or what?

Also pretending to be against just no deal were 35 SNP MPs, but really these are those who want an entirely two different things – to cancel BREXIT and to leave the Union by having a rerun of the ‘once in a lifetime’ 2014 Scottish independence referendum – and Labour will allow both

The Conservatives who lost the whip voted as Independents who then totaled 29 MPs but are ones who in fact want to stay in the EU

Then there were the 15 LibDems ‘Bollocks to Brexit’ MPs, who didn’t accept the result of the Referendum, want a 2nd Referendum but the leader says it won’t accept the result of that if it’s Leave

Plus of course TIGfC 5 MPs, Plaid 4 MPs, Con 1 MP, Green 1 MP all of course who want BREXIT terminated [Originally named ‘The Independent Group’ with 11 MPs, it then became ‘Change UK’ and it is now TIGfC ‘The Independent Group for Change’ but with only 5 MPs retained. The new Tory MP rebel is Caroline Spelman]

So there you have it, 327 pathetic MPs, disgracefully determined to disrespect the vote, ensure parliament does NOT ever deliver BREXIT and thereby they ignore the fact that the people voted in the referendum to leave the EU, eh?

The hapless situation of BREXIT in the House of Commons cannot be resolved by retaining the current helpless status quo of Remainers and Leavers there, and that cannot be cleared-up at the EU unless a new deal is offered by it. If that doesn’t happen, then the only two ways forward are either leaving with Clean Break BREXIT, OR clearing the deadlock by a new parliament selected through a General Election when the public will decide which parties and which MPs they send back to Westminster, don’t you think?

[Last week PM Boris Johnson suffered severe losses in Westminster votes, but he has been adamant he will not seek an extension to stay in the EU after the current ‘Exit Day’ of Halloween, and apparently he is not willing to resign. How he can square the circle on that and get around the new Remainers’ law is debatable, but perhaps he has a Houdini escape trick worked out, eh?]

 

 

The BBC is totally unaccountable – scrap the Licence Fee?

An iconic British image – BBC Test Card F as used on television in the United Kingdom and in countries elsewhere in the world for more than four decades

The BBC is an organisation that like the EU is totally unaccountable to those that fund it, as there is no real mechanism for consumers to hold the BBC to account, and it similarly squanders its massive unearned-income budget with irresponsible and thoughtless expenditure with a spendthrift attitude that permeates throughout the organisation. Funding is wasted like water from a tap with an endless ‘meter-less’ supply with a zero analysis or concern for ‘cost benefit’. Large volumes of cash have been wasted by its bureaucrats who suffer no consequences for the reckless spending.

That is not to say that the BBC has too big an income in an age when delivery of quality TV programmes indeed involves big bucks – it does though have the second largest budget of any UK-based broadcaster. However, there is now much deep public dissatisfaction with both its current funding arrangement through tax, and moreover with its current lacklustre performance and poor value output – the days when it was a beacon of excellence for other broadcasters around the world, plus provider of bespoke quality, and when it generated truly iconic programmes are long gone – that has all been replaced by a 24/7 menu of predominately meaningless dross, don’t you think?

[The BBC had an operating expenditure of £4.722 billion in 2013/14 compared with £6.471 billion for British Sky Broadcasting in 2013/14 and just £1.843 billion for ITV in the calendar year 2013]

The availability of talent to the BBC has been decimated by other alternative employers so it is now unfeasible for the Corporation to continuously transmit decent programmes 24hrs a day. Return of the Test Card, previously shown while no programmes are being broadcast would be a welcome relief, to those of us that grew to enjoy the BBC transmissions of past decades, don’t you think?

The licence fee has been an increasing bone of contention as many viewers these days don’t bother with terrestrial TV at all, or have other alternative ‘paid-for’ service providers, or even they stream television to computers, tablets, or mobiles for free – so they don’t really see why they should have to pay ‘a tax’ to contribute to BBC channels and services they don’t necessarily use nor like. Moreover, apart from the fee paid not being related whatsoever to how much of BBC services are used by a property, it is clearly discriminatory against the poor, the old, and those isolated and reliant on television for company, because the cost is not related to household income, is it?

