Tag: european union

Brexit – Is the UK really free from the EU? Part 1 – Do we have a genuine Brexit? From Triumph to Betrayal

This series of posts takes a closer look at the Agreement that was arrived at between the UK and the EU and signed on 24th December 2020. 

Editor's Note: The use of the expression, "TCA" in this series of posts refers to the "Trade and Cooperation Agreement" signed between the UK and the EU on December 24th 2020.

Philip Gegan

After four and a half years of negotiations, on December 31st 2020 at 11:00pm, Britain finally completed the process of leaving the European Union with a “free trade deal”.

Yes, Boris had “got Brexit done”. Since the 2016 referendum delivered an unexpected body-blow to the plans of the “Global elite”, the British people had been treated to

• all the delaying tactics, the manoeuvrings, and downright betrayal from Remainers both inside and outside Parliament,

• betrayal by our judiciary,

• sanctimonious humbug from former failed prime ministers,

• the subterfuge and weakness of former Prime Minister Theresa May and her government and their attempts at total sell-out,

• a well-funded lawsuit that sought to give Parliamentary Remainers the power to frustrate the referendum result,

• the threats and lies about what would happen if we actually went ahead and insisted on leaving,

• and all the other spiteful tactics that the Remain camp, the mass media and the EU itself could throw at us.

It took the Euro elections of 2019, and two general elections sandwiching them, in all of which the parties and factions supporting Brexit triumphed in the teeth of determined and well-funded opposition, to get to a position where we are a free and independent nation once more. That is, free and independent from the European Union.

Or are we? This series of posts takes a closer look at the Agreement that was arrived at between the UK and the EU and signed on 24th December 2020. The full title of the Agreement is “Trade and Cooperation Agreement”, and I am going to refer to it for the most part as the “TCA”.

Twists and turns of the Tory Party

The Tory Party, having hitched itself, for the time being, to the ‘Leave the EU’ cause, was especially pleased with itself. This is the party, remember, that was happy to have the arch-traitor, Edward Heath, at its head as Prime Minister, when the disgraceful negotiations to join what was then the “European Economic Community” went ahead without any mandate in 1971. The same party, without doubt, most of whose members applauded as Heath signed the Treaty of Accession the following year, surrendering our country’s sovereignty to Brussels. That subjugation was to last nearly fifty years.

It is sobering to think that, since the end of the Second World War, our nation has been a vassal state of an artificially constructed, anti-democratic European super-state for 48 out of less than 76 years. What would our fighting men have thought if someone had been able to whisper that into their ears as they departed these shores in 1940 to fight yet another European war?

But back to the present day. We are now, on the surface, no longer in the Euro superstate that the original European Economic Community had become. This is due to a number of factors, including long-standing opposition from minority parties such as the National Front of the 1970s and, more recently, Nigel Farage’s UKIP and Brexit parties. Nigel Farage himself has to be credited with having the single-minded resolve and determination to see through the whole campaign right up to the 2016 referendum and beyond. Let’s hope he receives some kind of national recognition for his achievement.

The Tory Party were always heavily pro-EU until UKIP and, later, the Brexit Party, threatened to keep them in permanent opposition. Of course, there always were plenty of Tory “Euro-sceptics” as well. They didn’t like the idea of our country being sold out to Brussels in the first place but went along with it for career reasons. Now they are celebrating our departure from the EU and congratulating themselves on getting our nation’s freedom and independence back.

Does the CTA “fully achieve the goal of Brexit”?

Let us take one of them, Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire and member of their “European Research Group”, as broadly representing them. He wrote a piece in the Daily Mail of 30th December 2020 headed “I see no traps… that’s why I’ll seize our day of destiny”, heralding “a new era of free co-operation in place of the former dominance by Brussels”.

Bridgen is satisfied that the deal “fully achieves the goal of Brexit”.

Under the agreement, according to Bridgen, “free movement will end, as will the jurisdiction of the European Courts and the vast contributions to Brussels’ coffers”.

Try telling that to the good citizens of Northern Ireland.

“The biggest obstacle,” Bridgen writes, “was fishing rights, since control of our waters is a symbol of nationhood. But here too I am satisfied…”.

Try telling that to our fishermen. We have a further period of five and a half years before we see the last fishing vessel from mainland Europe cease from plundering our fish stocks.

do we have a genuine brexit
EU membership has been a disaster for Britain’s fishermen

No worries, according to Andrew Bridgen. “The transition period…. will provide time to rebuild coastal communities.”

