Welcome to euexit.com
Thursday 13th August 2020
Our children deserve better - governments should stop fiddling with our education system - update.
Thursday 13th August 2020
Our children deserve better - governments should stop fiddling with our education system - update.
Thursday 13th August 2020
Those Left Behind?
Following on from the previous comments yesterday entitle “No-one Left Behind” the results of the government’s “Triple Lock” plan for A level grade selection after it was finally revealed that 35% of pupil final results were dropped by one grade, and 3% were dropped by 2 grades.
This is devastating news for those affected - and in anticipation of a backlash from parents, schools and unions the government has requested that the Universities are understanding of the circumstances when allocating places.
This is the worst of all worlds for some students who have been very badly let down by the education system - the entire education system since the 1960s.
According to Gavin Williamson - the Education Minister - some teachers were giving higher predictions to their pupils than those that would be expected, but that represented the 35% who might then be rejected by their chosen University?
A-Level Grade - Triple Lock
The government’s solution to the problem of poor grading is to offer the pupils the choice of their Mock grade, the grade calculated by the computer algorithm or undertake the real examinations in Autumn 2020.
Basically, the schools must do whatever they can to find a satisfactory outcome for each pupil - which could be made easier with the increased number of places available - previously expected to be filled by overseas students.
The bottom line though is that the government (or its civil service) have applied a poorly designed computer program to solve a complex problem which they hoped would smooth over the process of allocating correct grades to those who were not able to take the public examinations because of Covid-19 pandemic.
But it has simply reduced the options of the poorer, disadvantaged children and made it even harder for them to obtain their ambitions and fulfil their dreams of a brighter future - particularly, amid an unprecedented worldwide crisis.
There must be more government and University support to ensure that none of these children suffer as the result of a poorly thought out computer program, which appears to have been applied without proper due diligence and testing.
In contrast to Wales and Northern Ireland, England and Scotland stopped using the AS- Level award - the government predicted grades were closer to those predicted by the teachers from AS Mock exams in NI and Wales.
A Way Forward
Based upon the idea that every problem also presents opportunities - software using AI algorithm “training” on the massive database available to the government could be used to find the necessary changes that would provide a viable semi-automatic system.
This would also necessitate the use of checks and quality control procedures to ensure that the results are being interpreted correctly - if, in fact, that is feasible.
We cannot allow this farce to happen again.
EU’s Pirate Fishermen
The 23 gigantic “factory” trawlers operating in our protected marine zones are doing so to claim the right to fish on our fishing grounds after the 31stDecember 2020.
The longer they keep occupying our fishing ground the more their claims would be given credence.
Come back from your “Glamping” holiday Boris!
Stop this nonsense, guard our fishing grounds with the Royal Navy - or our fishermen will have to risk their lives defending our sovereign rights.
While you are at it ensure that our children are back at school full-time by September 2020.
Stop the Union interference and declare an emergency if necessary - stop pussyfooting around.
Get on with sacking senior Civil Servants en mass - they are not doing anything but undermining the government anyway, and they are too scared of their shadows to go to work, or to be of any use to the country, or too EU compliant to be of much use looking after the UK's interests.
Get the rest of the Civil Service working for the British people - not for the EU or Blair.
Start rebuilding our armed forces and ensure no deals with the EU to pay or support defending the EU - most of whom would rather see the UK destroyed than give the UK any kind of workable deal.
No deal is the only viable option for the UK, otherwise, we will be dragged back in, on one excuse or another.
Wednesday 12th August 2020
No-one is left behind?
The government is trying to get around the A-Level grade trap that caught the SNP unprepared.
Why the SNP could not anticipate the outcome of taking grades that were available from unregulated Mock Exams and Teacher Assessments and setting them against a computer model designed to predict the future pupil results from previous school performances.
This is the current vogue for anyone who believes that computer modelling can solve all our problems – by predicting the future in advance – whether that is Economic forecasting, Climate Change, weather forecasting, beating Covid-19, predicting the winner of a General Election or a Referendum or beating the Stock Exchange.
Talk about mixing “Apples and Pears”:
Teacher Assessments are generally incorrect (~80%), but only because they take an optimistic view based upon an expectation of the maximum achievable grade by a pupil, rather than, a more realistic assessment which would take account of the stress and pressure of examinations on the day - which can only be overcome by preparation, revision and hard work.
Mock Exams are expected to cover the understanding of basics of the course topics- which would be built upon with more advanced topics/extensions and a programme of intense revision closer to the actual public exams.
It is these results that set the mood for the rest of the academic year, with a poor result leading to extra tuition at school and perhaps a tutor – if the parent can afford one.
A good result can lead to a little too much relaxation and diversion. In general, if the student does well at the Mock and they are normally consistent - then this can be a reasonable indicator of a good outcome in the public examinations - but sometimes, real-life gets in the way.