The utter unfairness and madness of it all though, is amply demonstrated by the fact that the BBC provides a substantial national and local Radio service, and certainly some of it is excellent with many very satisfied listeners, but the listeners don’t have to pay a penny for those expensive services at all, because these days radio users don’t require ANY licence whatsoever – television owners have to stump-up the major cost which is some fifteen percent of the total BBC budget of £5 billion

The BBC have just announced that it is to lavish another £100 million on advertising to try to attract younger listeners to its radio channels, and into the bargain the BBC is promoting an App for a radio FREE audio-book service [while Amazon provide an audiobook facility at £8 a month!] – ALL such radio, irrespective of unaffordable cost, is paid for from the TV licence fee of course!

Most galling of all and inexplicably to boot, radio presenters seem to be amongst the BBC’s highest paid elite when there can only be scant competition elsewhere for their skills and services, surely?

[Presenters solely on radio earning £1.7 million, £410 thousand, £560 thousand, £420 thousand, £410 thousand, £410 thousand, £359 thousand, £340 thousand, £340 thousand, £310 thousand, and others who have also been pulling in £300 thousand or so. HOW CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED?

(The UKs Prime Minister’s salary is just some £150 thousand, and the average salary of UK FULL TIME workers is only £35thousand)]

That of course is the just tip of the iceberg as most BBC spending is just day-to-day ‘current’ spending, reflecting astronomical staff and procurement costs, with virtually NO investment nor capital spending.

Part of the reason is that the BBC pays both TV and Radio presenters staggeringly scandalous amounts – and those are only the ones we know about as it won’t disclose information about TWO THIRDS of its BIGGEST earners who scandalously are paid “off the books” so to speak, through personal service companies, or payments made through BBC Studios [£74million in payments dished out over 4 years, where payment via a company allows the BBC to ‘avoid’ national insurance while the performer ‘avoids’ income tax at source of up to 45% and instead pays corporate tax of just 19%]

[£1.75 million paid to a football presenter supported by analysts themselves on £420 thousand (covering matches already played!), £610 thousand to a radio presenter and TV chat show host, £530 thousand to a TV newsreader and elections presenter, £450 thousand to a radio and TV presenter, £410 thousand to a radio presenter with some TV work, £410 thousand to a TV presenter, £380 thousand to a radio presenter and TV host, and many others on TV and Radio who have also been pulling in £300 thousand or so

The BBC Director General not only ALREADY draws BBC pension but ALSO gets a BBC salary AS WELL – so is on £530 thousand].

Moreover, increasing numbers of people are dissatisfied with the BBC’s somewhat staid and slanted service output, which is targeted at quite a restricted audience, and some would say that for a supposedly ‘neutral’ public service broadcaster [an utter pretence of impartiality of course], that at times it lacks objectivity and it stands accused of bias in its approach to controversial topics [and that would specifically include BREXIT where it unfairly has clearly been supportive of the establishment’s and Cameron government’s original Remain line – it continues to paddle an anti-BREXIT canoe].

Also, these days one can find much better programmes elsewhere, and often its output lacks quality of thought and professionalism [exampled by the insensitive format, the extraordinary debate bias, and the series of appalling blunders the BBC exhibited in its chaotic ‘gate-crash’ Tory leadership broadcast in mid-July (scheduled after 90% members had already voted as it was just 6 days before voting closed) is a glaring case in point], while in general its output descends to the lowest common denominator in its apparent quest to match the garbage of the worst commercial channels.

