There are many books out there that have been written by White racial nationalists. If you regard yourself as a racial nationalist, then I would expect that you have read some of the better-known ones. We all lead busy lives, but anyone who is serious about national and racial survival should read some such books, in order to be well-informed and able to argue with all the very many enemy propagandists out there.
I know that some of you are very sociable people, with a wide number of friends and associates. I know that several of you can, and do, influence those people towards a patriotic and nationalist perspective on politics. If you take out a little bit of time to read, and better inform yourselves, then you will be even better influencers.
I accept that some of you don’t, and won’t, read books recommended by me, and others. Some of you prefer to let someone like me do the reading – and then provide you with a distillation of what the book is about and, and its core message. It is flattering to me, that some of you trust me in this way.
But I might have understood a book differently to how you would have understood it – if you had gone to the source and read the author’s words, rather than mine. If I tell you about a book, I might have missed something important in the book, from my review of it. After all, I write my letters in rather a hurry, because I too am busy.
In 2010, Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler wrote a book called Connected. It is subtitled, The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How they Shape our Lives.
When the authors write about “social networks”, they are meaning that in the old-fashioned way. That is, people whom you actually know in the real world – your family, friends and work colleagues. And of course, they also mean those people who you might interact with on ‘social media’ internet sites.
The book sells itself by posing six questions, on the front cover, in brightly-coloured speech bubbles:
• Who do you have sex with and why?
• Is wealth contagious?
• Can your siblings make you smart?
• Is happiness catching?
• Does free will exist?
• Can your friends make you fat?
It makes, what to me, is a rather surprising claim. That you can influence two levels of people beyond the one that you know personally. That is friends of friends of friends. That might likely be people who you don’t actually know yourself.
Remember, that is when you are just living your life normally. Your attitudes, thoughts, and ordinary behaviour influences people who you don’t actually even know! Imagine if you deliberately set out to be an influencer. How many people could you reach, if you start out with a wide circle of personal contacts?
So what I now suggest to you is two quite separate, but related, ideas. Firstly, be a reader, and become even better informed. Secondly, spread the message of those writers with whom you agree. By ordinary conversation. By your own emails. You will influence some people who you don’t even know, as the word is spread.
I suspect that this might partially be how the Leave side won the Brexit referendum. People discussed their ideas, and influenced their family, friends, work colleagues, but also other people two steps beyond them.
Read this book, and become a conscious influencer of others. And I think that some of you are already naturals!
Who to read?
I started this post by writing about White racial nationalist writers. Individuals who I consider are ‘one of us’. But there are other writers whom you should read too. Some of you might like to read those writers who are clearly on our side, and maybe ignore those who are more Establishment types. With some others of you, you might prefer to read the more Establishment writers, rather than more propagandist books, by racial nationalists.
I recommend both. Perhaps I can give an example, citing three individuals. Arthur Kemp is a racial nationalist, who has been active in Southern Africa, the United States, and the United Kingdom. He wants to influence you towards our political viewpoint.
Charles Murray is an American academic – he presents his research in a form easily read by the general public. Douglas Murray (no relation) is a British political journalist. He is an Establishment figure in the sense that he writes in both The Spectator and The Telegraph.
Recently these three men all have books on the subject of race.
Charles Murray’s is called Facing Reality – Two Truths about Race in America. The two truths are that the different races have different rates of violent crime, and also have significantly different average IQs. Charles Murray believes that the two truths are linked.
But he tries to be uncontroversial and non-incendiary in the way he writes. He is trying to get his message across to a great many Americans, by trying to avoid inflaming passions.
Both Murrays are Establishment types, but ones who are willing to say things that more liberal types would cringe at. Charles Murray describes himself as “centre-right”, and I would guess that the British Murray likely does too.
Arthur Kemp’s book is hard-hitting, and packed with information. For me, it is an ideal antidote to the Black Lives Matter poison. It is titled, The War Against Whites – The Racial Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West.
Which book should you choose? All of them! I think that they are complementary books. Read them all, and be able to shoot down all of those people who hate the White Race, whatever their own race is. Then get cracking informing your concentric circles of influence!
I don’t really like the word “right-wing” being used to describe British Nationalism position, or any White Racial Nationalism. Even more so, I dislike the expression “the far-right” Why? Let me tell you.