Not all of the pupils have a smooth build-up to the Mocks – some are affected by external concerns at home, some are not motivated, and some could not careless – so they are not perfect indicators either.
Previous School Results are the worst possible way of predicting the performance of an individual from a whole school result – what were the SNP and our government thinking?
The government could provide the Universities with the grade indicated by each of the above assessment methods and let them decide on the suitability of the student for a particular University course – with “enthusiasm for the subject, commitment to learning and ideally an aptitude for the subject” being the most important criteria.
The Bottom Line
After years of dumbing down under “New” Labour and the recent clumsy attempt by the Tories to rectify those failings – but instead mitigating lack of knowledge with lower grade boundaries – Universities have been routinely requiring a good number of new students to take a “Foundation Year” to catch-up where the system has failed them.
This obviously means that the length of the course is extended, the student incurs greater debt through no fault of their own – but the University management still get to keep their little fiefdoms and live the “Life of Riley”, essentially, at the UK taxpayers’ expense.
This has been the reality for some time now, and some Universities are handing out rather a lot of First Class Honours Degrees - not because of some new age of excellent teaching – but to compensate for the dumbing down, in a never-ending spiral of making sure everyone is “seen to be more special” - in a nod to Cultural Marxism - using equality laws to ensure that everyone is unequal in a way that only the Left can get away with.
The result of which is that world-class research is jeopardised by the political left who are determined to destroy the UK State education system (that was what Blair planned to do when he said “Education, Education, Education”). Meanwhile, they send their own progeny to private or other selective high-performing schools and pay for private tuition to ensure they don’t fall short of expectation - since many would not make the grade on their own merit..
In the end, University education has already been dumbed down to compensate for failings in the state sector, meanwhile the Universities rely more on overseas students and the private sector - and many of our home-grown talented youngsters never reach the surface.
What matters in these extraordinary times is that our pupils are given every chance to succeed - so they should be allowed to have the best grade that they could realistically achieve.
That way they can get on with learning and leading more fulfilling lives - despite efforts by the teaching Unions to prevent them from ever returning to full-time education
Monday 10th August 2020
Teacher's Union – Shameful Behaviour
The teachers should be working with the government to put together a viable, managed system where our children can be taught safely, full-time – from September 2020.
If they are just using the Covid-19 pandemic to get one over on the government – as is widely seen to be the case by the general public - they should have their wages docked for any non-teaching time which was properly allocated, and for which they had no legal right to refuse.
With an 80-seat majority in Parliament the government should pass legislation to cap the pay of Union leaders pay to below that of the Prime Minister. Why should peevish trade unionists benefit financially when their primary objective is to undermine the duly elected government.
I do not believe that most teachers are of the mindset of their leaders and spend their time happily singing the praises of cult leader Jeremy Corbyn, while simultaneously working to ensure that the education system suffers a complete collapse.
Hopefully, my instinct is correct, and the schools will be open and operating in a manner fit for purpose from September 2020 onward.
EU Migrant Flood
This current round of good weather is being exploited by the EU for all it is worth – it is not surprising though as we edge towards the exit door on the 31st December 2020.
After which date, deal or no deal, the UK can move on from 46 years of being under the thumb of a foreign power based in Brussels but controlled from Berlin. This situation was facilitated by our very own elected representatives (1st January 1972 to 20th December 2019).
After that date the majority in the House of Commons would vote to carry forward the wishes of the British people who voted to be independent (truly independent – not the pretend SNP kind of “Independence”).
At the beginning of July 2020 Germany took over the Presidency of the EU Council and Angela Merkel stated that Germany would use the six months to bring about major changes in the EU.
However, Merkel’s primary objective is to either (a) prevent the UK leaving altogether or (b) ensure that the UK is on a tight EU leash or (c) the UK is economically crippled so that it cannot present as a threat to the German hegemony.
Merkel was, along with Theresa May, a prime mover when it came to the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration (WAPD) – Theresa May was obviously happier in the company of the EU representatives within the EU than with being Prime Minster of the UK.
That is also patently clear from the nature and content of the agreement that she struck – quite voluntarily or perhaps even at her own insistence. Theresa May though went much further reportedly, by arranging Defence deals behind the back of the UK Parliament.
These deals are designed to tie the UK under EU control and trap the UK into financially supporting EU defence institutions – involving UK Military and Civilian assets and Research – these arrangements need to be annulled before the 31st of December 2020.
Merkel is planning on becoming directly involved in the next round of talks in September 2020 – and she will, almost certainly, be negotiating in private in Berlin with Boris Johnson, as she did with May.