So all is well, according to populist politicians.

Sadly, all is not well. Before examining the “deal” in detail, let’s briefly recap on how things turned out this way.

The Brexit “negotiations”

May’s negotiators, at the start of negotiations in 2016, immediately announced that the UK would be giving the EU £39 billion as a “sweetener”, to give the negotiations the best chance of success for both sides. May’s team thought that this would be sufficient to induce the EU into granting a Canada-style free trade agreement that would be even better than Canada’s.

The EU negotiators immediately trousered that, and then acted as if that was the least we should have offered. They then scuppered any prospect of a Canada-style agreement with the UK. They realised that Canada is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. The UK is just 22 miles away from the French coast. That fact, of course, only affects the fisheries part of the negotiations, but that’s the excuse they used.

At this point, if the UK’s negotiators really meant to protect our interests, they would have reciprocated by demanding the return of our £39 billion. There was absolutely no legal requirement for the UK to pay a penny for leaving the EU, and the fact that this money, and a whole lot more, has been paid is nothing short of a national humiliation and scandal. Withdrawing the offer of money would have signalled to the EU that we weren’t going to be pushed around any longer, and done wonders to make them more reasonable in the negotiations.

But May’s negotiators were Remainers at heart, and it was only taxpayers’ money. They were all too easily hoodwinked by Barnier and his cronies in the EU’s negotiating team. They had no real interest in securing a fair deal for the UK. Their main concern was to reach an arrangement that looked genuine to anyone who didn’t look at it in detail, and would make it as easy as possible for the UK to be re-admitted to the EU at an early date in the future.

They colluded with the EU negotiators and Remainers in Parliament and the media to bring about a phoney deal. A deal that would in reality bind us to the EU forever and make life so uncomfortable that public opinion would swing behind a move to re-join, just to relieve the pain.

Remainers fight to frustrate the Brexit vote

It wasn’t just the UK’s negotiators who were working secretly to frustrate the wishes of the British people expressed in the 2016 referendum result. As we’ve just seen, Parliament itself, even after the 2017 General Election, was dominated by Remainers. Nearly all these Remainer MPs had promised during the 2017 election campaign to honour the referendum result and play their part in securing Brexit. Almost to a man, they broke that promise and instead obstructed the process in every way they could.

One of the most blatant moves was to pass into law a provision that made it unlawful for the UK to leave the EU without a “deal”. I’ve commented before on how this move gave the EU’s negotiators tremendous power in making unreasonable demands of the UK and refusing any compromises.

The House of Lords was even worse. I’m not going into the history of treachery and betrayal over the period from the June 2016 referendum to late 2020 in Parliament. The important point is that until the 2019 General Election Remainers, both in Parliament and on May’s negotiating team, were openly and brazenly defying the referendum result.

Boris’s negotiators, headed by Lord Frost, were a little better, but not much. Their main fault was that they appeared to treat the EU negotiators as if they were genuine in wanting a deal that was mutually beneficial. That was a mistake. The EU wanted everything and didn’t want to have to give anything in return.

At least by this stage the UK’s negotiators had the prospect, and soon the reality, of a UK Parliament that had a pro-Brexit majority. It was only when Parliament repealed the notorious law requiring a “deal” and passed a new law binding the UK to leaving the EU by no later than 31st December 2020, with or without a deal, that the EU negotiators reluctantly eased their unreasonable demands and started to compromise in some areas.

Even so, the process of extricating the UK from the morass that the EU has become, was lengthy and complicated. Further months of negotiations followed. Deadlines came and went. There had to be a deal, if a “no-deal Brexit” was to be avoided, by no later than 20th December 2020.

Everything is covered

Negotiations still regularly ground to a halt. The EU seemed to enjoy displaying itself to the world in its true colours – an oppressive, intolerant, stiffling and anti-democratic bureaucracy. In the end Boris had to meet in person with Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, and smooth things out. The Agreement was announced on Christmas Eve 2020 to tremendous applause from the populist media.

That gave only a week, including the Christmas holiday break, for the Agreement to be scrutinised for any sign of a sell-out. The Conservative “European Research Group” instructed its “Star Chamber” of “top lawyers” to examine the document – all 1,426 pages of it – to determine if it really did deliver the Brexit promised.