I accept that “left” and “right” are so deeply ingrained in our language and thought, that it is hard not to use those terms, and I certainly know that I do use them myself. But I wish that we could obliterate them.
I want to see the Nationalist movement as new, different, vibrant, dynamic and ultimately successful. I see it as at odds with the Establishment world, which I see as tired, old, degenerate, corrupt – and suicidal. I see Nationalism as a radical and revolutionary creed. I want to see the Nationalist movement smash (metaphorically) the old political world into a million pieces, that can never be put back together again. We must build a new, stronger, better Britain, that will endure.
The old world had built-in weaknesses – one of which was the class system. But the words “right-wing” and “left-wing” belong to that old corrupt world. They belong to an era of class warfare, whereas Nationalism is, and must be, a classless movement.
In the old world, the left, and particularly the extreme left, saw themselves as representing by far the biggest social class – the working class. They believed, and some still do believe, that they had a built-in advantage, that would one day translate into permanent political power.
In this left-wing view of the world, the political right is an old-fashioned minority that is losing ground. The far left sees what it insists on calling “fascism” as a fight back by the old ruling class. A sort of counter revolution. The left claim that British Nationalism is a part of the old ruling class that represents a minority that is doomed to failure.
I reject that picture, created by our ideological enemies, totally. But if we use old world terminology, created by our enemies, then we are accepting the enemy view of the world.
British Nationalism and Realism
While I like the imagery of smashing the old political world into a million pieces, I am old enough to realise that this is not, in practical terms, how revolutions happen. There is always some degree of compromise with the old regime, as I have explained in previous posts.
The dynamic mass movement that I would like to see emerge, will always have some common ground with other ideologies. Sometimes that will be left-wing ideologies, and at other times and places, right-wing ideologies. Before we come to power, we will need political allies, in other camps, because history teaches us that any new movement that succeeds will always have allies already in place in the old regime – the hated Establishment!
When we find allies in Conservative circles, we should recognise that these people are allies, rather than a part of our movement. Sometimes these people are temporary allies, to enable us to come to power, or win an objective, like leaving the EU. But people do change their political thinking and allegiances. Some Conservatives, and others, might one day become proper, ideological British Nationalists.
But in the meantime, British Nationalism does not benefit from being grouped with old-fashioned Conservatives, or labelled “right-wing” or “far-right”. We want to win over all indigenous classes, to create a classless mass movement, and eventually a classless society. We are part-way towards a classless society, so being branded as “the far-right” does us practical harm.
In this regard, I do not agree with either AK Chesterton, or John Tyndall, embracing the enemy label “extremist”. Being an “extremist” clearly implies that you are out on a limb – in an over-the-top minority position. We want to become the majority. We need to become the majority political ideology if our race and nation are to survive.
It seems to me that Tyndall and Chesterton were being self-indulgent, and that it was a gut reaction in defiance of our enemies, when they described themselves as extremists. I once cringed when I read the ludicrous Eddy Morrison write “We are the Ultras”.
In the same way that everyone ought to think well of themselves, no one should want to be, or even be thought of by others as, an extremist. British Nationalists should believe that ours is the correct political ideology and work to convert others, so that ours becomes the majority political view. Labelling yourself as an extremist is doing the enemy’s work.
British Nationalism must smash the left’s notional link with the working class
Antonio Gramsci wanted to see the Marxists take over the West’s universities. His allies in the Frankfurt School achieved that. The left broadly won over the educated middle classes, in a way that the older Marxists had never won over the working class – either as revolutionaries, or voters.
But because the educated go on to govern us, the left scored a more lasting victory than either a violent revolution, or a leftist victory at a general election. But those with a higher education will never be the biggest class in society. While leftist ideas have won a victory through the backdoor, which enables left-wing ideas to be translated into government policies, the left no longer represents the biggest class. This thought is unsettling for some on the left. So much so, that they refuse to accept it. Some lefties don’t like the idea that they are now the elite, and very much out-of-step with traditional working class ideas.
Because voting habits are ingrained over generations with many British voters, left-wing Labour MPs continue to win seats in working class constituencies. But they do not truly speak for their constituents on issues such as race and immigration, the EU, defence, and law and order.
British Nationalists need to find a way to smash Labour, and any left-wing successor party, as an electoral force. Then those people who are highly educated, but brainwashed with Cultural Marxism, will stand out as an unpopular minority. It needs to be rammed home to working class voters that Labour is no longer their party.