This will be new territory for Boris – he was at the receiving end of the WAPD at Chequers in July 2018 when May presented parts of the documents and he agreed but resigned later – after being forced to agree to it under duress. Boris described attempts to present the deal as good for the UK as “polishing the turd”.
Migration through the EU
The vast movement of people through the EU, Belgium and France at least, to the UK is clearly coordinated by the EU – not because of Brexit, but enhanced because of it.
It will continue until either (a) the Channel becomes too dangerous to cross due to bad weather or (b) the government does something about stopping it.
As things stand the UK has to accept all existing and any new EU laws during the “Transition” period and in December 2018 the UK was signed up to the “UN’s Global Compact for Migration” by Theresa May – which treats all migrants as legal – even if they are actually illegal under every other definition.
The origin of this current Migrant crisis lies with a meeting between Peter Sutherland – UN Special Representative for International Migration – and Peers at a House of Lords Committee on Migration in 2012 as reported by Brian Wheeler in a BBC as “EU should undermine the homogeneity of its member states and make them Multicultural”. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-18519395
This report shows that “the UN has been at war with the white Christian populations of Europe” since at least 2012.
In fact, this was also tried earlier in the UK by Tony Blair and “New” Labour who facilitated mass immigration into the UK via the EU between 1997 and 2010 behind the backs of the British people – but under the same premise of “Multiculturalism”.
The largest attempt though was in 2015 when Angela Merkel gave free passage for any migrant from Syria to enter the EU and cross the sovereign borders of the member states to settle in Germany.
Of course, suddenly everybody became “Syrian” and the inner EU borders were effectively wide open to anyone from anywhere in the World – this was the main reason for the migration plot – to allow the EU to control the borders of its member states without asking their permission.
At the time Peter Sutherland was promoting mass immigration from Africa into the EU with the stipulation that all migrants should not have to integrate.
The scheme backfired as countries realised the magnitude of the problem that Merkel had unleashed on behalf of the UN.
Peter Sutherland died in January 2018 and the UN has since attempted to find others to take over Sutherland’s role – but too many people are aware of the UN’s plans, so they have been much less effective than Merkel and Sutherland were in 2015.
The UN came up with a new plot: the “UN Global Compact for Migration” and Theresa May signed us up to it.
Other factors that has not been mentioned is Blair’s regime change in Iraq, attacks in Libya, Afghanistan and Syria with western involvement – which are clearly resource related.
A few other points:
(a) it is widely assumed that Germany - which took in the largest migrant population in 2015 was not involved in any of these wars – but, far from it. Germany was involved in Syria on the ground and through sanctions which virtually destroyed Syria’s economy which also acted a migrant “Push”.
(b) during the time that “New” Labour opened the UK to mass migration Gordon Brown invented a “migrant magnet” benefit system with “Child” and “Working” tax credits which migrants could claim and elevate their earnings – a great migrant “Pull”.
(c) nothing changed after “New” Labour were removed from office - the ConLib government under Cameron and Clegg continued uncontrolled immigration; as did Cameron in 2015 and then Theresa May – nothing has changed – and nothing is likely to change until the after the 1st January 2021.
(d) finally, the unspoken Turkish problem – following the backlash to the 2015 mass immigration debacle Merkel paid Turkish President Erdogan to keep migrants in Turkey and out of the EU.
Erdogan has used this arrangement to extract more concessions from the EU with threats to release mass immigration into the EU – but the Greeks have prevented any further attempts to cross into Greece.
Meanwhile, Merkel has diverted funds to southern Spain to help with the control of migrants through that route.
Turkey is an existential threat to the EU as well as being a NATO member – at some point the immigrants in Turkey will end up in the EU.
Wednesday 5th August 2020
End of the British "Supreme" Court?
In an article by Richard Elkins entitled “It’s Time to rein in the Supreme Court” 3rd August 2020 he discussed the Lord Chancellor’s launch of an independent review of administrative law on Friday, and stated that:
“This is an important development in the government’s efforts to address the misuse of judicial power and balance of our constitution.”
“The review takes up part of the work the Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission was otherwise expected to undertake, confirming earlier reports that the Commission has been shelved and is to be replaced by a series of more narrowly cast panels.”
He goes on to state that “Political action to address the expansion of judicial power, and consequent unbalancing of the constitution, is long overdue.”
“Questioning the rise of judicial power is often unfairly caricatured as a personal attack on judges or an assault on the rule of law. On the contrary, the point of defending the traditional limits of the judicial role in our constitution is to vindicate the rule of law, as well as parliamentary democracy and effective government.”
“As Lord Reed, now president of the Supreme Court, pointed out in the first Miller case, 'the legalisation of political issues is not always constitutionally appropriate, and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary'.”