Inexplicably the BBC seems to believe that its viewers (predominately intelligent, discerning people], want a never-ending programme regime of cookery & food, house hunting & relocation, bric-à-brac & antique sales, outdated & irrelevant chat shows, incomprehensible & meaningless game shows, medical dramas & old soaps seemingly used solely to promote relationship & diversity issues, repeats & re-runs of past quality items galore, low-interest sports events & with just post-time reviews of major sport goings-on, etc, eh? It is difficult to think of any current BBC programme that would be described as ‘unmissable’ or memorable – has all the good talent gone to Netflix, eh? [One of the few remaining BBC successes is its natural history series]

The bottom line is that it is now time to scrap the criminal law enforced Licence Fee funding for the BBC, as there is no longer any justification for an unscrutinised universal public service broadcaster in the UK, proving diverse free services funded by a TV tax.

The BBC claims that the licence fee is the ‘cheapest’ way of providing ‘existing’ BBC services – and that may be ‘right’ but it is certainly NOT the fairest’ way and certainly doesn’t mean that the Corporation shouldn’t ‘cutback’ on the services it provides, eh?

The BBC needs to move to directly fund its output from those viewers who are prepared to pay for it – if it is delivering the ‘quality output’ and ‘great programmes’ that it regularly (falsely?) claims then it will thrive, when then operating on a level playing field with the likes of Netflix and Sky – it will be able within its means to spend its income on expensive over-rated staff, be as biased as it likes, all with no questions asked by the tax-payer, eh?

The BBC can and must progressively move to a subscription service for Radio1, Radio2, Radio3, Radio4, Radio Five live, Radio London, audio-books, TV, HD services, BBC Red button services, TV streaming, news, current affairs and documentary programmes, soaps, drama, iPlayer, children services, etc.

The licence fee should be progressively phased out over a few years to give the BBC time to reorganise its funding arrangements on a normal commercial and business basis to compete with other providers – then we will see if it can really pull-in the many millions of pounds needed to support its loaded staff and presenters. If the government NEEDS a future and limited [TV and radio single channels] state public service broadcaster to peddle its messages or to meet perceived social needs, then it needs to fund it from general taxation.

 

[When the BBC has to control its own income opportunities Britain might see a resurrection of the long-lost creativity and control of costs that is badly needed from the organisation]

The three little pigs ‘PMs’ when the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ blows down two of their houses – but NOT the third?

 

In the updated fable of Three Little Pigs, three Tory UK Prime Ministers pigs build three houses of different policy materials.

The 1st Little Pig ‘PM’ was Remainer David Cameron, a smart-arsed lazy little pig, who made his house only of straw, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ huffed and puffed and blew his house down, whence he was dead to politics

The 2nd Little Pig ‘PM’ was Remainer Theresa May. a deceitful self-centred little pig, who made her house of weak sticks, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ huffed and puffed and blew her house down, whence she was dead to politics but held on for another 6 torturous months

The 3rd Little Pig ‘PM’ was Head Leaver Boris Johnson, a popular charismatic little pig, who made his house of stronger than concrete bricks, so the Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ is huffing and puffing in an attempt to destroy the third pig’s house. The Big Bad Wolf ‘EU’ is being helped by saboteur neighbours who are trying to knock-down his house’s internal supporting walls, and if they succeed then his house will be also blown down, whence he will be dead to politics, British democracy will be in the gutter, the United Kingdom Union will disintegrate, and the Conservative and Unionist party will be consigned to history

[If the UK is still in the EU on 1st November 2019, then the Brexit party’s star will be top of the tree at the next General Election]

 

 

 

 

 

BREXIT on 31st October 2019 ‘DEAL’ or ‘NO DEAL’ – just a Boris Johnson negotiating ploy?

 

Boris Johnson won the Conservative leadership election last month and took office as British Prime Minister on 24 July 2019 on a hustings platform of taking the UK out of the EU on October 31 this year, come hell or high water.

However, there is a massive campaign afoot to completely rubbish that commitment and say it is just a bargaining tool with no legs – no doubt because the powers-that-be controlling our media [like the BBC, HuffPost, Guardian, Observer, Independent, Mirror, Financial Times, Mail on Sunday, Times] are innately biasedly anti-BREXIT so are mega-anti-‘No Deal’ BREXIT.