Margaret Thatcher is credited with standing up to the old Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. She claimed the credit for the decline of Soviet Communism. Because her laissez-faire economic policies wrecked heavy manufacturing industry at home, and her raft of trade union laws hampered those communists who had taken over some of them, she claimed a victory over British Communism.
But what she didn’t do is root out the well-embedded Cultural Marxists in our universities. That must be done as a priority, to prevent future generations being infected with an ideology that amounts to racial suicide.
If Cultural Marxist ideas are killed off in our universities, and Labour is now widely exposed as a politically-correct, educated middle class, London-centric party, then Labour might eventually die.
But let us concentrate on which political ideas politicians and political parties actually stand for, rather than lazily labelling people as “right-wing” or “left-wing”. Because using old world terminology doesn’t advance racial nationalism.
Bill Baillie, the editor of Nation Revisited, has had his web site sabotaged by the likes of Google. He has asked that Anglo-Celtic.org re-publish the material that Google has objected to, and in the interests of freedom of expression we are pleased to do so. The following article relates to a BBC Television history-rewriting exercise in the form of a highly ficticious, extreme left-wing slanted drama called "Ridley Road", broadcast in the autumn of 2021.
I posted Martin Websterâ€™s article on my blog European Outlook but it was taken down by Google for violating their Community Guidelines. I thank Anglo-Celtic for defending free speech.
The information you mention from Mike Whine, a one-time ‘Defence Director’ of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to the effect that the creation of the Jewish terrorist ’62 Group’ was prompted by the National Socialist Movement’s violent attacks on sundry Jewish and Israeli organisations in the UK is utter tosh.
This invention was surely provided to cover for gratuitous Jewish violence, indeed terrorism, by the 62 Group gang who were inspired by the Zionist terrorist group the Irgun and mobilised, among others, by Soho club owner and gangster Harry Bidney.
I have never heard of the Jewish/Israeli organisation which Whine specified – and I have been taking the Jewish Chronicle for most of my adult life. I certainly never heard those names mentioned in the (very small) membership circles of the NSM – let alone where their HQs were, let alone plans to attack them.
During my time in the NSM (mid-1962 to late-1963) the NSM was too preoccupied staging publicity stunts such as:
The “Free Britain from Jewish Control” rally in Trafalgar Square in July 1962. No more than 15 NSM members were present at this, confronted by about 2,000 Jews! My attendance got me expelled from the League of Empire Loyalists and so I migrated to the NSM.
Later that month smuggling the American Nazi Party leader Lincoln Rockwell into the UK contrary to a government banning order.
Ending that month, the ‘Camp in the Cotswolds’, attended by no more than 20 NSM members, along with two or three Germans, the strange Anglo-Greek , Hinduism convert, “NS philosopher” Savitri Devi – and Lincoln Rockwell.
These stunts infuriated the government – to say nothing of Jewry! – so the NSM was still rewarded with a Police raid on its Notting Hill, west London, HQ. The prosecution of the movement’s leadership (Colin Jordan, John Tyndall, Ian Roland Kerr-Ritchie and Denis Pirie) followed soon after on Public Order Act charges to do with running a private army. They were found not guilty of doing this, but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that they were! They were sentenced, variously, to between three and nine months in jail.
During this period the membership of the NSM, such as it was, melted away. The movement’s HQ, now my habitation, was left in my charge (a 19 year old!) Nocturnal attacks on the building were frequent. Only two or three supporters ever called by – one of whom, decades later – was identified at his funeral by a retired Police officer as a former salaried agent of MI6!
The reason why I give this brief 1962/1963 history of the NSM is to illustrate that the leadership was too swept up by events to contemplate, let alone organise, the kind of terrorism alleged by Mike Whine, and that the membership was so vanishingly small and so quickly scattered to the winds, that there were no ‘soldiers’ available to carry out such attacks – which, to the best of my recollection, were not reported by the media at that time.
John Tyndal, Denis Pirie and I quit the NSM in late 1963 in order to set up the Greater Britain Movement. We left the NSM in the hands of Colin Jordan and his newly-married French wife FranÃ§oise Dior. Thereafter, Jordan tended to spend his time in the North Yorkshire moors, while she took charge of the London HQ.