This was duly done, or so we’re assured, and the genuineness of the Brexit deal negotiated was pronounced.

If Tory Brexiteers like Andrew Bridgen did actually read the full text of the TCA as they claim to have done, in the space of just a few days, then it was indeed a superhuman achievement.

The Agreement itself must be one of the most verbose, tedious, long-winded and unreadable documents ever produced in history. Page after page of it contain tables which in turn contain lists of things such as all the species of fish and animals likely to be affected by certain provisions, constituent parts of industrial products, agricultural products, medicinal products, and more, that have rules, and exceptions to those rules, for us all to enjoy. On and on it goes.

The Brussels bureaucrats who drafted the agreement sought to cover every possible permutation of every possible eventuality in all the minutia of commercial life that could possibly be imagined. Nothing has been left to chance. The problem with an agreement like that, as every lawyer knows, is that by defining everything you end up defining nothing. Rich pickings lie ahead for lawyers, especially those in the UK who specialise in European law, and those in Europe who specialise in UK law.

In the next part of this post, I will be looking at the TCA in some detail while at the same time attempting to preserve the sanity of my readers.

Click here to read Part 2 in this series, “The Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.

Click here to read Part 3 in this series, “Nothing ‘free’ about this Free Trade Agreement”.

Click here to read Part 4 in this series, “Fisheries”.

Click here to read Part 5 in this series, “What we face from the EU post-Brexit”.

Brexit – After the 2019 Election

Philip Gegan

The dust has settled, at least for the moment. Boris Johnson and his Conservative Party won comfortably on December 12th. Labour and the Lib Dems were routed.

It wasn’t a landslide, but it was convincing enough, and his majority should see Boris safely through the next five years if he chooses.

The Conservative Party won 43.6 per cent of the vote, and 365 seats (up by 48). Labour won 32.2 per cent and 202 seats (down by 60), and the Lib Dems won 11.5 per cent and 11 seats (down 1). No doubt many of us were unkind enough to cheer loudly when learning that former Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson had lost her seat (after bragging on national radio early in the campaign that she may be Prime Minister by the end of it).

brexit after the 2019 general election
2016 – Simple question asked – simple answer given!

Many other prominent Remainers either stood down or were dumped by their electors. We now, for the time being, have a Parliament that, on the paramount question of Brexit, more or less reflects the feelings of the British electorate.

How will Boris Johnson use
his comfortable majority?

Will the Prime Minister use his majority to put up a tough stance in future EU negotiations and ensure a proper, genuine Brexit? Or will he use it to give himself room to waver and ditch his hard line Brexit supporters so as to sell out to the European Union?

brexit after the 2019 general election
We can’t place our trust in these people – former Brexit Party members Annunziata Rees-Mogg, Lance Forman, Lucy Harris and John Longworth, who all deserted to the Tories during the 2019 General Election campaign.

What are the signs? Well, Boris Johnson has a history of genuine dislike of the European Union. In his years as Editor of the Spectator magazine it ran frequent editorials highly critical of the EU. In the 2016 Referendum Campaign he was one of the leading campaigners in favour of leaving, having resigned from David Cameron’s cabinet so he could do this. He later resigned from his post of Foreign Secretary in Mrs May’s Cabinet in protest against her sell-out deal with Brussels.

Even if he is a career politician, which most likely he is, then he has nailed his Euro-sceptic colours to the mast so firmly that he cannot start watering them down even if he wanted to. He carefully manoeuvred himself into a position where he was almost unassailable in last summer’s campaign to replace Mrs May as Tory leader.

And in the time when he was Prime Minister in the rump Parliament, where he had no party political majority, and certainly no pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons, he steered a way through the minefield laid by the Remainers of all parties. He worked patiently and skilfully until he was able to force Corbyn and the Labour Party to accept that a General Election was the only way out of the deadlock

brexit after the 2019 general election
We may have to place our trust in people like these four Tory hardliners, Steve Baker, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Mark Francois and Sir Bill Cash, to hold Boris to account on Brexit.

The new Withdrawal Agreement

The second major indicator of how Johnson will use his majority lies in the Withdrawal Agreement. This was originally negotiated by Boris Johnson with the EU in October 2019 but has been subtly changed since December 12th. All the concessions that had to be made to the Remainers in the autumn have been deleted.

