Brexit Betrayal – How May and her Co-Conspirators are Compromising National Security

Below is a link to one of the most important speeches delivered on what the frustration of the Brexit Referendum result by the Establishment means for Britain, in particular, for national security.

Those of you who claim to be informed about what is going on — who is doing it and what are their objectives — should not only read the abbreviated script below, but watch the entire video. It’s 56 minutes very well spent.

The British academic, Professor Gwythian Prins, was provided this platform by the U.S. Heritage Foundation. This body follows most of the issues of interest to an American ‘Conservative’ audience in a way that one would expect.

Whatever may be said of its usual fare, it is to be congratulated for providing Prof Prins with a platform to shed light on these hitherto hidden-from-the-public issues. It is a disgrace that Prof Prins has had to cross the Atlantic to find a platform from which he can proclaim these vital facts. We must make sure they reach as wide a British audience as possible .

For the full video, please see below.

Extract from Professor Prins’ speech:

….

In June 2017, after a disastrous campaign which exposed her flaws mercilessly, Mrs May lost her majority in a General Election which should have given a charismatic and whole heartedly brexiteer conservative leader a comfortable working majority. The strategy towards the EU changed fundamentally and threats to national security suddenly began to appear.

“Partnership” is not on offer from the EU

The first crow flapped into sight in September 2017. The Dept for Exiting the EU issued an alarming paper. The “Future Partnership” Paper wished to offer and to obtain what it says on the cover – partnership. This may be good-hearted but it was utterly naïve, betraying ignorance of what the EU is and how it works. Partnership as we might understand it is not on offer from the EU. Participation of any kind is structurally prescribed to be integration, not cooperation. This cannot be stressed often enough.

So, thus misguided, the September paper advocated many forms of future structural attachment, notably CSDP (Common Security & Defence Policy) missions and operations under the MPCC (Military Planning and Conduct Capability – an ersatz EU Standing military HQ).

The September 2017 DExEU paper was also the place where the May Cell’s ambition “to seek to develop a deep and special partnership with the EU that goes beyond existing third party arrangements” was first stated, to be later repeated crescendo fortissimo.

It proposed to pay into the EU defence pot and to subscribe to EU rules, structures and agreements. It proposed staying within “European Defence Agency projects and initiatives…European Defence Fund including both the European Defence Research Programme and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme…”

Secret tape recording exposed

What was on Earth was going on? That became plain on 15 March 2018. The Sun newspaper published explosive extracts from a secret tape recording of British officials speaking to a group of EU officials.

First we hear a British official called Victoria Billing of DExEU chuckle as she describes how British officials go through the motions of making a chocolate coating superficially conforming to the Brexit mandate while actually baking layered biscuit from the sort of integrative agreements listed in the September 2017 paper.

Then, on the full tapes which The Sun let me have and which are published on our Briefings for Brexit website as an Annex to my ‘Hotel California’ paper there, we hear Alastair Brockbank from the May Cell making extraordinary statements.

He says that “where we think things should be … and similar to what the EU has put out in their guidelines, is that there should be no gap on CFSP or CSDP (the Common Security and Defence Policy) on exit day.”

He regrets our absence from PESCO (the main organ of Defence Union) and says that “we would see what we can contribute towards PESCO still”, as the EU moves it forward.

Of the list of acronymic EU defence institutions EDF, EDRP, EDIDP etc, he states that on “the capabilities side, um, we are interested in it all”. He wants to remain in CARD (Co-ordinated Annual Review of Defence), even talked about the UK retaining a seat on the EU negotiating bodies while aware that only a proximity role might be possible and suggests that the EEAS (ersatz Foreign Ministry) should have people inside UK Ministries after Brexit!

Civil servants help politicians defy democracy

Like Ms Billing, Mr Brockbank cynically boasts that it is civil servants who “are negotiating the detail of that at the same time as we are discussing the political high-level fluffy bits that will go into any declaration that gets made public”: wool to be pulled over the peoples’ eyes.

He states that the ambition is to lock the UK into and under EU control in the defence, security and intelligence areas by international treaty as soon as possible after leaving day.

To this day he has never, to my knowledge, been censured or sacked. The worst was swiftly confirmed. A murder of crows gathered.

On 24 May 2018 the Government slipped out a dryly named Technical Note on External Relations. It is said that the devil is in the detail. There is indeed a whole pandemonium in there. In Articles 6 and 14 we find ambitions to share intelligence and analysis. This was confirmed the next day in the Technical Note on Exchange and Protection of Classified Information of 25 May 2018 which shows that the May Cell places intelligence sharing with the EU at the core of its offer to “build a new, deep and special partnership with the EU … fundamental to cooperation across the future partnership” (Cls 1-2).

Affirming this, a Cabinet Office paper on security of 28 November 2018 finally conceded that a “structural and institutional relationship will be created”. That is really burning the boats on the beach. It states that “the UK and the EU have ‘agreed to conclude an agreement.’

Our nation being chained even more to the EU

Although agreements on classified information exist between the EU and 12 non-associated third counties such as Canada and the United States, the UK’s intention of remaining in the EU’s defence industrial structures and associated policies would necessitate a CSDP-based agreement: so the Technical Note’s claim (Clauses 11-12) that Canada and the USA are equivalent precedents on which the UK can build “but potentially go further” is dangerously false.

The government acknowledges that this relationship would be ‘more than ad hoc’ and governed by the EU’s prescribed Security of Information Agreement for this purpose.

The Political Declaration even acknowledges that the UK and EU “should exchange intelligence in support of CSDP missions and operations to which the UK will be contributing” and which the Government has committed to stay in as a precondition to participation in the EU’s defence industrial landscape and frameworks.

The Political Declaration indicates UK interest in the EU Satellite Centre and space projects all of which are components of the EU’s military construct and CSDP as the SDIP agreements of late 2016 made this so. Yet the EU will exclude the UK – Europe’s principle satellite builder – from access to GALILEO’s secure signal, while letting us pay into the project if our government is so stupid – or disloyal.