Under her influence (so it was claimed in court) a couple of silly teenage lads attempted in 1964 to burn down two synagogues. They failed and along with Mrs Jordan, they were jailed. That is the nearest the NSM ever came to acts of terrorism. Nothing remotely of the order alleged by Mike Whine and – NB! – more than two years after the 62 Group was deploying its cosh, razor and fire-bomb activities.
Mike Whine’s pretext for the formation and vicious gangster activities of the 62 Group does not bear scrutiny. That, of course, will not have deterred the BBC from basing a TV series on such mendacity. You, Philip Gegan and I have discovered the enormity of the BBC’s appetite for lies when we came to complain about a BBC Radio 4/BBC Sounds series ‘about’ the National Front – in particular, the August 1977 “Battle of Lewisham”.
It’s not difficult to see how problems will develop in the trading relations between the UK and the EU, post-Brexit. We only have to look at the struggle Switzerland has had in recent years in maintaining a satisfactory trading relationship with Brussels. The situation is so bad that the Swiss have actually given the UK a friendly warning about trading with the EU as a non-EU country.
As you’ve guessed by now, responsibility for the deteriorating situation here lies exclusively with the EU. This lesson is especially apt for us in relation to Northern Ireland. There is a similarity in that the province has a land border with an EU country – the Irish Republic. Switzerland has a border with several EU countries. It is a non-EU country that trades extensively with the EU (in 2019 it had a trade surplus of nearly 40 billion euros with the bloc).
As a result, the Swiss have found themselves constantly under pressure to abide by Brussels’ rules if they want to continue trading with the EU. These rules relate not just to trade, but to such things as the process of manufacture of products, and impinge more and more on the ability of the Swiss to make their own regulations for the benefit of themselves. More sinisterly, these rules relate also to matters such as immigration control.
It’s not just that. The EU want Switzerland as a “member-state” and to adopt its own insane “free movement of labour” policies. There have been a series of bilateral treaties in recent years that Switzerland has had to agree to as the price of maintaining access to the European Single Market. As a result of these, there has been free movement of people between Switzerland and the EU since 2002.
Each time the EU expands to include more “member states”, Switzerland, which clearly regrets abandoning control of its borders, is pressured to accept the additional influx that inevitably follows. Further bilateral treaties invariably contain clauses forcing the Swiss to do just that. The latest bilateral treaty is the Institutional Agreement between the EU and Switzerland.
The EU covets the unique country’s profitable industries and it’s stock market. It seeks to destroy the noble Swiss culture and way of life by blending it in into the pseudo-culture of multi-racialism, celebrity-worship and materialism endured by the citizens of EU countries. The pressure (i.e. blackmail) brought to bear on this little country has been enormous.
Now the EU is seeking to undermine Switzerland’s financial market. It has been making the same arrogant demand as they are now making of us (see Part 3 – Trade in services). They are refusing to grant “equivalence” to the Swiss, just as they are to us, even though the Swiss have far more expertise in financial trading than any EU country (now that the UK has left).
Can you see, now, why the Withdrawal Agreement was named “Trade and Cooperation Agreement”? A more honest title would be the “Trade and Coercion Agreement”.
This brings us to one of the most important sections of the TCA.
The “Northern Ireland protocol”
This “protocol” was the cause of many sticking points in the negotiations. The EU have used the peculiar geographical location of the province of Northern Ireland to try and weaken the position of the UK both throughout the negotiations and into the future. Their negotiators wrung more concessions out of the UK by seeing problems in the Northern Irish-Republic border that weren’t there in the first place.
Thanks to the TCA the UK now faces the prospect of having the same problems as the Swiss in the future, i.e. more and more erosion of national sovereignty, and millions of man-hours of sheer frustration in trying to do the impossible – to come to mutually beneficial agreements with the EU.
The EU will doubtless continue to use the Northern Ireland “protocol” as a means of separating Northern Ireland from the UK, fostering the break-up of the UK and keeping open the possibility that a future British government, or its regional replacements, will be forced to crawl, cap-in-hand, to be re-admitted, one by one, to the EU.
Their rationale has been that they are afraid of vast volumes of goods coming across the Irish border into the Republic to illegally flood the EU’s Single Market. This “danger” is extremely remote, given the low volume of trade that regularly crosses that border (it totalled about Â£4.7 billion worth of goods in 2016). Nevertheless, it warranted additional months of “negotiations” and the creation of the “Northern Ireland Protocol”.