Later Elkins points out that: “The creation of the Supreme Court was clearly not intended to involve a change in substance. But, Lord Thomas notes, neither was much consideration given to its implications for self-restraint or accountability.”
" '...one clear effect of the move', he continues, 'has been to isolate the judges from Parliament [in contrast to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords] during a time when the constitution of the UK has undergone a series of uncoordinated changes and the focus of final appellate work has shifted towards judicial review, fundamental rights and devolution'.”
Previously, Elkins had published a paper in which he “… argued that in some cases the Supreme Court has misunderstood itself to be the guardian of the constitution, a misconception that one might begin to correct by renaming the Supreme Court the Upper Court of Appeal.”
Professor Derrick Wyatt QC had previously outlined proposals for institutional change at the highest level of the court system, in a new Policy Exchange paper:
“Professor Wyatt reflects on the reasons why the Supreme Court, like the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords before it, sometimes shrugs off constitutional limits and remakes the law.
"He reasons that hubris is a common feature of apex appellate courts, which do not need to fear reversal on appeal. (More important still, I say, is the wider judicial culture in which judges operate, to which the Human Rights Act 1998 is significant.)
"He concludes that renaming the court, while unobjectionable, would be insufficiently bold and proposes instead that Parliament replace the Supreme Court with a system in which final appellate jurisdiction would be exercised by changing panels of Court of Appeal judges, drawn from across England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who would thus form a Final Court of Appeal.”
The difference to the present system is that:
“There would be no permanent set of apex appellate judges. Instead, appeals would be heard by judges who would remain used to being reversed by their colleagues and who would thus be less likely to develop an exaggerated sense of their constitutional role. The final stage of appeal would be peer review for error correction, rather than hierarchical control.”
“ ... as matters stand, Parliament may correct the Supreme Court and should legislate in response to wayward judgments (a prime example is the Court’s recent decision to quash Gerry Adams’s 1975 conviction for escaping from lawful custody, a decision which unsettles how government operates and may unjustly require compensation to be paid to Adams and others).”
For the complete article: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-rein-in-the-supreme-court
The so-called British “Supreme” Court is nothing of the sort. It was setup by Blair in 2009 in order to remove the role of the House of Lords, it is a copy of the EU’s political European Court of Justice (ECJ), as such the UK version simply defers to the ECJ.
Our pretend “Supreme” Court did indeed seem to believe that it was, and declared as much, the “Guardians of the Constitution” but they must have been referring to the EU’s Constitution at the time – since under the Lisbon Treaty (2007) the EU declared supremacy over the Constitutions and Laws of its member states (see "Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty" at https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/
The comment “Guardians of the Constitution” (not one of Marvel Comics superheroes) was, I believe, declared by Lady Hale, Supreme Court Justice and erstwhile nemesis of Boris Johnson, who made the declaration on a lecture in Kuala Lumpur (see “Guardians of the Constitution” article on this website – 15th November 2016)
To understand the mindset of the Supreme Court it is worth reflecting (if you wish) on comments extracted from the lecture in Kuala Lumpur:
"...Talk of European Union law brings me at long last to a case of such fundamental constitutional importance that, when it does come to the “Supreme Court”, we plan that all eleven of the current serving Justices shall sit on it. As is well known, the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union produced a majority of 51.9% in favour of leaving.”
“But that referendum was not legally binding on Parliament.”
“There is, of course, no doubt that, just as Parliament made the law which brought European Union law into the UK legal order after the UK Government had entered into the accession treaty, Parliament can unmake that law. The question is the process whereby we arrive at that result. This entails the constitutional division of responsibility and power between the Government and Parliament”
I would have thought that those comments were enough to recuse any such political "Supreme" court from any adjudication related to “Brexit” or any interference within our Parliamentary system - on behalf of any third party vested interests.
Of course, no mention of the EU ever comes into the conversation when dealing with the British Supreme court, or law making within our parliament or actions taken by the UK government on behalf of the EU which are not obviously EU derived, as far as the general public are concerned. For example, the privatisation of our Royal Mail.
But that is because of a requirement within FCO:30/1048 (highlighted below with asterisks.
This Document was issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as “Advice to Ministers" setting out the implications for the UK of signing the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ACT (1972).
This document with others was placed under the Official Secrets Act 30-year-rule, and released in the early 2000s.
“Sovereignty and the European Community”
Selected and annotated excerpts:
11. Membership of the Communities will involve us in extensive limitations upon our freedom of action. For the first time. Parliament is binding its successors.
Increasing loss of sovereignty
The loss of external sovereignty will however increase as the Community develops, according to the intention of the preamble to the Treaty of Rome "to establish the foundations of an even closer union among the European peoples ".