Now, that wouldn’t really matter so much, except that the problem with those theories that it is all an elaborate wind-up and Johnson is bluffing over a no-deal Brexit, dramatically undermine the UK Government’s ability to get the EU to renegotiate our departure by this year’s Halloween. The media, the anti-Brexit activists, and the plotting Tory MP village idiots, who are falsely talking-up the ability of the current parliament to block no deal, or bring down the government to force a General Election vote, or being able to create a Government of national unity, all before the end of October to stop Britain exiting the EU without a deal, are in reality ensuring the shit hits the fan and No Deal is not just a possibility but becomes a reality

Boris Johnson has been in power just 18 days, but since the very first moment of his premiership he has altered the whole BREXIT ball game, hasn’t he? Just look above at the powerful hardline Cabinet of ‘October-committed’ Leavers that he has appointed, whence the May’s diehard Remainers blockers have bitten the dust.

He has also set-up a so-called war cabinet of six cabinet ministers with the declared mission of delivering Brexit within the 100 days before exit date [which is now just 82 days away]

He has also tabled his intensions, backed with funding, to deal with the Country’s out of control crime situation [caused by his predecessors it has to be said] with restoration of police and prison officer numbers, building many more prisons and banging-up felons behind bars in accordance with the law and judges’ sentencing – all essential and well overdue criminal toughness measures and a breath of fresh air, don’t you think?

While parliament is now in recess, the bulk of MPs are naturally intent on taking advantage of the holiday season, but conversely the level of Cabinet activity is unprecedented, enormous funding has been now released by the Treasury for BREXIT, major consultations inside and outside of government on BREXIT are underway, all ministers’ political advisers (SpAds) have had holidays banned until November, and the civil service have been priority refocused on exit day preparations  – all sounds like serious stuff then, but some say only just window dressing, eh?

Whereas there are some reports that because of Johnson’s pronouncements and the ramping up of the UK’s no-deal planning attempts to intimidate the other EU27 countries, that important EU leaders are on edge, it is equally said that others in Brussels claim that his no-deal Brexit threat strategy is merely an obvious tactic to spook them, which will cut no ice either in Europe or in Britain, and that the threat of a no-deal Brexit would not break EU unity– who knows which view will prevail, eh?

Certainly, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is reiterating his view that a no-deal Brexit would hurt Britain more than the rest of Europe – but nevertheless alarmed Irish businesses are furiously demanding that the EU go back to the negotiating table, as the blind pursuit of EU unity is fatally endangering their country’s economy.

Realists amongst us know full well that it takes time for political effort and money to work itself through the system to deliver the intended results, so you don’t have to be a haulier expert to appreciate that the BREXIT plan to suddenly recruit say many hundreds of extra port customs staff to prevent lorry hold-ups at Dover in November is unrealistic, but it will indeed shorten and reduce the ongoing impact of a no deal departure from the EU, if that is the outcome. While Johnson has declared that the UK was much ready on March 29, will be ready by October 31, and it was vital that our EU partners saw that, we don’t have to rely on that optimism absolutely – Britain will muddle through with flying colours as usual.

[The UK were barred from making such adequate preparations, which should have been enacted a long while ago by our anti-BREXIT, arch-Europhile, ‘Philip Hammond’, who as Chancellor knowingly refused the funds in order to thwart us leaving the EU (over a year ago, Calais port authorities make preparations in case there was no Brexit deal, which included hiring hundreds of additional customs officers and extra border control facilities, so to avoid potential logistical chaos over there)].

Those of us who want a no deal exit with a clean break from the EU, do so because we know that any short-term pain is better than being tied-up long-term in the EU and under Brussels’ control without even any say.

In truth, betting wise it’s even stevens about the UK leaving the EU this year, but the prospects of doing so are at least now realistic, whereas a month ago they certainty were not.

