Brexit and EU Referendum = EU impose 'no Brexit'?

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

David Davis discussing different preferred types of possible Brexit deals: the Norway + and Canada ++ deals;
Canada+++ deal would be best for Britain. Why total silence about it on the BBC? David Davis MP speaks in the debate on the Brexit Draft Withdrawal Agreement

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=oKtF_q5M5H0[/youtube]

https://youtu.be/oKtF_q5M5H0

[TonyGosling]

Secession from the European Union
by Thierry Meyssan
http://www.voltairenet.org/article203998.html

For Thierry Meyssan, the way in which Germany and France are refusing the right of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union demonstrates the fact that the EU is not simply a straight-jacket - it also goes to show that the Europeans still care as little about their neighbours as they did during the two World Wars. Manifestly, they have forgotten that governing a country means more than simply defending its interests in the short term, but also thinking in the long term and avoiding conflicts with its neighbours.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 20 NOVEMBER 2018

The member states of the European Union seem unaware of the clouds that are gathering above their heads. They have identified the most serious problems of the EU, but are treating them with nonchalance, and fail to understand what the British secession (Brexit) implies. They are slowly sinking into a crisis which may only be resolved by violence.

The origin of the problem

During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the members of the European Community accepted to bow to the decisions of the United States and to integrate the states of Central Europe, even though these states did not correspond in any way to the logical criteria of adhesion. With this momentum, they adopted the Maastricht Treaty, which transformed the European project of economic coordination between European States into that of a supra-national State. The idea was to create a vast political bloc which, under the military protection of the United States, was intended to engage with the USA on the road to prosperity.

This super-State has nothing democratic about it. It is administered by a collegiate of senior civil servants, the Commission, whose members are designated one at a time by the heads of state and government. Never before in History has an Empire functioned in this way. Very quickly, the paritarian model of the Commission spawned a gigantic paritarian bureaucracy in which some states are « more equal than others ».

This supra-national project turned out to be inadaptable to a unipolar world. The European Community sprang from the the civil chapter of the Marshall plan - NATO being the military chapter. The Western European bourgeoisies, frightened by the Soviet model, had been supporting the European Community since the Congress convened by Winston Churchill in The Hague in 1948. However, after the disappearance of the USSR, they no longer had any interest in continuing along this road.

The ex-States of the Warsaw Pact could not decide whether to engage in the Union or form a direct alliance with the United States. For example, Poland bought US war planes which it used in Iraq with the money granted by the Union for the modernisation of its agriculture.

Apart from the development of police and legal cooperation, the Maastricht Treaty created a single currency and foreign policy. All the member states were obliged to adopt the Euro as soon as their national economy would allow it. Only Denmark and the United Kingdom, catching the scent of impending problems, stayed out of it. As for the foreign policy, it seemed to make sense in a unipolar world dominated by the United States.

Taking into account the differences within the Euro zone, the small fry were destined to become the prey of the biggest of the sharks, Germany. The single currency which, at the moment it was put into circulation, had been adjusted to the dollar, transformed itself progressively into an internationalised version of the German Mark. Incapable of competing, Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain were symbolically qualified as PIGS by the financiers. While Berlin pillaged their economies, it offered Athens a restoration of its wealth - if Greece would hand over a part of its territory.

It so happened that the European Union, while pursuing its global economic growth, was overtaken by other states whose economic growth was several times faster. While adhesion to the European Union was an advantage for the ex-members of the Warsaw Pact, it had become a millstone for the Western Europeans.

Drawing lessons from this failure, the United Kingdom decided to retire from the super-State (Brexit) in order to reconnect with its historic allies from the Commonwealth and, if possible, with China. The Commission panicked, fearing that the British example would open the door for other departures, for the maintenance of the Common Market but the end of the Union. It therefore decided to set conditions which would be dissuasive for leavers.

The internal problems of the United Kingdom

Since the European Union serves the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor, the British workers and rural citizens voted to leave, while the tertiary sector voted to stay.

Although British society, like other European countries, has an upper middle class which owes its enrichment to the European Union, unlike the other great European countries, it also has a powerful aristocracy. Before the Second World War, this class enjoyed all the advantages offered by the European Union, but also a prosperity that it can no longer expect from Brussels. The aristocracy therefore decided to vote for the Brexit against the upper middle class, which sparked a crisis within the ruling class.

Finally, the choice of Theresa May as Prime Minister was intended to preserve the interests of people from all walks of life (« Global Britain »). But things did not go as intended.
- First of all, Mrs. May was unable to conclude a preferential agreement with China, and experienced difficulties with the Commonwealth, with whom the bonds had been loosened over time.
- Next, she encountered problems with the Scottish and Irish minorities, particularly since her majority includes Irish Protestants who cling to their privileges.
- Besides that, she ran into the blind intransigence of Berlin and Brussels.
- Finally, she will have to face up to challenges and questions about the « special relationship » which links her country to the United States.