Given that, unlike Canada or the USA, the UK will be compelled by the exit deals to apply the EU’s CSDP, since everything is attached to everything else, the EU Global Strategy will rule.

This document calls for a hub-and-spoke intelligence arrangement between the EEAS (foreign service) , EU INTCEN (Intelligence Centre) and the national intelligence capabilities of the CSDP states. These are structural, not ad hoc relationships.

May and her cronies are causing a threat to Western security

So they threaten the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance that is the bedrock of western security. The Government of the United Kingdom, ladies and gentlemen, has to choose between the anglosphere and the wider world or structural subordination to Military EU.

The people have chosen the wider world. The officials and the May Cell have chosen Military EU. This is absolutely the wrong choice. It is therefore an inescapable fact that the Orwellian non-Withdrawal documents pose a real and present threat to UK national security in the most fundamental way possible.

More crows join the murder. In Article 17 of the External Relations ‘Technical Note’ we find ambitions to lock us into subordination with the EU Political and Security Committee and EU Military Committee. Precisely as Brockbank said in the Kit Kat tapes, there, in Article 17 (f), we find the ambition for ‘secondments to the EU Foreign Service’. In 17 (h) (i) ‘UK participation in the EU Operational HQ’.

The documents from the 19 November 2018 European Council place remainiac minister Alan Duncan in the room when it was agreed to give the MPCC the authority of an executive HQ with the legal right to command intervention forces by 2020; to formalise CARD (Coordinated Annual Review of Defence) which allows the EU to exert financial leverage on uses of national defence budgets and to increase funding to the EDF which was agreed at 13 billion Euro last month, on 18 April, which compels compliance with EU strategic control: all with the UK under it.

And yet more crows. Article 18 ‘intends to achieve a bespoke Administrative Arrangement with the European Defence Agency’. It ‘agrees arrangements for participation in the Commission’s European Defence Fund’ (all reconfirmed, and more, in Clause 104 of the Political Declaration) . To have ‘the option to participate in PESCO as a Third Party’ and access to ‘commercial opportunities’.

But we have formally stated we will not be in PESCO. Ministers and civil servants clearly do not understand that ‘Third Party’ participation is structurally prescribed as subordination or nothing. Britain did not vote for a ‘deep and special’ degree of subordination more than any other third party country.

May concedes subservience to the EU for all time

And then we get to the truly devilish part in Article 25. ‘We should not wait where we do not need to. The UK welcomes the agreement that future arrangements on CSFP and CSDP could become effective during the Implementation Period.’

This is precisely what Brockbank said in the Kit Kat Tapes – and it would effectively mean that any time after ‘leaving’ in chains, the Government could permanently lock us under EU control in Defence and Security by Prerogative Powers. In effect, it would allow for a very English administrative coup d’état. The Political Declaration does this ‘locking in’ on its own.

… Having successfully prevented the EU from developing a defence role for over forty years, bizarrely, the Government’s Withdrawal Agreement and associated documents threaten to place Europe’s premier defence and intelligence power under EU control. This is the reverse of what the people voted for in June 2016 and is a constitutional outrage. This fact is also concealed. We join up the dots.

…. 

Please pass this information, including the video link above, on to all your friends and contacts. The scale of this betrayal cannot be over-emphasised. We cannot let Theresa May and her co-conspirators get away with this.

Brexit – A Story of Trust and Betrayal

If the European Union is such a good thing, as the Euro-federalists claim, then why doesn’t it just let us leave? Why haven’t other nations who wanted to leave been allowed to do so?

Philip Gegan

Brexit is all about trust and betrayal. The British voting public are on the whole a trusting lot. They’re quite happy to leave the running of the country to their elected representatives. That is, as long as they themselves are left alone to run their lives the way they want.

They are very slow to get excited or emotional over politics. They regard that as the preserve of foreigners. It’s somehow un-British to actually get out and demonstrate your political views. Strolling down to the polling station on election day is enough (and a substantial number of us don’t even bother to do that).

But the Brexit saga is changing everything. On the 29th March 2019, the day we should have been leaving the EU, a sign of real change occured. Thousands of ordinary folk who had never been on a political demonstration in their lives did just that. They attended rallies outside the Houses of Parliament protesting against the betrayal of Brexit. People who normally just aren’t interested in politics are suddenly finding themselves very interested indeed. And angry.

Brexit Betrayal

The “Chaotic Brexit”

This blog has already covered the background to the 2016 referendum in our post, “Brexit Countdown: Leave, Remain, “No Deal” and the Establishment’s betrayal of the British People”. Now we have a situation where, nearly 34 months after the referendum, the trust of the British voting public is being rewarded with betrayal on a scale which has never before been seen. Not even from the pathetic shower of cowards that have habitually purported to “represent” us at Westminster.

It’s not only the scale of the betrayal. It’s the sheer brazenness of it. Just consider. Only three years ago, all leading Remain politicians, from David Cameron downwards, were promising us that it was our decision, and ours alone. If we voted to leave then we would be leaving the EU completely and more or less immediately. That included the “Customs Union” and the “Single Market”. There are dozens of videos on YouTube to illustrate this point.

Shortly before the referendum every household in the country received three pamphlets telling people which way to vote. Two of these were pro-remain (including the Government’s own “advice”, that cost the taxpayer £9 million), and one was pro-Brexit.

There was no mention of a three year waiting period (plus whatever further period we are now facing). There was no talk of a “hard” or “soft” Brexit. Nothing was said about a “deal” being necessary. There was no mention of an “Irish backstop” that would threaten the integrity of the UK.

Nothing was said about having to remain in the “Customs Union” and the “Single Market”. And there was no hint that we may become a “vassal state” – having to obey all the rules of the EU without any representation in the Euro “Parliament”. All these options are either in Mrs May’s “deal” or in various other proposed deals currently being considered by Parliament.