 

[The political crisis and public diversive turmoil that has paralysed Britain for 3 years now has been directly caused by a losing side’s unprecedented refusal to accept defeat in a democratic national voting decision. The effect has been just like ‘a rotten apple spoils the barrel’, when we now see the SNP both rejecting the result of their ‘once in a lifetime’ independent referendum of 5 years ago as well as the United Kingdom Union’s decision on the 2016 EU referendum, and with the LibDems’, the Labour party, the Green party, Plaid Cymru all fighting dirty against BREXIT]

 

The UK’s threat to the EU of a ‘No Deal’ BREXIT – has it suddenly become ‘real’?

The official campaign in favour of leaving the European Union in the 2016 Referendum

 

It is a well know fact that Theresa May, while pretending to the British public that her view was that “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal”, at no stage ever attempted to threaten the EU with a no-deal BREXIT exit during withdrawal negotiations. That’s why they would only offer Britain a bum deal that tied us into the EU forever, when it required the UK to sign-up to a new never-ending binding Treaty, whereas the Lisbon Treaty at least had Article 50, the legal process for leaving the EU in a couple of years.

It is a lesser know fact that Theresa May, while pretending to the British public she was forced by the Cooper-Letwin bill to extend the BREXIT date to 31 October 2019, in reality had NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to accept an extension to October when the requested date of June was rejected by the EU. That’s why they refused to make changes to the crap Withdrawal Agreement as they thought Britain could be forced into staying in the EU until it was approved or indeed Article 50 withdrawn.

However, the EU hierarchy [Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk] clearly have overplayed their hand as they are now up against PM Boris Johnson who has made a ‘do or die’ Brexit pledge for Britain to leave the EU by Halloween – with or without a Deal.

Whereas, conciliatory  ‘Remainer’ May stuffed her cabinet with Remainers and surrounded herself with similar like-minded aides, hardball  ‘Leaver’ Johnson has turned his Cabinet into a Remainer no-go area where everyone had signed-up to leaving in October, and he has supported them by gathering a formidable backroom team of experienced Brexiteers and campaigners led by a rottweiler-type ‘enforcer’ [joint founder of ‘Vote Leave’]

Now, Johnson explains that he is NOT aiming for a no-deal exit and wants to negotiate a Deal with the EU, but many of us believe that that will prove impossible, not least because a hoard of past and present MPs are telling the EU that parliament WILL block a no deal BREXIT and stop the UK leaving this Halloween – they will undermine Johnson’s insistence that the EU must capitulate and renegotiate, won’t they? [Perhaps alternatively, Johnson could obtain an interim  ‘free-trade deal?]

[The likes of Europhiles: Philip Hammond (ex-Chancellor), Dominic Grieve (a former- Attorney General), David Gauke (ex-Justice Secretary), Rory Stewart (ex-International Development Secretary), Greg Clark (ex-Business Secretary) Stephen Hammond (ex-health minister), Sir Alan Duncan (ex-foreign office minister), Anne Milton (ex-skills minister), Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir Peter Bottomley, Damian Green, Kenneth Clarke (a former chancellor), Michael Heseltine, Oliver Letwin, John Major (a former PM), Tony Blair (a former PM), Gordon Brown (a former PM), Anna Soubry (a former minister)

Moreover, a group of 24 parliamentarians include LibDems and SNP MPs has started a legal action in Scotland aimed at preventing the shutting down Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit – they won’t succeed but they will boost the impression that BREXIT without a deal is the most likely scenario

Well, the bad news for those backbenchers and others driving the EU towards a no-deal BREXIT, is that there is snowball’s chance in hell of them stopping no-deal at this stage, or forcing Johnson to ask for a further extension, or indeed getting rid of PM Johnson and forming an interim government before the October leave date.

You see, the insurmountable problem that the wreckers face is that in February 2017, by a massive majority (votes 494 to 122) Parliament put into law empowerment of the government to implement the decision of the 2016 referendum and withdraw from the EU on the ‘exit day’ [now reset from 29 March 2019 to 31 October 2019], with OR WITHOUT a deal.