The problem revealed by the application of the Brexit

After having tried in vain several readjustments of the treaties, the United Kingdom democratically voted for the Brexit on 23 June 2016. The upper middle class, who did not believe this could happen, immediately attempted to invalidate their choice. There was talk about organising a second referendum, as had been done in Denmark for the Maastricht Treaty. This did not seem possible, so a distinction was made between a « hard Brexit » (without new agreements with the EU) and a « soft Brexit » (with the maintenance of various pre-existing agreements). The Press claimed that the Brexit would be an economic catastrophe for the British people. In reality, studies carried out before the referendum, and therefore before this debate, all attest that the first two years after the British exit from the Union would be recessive, but that the United Kingdom would quickly recover and overtake the Union. The opposition to the result of the referendum – and therefore opposition to the popular vote – managed to hinder its application. The notification of the British exit was delivered by the government to the Commission with a delay of nine months, on 29 March 2017.

On 14 November 2018 – two years and four months after the referendum - Theresa May capitulated and accepted an unfavourable agreement with the European Commission. However, when she presented this deal to her government, seven of her ministers resigned, including the minister in charge of the Brexit. Clearly he had overlooked the elements of the text that the Prime Minister had assigned to him.

This document includes a disposition which is absolutely unacceptable for a sovereign state, whatever it may be. It institutes an unstated period of transition, during which the United Kingdom will no longer be considered as a member of the Union, but will nonetheless be obliged to follow its rules, including those which are still to be adopted.

Behind this devious plot hide Germany and France.

As soon as the result of the British referendum was known, Germany realised that the Brexit would provoke the loss of several tens of billions of Euros from its own GDP. Merkel’s government therefore got busy – not at adapting its own economy, but at sabotaging the United Kingdom’s departure from the Union.

As for French President Emmanuel Macron, he represents the European upper middle class, and is therefore by nature opposed to the Brexit.

The men behind the politicians

Chancellor Merkel knew she could count on the President of the Union, Polish Donald Tusk. In fact this man is not at his current post because he is the ex-Prime Minister of his country, but for two different reasons – during the Cold War, his family, members of the Cachoube minority, chose the United States over the Soviet Union, and besides that, Tusk is a childhood friend of Angela Merkel.

Tusk began by questioning British engagement in the multi-annual programmes adopted by the Union. If London were to pay the sums to which it had agreed, it would not be able to leave the Union without paying an exit tax of between 55 and 60 billion pounds.

French ex- minister and commissioner Michel Barnier was nominated as head negotiator for dealings with the United Kingdom. Barnier had already stirred up a number of solid enmities in the City, which he treated badly during the crisis of 2008. Furthermore, British financiers dream of handling the convertibility of the Chinese yuan into Euros.

Barnier accepted to take the German Sabine Wey as his assistant. It is in reality Ms. Wey who is leading the negotiations, tasked with the mission of guaranteeing their failure.

At the same time, the man who « made » the career of Emmanuel Macron, ex-head of the Inspectorate General of Finances, Jean-Pierre Jouyet, was named as the French ambassador in London. He is a friend of Barnier, with whom he handled the financial crisis of 2008. To kill the Brexit, Jouyet is relying on the Conservative leader of the opposition to Theresa May, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee to the House of Commons, Colonel Tom Tugendhat.

Jouyet chose Tugendshat’s wife Anissia Tugendhat as his assistant at the French embassy in London. She is a graduate of the elite École Nationale d’Administration.

The crisis came to a head during the the summit of the European Council in Salzbourg, in September 2018. Theresa May presented the consensus that she had managed to establish in her country, and that many others would be well advised to use as an example – the Chequers plan (to maintain only the Common Market ties between the two entities, but not the free circulation of citizens, services and capital, and no longer to be ruled by Luxembourg’s European administrative and legal system). Donald Tusk brutally rejected this plan.

At this point, we have to take a step back. The agreements that put an end to the revolt of the IRA against English colonialism did not resolve the causes of the conflict. Peace was only found because the European Union allowed the abrogation of the frontier between the two Irelands. Tusk demanded that in order to prevent the resurgence of this war of national liberation, Northern Ireland be maintained in the Union’s Customs sector. This implies the creation of a frontier controlled by the Union, cutting the United Kingdom in two, and separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the country.

During the second session of the Council, before the heads of state and government, Tusk slammed the door in Mrs. May’s face, leaving her alone. A public humiliation which could not remain without consequence.