Our law subservient
12. (ii) The power of the European Court to consider the extent to which a UK statute is compatible with Community Law will indirectly involve an innovation for us, as the European Court's decisions will be binding on our courts which might then have to rule on the validity or applicability of the United Kingdom statute.
Predicting monetary and military union
18..but it will be in the British interest after accession to encourage the development of the Community toward an effectively harmonised economic, fiscal and monetary system and a fairly closely coordinated and consistent foreign and defence policy. If it came to do so then essential aspects of sovereignty both internal and external would indeed increasingly be transferred to the Community itself.
No withdrawal, sovereignty diminished
22. Even with the most dramatic development of the Community the major member states can hardly lose the "last resort" ability to withdraw in much less than three decades. The Community's development could produce before then a period in which the political practicability of withdrawal was doubtful. If the point should ever be reached at which inability to renounce the Treaty (and with it the degeneration of the national institutions which could opt for such a policy) was clear, then sovereignty, external, parliamentary and practical would indeed be diminished.
"After entry (to EEC, 1972) there would be a major responsibility on HMG and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular measures or unfavourable economic developments to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community."
Transfer of the Executive
24 (ii) The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels will exacerbate popular feeling of alienation from government.
Erosion of sovereignty
24 (v) ...The more the Community is developed ... the more Parliamentary sovereignty will be eroded. ...The right ... to withdraw will remain for a very considerable time. ...The sovereignty of the State will surely remain unchallenged for this century at least.
The EU Bureaucracy will rule
25. The impact of entry upon sovereignty is closely related to the blurring of distinctions between domestic political and foreign affairs, to the greater political responsibility of the bureaucracy of the Community and the lack of effective democratic control.
(After: David Noakes)
Note: We have come a long way since the 23rdJune 2016 – “but we are not out of the woods yet”. Any relinquishment of any aspect of our sovereignty back to the EU would drag the UK back under EU control. Roll on the 31st December 2020 and real freedom.
The end of the current Blair "Supreme" Court would be a small step in rolling back the integration of the UK into the hands of those in Brussels and Berlin who view the "hapless" UK taxpayers as a "cash cow" to be milked dry with the help of their own elected representatives.
Monday 3rd August 2020
Boris’s New Peers
Boris has shown complete contempt for the people who elected him by continuing with the widely acknowledged corrupt practices at the highest level of government by, in this case, ennobling his brother, Jo Johnson, two Remain activist MP’s Ken Clarke / Phillip Hammond, and a knighthood for the husband of Theresa May. The former Prime Minister who had duped the British people over her “Brexit” negotiations for almost 3 years.
That is not to say that others did not deserve such reward - particularly those who worked so hard for to ensure that the UK would leave the control of the EU, including Kate Hoey, Gisella Stuart and Frank Field, and supporters of Brexit such as Ian Botham – but his choices leave much to be understood in some cases.
“Lord Fowler, a former Conservative cabinet minister, said the House will "soon be nearly 830 strong", accusing Mr Johnson of "the abandonment of an established policy" to reduce its membership.” https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1317112/House-of-Lords-reform-how-much-will-new-peers-cost-UK
This is Boris’s first go at ennobling those he favours – compare that with Cameron and Blair:
“Since 1999 the size of the House of Lords has increased by about a third. In the last five years alone, David Cameron has appointed 236 new peers, more than any prime minister has created since the system of life (as distinct from hereditary) peers was set up in 1958.” https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/08/28/cameron-packs-lords
During his first term of office, Blair created 203 life peers, whom the Conservatives referred to as "Tony's Cronies". (Wikipedia - Tony's Cronies)
The latest announcement by Boris was made during the Summer recess when no MP’s or Lords were sitting thereby ensuring no challenges to the appointments from the benches.
In total he has ennobled 36 new members of the House of Lords total cost of £1.1 million per annum in expenses – based upon average expense claims, as reported in the press.
Assuming the Lords was full (830 seats) then the annual cost to the taxpayer – for those who “ponce” around in Ermine and do little else, since joining the EU, would be about £25 million.
Let us hope that Boris learns from his mistakes.
Monday 27th July 2020
New Treason Laws
Boris has announced that new Treason Laws will be enacted:
“Johnson’s overhaul will see a new Treason Act, a new Espionage Act for tracking foreign agents and a rewriting of the Official Secrets Act to make it suitable for the digital era, the newspaper reported, citing Downing Street sources.” Mail on Sunday (26th July 2020).
This new legislation is billed as the biggest shakeup since 1695, it is taking place following criticisms contained the Parliament’s Intelligence Committee in the Russia report – these changes will be related to Russia, China and terrorists returning to the UK. These measures are expected to be on the “Statute Book” within months instead of years and bring Britain’s security services in line with allies such as the USA and Australia.