[That Bill extends, and applies in relation to, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and does not contain any provision which gives rise to the need for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly]

Johnson has insisted that, come hell or high water, there will be no further extensions – only the PM can ask for one and even if one was requested all 27 EU countries would have to agree, so there’s no way can our parliament ensure there is an extension of the exit day. Furthermore, there are significant financial implications which would ‘normally’ require government support

New legislation will be required to enact any Deal agreed with the EU, or undeniably to prevent a no-deal Brexit. It cannot be claimed that the latter is denying the will of parliament since indeed it WAS parliament that created the current Bill in the first place, and any new motion or expression of current parliamentary opinion, has no legal effect whatsoever, does it?

The only realistic way that parliament itself can stop no deal happening, if Johnson is forced by EU intransigence to go that route, is by it snatching control of the legislative process from the Executive. There is little or no likelihood of that occurring or of new legislation being successfully passed, when faced by a determined Government, is there? No, the practical difficulties would be insurmountable as untrained rebel backbench MPs would themselves have to draft and navigate new ’error-free’ relevant bills through both Houses, wouldn’t they? Those who might raise however the example of last April’s Cooper-Letwin rubbish bill, which did precisely that, should be aware that Theresa May’s wishy-washy administration simply collaborated in that process as it could easily have been halted in its tracks – she ignored the will of her Cabinet by ruling out a no deal Brexit and actually needed another BREXIT delay [and as is her forte she wanted to dodge responsibility for it, having promised a 108 times to leave the EU on March 29].

The alternative course of action for the EU lovers to crash no-deal, is to bring down the Johnson Government, and Hammond has vowed to do just that, as apparently he believes it is in the national interest so surpasses Conservative party interest, hence he is already plotting with Labour to achieve that end – by working through the summer recess with Labour’s Keir Starmer, and Tories Letwin, Grieve, and others who oppose no deal

Well, they are pissing the wind because it won’t work, will it? Nope, a ‘no-confidence vote’ can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. Even if successful, it doesn’t mean an immediate dissolution of parliament, but instead, a stay of execution for 2 weeks to establish if there is a government capable of securing the confidence of the Commons – and there wouldn’t be one, nor a government of national unity, that would satisfy the Crown, would there?

Most certainly Boris Johnson would remain as Prime Minister throughout, as is his perfect legal right, although a General Election would be automatically triggered. The date of such an election would though be decided-on by Johnson himself (by advising the Monarch), and although following a dissolution there must be a minimum of 25 working days before the election, there is no maximum. Johnson would most certainly hold the election in November 2019 so AFTER the UK had left the EU in accordance with the existing legislation.

Oh, the Remainers are already squealing like stuck pigs at that prospect, as they claim it would be unconstitutional when convention dictates that no alteration of policy should occur during the pre-election period. But we don’t have a constitution do we, and conversely it would be wrong for the PM to introduce a change that circumvents the 2016 Referendum or the existing legislation on leaving the EU, wouldn’t you say?

Doubtless the wild shrieking will intensify if and when that time comes, but it will fall on death ears because it would not be unlawful and there is no way that Johnson will call an Election BEFORE the UK have left the EU, when he knows full well that it is a lost cause because there is widespread anger and distrust in the Conservatives who had abjectly failed to exit the EU after 3 years – they cannot do anything in government until that issue is put to bed. Neither Tory or Labour will get a majority in Westminster until Britain is out of Europe, eh?

If BREXIT is delivered as now scheduled, there can be no question about it that Johnson will call a general Election regardless, but that will be next year by preference so that he can re-establish a working majority which is essential to effective governance [the current situation is a majority of only one despite the support of the Irish DUP

While the British people have the highest regard for our nearest European neighbours, though they may be a bit more circumspect about those further afield in the EU, but there is generally utter loathing for the EU organisation itself which was doomed when set up to be undemocratic and when it prioritised an overriding objective to destroy the individuality of its member nations

 

[Those intent on a dirty deeds onslaught on the new Boris Johnson Government ought to be aware of how the House of Commons’ timetable significantly constrains their opportunities. The House is currently in Summer Recess until the first week in September and apparently after just 8 working days it shuts up shop again and goes into an over 3 weeks Recess for party conferences, till it returns in October, a short 18 working days before ‘exit day’ – not much time for skulduggery]

