We were denied a bong from Big Ben to celebrate Brexit Day on January 31st 2020. That was because the House of Commons Commission and the Civil Servants running it were in the hands of remoaners.
The cost of our bong would, according to them, have been half a million pounds. The actual cost of having Big Ben bong on New Year’s Eve was, according to all reports, no more than a few thousand pounds.
In spite of all that, we’ll celebrate this day now and every January 31st. We mustn’t, however, forget that there’s a small matter of the “transition period” (whoever heard such nonsense?) and the negotiation of a “deal” with the EU. We must be ever vigilant in exposing any attempt to water down the Brexit that we voted for. In particular, any suggestion that the transition period should be extended must be opposed with all our might.
“Don’t be cruel to Remoaners” (LOL)
Now, about this barage of “Don’t be cruel to the losing side” propaganda to contend with. Remoaners have feelings, too, and all that. And Boris Johnson has been at pains to tell us to be nice to remoaners “in the interests of national unity”.
Not that remoaners give a toss about national unity, or national anything. Many of them have even said that they will refuse to accept or use the Brexit special edition 50 pence pieces (see one of the images below).
But can you imagine what we patriots would have had to endure at the hands of these despicable people had the referendum result gone the other way? They would have rubbed not only our noses in it, but the rest of our faces as well. They would have had a party that would probably still be going on now. They would never have given up reminding us of the referendum result, and making a point of welcoming each new dictat from the EU requiring us to surrender more and more of our freedoms and powers.
Our message of reconciliation
Even so, we must be magnanimous. So here is our message of reconciliation to all remoaners.
“Don’t you ever forget, you pieces of shit. We won, and you lost. Not only in the 2016 referendum, but in the two subsequent General Elections of 2017 and 2019 and the Euro Elections of earlier in 2019. And now, at long last, and in spite of all your treachery and machinations, we can celebrate the United Kingdom finally leaving the ‘European Union’ for good. Yes, we won and you lost. So #%*& OFF!”
Enough already! (LOL) We’re exulting in our country being free of the hated European Union at last. Revenge, they say, is a dish best served cold. Well, we’ve had nearly four long years for our dish to cool down. So here it is – a feast of celebration at the defeat of the remoaner traitors. Have a good laughâ€¦
Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob IsraÃ«l de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.
None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949â€“2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonaldâ€™s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.
â€œRead off the result in prejudonsâ€
The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913â€“2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical â€œPeter Simpleâ€ column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simpleâ€™s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:
THE Macpherson Reportâ€™s definition of a â€œracist incidentâ€ as â€œany incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other personâ€ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).
Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of â€œracismâ€, press the easy-to-find â€œactionâ€ button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)
It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing â€œthe race relations industryâ€ (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and â€œhateâ€ can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase â€œinternationally recognised,â€ which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is â€œrecognised.â€
Adopt the definition, already!
Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is â€œinternationally recognised.â€ Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satiristsâ€™ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:
Board of Deputies applauds Kingâ€™s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism
Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded Kingâ€™s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.
Marie said: â€œThis is the right move by Kingâ€™s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.
The phrase â€œinternationally recognisedâ€ is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRAâ€™s definition of â€œanti-Semitismâ€ is ludicrously vague and elastic:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)
The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. Itâ€™s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)
Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, itâ€™s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:
One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium
Note the slogan â€œOne Nation. One Siyum.â€ A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity â€” the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).
Murder of a poet
But what is the â€œOne Nationâ€ that has just completed â€œOne Siyumâ€? Plainly, the nation canâ€™t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, â€œOne Nationâ€ obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They donâ€™t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means â€œUnion of Israel,â€ that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for â€œdivine intervention.â€
Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israelâ€™s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob IsraÃ«l de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become â€œnon-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,â€ and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israelâ€™s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.
A Jewish supremacist party
And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called â€œfar rightâ€ and condemned with labels like â€œracist,â€ â€œsexist,â€ â€œhomophobic,â€ and â€œextremist.â€ Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israelâ€™s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.
The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. Thatâ€™s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didnâ€™t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far â€œmore loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwideâ€ than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isnâ€™t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys canâ€™t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.
Inbreeding and ethnocentrism
And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say â€œcountriesâ€ advisedly, because theyâ€™re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as â€œOne Nation,â€ itâ€™s using the word with perfect accuracy. â€œNationâ€ ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning â€œto be born.â€ Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.
The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fineâ€™s answer to the vexed question of â€œWho decides who is British?â€ Itâ€™s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and â€œlazy assumptionsâ€ make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, itâ€™s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of â€œWelcoming the Strangerâ€:
Jewniversity: Sarah Fine
Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmondsâ€™ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity
I usually ask the subjects of this column â€“ â€œis there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?â€. â€œNoâ€, is the occasional curt response.
But Sarah Fineâ€™s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.
Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britainâ€™s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?
To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. Thatâ€™s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?
Dr Fine, who teaches at Kingâ€™s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.
On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself â€” indeed, providing security is the stateâ€™s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.
But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders â€” doesnâ€™t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) â€” can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?