No longer will the Government have to go back to the Commons regularly for approval of its negotiating objectives for each new phase of talks. This original requirement was simply an excuse to bring negotiations to a halt, at times, and trap the Government in a quagmire of deadlines and points of order.

The transition period remains, and will be with us until 31st December 2020. In that period we will still be in the Single Market and the Customs Union. We will also have to continue rubber-stamping EU law onto our Statute Book until the end of 2020.

But the power of the EU to interfere in how we manage the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic has been reduced drastically. This little sub-saga is almost certainly by no means played out yet, but at least we appear to be getting all our borders back under our own control.

Clauses in the original Withdrawal Bill that pledged to align our laws on workers’ rights with corresponding laws in the EU are now gone. The Queen’s Speech contained, instead, a promise that our own workers’ rights would be “protected and enhanced”, but under our own employment law.

Getting free of the chains

This is a most welcome development, as it not only restores another section of our national sovereignty but also gives the lie to yet another of the Remainers’ arguments – that the UK has benefited from the EU’s supposedly superior and benevolent workers’ rights.

In reality, these laws were designed to ensure that our industries didn’t have an “unfair advantage” over their EU counterparts, thereby stifling enterprise and innovation. We are all – shop floor and management – well shot of them.

Another welcome move is the rejection by the UK of obligations imposed on us by the EU to give special rights to unaccompanied foreign children seeking asylum in our country.

Whilst ostensibly seeking to “preserve family life”, obligations like these are invariably used by cynical people-traffickers to make even more money by being able to charge for smuggling children as well as adults. And the left used them to ensure that, once an illegal migrant had made it over the Channel he could lawfully call for his whole family to join him here.

We are, however, under another obligation – this time to make a statement within two months of the passing of the Act, presumably to satisfy the EU that we have a similar kind of law for the protection of foreign children who land here. This is an example of how the EU will continue to interfere in our internal affairs if we let it.

The boot’s on the other foot

But finally there is the coup de grace. This comes as a double blow to the EU and the Remainers. First, the Government is no longer promising to keep in line with the “Political Declaration” that accompanied the original Withdrawal Agreement in future negotiations with the EU. This “Political Declaration” was simply a device to be used by the EU negotiators in preventing the UK from negotiating from a position of strength.

If our negotiators put forward proposed terms that were deemed too tough (or resisted onerous terms proposed by the EU) the EU would be able to accuse us of deviating from the “Political Declaration”. The ECJ would back them up, if necessary. It was another example of how the EU rang rings around Theresa May, probably with her consent, as it meant that in the negotiations, we could never win. We could only lose.

But the hammer blow is this. Any extension to the transition period beyond 31st December 2020 has been outlawed. This completely puts the boot on the other foot. Until now, pressure has always been totally on the UK negotiators to accept whatever deal they could get from the EU so as to avoid having to apply for an extension.

That pressure is now on the EU negotiators. If no agreement is reached by 31st December then we leave without one, and commence trading with EU countries on WTO terms.

This would cause far more damage and disruption to the EU and its member states than it would to the UK. Let us now see how prevaricating and obstructionist the EU negotiators and their pals here in the UK are going to be, now that they are the ones having to fight an uphill battle against the clock!

Standing up to Brussels

There’s another indicator still. How does Johnson react to bullying from Brussels? Especially now that he has a pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons. The answer came even before the General Election took place.

After the 2019 elections to the European Parliament the term of office of the President of the Commission, together will all Commissioners, came to a close. That means goodbye to Junker but hello to someone equally obnoxious – Ursula von der Leyen (nee Albrecht) – with whom Johnson had a high profile meeting on January 8th. At that meeting, Johnson made it clear that any trade deal between the UK and the EU won’t be based on any “alignment” of UK laws with EU law. In other words, once we’ve left we won’t carry on acting as if we were still inside that wretched bloc. That makes a refreshing change from what we had to endure under Mrs May.

Another interesting pointer is this. The UK should have appointed a new Commissioner in November 2019. Every other EU member did so. However, as anyone with a modicum of common sense would realise, there wasn’t much point in doing so, as we’ll have left by the end of January. Such a Commissioner would only be in the job for a couple of months, including the extensive Christmas break.