JPEG - 21.8 kb
Reflections on secession from the European Union

All this fiddling attests to the skill of the European leaders at political sleight of hand. They appear to respect the rules of impartiality, and to take their decisions collectively with the sole aim of serving the general interest (even though this declared motive is refuted only by the British). In reality, certain of these leaders defend the interests of their country to the detriment of their partners, while others defend the interests of their social class to the detriment of everybody else. The worst is obviously the threat brought to bear on the United Kingdom – it must submit to the economic conditions of Brussels, or there will be another instalment of the war of Independence in Northern Ireland.

Such behaviour can only lead to the re-awakening of the intra-European conflicts which triggered two World Wars - conflicts that the Union has masked within its own territory, but which remain unresolved and persist outside of the Union.

Conscious that they are playing with fire, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel suddenly evoked the creation of a common army which would include the United Kingdom. It is true, of course, that if the three major European powers should agree to form a military alliance, the problem would be resolved. But this alliance is impossible, because it is unfeasible to build an army without first deciding who will command it.

The authoritarianism of the supra-national State has swelled to the point where, during the negotiations on the Brexit, it created three other fronts. The Commission opened two procedures for sanctions to be instituted against Poland and Hungary, (at the request of the European Parliament), accused of systemic violations of the values of the Union - procedures whose objective is to place these two states in the same situation as the United Kingdom during the period of transition – being constrained to respect the rules of the Union without having any say in their determination. Besides which, hampered by the reforms currently under way in Italy which are working against its ideology, the supra-national State refuses to allow Rome the right to build a budget in order to implement its own politics.

The Common Market of the European Community enabled the establishment of peace in Western Europe. Its successor, the European Union, is destroying this inheritance, and is setting its own members one against the other.

[TonyGosling]

Seamless Irish border not specified in Belfast Agreement: DUP
Prime Minister Theresa May during her speech at the Waterfront Hall in Belfast on Friday
Prime Minister Theresa May during her speech at the Waterfront Hall in STEPHEN GAMBLE Published: 07:30 Monday 23 July 2018
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/seaml ... -1-8575833

A senior DUP figure has backed former Ulster Unionist leader Reg Empey’s assertion that there is nothing in the Belfast Agreement which demands a “seamless” Irish border.

Lord Empey made the comments after Prime Minister Theresa May, in a visit to Belfast on Friday, stated that a “seamless” border is a critical element of the agreement.

In a speech at Belfast’s Waterfront Hall, the PM claimed a seamless border is “a foundation stone on which the Belfast Agreement rests, allowing for the just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities”.

But hours after Mrs May’s speech, Lord Empey – one of the key UUP negotiators of the agreement – said: “There’s nothing in the agreement that references any of that.”

And yesterday, the DUP’s Sir Jeffrey Donaldson told the News Letter: “That would be our view as well.”

The Lagan Valley MP said that while his party does not want to see a hard Irish border after Brexit, he added: “Let’s be clear, this is not specified anywhere in the Belfast Agreement.

“We are anxious to get a pragmatic outcome that benefits all of the UK and at the same time enables free trade arrangements between the UK and EU.”

Sir Jeffrey added that any attempt to “hive off” Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK by putting a customs border in the Irish Sea would be “a fundamental breach” of the 1998 agreement.

He added: “Our bottom line remains that Northern Ireland will not be separated off from the UK, which is a key principle of the Belfast Agreement.”

The PM’s comments, made at the end of her two-day visit to Northern Ireland, have profound implications for the shape of Brexit because both the EU and the UK have agreed that it must respect the agreement.

But Lord Empey said that Mrs May’s comments about the “seamless border” – which are informing her entire Brexit policy – were founded on a false premise.

Sir Reg said that the agreement explicitly recognised the border.

“The whole point is that the Irish government changed its constitution, removing its claim – which would have meant there was no border – to a situation where it recognises the border.”

A member of the public who is against Theresa May's deal pictured outside the Houses of Parliament. (Photo: P.A. Wire).
FOLLOW LIVE: Theresa May postpones Brexit vote
He said that the agreement “actually for first time persuaded the Irish government to recognise the border”.

The former Ulster Unionist leader stressed that he was not advocating a reinstatement of a hard border, saying that to “erect and put in a physical border would undoubtedly inflame people’s sensitivities”.

He said: “There is no doubt that the whole question of identity is important and we understand that – that’s the rationale behind cross-border bodies.

“I would fully understand and accept that the Irish national identity is best recognised by the situation we currently have.”

However, he stressed that there was nothing in the agreement which specifically precluded a hardening of the border.

He highlighted that the Irish government recognised the border by regularly stopping people crossing the border for either immigration purposes or in an attempt to detect criminality.

[TonyGosling]

Tim Morris: Ignore the scaremongering. Britain’s ports can thrive after Brexit.

http://www.twitter.com/TimJMorris By Tim Morris
https://www.conservativehome.com/platfo ... rexit.html

Tim Morris is the Chief Executive of the UK Major Ports Group.