Illegal trade (e.g. in red diesel) between the two countries has been the subject matter of regular talks between the UK and the Republic for many years. Overall these have been very satisfactory and productive. But that’s not what the EU wants. It wants total control. It ordered Irish premier (now former premier), Leo Varadkar, to scrap these talks, which, of course, he did.
That left the problem unresolved and ready for the EU’s own “solution”, which, of course, is to leave Northern Ireland effectively stranded inside the Single Market and subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It would then be ripe to be handed over to the Republic, and therefore back to the EU, probably by a future Labour government.
Day to day trade through the Irish Sea now faces serious and prolonged disruption. EU red tape ensures that many lorries containing goods for import/export to Northern Ireland are being delayed. Many companies on the UK mainland are refusing to send goods to the province on account of the paperwork and expense.
At least there is Article 16 of the Protocol, which says that if it leads â€œto serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the EU or UK may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measuresâ€. It looks like this is one part of the TCA that will be of some use.
For now, the province is bound by over 300 EU directives and regulations, which can be amended at any time by the European Commission unilaterally. The good folk of Northern Ireland will have no say in such amendments. The Republic will have more of a say, being still a member of the EU. The only political entity that has any hope of salvaging this situation and preventing the loyal citizens of Northern Ireland from finding themselves under foreign rule is the DUP. Let us hope they do not flinch from the task.
Security and intelligence is covered in a separate agreement, the Security of Information Agreement, (“to fulfil the objectives of strengthening the security of each Party in all ways”) running to just eight pages, which seems rather strange. Why not simply have it as part of the main 1,246 page Agreement, which I’m sure could have its title amended to accommodate security and intelligence, or as the EU likes to call it, “classified information”.
Why have an agreement on this topic at all? Twenty one articles commit each party to adopting certain minimum security requirements and to share security related information. Most of this would be done by any two neighbouring powers anyway, as it would be in their joint best interests. But this being the EU, assuming, as it does, that all governments are as mired in corruption as is the EU itself, it all has to be put into writing.
An example of how whole parts of the TCA were not only drafted in Brussels, but in some cases lifted straight from EU documentation, is contained in Annex LAW-1: EXCHANGES OF DNA, FINGERPRINTS AND VEHICLE REGISTRATION DATA, Chapter 1: Exchange of DNA Data > 5.4. Protocols and Standards to be used for encryption mechanism: s/MIME and related packages.
There, on page 921, is an astonishing statement –
“s/MIME functionality is built into the vast majority of modern e-mail software packages including Outlook, Mozilla Mail as well as Netscape Communicator 4.x and inter-operates among all major e-mail software packages.”
Just above that bloomer is the statement that, “the hash algorithm SHA-1 shall be applied” when encrypting messages between the UK and the EU that contain DNA profile information, i.e. highly sensitive information that needs the highest protection against hackers.
SHA-1 as a hash algorithm was deprecated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as being insecure as far back as 2011 and was disallowed for use in digital signatures in 2013. This part of the agreement was copied word for word from the EU Council decision of June 23, 2008, on “the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime”. No-one in either negotiating team bothered to check if it was still up to date – an elementary measure, given the fast moving world of internet and communications technology.
The same goes for the mention, on the same page, of Mozilla Mail and Netscape Communicator 4.x as being “modern email software”. These software packages date back to around 1997 and have long since been defunct.
At least the Agreement “does not constitute a basis to compel the provision or exchange of classified information by the Parties”. This appears to be one concession wringed out of the EU in the closing days as time was running out. Britain, being a nuclear power, has access to a lot more classified information than does the EU. And that brings us to the next agreement.
The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
The EU-UK Nuclear Cooperation Agreement attempts “to provide a framework for cooperation between the Parties in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy”. Going through this 18-page document, it’s difficult to see what the point of it is. Much of it consists of preambles, objectives, definitions (including of scope), administrative arrangements, etc.
In a way, this Agreement assists the EU in consolidating its power over its member-states, by providing, in Article 18, that any existing “bilateral civil nuclear cooperation agreements in force between the United Kingdom and Member States of the Community ……shall, where appropriate, be superseded by the provisions of this Agreement.”
What about bureaucracy? Ah, yes. Here we are – Article 19. Naturally, a “joint committee is hereby established by the Parties”.