The Government therefore decided not to make any such appointment. The European Commission launched a legal action against the UK Government to force it to make an appointment, but the Government have stood firm. In fact they appear to have treated the whole matter with the contempt it deserves. The EU Commission have shown themselves to be more interested in power than good government.

2020 – The year of national
freedom from the EU!

So in answer to our question, it seems on the evidence currently available that the Prime Minister is prepared to force on the EU a genuine Brexit.

He must know that the EU negotiators, and the Commission generally, are dishonest crooks who will do whatever they can even now to frustrate a proper withdrawal of the UK from the EU. However, he has so far shown himself to be more than a match for them. He was wrong-footing them even when he himself had no Brexit majority in the House of Commons. Now he has the whip hand, the likes of Barnier and Ursula von der Leyen, the new Commission President, have had all the wind taken out of them.

A close escape

In being able to free our country from the clutches of the EU we have been extremely fortunate. Even now, Remainers and Euro-Federalists are plotting to bring about a situation in which we can be recaptured. Before the end of December 2019 the Vice President of the EU Commission bragged about how the European Army is now a reality.

Do you remember how the Remainers dismissed our claims in 2016 that this Army was on the drawing board? How they derided such a notion! Well, now it’s fact. Here she is, boasting openly about it. Note how she claims that such a thing would never have been possible “even six months ago”.

But the price is
eternal vigilence

We have a duty to follow all the negotiations to ensure that we have a genuine Brexit, and not a Brexit in name only. We must be forever vigilant, for if we lose sight of what’s happening we can be sure that the EU and its many supporters in the UK will act quickly to start a process that will enslave us once again. If that ever happens you can be sure there will be no escape a second time. And then the fight against globalisation and a One World Government really will be lost for good.

Boris Johnson has found himself in a position of sacred, national trust. The whole nation is looking to him to deliver on a promise that was made nearly four years ago and that other politicians have cynically and cruelly betrayed. We expect him to resist the temptations and pressures that will be heaped upon him by pro-EU forces in their efforts to dislodge him from his purpose. But at the same time we all are obligated to give him all the support he needs and to place no obstacle in his way in making our country free again.

Watch this space.

Brexit – where are we now?

Philip Gegan

We’ve heard so much in the news about

(a) the need for a “deal”; Remainers in Parliament have even passed a law prohibiting a “no-deal” Brexit;

(b) how a second referendum would “let the people decide”; and

(c) if we do insist on leaving, the need to follow the procedure set out in Section 50.

What are we to make of all this? At this time, only two things are clear.

(a) The majority of people in this country want us to leave the EU without any further delay. This includes the “Single Market”, the “Customs Union”, the “European Court of Justice” (sic) and all the other myriad institutions and bodies set up (both before and after the 2016 referendum) in order to make leaving the EU, for any “member-state”, impossible.

(b) The Establishment is determined to prevent us from leaving. If it goes along with Boris Johnson’s “deal” then that will only be because, although considerably better than Theresa May’s deal, it is still not a genuine withdrawal.

Do we need a “deal” at all?

Contrary to what many supporters of Brexit say, we do, strictly speaking, need a deal of some kind in order to continue trading with member-countries of the European Union.

The over-riding problem is this. Over the years the EU has gradually absorbed more and more powers and functions that were formerly exercised by the sovereign nations that were foolish enough to surrender such powers. One of these powers was the ability to conclude trade deals with other countries, both inside and outside the EU (the Customs Union and the Single Market saw to that).

This power is a fundamental component of national sovereignty. Now, no member of the EU can conclude such deals; they’ve lost the power, along with their national sovereignty.

This is an unfortunate fact, but the key difference between it and what the Remainers would have us believe, is that the correct order of events should be not to negotiate a deal and then leave the EU, but to ignore Section 50, leave the EU and only then negotiate a deal.

Let it not be lost on us that individual European countries would invariably be pleased to negotiate a trade deal with us, if they still had the power. But the EU has usurped that power, and will undoubtedly use it against us instead of for the common good of all. They do not want us to thrive outside the EU, and they are not interested in giving us a deal. All they want to do is to try to coerce us into re-applying for membership.

Negotiate from a position of strength

The next problem is this. Any dispute involving two “member states” of the EU, or involving a “member state” (which is what the UK still is) on the one hand and the EU Commission on the other can only be resolved by the EU itself through its Court of Justice (ECJ).