You wouldn’t be able to without major UK ports. Pretty much every screen you look at – phone, tablet monitor, television – has been handled by one of the UK’s largest ports on its way to your hand or home. And that’s just one example of the fundamental role that ports, and particularly major ports, have on our lives and the UK economy.

Ninety-five per cent of the UK’s physical trade with the world arrives or departs the nation by sea. Sevent-five per cent of this trade – worth £585 billion in 2017 – is handled by members of the organisation that I represent: the UK Major Ports Group. This includes the export of seven out of every ten cars made in the UK and the import of nearly half the UK’s food and feed requirements.

It is clear that UK’s major ports are already substantial and successful examples of Global Britain in action, today. They are Britain’s main gateways to the world, enabling trade and jobs. They have also been highly successful in attracting significant overseas capital – contributing to the more than half a billion pounds of investment that UK Major Ports Group members collectively make in the UK each year. This investment has helped create a major ports sector in the UK which is able to serve the world’s largest merchant vessels, providing British consumers and manufacturers with the most efficient access to global markets – fundamental in delivering a successful Brexit for the UK.

But there has been a lot of talk that Brexit will cripple our ports, clogging them up with paperwork and bureaucracy, with queues backing up on roads around them all over Britain’s coastlines. In fact, the opposite is true: Britain’s ports can thrive after we leave the European Union.

To understand why, you first need to understand that Britain’s ports are unique in Europe. The UK’s major ports are privately owned and operated, both as regular companies or as ‘trusts’, competing fiercely with each other. This is in contrast to their large port peers in Europe which are government owned, either at a national or regional level, and often based on a national monopoly with little competition.

Secondly, huge volumes of our trade is already non-EU. Yes, port traffic through Dover is 98 per cent with the EU. However, the large ports that handle container mega carriers – bringing products like the device you’re reading this article on – can in fact be as much as 95 per cent non-EU. UK ports already have the systems and processes in place to handle global trade highly efficiently and effectively. This shouldn’t sound complacent – particular types of port traffic have real challenges, and all ports need clarity on what is required from them and a pragmatic approach to implementation. But those challenges are concentrated. We need to see the bigger picture.

And part of that bigger picture is to recognise those opportunities from Brexit. It is vital that the UK captures these opportunities, as well as fixing the technical challenges. The UK can set regulation that is right for our competitive, private sector-led national context, rather than being lumbered with rules written for the statist monopolies elsewhere in Europe. The greater recognition of trade as an essential priority for the UK can only be positive, and a pro-trade approach must be hard-wired into policy making and regulation. Greater self-determination gives more freedom to adopt policies that boost UK growth.

A case in point is the wholly inappropriate EU-mandated Port Services Directive or ‘PSR’. The PSR is a ham-fisted attempt by Brussels bureaucrats to force competition onto a sector that is largely state run. But vigorous competition is already a hall mark of the UK major ports sector, producing benefits to consumers and exporters and delivering jobs and investment. So the PSR only succeeds in tying UK port operators in unnecessary red tape just as they should be – and the country needs them to be – redoubling their efforts to provide the best gateways possible for an independent trading Britain post Brexit. And, to add insult to injury, the PSR only comes into force in the UK on March 24th next year, a matter of days before Brexit happens.

So what’s the three-point plan from the UK’s major ports to make a success of Brexit for the long term?

Hardwire ‘trade’ as a priority into Government and regulation – for example by establishing a Cabinet Committee and incorporating trade benefits more strongly into infrastructure assessments;
Use the UK’s new flexibility to set a policy and regulatory landscape that’s appropriate for its unique major ports sector – for example by exploring the potential of ‘free ports’ to drive investment and jobs around our coast and by setting environmental standards which remain high but are streamlined and reflect the specific circumstances of the UK; and
On a last in, first out principle, repeal the completely inappropriate EU-mandated Port Services Directive at the earliest possible opportunity.
Whilst there are some challenges from Brexit, there are also notable opportunities. Britain is at its best when it is an open, trading nation. Brexit can allow us to get rid of some of the unnecessary regulation and focus on hard-wiring a pro-trade approach into every aspect of policy-making.

Britain’s major ports have been foundations of the nation’s economic success and prosperity for hundreds of years. With the right, pragmatic approach to Brexit implementation, the courage to grasp the opportunities that Brexit offers and with an infrastructure-led approach to growth, major ports are confident that they will continue to play this foundation role for centuries to come.

[TonyGosling]

Warnings of no-deal ports chaos are 'misleading', industry boss says
Anna Mikhailova, political correspondent 07 DECEMBER 2018 • 10:22PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... boss-says/

The boss of UK Major Ports Group has challenged Chancellor Philip Hammond's warnings of a “logjam” at Britain’s ports in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Warnings of a “logjam” at Britain’s ports as a result of a no-deal Brexit are misleading, a senior representative of the industry has said.