But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people donâ€™t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.
Hereâ€™s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And donâ€™t we think that itâ€™s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesnâ€™t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.
Letâ€™s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant thereâ€™s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is â€œourâ€ way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholemâ€™s desire to move here?
Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fineâ€™s parents â€” the first in the family to attend university â€” settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.
She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious â€” but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says itâ€™s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a womenâ€™s service when she was a teenager: â€œAnd you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egyptâ€. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)
There you go: itâ€™s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British â€” and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his â€œvoteâ€ outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, â€œ[w]hether he was granted entry â€¦ was hugely important to him.â€
And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isnâ€™t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.
The core of mendacity
Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a â€œnation of immigrantsâ€ and a â€œmelting potâ€ for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: FidÃ¨le Mutwarasibo, who has â€œa PhD in Sociology,â€ and Salome Mbugua, who has â€œa Masterâ€™s degree in Equality Studies.â€ And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. Thatâ€™s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:
The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: â€œDiversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.â€ You might as well say that â€œDisunity is at the core of what it means to be unitedâ€ or â€œBlackness is at the core of what it means to be White.â€ And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isnâ€™t true, however. Itâ€™s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.
Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites
Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: â€œJews can, goys canâ€™t.â€ Jews like Agudath Israel â€“ meaning â€œUnion of Israel,â€ remember â€“ can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.
And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like FidÃ¨le Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as â€œOur Man in the DÃ¡ilâ€ (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRAâ€™s â€œdefinition of anti-Semitismâ€ is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys canâ€™t. What could be simpler than that?
The dust has settled, at least for the moment. Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party won comfortably on December 12th. Labour and the Lib Dems were routed.
It wasn’t a landslide, but it was convincing enough, and his majority should see Boris safely through the next five years if he chooses.
The Conservative Party won 43.6 per cent of the vote, and 365 seats (up by 48). Labour won 32.2 per cent and 202 seats (down by 60), and the Lib Dems won 11.5 per cent and 11 seats (down 1). No doubt many of us were unkind enough to cheer loudly when learning that former Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson had lost her seat (after bragging on national radio early in the campaign that she may be Prime Minister by the end of it).
Many other prominent Remainers either stood down or were dumped by their electors. We now, for the time being, have a Parliament that, on the paramount question of Brexit, more or less reflects the feelings of the British electorate.
How will Boris Johnson use his comfortable majority?
Will the Prime Minister use his majority to put up a tough stance in future EU negotiations and ensure a proper, genuine Brexit? Or will he use it to give himself room to waver and ditch his hard line Brexit supporters so as to sell out to the European Union?
What are the signs? Well, Boris Johnson has a history of genuine dislike of the European Union. In his years as Editor of the Spectator magazine it ran frequent editorials highly critical of the EU. In the 2016 Referendum Campaign he was one of the leading campaigners in favour of leaving, having resigned from David Cameron’s cabinet so he could do this. He later resigned from his post of Foreign Secretary in Mrs May’s Cabinet in protest against her sell-out deal with Brussels.
Even if he is a career politician, which most likely he is, then he has nailed his Euro-sceptic colours to the mast so firmly that he cannot start watering them down even if he wanted to. He carefully manoeuvred himself into a position where he was almost unassailable in last summer’s campaign to replace Mrs May as Tory leader.
And in the time when he was Prime Minister in the rump Parliament, where he had no party political majority, and certainly no pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons, he steered a way through the minefield laid by the Remainers of all parties. He worked patiently and skilfully until he was able to force Corbyn and the Labour Party to accept that a General Election was the only way out of the deadlock
The new Withdrawal Agreement
The second major indicator of how Johnson will use his majority lies in the Withdrawal Agreement. This was originally negotiated by Boris Johnson with the EU in October 2019 but has been subtly changed since December 12th. All the concessions that had to be made to the Remainers in the autumn have been deleted.
No longer will the Government have to go back to the Commons regularly for approval of its negotiating objectives for each new phase of talks. This original requirement was simply an excuse to bring negotiations to a halt, at times, and trap the Government in a quagmire of deadlines and points of order.
The transition period remains, and will be with us until 31st December 2020. In that period we will still be in the Single Market and the Customs Union. We will also have to continue rubber-stamping EU law onto our Statute Book until the end of 2020.
But the power of the EU to interfere in how we manage the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been reduced drastically. This little sub-saga is almost certainly by no means played out yet, but at least we appear to be getting all our borders back under our own control.
Clauses in the original Withdrawal Bill that pledged to align our laws on workers’ rights with corresponding laws in the EU are now gone. The Queen’s Speech contained, instead, a promise that our own workers’ rights would be “protected and enhanced”, but under our own employment law.
Getting free of the chains
This is a most welcome development, as it not only restores another section of our national sovereignty but also gives the lie to yet another of the Remainers’ arguments – that the UK has benefited from the EU’s supposedly superior and benevolent workers’ rights.
In reality, these laws were designed to ensure that our industries didn’t have an “unfair advantage” over their EU counterparts, thereby stifling enterprise and innovation. We are all – shop floor and management – well shot of them.