Such a system is contrary to natural justice and to common sense. The ECJ will always rule in favour of the EU. That’s what it’s there for. For that reason alone, the procedure of trying to negotiate a deal whilst still inside the EU is madness.

We should have placed ourselves in the same position as Canada, Mexico, or Japan. That is, outside the EU, and negotiating from a position of strength, free from the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Another tool to try and stop Brexit

There’s another important point about not leaving the EU without a “deal”. I’ve covered this before, but it’s worth mentioning again. If you go into negotiations of whatever kind loudly declaring that you won’t come away without an agreement with the other side then you seriously need certifying. Yet this is what the Remainers have done, time and again.

You have to reserve to yourself the option to “walk away”. For anyone claiming to be compos mentis to vote in favour of a law making a “no deal” Brexit unlawful is simply absurd.

In reality, these people knew exactly what they were doing. They were using all this nonsense as another tool to try and stop Brexit altogether.

Remainer hypocrisy about
a “Second referendum”

Now let’s deal with all the Remainer pressure for a second referendum.

There’s a very important reason why a second referendum should not take place. A referendum in UK politics is a very rare event, and rightly so. Up to 1975, when the first referendum took place over whether we should remain in what was then the EEC, there had been no referendums in our history.

The 2016 referendum was the first nationwide referendum in the UK to have taken place since 1975. The device has been used as infrequently as it has because it has been universally recognised that too many referendums would weaken the government and tend to make the country unstable.

It is completely unacceptable to have another referendum on the same question (whatever the question may be — not just Brexit) so soon after the original (the same applies to the proposed second referendum for Scotland on “independence” from the UK).

The reason is that if there is a second referendum it would completely undermine the whole concept of referendums. Not only that, but,

(a) if the result is the same as the first one, then it would be shown to have been a complete waste of time and money, and

(b) if the result is different then which result should prevail? And who should decide?

If the first result, then why have the second referendum at all? If the second result, that would almost certainly lead to civil unrest, as supporters of the first result will rightly feel they have been gravely wronged and deprived of the result they worked and made sacrifices for.

The end of referendums?

In either outcome, it would fatally weaken the concept of referendums (as well as democracy itself), as the next time a referendum was proposed people would be inclined not to vote at all on the basis that, “if we vote the wrong way they’ll simply make us have another one until we vote the way they want us to vote“.

And they would be right. The concept of referendums would thereby be destroyed.

In any event, calling for a second referendum is intrinsically hypocritical. Had the result in 2016 been the other way round and Leavers had called for a second referendum then you can imagine the avalanche of derision and mockery we would have had to endure at the hands of the Remainers and the mass media. They would have pulled no punches in telling us to grow up and accept the result.

When the 1975 referendum produced a “Stay in the EEC” outcome, we who had campaigned to leave stoically accepted the result without calling for another referendum, even though we still continued our opposition to UK membership of what was then the European Economic Community (EEC).

Do we need to comply with Section 50?

This article was signed up to, on our behalf, by Tony Blair, in December 1997 as part of the Lisbon Treaty, which was ratified by Parliament in 1998. Blair and his government had absolutely no mandate to bind this country in such a way, and it’s especially ironic that this nonentity of a former Prime Minister now struts around pretending to be a “democrat” and telling us that we can’t leave.

The truth of the matter is that such a clause would never be upheld by an impartial court. It would most probably be held to be unnecessarily burdensome, so there was no need to comply. We could have parted company with the EU before the end of 2016.

Boris Johnson’s new deal

Now Boris Johnson has a new deal, essentially the same as Theresa May’s deal, though with a few concessions in our favour. It has got rid of the Irish backstop, but at a price. The EU will have powers to station customs officials (all of them, of course, immune from prosecution) at our ports to ensure that goods shipped to Northern Ireland (and therefore not subject to any excise duties) are charged duties as if they were going to the EU.

Only when they have arrived in Northern Ireland will they be de-bonded and the excise duties made liable to refund. Northern Ireland businesses selling their goods to the mainland will have to complete a customs declaration. What a charade!

And all, of course, subject to the over-riding jurisdiction of the “European Court of Justice”.

Ongoing obligations under the “deal” inhibit our ability to modernise industrial infrastructure and practices by requiring us to prevent them from acquiring any competitive advantage compared to similar industries in the EU.

Using this part of the “deal”, the ECJ can step in at any time and sabotage any trade deal we are about to sign with an outside country, e.g. the US. So much for regaining our national sovereignty.