It comes after Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, said that ports would face chaos if the UK left the EU without a deal and would take “years” to adapt.

But Tim Morris, the chief executive of UK Major Ports Group, the trade body, said: “The UK’s port sector is a resilient, adaptable and highly competitive one, offering customers a range of options.

"We will work through the challenges of Brexit as we have done with huge changes throughout the centuries.”

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph on behalf of port operators responsible for 75 per cent of the UK’s seaborne trade, Mr Morris challenged the Chancellor’s warnings, which used Dover port as an example.

He said: “Dover, which handles around 6 per cent of total UK port volumes, faces a unique combination of Brexit risk factors that are not faced by most UK major ports.

“These ports already have the capacity and the infrastructure to handle large volumes of both EU and non-EU trade today without ‘logjam’.”

He suggests planning restrictions pose the bigger long-term issue: “A challenge faced by all ports is the constraints on growth and job creation applied by the current planning system.”

Revised Brexit assessments published on Friday warned that access through Dover and Folkestone could be reduced for significantly longer than first feared.

Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, has written to health and care providers setting out contingency plans for medicine plans, in which he warns that there would be "significantly reduced access across the short straits, for up to six months."

Separately, he also confirmed that his department was exploring plans to give pharmacists the authority to overrule GPs and ration drugs to mitigate shortages.

[TonyGosling]

Europaische
WirtschaftsGemeinschaft
BEING in Translation:
EUropean Economic
Community
http://www.jar2.com/Files/Nazism/The_Eu ... n_1942.pdf