Parliament’s Betrayal of Brexit Almost Complete

If the Remain camp had told us to expect all this if we dared vote Leave, how would that have affected the referendum result? Probably our margin of victory would have been much larger. But then openness and honesty has never been the hallmark of the Euro-federalists.

As I write the betrayal is almost complete. Although the House of Commons has refused to ratify Mrs May’s deal (on no less than three occasions, so far), that is only because most MPs are opposed to any form of Brexit, even one that is as weak as Mrs May’s. Some members refuse to endorse it because it is a sell-out of Britain and our heritage, and we must acknowledge their brave stand.

Now the Remainers in the House of Commons have made Parliament a laughing stock by forcing it to hold “indicative votes”. MPs voting for or against a number of horrific alternatives to a genuine withdrawal from the European Union. So far they’ve all been rejected. But the most ludicrous and dangerous move of the Remainers is to outlaw leaving the EU without a “deal”. All this does is indicate to Barnier and his cronies in the EU negotiating team that they can dictate whatever terms they want.

No-one in the real world would ever tie their own hands behind their backs in this way. You always need to be able to walk away (or threaten to do so) from the party you’re negotiating with. It’s a vital tool of negotiation used every day in business throughout the world. You even see it in action on TV soaps. By voting to sabotage our position in this way, the Remainers in Parliament are destroying any chance of Britain leaving the EU with our national sovereignty fully intact.

May’s Plan All Along

Turning Brexit into a complete mess has been May’s plan all along, aided and abetted by the Euro-federalists and the EU’s apparatchiks. Early in the “negotiations” she said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Now she tells us that we need to have a deal after all. As lawyers say when dealing with a witness’s inconsistent evidence, “Was she lying then or is she lying now?”

If Mrs May’s “deal” is eventually accepted by Parliament then it is Brexit in name only. It is in reality a new treaty that binds the UK to the EU potentially until the end of this century. It keeps us in the “Customs Union” and the “Single Market”. And EU law will be dominant over UK law.

Our ancient and hard-won rights and liberties will be abolished. That includes Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and Habeas Corpus. In their place will be the malign “human rights”, much loved by Euro-federalists. These, as we know, give more rights to criminals and other undesirables than they do to honest citizens. Moreover, they are “granted” by the EU which, by implication, has the power to take them away again. By contrast, every Briton is born with inalienable rights and freedoms which can only be taken away in extreme circumstances.

In the forthright words of a leading Greek politician, Mrs May’s deal is the kind of deal that you would only sign after being defeated in war. Most genuine Brexit supporters, thankfully, are not taken in by it.

More detail about this “deal” can be found by clicking this link.

The alternatives to her plan are even more disastrous. Whatever the outcome of the present impasse, Parliament has shown that, as currently constituted, it is not fit for purpose.

Brexit Betrayal

The Argument Is Over

At this point it’s important to remember that there really isn’t any need to argue our case for Britain to leave the EU now. We did all the arguing in the run-up to the 2016 referendum. We won it, and that is enough.

But let us not forget the 2017 General Election as well. Both main parties pledged to implement the result of the referendum. Now a majority of Conservative MPs and nearly all Labour MPs (with a couple of noble exceptions) are actively going back on that pledge. So it’s not just one betrayal, but a double-betrayal.

Meanwhile the same anti-Brexit voices are heard every day on the mainstream media. They’ll do anything to stop Brexit. Now they’ve taken to the spreading of “fake news” to discredit anyone who opposes them. For example, one item suggests that big companies such as Cadbury, Ford Transit, Jaguar Land Rover and Dyson have been closing factories in the UK and moving abroad with the aid of EU money.

Some of these instances may be true, but others are not, and that’s where the Remain camp hope to discredit us. Anyone seeing such news items on social media should be careful to verify the information before passing it on.

What If the Remainers Succeed in Keeping the UK in the EU?

Here are just a few jollies we can look forward to in the rat trap of the EU –

  • The pound sterling will be abolished soon after next year, and we will be forced to use the Euro. Our economy will be at the mercy of the European Central Bank. The depressing days of the Exchange Rate Mechanism of the early 1990s will return, only this time there will be no escape. We were lucky last time – we “crashed out” of the ERM on “Black Friday” in September 1992 and in the following years British industry recovered well and unemployment fell dramatically.
  • The European Army will become a reality, with powers to intervene in any “member-state”. It will most likely be used to suppress civil disorder such as we are now witnessing in France with the Yellow Vests opposing Macron’s oppressive rule. With civil unrest likely following the final betrayal of Brexit, it would be only a matter of time before it was deployed as a “peacekeeping force” here in Britain.
  • The “European Arrest Warrant” will be introduced, providing for the arrest of British people in their own homes on the flimsiest of evidence, perhaps for a “hate crime”. They will then face deportation to a prison cell somewhere in Europe where they’ll languish while the authorities try to concoct a case against them.

It really is sad that so few people realise all this. How many people arguing for us to remain in the EU know or care about any of this? How many MPs who are frustrating Brexit have taken the trouble to acquaint themselves with these facts? And would it make any difference if they did know? The plain truth is that many of them are not intelligent enough to understand it all.

Where We Are Now

The battle lines have been drawn. By preventing the UK from leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 the Remainers (including the mainstream media led by the “BBC”) and Parliament have betrayed the British people. And they have, arguably, committed high treason in knowingly co-operating in the subjugation of Her Majesty’s Writ to the will of a foreign power. Not only that, but in the face of clear instructions from the electorate to the contrary.

Another General Election – the third in four years – is becoming a distinct possibility. The Establishment will attempt to falsify the debate and skew the result so as to legitimise the Brexit betrayal. They will do this by making out that the result shows majority support for one of the phoney “options” that the House of Commons has been voting on. An option that involves Britain staying in the EU under some arrangement or other. This will be taken to have overridden the victory of the Leave campaign in 2016.

We have to get our message across, and that message is simple. The Remainers are subverting the referendum result, and with it the whole democratic process. They want to imprison us in the EU with no option to leave it.