Note: there is sparse appetite in the Commons for revoking Article 50 to cancel BREXIT and so the result of the Referendum [less than a couple of hundred] – the anti-democracy ‘LibDems’ of course, the dissociative identity disorder ‘SNP’ who want independence but to be controlled by the EU, and a chunk of memory challenged ‘Labourites’ who don’t know they lost the vote

 

A devastatingly and destructive role was played by the BBC in the BREXIT situation – time to hold a judicial Public Inquiry?

Over the past four years, the BBC has consistently played a pivotal but ‘biased’ political role on BREXIT, don’t you think? That is why its dealings on BREXIT now requires an immediate judicial public inquiry to be set-up into the culture, practices and ethics of the British Broadcasting Corporation on what has been a critical milestone matter for the UK

The BBC commenced an anti-BREXIT campaign on behalf of the elite and the Conservative government in early 2016 when PM  David Cameron announced he would campaign for Britain to remain in the EU after he falsely claimed he had secured a good deal that would give Britain “special status” in the 28-nation EU bloc

Doubtless though, that was a ‘quid pro quo’ for six months previously the BBC being granted future licence fee increases in line with inflation until 2022 [the fee beforehand having being frozen since 2010]

So, the BBC became a willing promotional participant in the government’s ‘Project Fear’ in its attempt to coerce the population to vote ‘Remain’.

When the Referendum’s outcome turned-out to be ‘Leave’, it was generally expected that all Parties, MPs, organisations and voters, who had previously supported staying in the EU, would accept the result, and get behind the process of extracting the UK from the bloc. However, instead of that, some including the likes of the disgusting LibDems, diehard Europhile Tory MPs [including grandees], and even discredited ex PMs and past and present Cabinet ministers, defied British democracy and set out to thwart BREXIT as best they could

The ‘respected’ BBC itself became the prime vehicle for the anti-BREXIT elite establishment and big business to undermine the Referendum result, as it unashamedly provided an unwarranted platform over the past three years for countless political nobodies to become powerful and peddle their bile against a genuine BREXIT, aided and abetted by its over-paid presenters and programme makers. This is all done of course under the guise of being fair, neutral, and covering both sides of the debate – when in the first place there should NOT have been any debate when a democratic decision had already been clearly made – it’s not something that happens after a General Election, is it?]

The BBC, a public service broadcaster and the largest broadcaster in the world, supposedly is objective and independent of government or commercial influence, so has an obligation solely to its audiences and when reportedly it employs journalists who exercise independence of decision-making on broadcast content (albeit under the guidance of managers).

Some doubt must be cast on both of those matters in light of it and its staff’s biased behaviour on BREXIT, and moreover since the government has a stranglehold influence over the BBC, when the glaring fact is that it as an organisation is sycophantically-dependent on the government’s licence fee for ‘three-quarters’ of its funding of well over £5billion

[For example the BBC was forced to take on extra funding commitments including the World Service and Welsh-language S4C in 2010, while a potential killer blow of shifting the cost of paying for free TV licences for over-75s from general taxation to the BBC was only dodged by the Trust chairman jumping-ship – but the government subsequently got its way on that ‘welfare social costs’ burden in 2015 (a commitment made which surprisingly the BBC has now four years later performed a U-turn and reneged on)]

Because of its actions, it is the BBC which must be held ‘most’ accountable amongst the others for the Country’s failure to extract itself from the EU after over 3 full years, despite the people having voted to do just that, and had fully expected full control to have been taken back by the UK after just 2 years. Moreover, this has resulted in massive anger and polarisation of the population, uncertainty with untold strains on commerce, as well as unnecessary unbelievable cost – that is why there has to be an inquiry into how and why this has happened, and those responsible brought to task, eh?

 

[Such an Inquiry can be set up on the lines of the Leveson inquiry into the British press]