Von:
ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen
ReichsBank Funk;
Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;
Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;
Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater
Professor
Dr. Hunke, Berlin
Mit einer EinFuhrung von:
GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke
President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller
HerausGeGeben von dem
Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts –
HochSchule
Und Industrieller
Berlin
Published
BERLIN 1942
Second edition 1943
Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience
ONLYThe European Economic Community
Mr. Funk, the Reich’s Economic Minister and President of the German
Reichsbank
Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin
Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle
Dr. Reithinger, Berlin, Ministerial Director
Dr. Beisiegel, Berlin
Secretary of State Königs, Berlin
Director Dr. Benning, Berlin
Ambassador Dr. Clodius, Berlin and Economics Committee Advisor
Professor Dr. Hunke, Berlin
With an introduction by
Economics Committee Advisor, Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, President of
the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce
Issued by
The Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce and the Berlin School of
Economics
Published BERLIN 1942
Second Revised Edition (Berlin 1943)
Haude and Spenersche Publishing House Max PaschkePreface to the First and Second Edition
This text contains the lectures presented under the title “The European
Economic Community” by the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce
at the start of 1942 in conjunction with the Economic Advisor to the
Berlin Committee of the NSDAP and The Chamber of Trade and
Industry. The order of lectures was as follows:
• Walter Funk, Reichs Economic Minister and President of the Reichsbank:
“The Economic Face of the New Europe”
• Dr. Horst Jecht, Professor at The Berlin School of Economics:
“Developments towards the European Economic
Community”
• Dr. Emil Woermann, Professor at Halle University:
“European Agriculture”
• Dr. Anton Reithinger, Director of the Economics Department of I.G.
Farbenindustrie A.G., Berlin:
“The European Industrial Economy”
• Dr. Philipp Beisiegel, Ministerial Director of the Reich’s Labour Ministry:
“The Deployment of Labour in Europe”
• Gustav Koenigs, Secretary of State, Berlin:
“Questions About European Transport”
• Dr. Bernhard Benning, Director of the Reich’s Credit Company, Berlin:
“Questions About Europe’s Currency”
• Dr. Carl Clodius, Ambassador of the Foreign Office:
“European Trade and Economic Agreements’’
• Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Advisor of the NSDAP,
President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency and the Berlin Society of
Industry and Commerce:
“The Basic Question: Europe - Geographical Concept or
Political Fact?”
The lectures met with considerable interest and very strong agreement. On
account of this, we feel we should make them available to a wider circle of
people. Berlin, September 1942
The Society of Berlin’s Trade and Industry - The President: Professor Dr.
Heinrich Hunke, Advisor to the Economics Committee
The Berlin School of Economics - The Rector: Dr. Edwin Fels, Professor of
GeographyPreface 2Hunke Introduction 8
The Discussion So Far and its Results 8
Economic Practice 9
Problems Related to Economic Community of Continental
Europe
10
PAMPHLET
#01
Funk The Economic Face of the New Europe 15
Real and False Economic Freedom 15
Co-operation in Continental Europe 18
Europe’s Resources and Completion 20
Directing of the Economy by the State and Work
between the States of the Community
22
The Movement of Payments between the States and European
Currency Issues
24
Securing the Area and Economy of Europe 27
The Will for Co-operation in the Economic Community 28
PAMPHLET
Jecht Developments towards the European Economic Community 30
The European Economic Community and its Enlargement 30
The Problem of the European Economic Area in Late
Antiquity and the Middle Ages
31
Recent Changes to the Problem of the Area of Europe 33
The Formation of the Nations and Independent Economies 33
Overseas Expansion and its Consequences for Europe 34
The Release of England from the Continent and the Formation
of the “Free Global Economy”
35
Europe’s Economic New Order: The Present Task 37
Collapse of the Previous World Economy 38
Means and Objectives of the European Economic Community 39
Outlook 41
PAMPHLET
Woermann European Agriculture 42
The Development of Agricultural Enterprises and
the Structure of Europe’s Food Economy
42
The Formation of the Division of Labour in World
Agriculture
47
Production Increase in Germany and Italy 49
The Supply Situation under the Influence of Economic
Restrictions and Change
50
Political Consequences for Production 52
Possibilities of Increasing Europe’s Food Production 53
PAMPHLET
#04
Reithinger The European Industrial Economy 59
The Development of Industry in the 19th Century 59
Stages of Technical and Economic Development 60
Socio-Political Effects 60
The Loss of Europe’s Hegemony in the World War 61
The Transition to State Direction and Planning 62
New Europe and its Shared Features 64
Regional Differences in Europe 66The Major Powers at War - A Comparison of their
Capabilities
68
PAMPHLET
#05
Beisiegel The Deployment of Labour in Europe 71
Population Density, Number and Structure of the Employed 71
People - The Wealth of Europe 72
Worker Exchange on the Basis of Inter-State Agreements 75
Adaptation of the Organisation for Labour Deployment 78
Employer Action and Order Switching 79
PAMPHLET
#06
Koenigs Questions about European Transport 81
“Technical Unity” in the Railway System 82
The Magna Carta of Europe’s Internal Riverboat Traffic 84
Motorways’ Contribution to the European Transport
Community
87
Community Work in Shipping 88
Joint Work in Air Traffic 89
PAMPHLET
#07
Benning Questions about Europe’s Currency 91
Currency’s Two Sides 91
The Internal Economic Situation of Europe’s Currencies 92
Managing Foreign Exchange and Bilateral Settlements 92
Development of Multi-Lateral Settlements 94
The Problem of the Clearing Balances 95
Adjustment of Europe’s Exchange Rates 96
Future Formation of the European Currency System 97
Europe’s Future Currency Relationship to the Currencies of
Other Major Nations
99
What about Gold? 100
The European Currency Bloc 101
PAMPHLET
#08
Clodius European Trade and Economic Treaties 102
The Period of the Old Trade Policy 102
German Economic and Trade Policy since 1933 103
Changes to Trade Policy Caused by the War 105
The Reversal of the Law of Supply and Demand 106
The Question of Labour Deployment in Europe 106
The Problem of Traffic 106
Effects of the English Blockade on Europe 106
Principles of European Co-operation 107
The European Regional Principle 107
Europe’s Economic Independence 107
Europe and the Global Economy 108
Internal Preconditions of a European Economic Community 109
Ways to Achieve European Co-operation 111PAMPHLET
#09
Hunke The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or
Political Fact?
113
New Learning and Thought 113
Starting Point for European Task 114
Three Eras 114
The Character of the Global Economy 114
Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of
English World Superiority
116
Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National
Economy
117
The Foundation of the European Economic Community 118
Categories within the European Economic Community 119
Three Principles 119
A New Era 121
Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future 123Pamphlet #01
Introduction - by Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee
Adviser to the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency

What the BBC won't tell you about Brexit I
Decline of Britain since 1973 EEC - EU as Financial Warfare machine - Tony Gosling
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAq1q1_swyM

What the BBC won't tell you about #Brexit II
Documentary evidence the EEC and EU was designed in 1942 in Berlin by the Nazis - Tony Gosling
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rXoxJSpYk8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rXoxJSpYk8

[TonyGosling]

'Canada plus or you don't get the £39bn' David Davis on Norway and Canada plus
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=T7bcB9stVOc[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/T7bcB9stVOc

David Davis: We can easily switch to a Canada plus
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... anada-plus

[html]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">From the very beginning, the EU offer has been a Canada+++ deal. Much further-reaching on trade, internal security and foreign policy cooperation. This is a true measure of respect. And this offer remains in place. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/brexit?src= ... xit</a></p>— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) <a href="https://twitter.com/eucopresident/statu ... w">October 4, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
[/html]

[TonyGosling]

Brexit dates

Brexit key dates
2019

January 7 - MPs come back from Christmas recess.

Week of January 14 - The Commons will vote on Theresa May’s Brexit plan in the week starting January 14.