It must be said, however, that Johnson has been far tougher than May (who basically agreed to everything the EU demanded). For example, at least Northern Ireland is staying within the UK’s customs territory, and not ceded to the EU as it would have been under May’s appalling deal.

The coming general election

Until recently, hopes have been high in the Brexit camp that the Brexit Party would do sufficiently well in the coming General Election to win at least several seats, and possibly hold the “balance of power”. Johnson would be forced to implement a genuine Brexit in order to save his political career.

If only it were this simple. Those of us hardened racial nationalists who were around in the heyday of the National Front, in the 1970s, know just how difficult it is for a new political party to make any impact at a General Election.

In by-elections and European elections voters are more prepared to vote for the party or candidate or party leader that they most prefer. Minority and new parties often do well.

But in a General Election it’s different. The electorate, at a General Election, vote negatively. That is, they tend to vote against the candidate, or the party leader, or the party, that they hate and fear the most. There’s too much at stake to do otherwise.

The likely outcome

It’s never wise to try and predict the outcome of a General Election. Probably most voters currently hate and fear Labour and Jeremy Corbyn most, and want to keep them out of office. Sadly, in most constituencies the only way to do that is to vote Tory. This doesn’t bode well for the Brexit Party, and Nigel Farage knows this.

That, and not wanting to risk splitting the pro-Brexit vote, is probably why he has decided not to contest seats won by the Tories in 2017. It is alleged that some other Brexit Party candidates have been bribed by the Tories to stand down at the last minute.

As a result, it looks increasingly likely that the Tories will be the largest party after December 12th, and possibly have an absolute majority. As a political party, they will be united, on the surface at least.

The pro-Brexit faction will think the UK is free from the EU, while the Remainers will smirk in the knowledge that secret entanglements prevent a genuine withdrawal, and in the meantime they will work secretly to facilitate the UK’s re-entry into the EU in a few years’ time when a suitable pretext arises.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media will be able to convince us that democracy prevailed and that the strings still tying us to the EU and neutralising our sovereignty were authorised by the Tories’ convincing win at the polls. The fact that hardly anyone knew about them until afterwards will be ignored.

Johnson’s real motives

Johnson is a chancer by nature, and he took a chance in early 2016 when, with the referendum taking place in a few months, he threw his hat into the “Leave” camp, resigning from David Cameron’s Cabinet in order to be free to campaign.

Since then he has been careful to take advantage of all the in-fighting in the Conservative Party over Brexit so as to (eventually) manoeuvre himself into the leadership of the party and, as such, the post of Prime Minister.

So for Boris Johnson it’s all about his career in politics, his position as Prime Minister, and the success of the Conservative Party in the forthcoming General Election. He’s happy for most Brexit supporters to carry on believing that his “deal” with the reptilian “European Union” is the real thing, as long as he wins the election and retains his role as Prime Minister. He’s riding a tiger and he’s betting everything he has on staying on top of it.

Hope for the future

Boris Johnson’s deal is far from being a genuine Brexit, but we can console ourselves in the knowledge that it is merely the start of something much larger. Just think – if the Remainers had won the referendum then without a doubt further centralisation of powers in the EU, and further transfers of national sovereignty and power to the EU would have swiftly followed.

Even now we would most likely have the reality of a European Army, the Orwellian “European Arrest Warrant”, and the pending abolition of sterling, to be replaced by the Euro.

Even entrenched pillars of our ancient system of common law would be eroded by now, with the abolition of such guarantors of our liberties as the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus (in the name of “harmonising” our laws to EU law).

So we have much to be thankful for. We have managed to avoid having the doomed Euro foisted upon us, and we also kept out of the Shengen Agreement. And key parts of our ancient liberties remain more or less intact.

Under the deal, we’ll be free of the ECJ at the end of the transition period, in January 2021. That alone is a massive blow to the Euro-federalists.

All these things, together with the Soros/Merkel backed Afro-Asian “refugee” invasion of Europe, the economic downturn the more prosperous European nations are now facing, and increasing Europe-wide opposition to Brussels, will lead to even more EU instability.

This in turn should encourage other Euro-sceptic nations, such as Hungary, Poland and Italy, to follow Britain’s example in regaining their national independence.

The days of the European Union are now surely numbered.

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.

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 ï¿¡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.