There’s a complicated provision for determining when the Agreement, comes into force (which had to be resolved by exchanging letters on 30th December and publishing that as a separate document). But then it is to remain in force for an initial period of 30 years, automatically renewable for periods of ten years at a time, unless either party gives notice to terminate.
But even if that happens, several parts of the Agreement are to continue indefinitely under the terms of paragraph 3 of Article 24. Finally, in common with other parts of this whole series of Agreements, it is to be drawn up (in duplicate, of course) in all 24 languages (including Irish!) spoken in the EU.
So much for securing the UK’s departure from the EU.
Not a restoration of national sovereignty
The EU’s negotiators went into the withdrawal negotiations fully expecting to get exactly what they wanted from the UK government, without having to make any concessions at all. And while Theresa May was still in 10 Downing Street they very nearly succeeded.
Boris Johnson, career politician that he is, at least got us an agreement that means that, technically, we are free from the worst parts of the numerous treaties that previous treacherous prime ministers had signed us up to without our consent.
But we have to live with some uncomfortable truths. This isn’t a “restoration of national sovereignty”. It’s a recipe for either future enforced subjugation to Brussels or future conflict. Of the two, conflict is, of course, preferable.
The cost of not standing up to the demands from Brussels over Brexit is huge. According to Facts4EU.Org, by late 2020 UK taxpayers had paid the EU “an eye-watering Â£41billion since voting to quit the bloc in 2016”.
Year by year, that’s been Â£5.1billion in the second half of 2016, Â£9.3billion in 2017, Â£9.1billion in 2018, Â£9.4billion in 2019 and Â£8.2billion in 2020.
According to Facts4EU.Org, that’s not the end of it. “Britain faces the prospect of forking out billions more to Brussels with payments scheduled for the next 44 years.”
But there’s one more factor to consider when looking into the future, and it’s an encouraging one for us. The way we as a nation have conducted ourselves over the long drawn out negotiations to leave has been noted by people living in other EU member countries. And the appalling way in which the EU negotiators have behaved has also not gone unnoticed.
Others will follow us
It’s true we’ve had our share of traitorous remainers, well funded and with powerful friends in high places. And that includes the remainers who paid the EU Â£39 billion of our money at the start of the Brexit negotiations in return for nothing. But we’ve overcome everything that they could do to try and prevent our leaving, and we’ve done it surprisingly peacefully.
This has set a good example to countries such as France, Greece, Italy, Hungary and Poland, and even perhaps Germany as well. Millions of people in those countries yearn to be free from the EU, its restrictions, meddling and bureaucracy. It won’t take much to spark the creation of a new anti-EU political party, or a sub-division of an existing one, that is dynamic and determined enough to copy what Britain has done.
Given the volumes of financial trade conducted by both countries, there is potential here to form a financial market/stock exchange powerful and attractive enough to threaten to cripple all the EU financial markets. This would be a further impetus towards the EU countries affected seeking their own version of Brexit.
The European Union is a bloated, corruption-ridden, tyrannical, modern day Tower of Babel run by failed politicians whose only talent is in lining their own pockets. Like the old Soviet Union, it had to expand in order to survive, and when no more expansion is possible it will collapse. The inevitability of this now stares it in the face. All we have to do is keep a good distance and enjoy the spectacle.
Our fishing industry has been among the worst hit of all our industries as a result of membership of the European bloc. It’s endured 48 years of having our fishing waters plundered by foreign vessels. Fishing businesses that have been in the same family for generations have been decimated by Brussels dictats, red tape, and remorseless over-fishing by EU-based trawlers.
The EU’s brilliant answer to over-fishing and depletion of fish stocks is to list every conceivable species of fish, from Alfonsinos to Whiting (Celtic Sea), issue quotas, and require any excess fish caught to be thrown back into the sea, even though such fish are long since dead by the time the catch is weighed.
In Scotland a third of fishing boats are now tied up at their harbours. The Scottish fishing industry is estimated to be losing Â£1 million per day. This seems set to continue for a long time before the creaky wheels of the British civil service gets around to doing anything about it.
Throughout the withdrawal negotiations, the EU negotiators sought to keep full access to British fishing waters without making any concessions in return. So far, they’ve succeeded in doing just that.
The whole subject of fisheries is dealt with not only in Heading 5, which has nineteen articles. It’s also covered in four Annexes, occupying six pages. Anyone needing to refer to the Agreement’s provisions for our fishing industry has to shuttle to and fro between pages 261 and 899. Let’s take an in-depth look at what these say, to gain an insight of what the rest of the massive Agreement is like.