We must get everyone to realise that the EU is not there for anyone’s benefit other than the globalists who control it. That it’s a monstrous vampire, a massive quagmire-cesspit sucking up formerly independent nation-states and refusing to let anyone out once they’re in. Like the Soviet Union in the last century, it’s a house of cards that has to constantly expand to avoid collapse.

The Awful Truth

If the European Union is such a good thing, as the Euro-federalists claim, then why doesn’t it just let us leave? Why haven’t other nations who wanted to leave been allowed to do so? If the EU was a genuine, legitimate organisation set up for the mutual benefit of its members there wouldn’t be a problem with any nation that wished to leave. But there is a problem.

Why did the EU Council President, Donald Tusk (a failed Polish politician) say that all Britons who voted to leave deserved a “special place in hell”? Does he expect such language to endear himself to us? And why was he not pulled up by one of his fellow apparatchiks as having spoken out of turn? Why was there not one word of rebuke from any of the Remainers in Parliament or the media on this side of the Channel? Would it be because they agree with him?

The “chaotic Brexit” we are witnessing has been created by the Remainers, colluding with the likes of Tusk and his henchmen in Brussels. Parliament has had a collective nervous breakdown rather than carry out its duty of obeying the will of the people. Only the ideology of racial-nationalism can save Britain, and few MPs have any ideology other than a vague, unworkable liberal-leftist mind set and a commitment to their own careers.

The European Union is but a staging post on the way to a tyrannical world government. It’s a sinister, secretive, intolerant and anti-democratic set-up that thrives on lies, corruption and force. Well, if it’s force they want, we have a pretty good track record of dealing with it on European soil. We’ve done it before and now it’s beginning to look like we’ll have to do it all over again.

Brexit Countdown:
Leave, Remain, “No Deal”
and the Establishment’s
betrayal of the British People

Philip Gegan

President John F Kennedy
U.S President John F. Kennedy

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible….  make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

Everyone agrees that the British Government is making a complete mess of Brexit. The only question is whether it is fortuitous or deliberate.

In order to understand what has happened we have to recognise a few home truths about

  1. the European Union,
  2. British politicians, and
  3. the British electorate.

1. The European Union

As racial nationalists we know that from its very inception in the late 1950s the European Union (then known as the “Common Market”, or European Economic Community) was but a staging post on the Global Elite’s march towards a multi-racial “World Government”.

In the early twentieth century, a leading global elitist of the day, James Paul Warburg, a US financier, stated that, “We are going to have a World Government. The only question is whether it will be by conquest or consent.”

Ordinary folk, of course, aren’t meant to know anything about this. Who in their right mind, whichever (Western) country they live in, would want to live under the rule of a “World Government”?

If freedom consists in part of limited government, then a World Government, and even a European Government (which is what the EU will shortly become), is the exact opposite of freedom.

A World Government, by definition, would be a tyranny. If just one nation were allowed to leave (just as we are trying to leave the EU) then it would be a World Government no more. So if we leave the European Union, then the future of the EU itself is under threat. How can it call itself the “European Union” without Europe’s most powerful nation in its ranks? No wonder the EU’s eurocrats and our own peculiar Euro-federalists are desperate to prevent us from leaving.

A Political Entity

Until the 1990s European Federalists could argue with some conviction that the set-up was a purely economic arrangement. Their case was that European countries had to pool their economic resources in order to compete with the likes of the United States and Japan. Of course, that argument was flawed in that both those countries were individual nations and not “communities” of nations. But in terms of population numbers and market size it had a veneer of credibility.

With further Treaties being signed by the leaders of the “member states” – Maastricht in 1992, Lisbon in 2007 – the surreptitious transformation of the former EEC into a political union gained pace. The conspirators (for that’s in effect what they are) have a clever ploy. They hold a grand meeting at which a pre-prepared “treaty” is signed by the various career politicians misrepresenting each “member state”. Each “treaty” has far-reaching implications, and takes vast swathes of sovereignty away from “member states”. But the date it comes into effect is invariably one or two years into the future, by which time the mainstream mass media will have conveniently forgotten about it. Few critics will pick up on exactly what is going on.

At Maastricht the conspirators felt confident enough to come out into the open and proclaim their precious entity the “European Union” consisting not of sovereign nations but of “member states”.

All along the policy of the Global elite has been to make it more and more difficult for any country to leave this “Union”. The “Customs Union” was the core part of the original EEC established in 1958 and the “Single Market” and the over-riding jurisdiction of the so-called “European Court of Justice” were concepts introduced in 1993 and extended in 2007. As we’ve seen over the last 31 months, any attempt by a “member state” to leave the EU can now be made so complicated that most ordinary people will give up trying to understand what it’s all about.

So we have the absurd arguments over whether we should leave the “Single Market” or the “Customs Union” as well as the EU, and over whether there should be a “hard border” or a “soft border” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Oh, it’s all so complex.

Or is it?

A One Way Street

No. It’s not complex at all. Not once you realise that you’re supposed to be confused. Once you grasp that the EU has always been designed as a one-way street. As the wolf’s lair to which there are many footprints going in, but none coming out.

The EU’s leading politicians – Jean Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Guy Verhoffstadt, Michael Barnier and all the rest – believe they can bully the UK into remaining a “member state”, in defiance of the express wishes of the British people. They have a timetable, and they don’t want it delayed. For example, by 2022 they want the pound sterling abolished and the Euro to be the currency of all “member states”.

National armed forces together with NATO (ostensibly) provide for the defence of European countries. But the EU wants a “European Army”, the only purpose for which can be the suppression of internal dissent within the EU. It wants control over our financial services, fisheries and oil supplies, and more within a few short years. It wants the process of continuous and endless centralisation and federalisation to continue until no European nations remain.