The vote was first scheduled to take place on December 11, but Mrs May called off the vote amid near-unanimous predictions she would lose.

Brexit key dates 2019

Brexit key dates 2019: Parliament will vote on Mrs May's Brexit deal in January (Image: GETTY)
This vote is potentially the biggest threat to the Prime Minister’s plans.

The vote has been presented as a decision between approving the Government’s withdrawal agreement and "no deal".

January 21 - If the government has not presented its withdrawal agreement by this date, MPs will gain influence on the prime ministers' next steps.

March 21-22 - The final summit the UK is expected to attend as a member state of the EU.

Before 29 March - Parliament will have to pass the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement, assuming it was approved by Parliament beforehand.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -is-Brexit

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Brexit - There is no Alternative... Here's Why!
We broke their star

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=1diXYAFmtoI[/youtube]
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1diXYAFmtoI

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

My understanding is the UK will actually be leaving on 29th March and that the chaos & confusion is to trick the remainers into revealing everything about how they work by getting them to fight hard for something they can't have.

Jeremy Corbyn is hamstrung, surrounded by Blairite MPs who are making sure he fights like crazy to remain.

If we leave on schedule expect a financial tsunami like you've never even imagined.

The NATO oligarchy will likely hit us with everything they have.



The EU is being revealed as simply a gigantic wealth farming (for the super rich) and chaos generating machine for the international mafia.

Governments are being dismantled, bankrupted and pliable barrow boys have been appointed to administer the bankruptcy. Think Libya :-/

[TonyGosling]

Can Brexit break the oligarchy's power ratchet?
Spring 2019: Middle East war and crash loom

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVXOdovZ63Q[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVXOdovZ63Q

- By-bye Brussels: will Brexit break the United States of Europe's ratchet to ever more power? If so, how hard will the oligarchy hit back?
- Venezuela coup attempt, Colombia is in NATO
- Global Warming vs the Grand Solar Minimum
- Free public transport vs oil industry scams
- British Army's top nurse, Colonel Alison McCourt
first to attend Skripal 'poisoning'

Tony Gosling, George Butler
thesecrettruth.com - Austin, Texas
26th January 2019

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

France And Germany Take Major Step Toward EU Army To Protect "Europe Threatened By Nationalism"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... ted-treaty

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 01:00

French President Emmanuel Macron's push for what he previously called "a real European army" got a big boost on Tuesday amid France and Germany signing an updated historic treaty reaffirming their close ties and commitment to support each other during a ceremony in the city of Aachen, a border town connected to Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. But the timing for the renewal of the two countries' 1963 post-war reconciliation accord is what's most interesting, given both the rise of eurosceptic nationalism, the uncertainty of Brexit, and just as massive 'Yellow Vests' protests rage across France for a tenth week.

Macron addressed this trend specifically at the signing ceremony with the words, "At a time when Europe is threatened by nationalism, which is growing from within... Germany and France must assume their responsibility and show the way forward."


German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron attend a signing of a new agreement on bilateral cooperation and integration, known as Treaty of Aachen. Image via Reuters
Germany's Angela Merkel agreed, adding in her own remarks: “We are doing this because we live in special times and because in these times we need resolute, distinct, clear, forward-looking answers.” The agreement, which is being described as sparse on specifics or detail, focuses on foreign policy and defense ties between Berlin and Paris.

“Populism and nationalism are strengthening in all of our countries,” Merkel EU officials at the ceremony. “Seventy-four years – a single human lifetime – after the end of the second world war, what seems self-evident is being called into question once more.”

Macron said those “who forget the value of Franco-German reconciliation are making themselves accomplices of the crimes of the past. Those who... spread lies are hurting the same people they are pretending to defend, by seeking to repeat history.”

And in remarks that formed another affirmation that the two leaders are seeking to form an "EU army" Merkel said just before signing the treaty: “The fourth article of the treaty says we, Germany and France, are obliged to support and help each other, including through military force, in case of an attack on our sovereignty.”

The text of the updated treaty includes the aim of a “German-French economic area with common rules” and a “common military culture” that Merkel asserted could “contribute to the creation of a European army”.

Later before a press pool, Merkel endorsed the idea of a joint European army further:

We have taken major steps in the field of military cooperation, this is good and largely supported in this house. But I also have to say, seeing the developments of the recent years, that we have to work on a vision to establish a real European army one day.

She clarified that the new military organization wouldn't exist as a counterpart to or in competition with NATO, similar to prior comments she made before European parliament.

Previously in November she had assured, "This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO." This was also in support of Macron's early November statements wherein he said of the proposed EU army, "We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the US” — words that were issued on the heels President Trump's initial announcement that the US would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

Despite such such assurances analysts say the natural and long term by-product of a "real European army" — as Macron and Merkel suggesting — would be the slow eroding and demise of US power in the region, which would no doubt weaken the NATO alliance.