Loss of sovereignty illustrated
Article 1 confirms that the sovereign rights of coastal states are limited already as they have to conduct their fishing in accordance with the principles of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. As all parties have (regrettably) signed up to that Convention then it’s puzzling as to why it should be repeated here.
Article 2 contains “objectives and principles” that both sides should follow (so we’re not free to make our own rules and standards). These cover the painfully obvious for the most part, such as not destroying fishing stocks by over-fishing, following the best available scientific advice when making management decisions, and co-operating with each other to ensure the conservation of shared fish stocks. This Article occupies a full page of the Agreement. We should note here that it is European fishing vessels that have become notorious over the last few decades for recklessly plundering the fishing stocks of wherever they happen to be fishing, including UK waters.
Article 3 deals with definitions (another page and a bit) and Article 4 covers Fisheries Management, which contains much of what I always refer to as the “bleedin’ obvious”. An example of this is where it refers to each party enforcing the “objectives and principles” of Article 2 in its own waters, saying
“A Party shall not apply the measures referred to in paragraph 1 to the vessels of the other Party in its waters unless it also applies the same measures to its own vessels.”
So one party can’t ignore the rules in its own waters and yet try to insist that the other party obeys said rules. As I said, the “bleedin’ obvious”. I really do believe the EU will one day set out regulations covering how its citizens may breathe.
Tied to the EU in perpetuity
Article 5 is equally superfluous. Under it, each party has to give the other a list of vessels that it wants permission for to fish in that other’s waters. After that has been done, “the other Party shall issue authorisations or licences to fish”. So there seems to be no power to refuse such a request. As very few British vessels fish in European waters, and yet there are massive numbers of European vessels always fishing in British waters, we know in whose favour this article works.
Article 6 commits the UK to annual “consultations” with the EU on such matters as agreeing the “total allowable catches” (“TACs”) for each party. Naturally, each species of fish, or “stock” is listed in a separate annex to the Agreement. Three annexes, actually, this being the EU we’re talking about. Either side can demand an additional such consultation at any time if it thinks fit.
There’ll soon be more Eurocrats talking about fishing than there will be European fishermen fishing illegally in UK waters. This article is another example of how the UK is tied to the EU in perpetuity. We never had to have these regular “consultations” before we were taken into the EEC in 1973, so why do we need to have them now?
Article 7 provides for the aforementioned “provisional total allowable catches” in any year in the event of the sides failing to come to an agreement in the time allowed. Different provisions, of course, apply to “special stocks”, which then have to be defined.
Each party, in effect, sets its own “provisional TAC” (“which shall not exceed its share as set out in the corresponding Annex”) but then has an obligation to tell the other party what it is in each case. How’s that for regaining our national sovereignty and freeing ourselves from EU bureaucracy?
Annual consultations, the “specialised committee”, and more loss of sovereignty
Article 8 commits both parties to further annual consultations (and additional consultations as and when called for by one or the other) to agree the extent to which each side will grant the other access to its fishing waters. How much will all these “consultations” cost, and who will have to pay the bill? This article alone binds the UK indefinitely to the requirement that we adapt our fishing practices to accord with what has been agreed between two lots of bureaucrats, supposedly each lot representing their side’s fishermen.
Article 9 covers a situation where one party refuses to allow the other party access to its fishing waters. The parties have to consult under the auspices of the “Specialised Committee” and an arbitration tribunal has to be appointed. How are the members of this tribunal selected? The answer, presumably, is in Article INST.14 [Arbitration procedure] of Title I [Dispute settlement] of Part Six, without having recourse to consultations in accordance with Article INST.13 [Consultations]. Got that?
Article 10 has special provisions relating to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, none of which islands should be of any further concern to the European Union with regard to fisheries or anything else. In short, if the UK wants certain provisions of the Heading relating to fisheries not to apply to any of these islands then it has to apply to the “Partnership Council” for a ruling. More loss of sovereignty.
Article 11 provides for more red tape for fishing vessels from the Channel Islands landing fish in EU member-states’ ports.
Article 12 commits both parties to seek advice from the “International Council for the Exploration of the Sea” (ICES) within six months of the Agreement concerning the “alignment of the management areas” and other matters. More loss of sovereignty, and not just to the EU.