European Arrest Warrant vs Habeas Corpus

These things are never talked about by the Remainers. This is especially true of the so-called “European Arrest Warrant”. This charming little surprise will be foisted upon us shortly if we don’t break free. Many of our historic rights guaranteeing the freedom of the individual are enshrined in Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. These will be quietly abolished under the “harmonisation” of European laws – a process that has been under way for many years now, though limited thus far to various aspects of commercial law.

The European Arrest Warrant will give legal force to the arrest of any British citizen in his home, and his removal to custody, which could be in any European country. The pretext could be the alleged transgression of some Euro regulation or other, quite possibly on the unsubstantiated allegation of anyone else, perhaps politically motivated. Perhaps, even, for simply questioning the official narrative of the “Holocaust” story. This happens regularly in European countries.

There the British citizen could languish in a prison cell for months or years while the Euro authorities search for evidence to use against him in court. This is the situation in most European countries. They’ve never had Habeas Corpus, so it doesn’t much matter to them. If our Remainers are so sincere in wanting European integration then why aren’t they prominent in telling their European friends to adopt safeguards similar to our Habeas Corpus, instead of going along with their calls for the abolition of ours?

Has anything like this been used by our negotiating team to strengthen their hand? That the rest of the EU should have similar standards of protection against tyranny? After all, these Europeans are forever banging on about “human rights”. Perhaps they don’t mean OUR human rights.

2. British politicians

The two leading politicians involved in the Brexit betrayal are (1) David Cameron, the former Tory Prime Minister who made the promise of a referendum in the run-up to the 2015 General Election, and (2) Theresa May, the current (as of January 2019) Prime Minister, who has taken it upon herself, as someone in favour Britain remaining in the EU, to lead the nation in withdrawing from it (click here for a summary of the top 40 horrors lurking in her so-called Brexit “deal”).

Cameron was an Establishment politician from the start. He entered Parliament in 2001 and in less than five years he was the Leader of the Opposition. To say that he “won” the 2010 General Election would stretch the imagination somewhat. The 1997-2010 Labour government became so unpopular with the electorate, that it would have been difficult for the Tories to lose that election. But they nearly managed it, largely on account of the refusal of Cameron to listen to the real concerns and worries of ordinary British people.

Eton-educated, a former member of the notorious “Bullingdon” Club at Oxford University, and born into considerable wealth, he is one of those people who take for granted that they are part of the ruling class and that they know better than ordinary folk. He should have been ditched as Tory leader following the election, for not having swept to power with a triple-digit majority. As it was, he had to crawl into bed with the Lib-Dems in forming a coalition government.

Cameron’s “Cunning Plan”

From 2010 to 2015 he became concerned about the increasing popularity of UKIP. Large numbers of Tory members and voters, disillusioned with the wishy-washy policies of the Conservative Party under Cameron, were defecting to UKIP. So he had a brilliant idea. Why not prevent a disaster at the 2015 election by promising voters a referendum, just as campaigned for by UKIP?

He believed he could neutralise UKIP, attract badly needed ex-Tories back to the fold, and get a decent majority, all in one go!

On top of that, he would be able to use it to squeeze a few “concessions” from the EU and present them to voters as a good reason to vote to remain a member. The mainstream media and the rest of the Remain Establishment could be relied on to launch “Project Fear” and cajole the electorate to vote to remain. The awkward issue of membership of the European Union would be kicked into touch for another forty years, by which time we would be so entangled in the Euro super-state that there would be no chance of ever leaving it.

Cameron felt so confident that this bold move would work that he went on television to announce that it would be a simple “Yes” or “No” vote decided by a simple majority and that it would be binding on the government (provided it was a Tory government, of course). Not only that, but that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single Market and all the other sub-departments of the European Union, such as the European Court of Justice. There would be no half-way house. And if the result was to leave the EU then he, David Cameron, would carry out the wishes of the majority of British voters.

Nigel Farage

Let’s take a break here to consider another leading figure in all this – Nigel Farage. He was the leader of UKIP for many years, is the leader of the UKIP MEPs, and has his own radio show on LBC. While he is by no means a racial nationalist, he deserves great credit for forcing Cameron to hold the historic 2016 referendum. He is a fluent advocate of our exit from the European Union and must have had a tremendous influence in getting us the successful result. Future historians will undoubtedly identify him as a key figure in helping Britain regain its freedom and independence.

A Crippling Blow To The Global Elite’s Plans

We all know what happened. By 52 per cent to 48 per cent, a majority of over one million, the British people voted to leave. So did Cameron honour his pledge to take us out? He was a career politician, remember, so he cut and ran, resigning as Prime Minister, and soon after as an MP as well, in order to take his place at the feeding trough of retired Establishment politicians.

That left the stage open for the appearance of Theresa May.

Remainer PM + Brexit Negotiations = Farce

There weren’t many suitable contenders to lead the Tory Party (and thereby become Prime Minister) that could command the support of a sufficient number of Tory MPs. That’s how Theresa May managed to secure the keys to 10 Downing Street. She had, for political career purposes, kept a low profile during the referendum campaign, but for all that was at heart an ardent Remainer.

One of her first comments as Prime Minister was that “Brexit means Brexit”. What she meant, of course, was that “Brexit means Brexit means whatever I want it to mean.”

Theresa May had just completed a stint as the longest-serving Home Secretary. As such she had tremendous influence over immigration policy. Under her tenure the flood of migrants from the third world continued unabated, in spite of regular promises by her to stop it.

She turned out to be just as remote from the ordinary British public as Cameron was. Her husband, Philip May, is a past Chairman of the Oxford Union and a relationship manager for investment firm Capital International, a firm handling millions of pounds’ worth of investments for private wealthy clients the world over. One of her and her husband’s closest friends is the Chief Rabbi. They dine regularly together. Presumably the food is kosher.

At the time of writing the process of “negotiating” a withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, as directed by a majority of voters, has taken a staggering 31 months. All this because we’ve been told that we can’t just leave – we have to have an “agreement”, or “deal”, with the EU. The trouble is that the EU negotiators obviously won’t give us one. They are not acting in a bona fide manner for the reasons we’ve discussed.