“The Treason Act will see anyone who swears an allegiance to a foreign power or organisation criminalised if they operate in or attempt to enter the UK.”
This would be applied, in particular to terrorists who have left the UK to join foreign forces which are a real or potential threat to the interests of the UK – such suspects who have been associated with terror groups for example but little criminal evidence is available from war zones they have operated within.
“…the Espionage Act would create a register of foreign agents of influence operating in the UK as well as clamping down on British citizens aiding the nation’s enemies.”
This is directed at “traditional spies” and others “such as bankers, lawyers and services suppliers who work to flout weak current laws in order to aid hostile regime figures and foreign criminals.”
Many of these measures were drawn up by Sajid Javid in 2019 in response to the “Russia’s Salisbury attack with a nerve agent” – which illustrated that there was no friendship or even open dealings with Russia that were reliable. In fact, “Britain was being taken advantage of by Russian Oligarchs using London as a financial laundromat.”
Added to that has been “the behaviour of the Chinese over Hong Kong and its treatment of the minority Uighur population.”
“In a similar way to Russia, China has been accused of blurring state and corporate activity. Beijing has been accused of using state backed businesses to takeover strategic UK companies – and where that failed resorting to corporate espionage.”
For example, “The arrest of a Roll-Royce engineer suspected of selling secrets to Beijing about Britain’s new F35 stealth fighter jet is just one reminder that we need to step up our efforts to thwart the growing threat from hostile states.”
These revelations beggar belief: It is clear that the UK has not been monitoring Russia and China because they assumed they were friends or at least not hostile – when there has been ample evidence that: Russia and China are collaborating and each still hold onto the ambition of a world Communist state. CCP reaffirmed its Communist ideology in China in 2013:
“An important Communist Party policy meeting in 2013, called the Third Plenum, called for a larger role for markets in China’s economy while retaining a strong role for the state https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinese-communist-party
A liberalised economy in China played no role in the basic CCP ideology: its roots are firmly entrenched. In a similar way that the EU follows the old Soviet Union – also using Capitalism to further its left-wing Authoritarian instincts.
Even worse than the UK’s blindness to world events outside of the EU under Theresa May:
Donald Trump’s administration has been warning the EU about Russia and the UK about China – even though he has been treated abysmally by the EU and the UK under Angela Merkel and Theresa May respectively.
Further, specific warnings were given by Trump about the EU Member States not fulfilling their commitments to NATO – with Germany leading the charge; and the dangers of Huawei in our strategic communications infrastructure and elsewhere.
Germany under Merkel (“Former” East German Communist) represents the greatest danger to the EU – it is tied strongly to Russia through Nordstream 2 – Russia supplying natural gas to the EU via Germany - and with China through investment and more seriously because of China’s influence through funding of political parties in Bavaria.
If, in a worse case scenario, Donald Trump does not win the November US Presidential Election then America under a left-wing Biden administration – heavily influence by the more extreme left-wing factions in Congress could lead the US to form part of a Global Alliance with Russia, China and the EU – and embrace Totalitarianism.
Finally, “updating our Official Secrets Act, taking economic espionage as seriously as our state secrets. But we cannot do this alone. If the forces of freedom are divided, the forces of authoritarianism will rule. That’s why it’s vital we bolster alliances with all those who share our values, starting with a strategy of solidarity between our Five Eyes partners – Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America.
We must also extend a hand to other like-minded nations such as Japan and South Korea and encourage some EU members to be less neutral in this battle of values.”
All of this sounds very sensible and now acknowledged as vital – the UK should never have allowed itself to be controlled by the EU or any other Foreign power – the stakes were always too high.
Those in our political system who acted in the interest of the EEC(EU) against our interests need to be brought to book.
Let’s hope that the present Conservative government under Boris Johnson does not let the UK electorate down, as other governments have done so disastrously before.
Friday 24th July 2020
Homeowners should pay!
“The left-leaning Social Market Foundation is proposing a 10 per cent tax on the gain made from a rise in house prices when a property is sold, or when it is inherited after the owner's death.”
My response to the above article in the Daily Mail was that it was:
"An iniquitous idea based upon the politics of envy and the false premise that those who own a house caused the Covid-19 pandemic and should therefore pay for its effects through the nose. We need to outlaw the extreme left from our society before they enact Chapter 2 (3) of the Soviet Constitution 1918
This topic was commented upon earlier last Friday (17th July 2020) under ‘Labour’s Politics of Envy’ – this time a different aspect is covered.
New Labour was initially elected with a majority of 179 in 1997, an astonishing win giving them almost unlimited power in our system of politics.
Its election success was achieved by conning the British public that the Labour had “seen the light” and was ready to embrace Capitalism (Business anyway).