EU retains control via “joint committees”
Article 13 covers shares of TACs for “certain other stocks”. As these shares may fluctuate from time to time, each side has obligations to notify “the relevant States and international organisations” of its shares each time they change. This Article, though short, is drafted in an extremely shoddy manner, with undefined references to “relevant multilateral fora” and to the “Partnership Council” having powers to amend the Annexes that define the various types of fish that the whole Fisheries Heading refers to in the first place.
Article 14 covers “remedial measures and dispute resolution”, of which this Agreement promises plenty. As with other parts of the Agreement, everything conceivable is covered whilst at the same time leaving the door open to ample cross-interpretation and dispute.
Under Article 15 we are bound to share data with the EU (as it is with us, supposedly) so as to enforce the whole fisheries heading, “subject to each Party’s laws” (our laws being different from those of the EU, what could possibly go wrong?).
The “Specialised Committee on Fisheries”, referred to in Article 9, is given extensive powers under Article 16. It may “adopt measures, including decisions and recommendations” on a wide variety of matters. Who would expect anything else?
It is another example of how the EU has presumed for itself the power to retain control over vital areas of British policy through the establishment of joint committees, consisting of members from the EU and from the UK, and for the retention of such committees indefinitely.
You may think that, because it’s a joint committee, the UK’s sovereign rights will be safeguarded. Let’s hope they will be, indefinitely into the future, and that all our representatives on these various committees will be as fierce and committed to the preservation of our national sovereignty as we ourselves would be. Personally, I’m not going to bet any money on it.
EU wants our Channel Islands
There’s a ray of hope in Article 17. It covers how the Heading itself can be terminated. “Each Party may at any moment terminate this Heading, by written notification through diplomatic channels.” The amount of notice required is eight months plus the remainder of the then current year. This could mean nearly 20 months in practice. Why not adopt a simpler way of expressing the amount of notice required? But remember, again, this is the EU we’ve been dealing with. Again, extensive provisions apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Do I detect a measure of envy on the part of the EU on account of the Channel Islands belonging to the UK when they are unarguably closer to the Continent? Blame William the Conqueror for that!
Article 18 provides for the implementation of the Heading to be reviewed jointly “four years after the end of the adjustment period referred to in the Article 1 of Annex FISH.4”, and then after every subsequent period of four years. And you thought the period from the referendum until we “finally left” on December 31st 2020 was long drawn out! Complete extrication of our country from the clutches of the EU is a long, long way off. The EU negotiators here are clearly signalling that they expect the UK to be back inside the EU before long.
So that’s it, right? Not so fast. There’s a final Article in this Heading. Article 19 is headed “Relationship with other agreements”. Yes, this part of the Agreement has a relationship with other (existing) agreements! Needless to say, it supersedes or replaces any such.
It’s funny how we never needed agreements like this before the EU came along. But then that was in the days when national governments were sovereign, and made laws for the benefit of their subjects, without any hidden agenda remorselessly driving us all in the direction of a one world government.
Just as if Brexit had never happened
In summary, this part of the Agreement keeps us tied to the EU indefinitely. It’s true that in theory we have the power to terminate it unilaterally (as does the EU), but how likely is it that the career politicians in Parliament and Downing Street will defy all the pressures that would inevitably be applied to them at the first sign of such a rebellion?
You have to look at “ANNEX FISH.4” for some of the small print. This is on page 899. It establishes an “adjustment period” lasting from 1st January 2021 until 30th June 2026. During that time it will be, for fishermen of both sides, just as if Brexit had never happened.
Forty eight years of subjugation to the EU have ruined our fishing industry and brought it to the brink of collapse. The Heading and Annexes on fisheries, taken together, is a clear example of how the EU has dominated the drafting of the Agreement, and in doing so has treated the UK as if it were still a “member-state” that has to be regulated so as to be subservient to the EU itself.
If this is how the EU is going to behave towards us in the post-Brexit world then perhaps it’s time for us to retaliate. For starters, we could ban all EU fishing vessels from operating in UK waters, and do our fishing industry a huge favour at the same time.
Unless this whole “Trade Agreement” is repudiated then it will be used to gradually wear down the people who have to abide by it in one way or another until the prospect of surrendering our national sovereignty to the EU again will seem like a blessed relief.
In Part 5 (the final part) of this series of posts I will be taking a look at what we can expect from the EU now we’ve supposedly left it.