They know our party politicians as the cowardly shower that they are. They believe they can extract billions of pounds from us and then not give us a proper withdrawal. They will make sure the UK is still tied to the European Union for years and years. Until a future date when some event will happen whereby the vote to leave can be forgotten. Then Britain will be officially back in the fold as nothing more than a “member state” – the term the EU contemptuously uses to describe formerly sovereign nations that have foolishly succumbed.

Democracy will have failed to deliver, and the social consequences of that are potentially devastating, as former U.S. Presidential election candidate Pat Buchanan explains on his blog here.

A Deliberate Mess

The so-called Article 50 process, the decision to seek a “deal”, and now the prospect of Parliament passing a law outlawing a “no deal” departure (more on that in a moment) are all ways designed long ago to frustrate the process of withdrawing from the EU. And that’s what May has intended all along. She is a false leader, an Establishment stooge, and she has faked the whole Brexit process from the beginning. She has engineered, or has gone along with the Establishment traitors who have engineered, the mess that Brexit has become.

Why? So that the majority who voted in favour of leaving the wretched EU will throw up their hands in despair and say to themselves, “We’re never going to get out of the EU, so we may as well accept it and make the best of it that we can.” And then, if there is a second referendum, the Establishment and the Euro federalists may be able to scrape a bare majority and claim ultimate victory, keeping Britain tied to the EU against the wishes of the majority, but all perfectly “democratic”.

The EU negotiators are cynically encouraging our own fifth column of Euro federalists, or Remainers, into forcing the Government into outlawing a departure from the EU without a “deal”. This notion is, of course, absurd. If we are unable by law to leave without a deal – any deal – then we are bound to accept whatever “deal” the EU throws at us. Further comment on this little ploy is surely superfluous.

3. The British Electorate

The British electorate deserve a special kind of praise. For a hundred years and more they’ve endured having their country ruled by a coterie of career politicians. They’ve been betrayed on every important issue. They’ve been taken into two disastrous and pointless world wars. They’ve seen their country over-run by uncontrolled mass migration of inassimilable third-world blacks and Asiatics, with sovereignty surrendered to the Euro Super-State.

During the referendum campaign they were subjected to an unprecedented avalanche of “Project Fear”. Lies and propaganda designed to frighten them into voting to accept the surrender of their ancient freedoms and sovereignty to the European Union.

And yet the British people resisted. They had the courage to defy the threats and warnings coming every day from the Euro federalists and their friends in the European Union, and they voted to leave.

If there’s one thing that the British people can be criticised for it’s for being too trusting in their politicians. The majority voted to leave the EU in 2016, and they fully expected their politicians to deliver promptly, as promised by Cameron and others during the campaign. They waited patiently for the various procedures that they were told were essential to be carried out. But now they expect what they voted for – an exit from the European Union.

The British people are slow to get over-excited about anything. They will take a lot of nonsense from upstart politicians before they lose patience. But when the tipping point is reached, when their anger has passed a certain point, there is no stopping them. Career politicians who don’t realise this fact carry on betraying the British people at their own personal peril.

EU Gravy Train

The European Union is a massive gravy train, and British people don’t like gravy trains. It has around 113 buildings, 65,000 employees (all with salaries, pensions and other benefits ordinary people can only dream of) and over 100,000 other hangers-on, mostly corporate lobbyists who live in and work from Brussels or Strasbourg. It has a far larger bureaucracy than the British Empire had at the height of its power – and that ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface without the aid of modern computer technology.

The fact of the matter is that the EU cannot afford to let us go. That’s another reason why “negotiating” with them is a waste of time and resources. They need our money. They know that if we manage to extricate ourselves successfully then other “member states” will follow our example, and the whole massive structure will collapse in on itself. Just like its forerunner, the Soviet Union.

It’s clear that we need more than just a referendum to leave this whole sorry setup. We’re going to have to fight our way out. And the first line of enemy defence to overcome is right here on British soil – the Remainers and other corrupt Establishment stooge politicians who have been betraying us for so long and feeding from the gravy train. Once they are taken out the way will be clear to do whatever is necessary to take the fight to the EU itself and “take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.”

Future generations of Britons, yet unborn, are waiting to see if we are up to the level of our noble forebears in defending their birthright.

Fight The Brexit Betrayal

PETITION Parliament to leave the EU NOW! https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/221747
We must fight the Brexit Betrayal. Ever since the Remainers and the EU Commission recovered from the shock of the 2016 Referendum result they have conspired together to (1) create confusion over what leaving the so-called "European Union" actually means, and (2) agitate for a second referendum which they hope to win through psychological intimidation of ordinary British folk who voted Out. This post answers some of the lies and distortions being fed to us daily by the Establishment media (particularly the BBC). Use this information in any discussions or debates you may have with Remainers.

Lie No. 1 – “We need a second referendum (people’s vote) as the Leave camp didn’t know what they were voting for”.

Lie No. 2 – Leaving the EU doesn’t mean leaving the Single Market. Note Cameron’s lie that he would pull the UK out of the Single Market if we voted to leave the EU – he resigned instead!

Lie No. 3 – Leave voters didn’t realise that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market as well. Note how the former Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, squirms his way through this interview after being firmly rebutted on his assertion that no-one told us we would be leaving the Single Market.

Lie No. 4 – Leave voters were confused about whether leaving the EU would mean leaving the Single Market as well.

Lie No. 5 – It’s all too complicated – better leave it to our MPs to decide for us. Just watch this short, animated video to see that it’s not that complicated, after all.

Lie No. 6 – Europe is a good thing, so therefore the European Union must be as well. This video is also gives a useful introduction to how the EU works (with the help of 55,000 civil servants), its secret meetings and its unaccountability.

Lie No. 7 – Brussels doesn’t waste our money. Super-short video shows the Eurocrats are really good at finding ways of spending (other people’s) money.