New Labour was (still is) further to the Left than Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum - and many times more dangerous to the UK population. It presented as well-dressed Lawyers in fancy suits, apart from John Prescott the token Old Labour MP who was included to imply that they were different, but still rooted in Labour "values".
To prove their “conversion” they even repealed the infamous Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution. Now of course, they are trying to repeat the 1997 trick with Keir Starmer – what is more ridiculous though is that Blair is still pulling the strings.
New Labour used its massive majority to change Britain completely from the inside and inflicted enormous damage on the UK during its 13 years tenure. One legacy is designed to deliberately interfere in the effectiveness of any subsequent right/centre right government - to hamstring the implementation of its Manifesto promises through continual distraction, obstinacy and subversion from within.
That legacy is the politicisation of Charities and other similar organisations. This particular action allows for continued direct Left wing activism even after a new political party takes over the levers of power. New Labour also extended its influence throughout society by politicising every aspect of local, regional, central government, the devolved administrations, the Public Services, Civil Service and even the British "Supreme" Court (Aping the ECJ). That influence was also widespread through creation of Quangos (almost 1,200 by 2009) and NGO’s – some of which were later removed or consolidated.
New Labour effectively created a shadow government (Fifth Column) to continue the fight to turn Britain into a centralised Socialist state as part of the bigger EU version, even after they left power (or were thrown out).
The “cunning plan” was to harass and undermine subsequent governments - from all sides of society with activists popping out of every “nook and cranny” – to get a new “New” Labour back into power
Of course, Corbyn just got in the way by exposing the real Labour Party – but it is the same one with different clothes.
Today’s announcement by the "Social Market Foundation" is just another activist group adding to the earlier attempt by Annaliese Dodds to "steal" money from anyone who owns any property of value – of course MPs etc., will be exempt in the usual manner of our corrupt politics in Britain during the last 47 years that we were trapped in the EU.
Boris should add the removal of this politicisation to his to do list. Since all the organisations listed above and many more should be politically neutral.
For more information about Quangos please see "Key-Issues-Quangos" in the Articles section of this website.
Thursday 23rd July 2020
Scottish Independence Myths
With the Prime Minister visiting Scotland today we thought a little discussion would help.
The perpetual cry from the SNP is that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU – but the simple truth is that the rest of the UK is being perpetually undermined by a small population of Europhiles north of the border.
The 2016 population of Scotland was 5.4 million, and the population of UK was 65.6 million – so fewer than about 10% of the total UK population is trying to dictate what the 90%, who had already accepted the vote, could do. But the Referendum was for the entire UK not just for special interest groups.
Worse still since Scotland won’t accept the result of the Referendum vote, they have decided to do their best to stop the receipt the benefits of leaving for the rest of the UK.
In order to do that the Scots want to take the powers retrieved from the EU as a result of the UK leaving the EU and hand them straight back to the EU – thereby thwarting the entire purpose of leaving.
It obviously goes much deeper than that though because the Scots want to leave the UK but keep the benefits that the UK provides for Scotland in terms of trade and all other added financial support – not even enjoyed by the rest of the UK.
The SNP have stated that inside the EU Scotland will be a free sovereign country an independent state – but that is patently false because in its final manifestation there will be no sovereign independent Nation states in the EU.
Just Regions of the EU administered directly from Brussels bypassing Parliament and the devolved administrations – that is what a EU is constructing - a centrally controlled collection of Regions. See below.
“1965 The EU published its first "Memo on Regionalisation" the "First Commission Communication on Regional Policy'.
1966 British politicians dutifully begin to enforce this EU policy.
1971 The European Commission produced the map of England broken up into 9 regions.
1973 EU "Common Regional Policy" was established.
1987 Single European Act expanded Regional Policy
1992 Regionalisation was reinforced in Article 198 of the Maastricht treaty, which re-stated much of the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
1997 Amsterdam Treaty (Articles 263-5) expanded European Regionalisation further.
2002 April John Prescott announced the plans to abolish the counties in Parliament to the horror of his back benchers, who wanted it kept quiet.
2003 3rd Dec. Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions Nicholas Raynsford said in a Commons answer: “It is now quite clear that County and District/Borough Councils will be replaced with Unitary Authorities and Regions.”
England's 48 counties are being abolished and replaced with 9 European Regions under the European Regionalisation Plan." (after David Noakes 2016 eutruth.org.uk)
This process has continued to include the regionalisation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see “Breaking up the UK” (2nd September 2016) article on this website under “2016 Files for August/September /October)”
The above referenced article contains maps of the EU Regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for reference.
Ms. Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP know about all of this but what is important is that the Scottish people discover what the EU is really doing behind the backs of its Member State populations.