Another welcome move is the rejection by the UK of obligations imposed on us by the EU to give special rights to unaccompanied foreign children seeking asylum in our country.
Whilst ostensibly seeking to “preserve family life”, obligations like these are invariably used by cynical people-traffickers to make even more money by being able to charge for smuggling children as well as adults. And the left used them to ensure that, once an illegal migrant had made it over the Channel he could lawfully call for his whole family to join him here.
We are, however, under another obligation – this time to make a statement within two months of the passing of the Act, presumably to satisfy the EU that we have a similar kind of law for the protection of foreign children who land here. This is an example of how the EU will continue to interfere in our internal affairs if we let it.
The boot’s on the other foot
But finally there is the coup de grace. This comes as a double blow to the EU and the Remainers. First, the Government is no longer promising to keep in line with the “Political Declaration” that accompanied the original Withdrawal Agreement in future negotiations with the EU. This “Political Declaration” was simply a device to be used by the EU negotiators in preventing the UK from negotiating from a position of strength.
If our negotiators put forward proposed terms that were deemed too tough (or resisted onerous terms proposed by the EU) the EU would be able to accuse us of deviating from the “Political Declaration”. The ECJ would back them up, if necessary. It was another example of how the EU rang rings around Theresa May, probably with her consent, as it meant that in the negotiations, we could never win. We could only lose.
But the hammer blow is this. Any extension to the transition period beyond 31st December 2020 has been outlawed. This completely puts the boot on the other foot. Until now, pressure has always been totally on the UK negotiators to accept whatever deal they could get from the EU so as to avoid having to apply for an extension.
That pressure is now on the EU negotiators. If no agreement is reached by 31st December then we leave without one, and commence trading with EU countries on WTO terms.
This would cause far more damage and disruption to the EU and its member states than it would to the UK. Let us now see how prevaricating and obstructionist the EU negotiators and their pals here in the UK are going to be, now that they are the ones having to fight an uphill battle against the clock!
Standing up to Brussels
There’s another indicator still. How does Johnson react to bullying from Brussels? Especially now that he has a pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons. The answer came even before the General Election took place.
After the 2019 elections to the European Parliament the term of office of the President of the Commission, together will all Commissioners, came to a close. That means goodbye to Junker but hello to someone equally obnoxious – Ursula von der Leyen (nee Albrecht) – with whom Johnson had a high profile meeting on January 8th. At that meeting, Johnson made it clear that any trade deal between the UK and the EU won’t be based on any “alignment” of UK laws with EU law. In other words, once we’ve left we won’t carry on acting as if we were still inside that wretched bloc. That makes a refreshing change from what we had to endure under Mrs May.
Another interesting pointer is this. The UK should have appointed a new Commissioner in November 2019. Every other EU member did so. However, as anyone with a modicum of common sense would realise, there wasn’t much point in doing so, as we’ll have left by the end of January. Such a Commissioner would only be in the job for a couple of months, including the extensive Christmas break.
The Government therefore decided not to make any such appointment. The European Commission launched a legal action against the UK Government to force it to make an appointment, but the Government have stood firm. In fact they appear to have treated the whole matter with the contempt it deserves. The EU Commission have shown themselves to be more interested in power than good government.
2020 – The year of national freedom from the EU!
So in answer to our question, it seems on the evidence currently available that the Prime Minister is prepared to force on the EU a genuine Brexit.
He must know that the EU negotiators, and the Commission generally, are dishonest crooks who will do whatever they can even now to frustrate a proper withdrawal of the UK from the EU. However, he has so far shown himself to be more than a match for them. He was wrong-footing them even when he himself had no Brexit majority in the House of Commons. Now he has the whip hand, the likes of Barnier and Ursula von der Leyen, the new Commission President, have had all the wind taken out of them.
A close escape
In being able to free our country from the clutches of the EU we have been extremely fortunate. Even now, Remainers and Euro-Federalists are plotting to bring about a situation in which we can be recaptured. Before the end of December 2019 the Vice President of the EU Commission bragged about how the European Army is now a reality.
Do you remember how the Remainers dismissed our claims in 2016 that this Army was on the drawing board? How they derided such a notion! Well, now it’s fact. Here she is, boasting openly about it. Note how she claims that such a thing would never have been possible “even six months ago”.
But the price is eternal vigilence
We have a duty to follow all the negotiations to ensure that we have a genuine Brexit, and not a Brexit in name only. We must be forever vigilant, for if we lose sight of what’s happening we can be sure that the EU and its many supporters in the UK will act quickly to start a process that will enslave us once again. If that ever happens you can be sure there will be no escape a second time. And then the fight against globalisation and a One World Government really will be lost for good.
Boris Johnson has found himself in a position of sacred, national trust. The whole nation is looking to him to deliver on a promise that was made nearly four years ago and that other politicians have cynically and cruelly betrayed. We expect him to resist the temptations and pressures that will be heaped upon him by pro-EU forces in their efforts to dislodge him from his purpose. But at the same time we all are obligated to give him all the support he needs and to place no obstacle in his way in making our country free again.