Lie No. 8 – We’re safer from war inside the European Union as it is a force for peace.

Lie No. 9 – Britain is not forced to apply European law in preference to our own laws.

Lie No. 10 – The EU is the way of the future. This video by a former Soviet dissident compares the old Soviet Union to the present-day European Union.

Lie No. 11 – The European Union fosters good relations in Europe. This 2017 news item covers how the European Commission is taking Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to the European Court for refusing to take in thousands of non-European migrants.  Needless to say, the court ruled against those sovereign nations and is trying to force them to accept these migrants – see this news report.

Lie No. 12 – Being in the EU does not impinge on our national sovereignty. Former communist Economic Affairs Commissioner says the EU must bring an end to national sovereignty over finance with the creation of a “eurozone budget”.

Lie No. 13 – We have nothing to be afraid of with the European Union. This video shows you five reasons we should be VERY afraid.

Lie No. 14 – The EU is genuinely negotiating for BREXIT for the mutual benefit of all. If you don’t mind some colourful language, this man pulls no punches. It’s worth watching just to see the crazy Euro fanatic Guy Verhofstadt waving his arms around as he demands that all EU member states surrender all their national sovereignty to the EU –

Lie No. 15 – There is no Establishment conspiracy to frustrate Brexit. Just check out this insider report – https://brexitcentral.com/shocked-i-say-appear-establishment-conspiracy-brexit/

Lie No. 16 – Theresa May’s Brexit deal is our best option. Better no deal than this piece of treachery – https://brexitcentral.com/nasty-surprises-smallprint-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/

PLEASE NOTE – This post is on-going. More Brexit ammunition will be added from time to time, so keep checking back!

Subversion of democracy a feature of
the ‘European Project’ from the outset

by Martin Webster

A couple of months ago a friend with whom I had been in contact intermittently since the 1960s sent me an e-mail asking me to support the campaign for a second Referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU). He is a retired music teacher and cathedral organist. I was surprised to get his appeal since we had never before engaged in any kind of political discussion. Our shared interest was organ music and English cathedral choral music, particularly of the Elizabethan era.

In the light of the terms of his appeal, and at the risk of damaging our friendship, I decided, to ‘let him have it with both barrels’. The following was devised not just to enlighten him but in the hope that it will serve as a quarry of information and arguments for Brexit supporters to deploy when confronted by Remainers.

The referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union was authorised by an Act of Parliament. That Act granted to the British people the sovereign power to determine whether or not they wished their nation to continue to be a member of the EU. The text on the ballot paper in the Referendum read:

Text of the EU Referendum

There were no conditions, qualifications, sub-clauses, reservations, small print or other confusions to the stark ‘Remain’ or ‘Leave’ choice voters were given.

There was no statement on the ballot paper, or some ‘understanding’ explicit or implicit in the Act that if the electorate or the government or Parliament or business leaders don’t like the terms of Britain’s withdrawal in any negotiation with the EU and/or don’t like the possible economic impact of withdrawal with or without a treaty of withdrawal, then the matter be put back to the electorate in another referendum — or, indeed, further referendums as each sequence of negotiations is concluded and put to the electorate.

No such qualifications appeared on the ballot paper because, as the saying has it: “That way lies madness”.

‘Project Fear’ warned
us before we voted

It cannot be said that the British people were not warned that there would be some extent of economic turmoil in the event of a Leave vote and the implementation of that decision. Those dire and excessive warnings were issued to the British people on a continuous basis by ‘Project Fear’ for weeks prior to the Referendum.

Many of the predictions of ‘Project Fear’ have been shown to be propaganda hogwash. There was no collapse of the Pound Sterling, no huge increase in unemployment and no need for “an emergency Budget within days in the event of a Leave vote”, as the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne assured us.

Since the Referendum the British economy has done rather well and unemployment has gone down.

I recollect a BBC ‘Breakfast’ TV interview with Lord Digby Jones, a former head of the Confederation of British Industry, on the morning that the Referendum result was made known. (See: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHpOgaE4R-I>). Just see the first five minutes of the interview.

He made it clear that the British electors had heard loud and clear all that the ‘Project Fear’ propagandists had been saying prior to the vote, but had gone into the polling booths saying to themselves:

“I rather like the idea of electing the people who rule over me, unlike the set-up in the EU Commission. I put freedom first, and if it costs me a few shillings in the first instance, then so be it.”

So there is no legal, political or moral basis for a second referendum — on the contrary, there is a substantial legal, political and moral basis for insisting that the verdict of the British people, by a clear majority, be carried out.

The Leave majority would have been huge if only indigenous Britons had voted

Note that if only native Britons — people born of indigenous British stock — had voted in the referendum, then the Leave majority would have been huge.

As it was, a sustained attempt was made by the Remain camp to mobilise foreigners to frustrate the will of the indigenous British people on a crucial issue which affected the destiny of their homeland.

I regard that Remainer ‘mobilise the foreigners’ campaign to be not merely misguided, but an act of treason…. but, at base, that is what “the European Project” is all about: Treason, that is, suborning your country to the will of another country or supra-national authority. There is no other word for it.

Whatever became of the oath which Parliamentarians and other public servants have to swear:

“I promise to bear true allegiance to the sovereignty of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law”?

Can Remainer MPs, Peers, senior civil servants, members of the Armed Services and the Police swear that oath in good conscience, or do they cross their fingers behind their backs and wink at each other when they do so?

But the Remainer reaction to the Leave vote appears to be — at first glance — less sophisticated than treason: a sulky child’s refusal to accept the outcome of a democratic vote. “We don’t like the result and so we’re going to kick up, complain, drag our feet, have hysterics until the Leave people back down and we get our way!”

Imagine if any losing party in a general election were to campaign against the result on that basis! Such a party would be dismissed by the electorate as a serious contender for power for many elections hence. Foreigners would be forgiven for thinking that Britain had evolved into a Third World ‘banana republic’ kind of a country.