It does not take a genius to work out that a Region of the EU administered directly from Brussels with its own Regional EU Public Prosecutor is a long way from Scotland being an independent sovereign country – she should be tossed out on her ear for attempting to take the Scots into abject servitude inside the EU.
Houses of EU Quislings
Is this the real reason why Theresa May would not resign?
Is the real reason because she is working with the EU to ensure that Britain is made into a "Vassal State", so that it can no longer slow down the progress of EU integration and, in particular, to get rid of the trouble-making backbench Tory "Brexiteers?"
This idea stems from an article - 2019 – 009 May is far, far more underhand and deceitful than we ever thought possible. 6 March, 2019 on theeuroprob.org website.
The report focuses upon events in the Summer of 2018 leading to the "Chequers" ambush of Theresa May's Cabinet by her, and her Civil Servants - at the Prime Minster's country retreat on the Chiltern Downs.
"There was very important business: Theresa May, flanked by senior civil servant Olly Robbins, presented the draft agreement for Britain’s departure from the EU."
"For the first time, ministers (including Brexit secretary David Davis and foreign secretary Boris Johnson) saw the proposed terms – and the extent to which May would abide by her pledge of ‘Brexit means Brexit’."
"The chief whip instructed that nobody could leave without consenting to the Withdrawal Agreement, unless they resigned – and must then find their way home without ministerial transport."
David Davis and Boris Johnson resigned the following day.
Prior to the debacle at Chequers, May had visited Angela Merkel in Berlin, and indeed she stated, at Chequers; that "no changes could be made to the, so called "Chequers Agreement" since Merkel had signed it off (agreed it)"
"According to a confidential source who has seen a complete transcript of the meeting, the two leaders agreed to a plan that Mrs May allegedly told the Chancellor would “appease” Brexit voters while nonetheless enabling her to get rid of those Tories who were (in her words) “against progress and unity in the EU.”
"According to the transcript, Mrs May is also reported to have agreed “to keep as many EU laws and institutions in effect as she could despite the current groundswell of anti-EU hysteria in Britain”
The Chequers Agreement formed the core of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration - which has, so far, been voted down 3 times by Parliament - but May is determined to ensure is passed before she leaves office.
It gets worse:
"The transcript also indicated that the Withdrawal Agreement was essentially a German production, with the original draft completed in May 2018 in Berlin. It was then sent to the Cabinet Office marked “Secret”.
"After much to-ing and fro-ing in the subsequent few weeks, including several telephone calls between Mrs May and the Chancellor the final draft was completed late in June, with the Chancellor telling Mrs May that she was happy with it."
"However, a few more small concessions by the UK would be needed later on, just to keep the EU happy."
The most telling part though, is that:
"David Davis was kept in the dark about this planning, as were other pro-Brexit ministers."
"The EU, by contrast, was happy to circulate the transcript of the final May/Merkel meeting to key EU and German embassies."
"What is more, Mrs May was probably unaware that the Chancellor had made a recording of this private meeting! Perhaps our Prime Minister would not have spoken so freely had she realised her words were being noted for posterity."
The article does point out that there is no proof of these allegations, but the source of the information is deemed to be accurate, from past, reliable revelations - and there is much other circumstantial evidence - as explained in the referenced article.
This does fit though with the alleged comment by J.C. Juncker when he "blurted out" that Cameron had assured him, that "he was going to use the Referendum to permanently lock-in the UK to the EU."
Which is no different to what Corbyn, the Labour Party (PLP) and the rest of our elected representatives are trying to do.
The only way to verify the information though, is through a copy of the transcript of the meeting between Merkel and May - anyone have one?
Where does that leave the UK?
It is clear from May's behaviour that she will not resign until the WA&PD is ratified by Parliament. So the statement to the 1922 Committee yesterday does not mean that she will be leaving anytime soon, unless, the Merkel-May Treaty is ratified.
Otherwise, May will have to be "dragged-out kicking and screaming" or removed at a General Election in 2022 - giving the EU plenty of time to, effectively, complete integration of its Member States. (see the latest euexit.com blog post "UK Parliament is not Sovereign)
May, Corbyn and the rest are just playing games.
Parliament is looking to make changes to the Political Declaration - which have no effect on the actual Treaty. It was named a "draft" Treaty, but it is not a "draft" in any sense of the word - it cannot be changed; except by the EU.
Meanwhile, May is hoping that the fear of the "Brexit" Party success will scare MP's into ratifying the WA&PD Treaty - they should be more afraid of the EU and the British People, if they ratify the Treaty.
Once the Treaty is ratified, then the UK will be under total EU (German) control - May and those who vote to accept the new Treaty will have committed the ultimate act of High Treason - contrary to English (Common) Law.
May, though, will be a heroine of the European Union (EUSSR)
Copyright © 2015-2019 euexit.com - All Rights Reserved.