The Remainer campaign provides
a justification for terrorism

The Remain ‘Second Referendum’ campaign is the astonishingly un-British and undemocratic reaction of that portion of the population which considers itself to be “Elite” and finds itself contradicted by those it regards as intellectual and social inferiors.

The Remainer campaign of subversion has been reinforced by the European Union’s negotiators, by Britain’s treasonous Civil Service and, not least, by ‘our’ Prime Minister Theresa May.

Their joint strategy from the outset was to delay-delay-delay, to get the Leave decision trapped and buried in a bog of complexity of their making in the hope that the Leave majority would throw up their hands in despair and give up.

In the past, we have often been assured by those in authority:

“There is no good reason for anybody in the UK to resort to terrorism because everybody has the vote, anybody can set up a political party, there is freedom of speech, the right of assembly, etc., etc.”

But that argument is a two-sided coin. The other side is:

If the results of votes and other attributes of democracy are denied to us, then there is every justification for a resort to terrorism. The restoration of democracy, by whatever means are available under a tyranny, becomes a patriotic civic duty.

As has been remarked by others, including parliamentarians: “The Remain campaign to frustrate the referendum vote is playing with fire.”

The Referendum was the biggest exercise in democracy Britain has ever seen. More than 17 million voters put their ‘X’ against the winning “Leave” option.

Subversion of democracy a feature of
the ‘European Project’ from the outset

The Brexit vote constitutes a kind of book-end to my political life. I began political activity in 1960/61 as a 17 year old in the Mill Hill (North London) branch of the Young Conservatives. I was already opposed to Britain joining what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

I met another lad in the YCs who was also a member of the Anti-Common Market League. We asked for a debate on the issue. We were fed up with being asked to debate inane issues such as: “Are moving pavements a thing of the future and, if so, are they a good idea?”

Our request was resisted by the constituency Agent, a paid servant of Conservative Central Office. Eventually the Agent conceded because a lot of YCs were keen on having a debate about something important. However, as recent school-leavers we were unprepared for the cynical tricks he was willing to deploy at the last hurdle to frustrate democracy.

Nobody could be found within the YC membership to oppose our motion: “Britain must not join the EEC”. Ignorance of the topic and shyness is forgivable in teenagers.

The adult association was turned to, but nobody offered to speak against us. This is because they were either ignorant about the topic or cowards unwilling to engage in controversy of any kind — in most cases, probably both.

In the end, a Mr Rose from Golders Green, an adult from the adjoining Hendon & Finchley Constituency Association, had to be imported to advocate the pro-EEC case.

My friend (the Proposer) and I (his Seconder) relied on simple patriotism to advance our case: Our nation had never done well when entangled with Europe and had prospered when it secured its independence via a global mission. Did we fight two world wars in order to be ruled by foreigners?

Mr Rose’s case was mainly to do with avoiding further wars in Europe and talk of a huge home market. He was seconded by a YC who knew nothing of the issues and who said nothing beyond: “I Second Mr. Rose.”

“It’s now time for the disco….”

It was evident that my friend and I had captured the imagination of the audience and that Mr Rose had not impressed. It was going to be a landslide. Just as the vote was about to be taken, the constituency Agent, who had been eavesdropping, stepped into the room and announced:

“You’ve all had a debate — but we’re all Conservatives here. We’re not going to divide ourselves, so there will be no vote. It’s now time for the disco….”

The Agent’s intervention prefigured and epitomises the pro-EEC/EU/Remainer attitude to being contradicted via the democratic process. It was that undemocratic fiasco which disillusioned me with ‘Establishment’ political parties and prompted my foray towards nationalist politics.

There is and never has been anything democratic about “the European Project”. It does not have and never has had “the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people”, because the British people have always known that Edward’s Heath’s assurance: “Membership of the EEC does not involve Britain in any loss of essential national sovereignty” was a plain lie — which he later admitted (as being “necessary”) — shortly before he died.

The British public were never consulted either in a general election or via a referendum before we were taken into the EEC by Edward Heath’s Conservative government.

In 1975 and 2016, government
thumbs were in the scales of
referendums on Europe  

The 1975 referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EEC was staged by Harold Wilson’s Labour government. It was fraudulently conducted in all sorts of ways.

The Remain and the Leave camps were both funded to issue to every household a booklet stating their case — but the government also issued its own “official” booklet, which was thoroughly Remain in content. The mass media was largely — and the BBC was wholly — pro-Remain.

In the case of the 2016 EU Referendum, the government also funded Leave and Remain booklets to be sent to every household, but spent an additional £9 million issuing its own booklet which was thoroughly Remain in content.

This ‘thumb-in-the-scales’ exercise was contrary to the spirit — and some say also to the letter — of contemporary Electoral Law. Several senior executives of the Electoral Commission resigned their posts at the end of October (2018) after the High Court ruled in September that “the Commission had misinterpreted election law” in the run-up to the Brexit vote. (See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6322091/Election-watchdog-head-QUITS-claims-commission-biased-against-Brexit.html .)

The Commission had pursued every allegation of alleged financial impropriety against Leave campaign groups, but ignored all such allegations against Remain groups.

The mass media was largely Remain in its output. The BBC was compelled to give equal coverage to the Leave and Remain camps during the three-week campaign.

But in the two year period since then, when Brexit negotiations were in motion, the BBC has rallied unrelentingly behind the undemocratic Remain/EU Commission campaign for another Referendum on the grounds that the majority of voters who had voted Leave were “too stupid” to have been allowed to vote in the first one in 2016!

A logical contradiction? Superficially yes.

But what the Remainers hope is that in a second Referendum a sufficient number of “stupid” voters will either have died (yes, they have openly wished death on their opponents!) or will have become sufficiently cowed by the “Elite’s” propaganda onslaught against them that they will have changed their minds or — best of all — will refrain from voting.

This is the state of ‘democracy’ in Britain today.

I hope to see my country free before I die.