The closest thing to a current "EU army" that does exist (if it can be called even that) - the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) - is generally perceived as more of a civil and emergency response joint EU member mechanism that would be ineffectual under the threat of an actual military invasion or major event.

Meanwhile perhaps a prototype EU army is already in action on the streets of Paris, revealing what critics fear it may actually be used for in the future...


The expected push back came swiftly and fiercely as Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, slammed the updated Aachen treaty as “an act that borders on treason”, while others worried this is an attempt to create a “super EU” within the bloc.

Alexander Gauland of Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), for example, warned:

As populists, we insist that one first takes care of one’s own country... We don’t want Macron to renovate his country with German money … The EU is deeply divided. A special Franco-German relationship will alienate us even further.

Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, warned earlier this month that his country could seek an “Italian-Polish axis” to challenge the whole premise of a “Franco-German motor” that drives European centralization.

Also notable of Tuesday's signing is that the Aachen document prioritizes Germany being eventually accepted as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which it mandates as a priority for French-German diplomacy. Such a future scenario on the security council would shift power significantly in favor of a western bloc of allies the US, Britain, and France, which Germany would vote alongside.

[TonyGosling]

Leave voters are being heated up slowly like laboratory frogs
JEREMY HOSKING
Follow 22 SEPTEMBER 2018 • 9:30PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ory-frogs/

In recent polling conducted by ComRes on behalf of Brexit Express, the independent campaign group, 70% of UK adults believe the Government is making a mess of the mission handed it to it by the electorate.

The latest manifestation is Chequers, a “Big Business” Brexit tying us up in EU knots. The obvious question for Eurosceptics to ask themselves is whether the current fiasco is accidental or pre-meditated?

Normally the odds favour c***-Up over Conspiracy. However, in this case, decisions, made one after another and seemingly independently, mean that the odds of c***-Up have now lengthened into one of the most extreme accumulator bets that it is possible to envision.

The more plausible thesis by a distance is a deliberate attempt by the British Establishment to render real exit from the EU impossible.

The latest example is today’s polling which presents a picture of MPs happy to ignore both their voters and their party manifesto.

Understandably, those same voters are eyeing a single-issue Brexit-supporting alternative.

A couple of months ago I drew attention, via the Sunday Telegraph, to the strange events leading up to the 2017 election in which the Tory party effectively turned down a gift of £700,000 to target Labour held seats in Leave voting constituencies. The inference cuts to the heart of the potential political dishonesty of the last election.

In contrast to Party spin - and the Conservative manifesto - the purpose of an increased Parliamentary majority was not to strengthen the UK’s hands in the “negotiations”, but to increase No10’s leverage in out-maneuvering Tory MPs whose integrity might be minded to insist that ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

We must find some way of hopping out of the bubbling water
Since then the evidence that we’re being heated up slowly like laboratory frogs, oblivious to our own imminent demise continues to build: Eurosceptics were appointed to key Cabinet positions, then humiliated and undermined by the parallel negotiating channel co-ordinated by No 10.

In the meantime, the Brexit organisational apparatus was attacked, first by unexpected tax demands made of referendum donors by HMRC (though not upon donors in earlier referenda) and second by the now discredited Electoral Commission’s relentless attack on Vote Leave and other campaign groups including Brexit Express.

The former Foreign Secretary has drawn attention to the Irish backstop banana skin, laid down on December 8 last year which, even to the layman like myself, was clearly a foundation stone to keep the entire UK in the customs union and single market, as is now revealed by the so-called Chequers common rule book.

Throughout these episodes, the BBC has provided a helpful EU propaganda backdrop.

Leading Remainers have become ever more emboldened in their dismissal of Brexit and Brexiteers, culminating in Lord Adonis’ recent tweet suggesting that Brexiteers should be discriminated against through, inter alia, disqualification from public office. Remainers, meantime, have been rewarded.

Mark Carney’s contract extension could recognize his competence but given his track record in economic forecasting and the effect of his low interest rate policies on house prices, a cynic might see his architectural role in Project Fear as a more likely cause.

There’s a gap in the political market. Brexit Express intends to help fill it.
Elsewhere, Michael Gove, that master of the political pirouette, optimistically seeks to reassure us that as long as we exit the EU – even on Chequers terms - we can all sort out the resulting mess after the half-time interval, several down and with our bench already emptied.

The Remainer/Establishment frog-boiling experiment will likely succeed in its aims in the short run but at the cost of discrediting democracy, humiliating the country amongst its friends around the world as well as laying the foundations for the next surge in populism.

Today’s polling shows how determined some politicians are to reinforce the widespread notion that the gap between the elected and the electorate is a large one. In that regard, the MPs concerned are replicating the causes of what they so dislike. Brexit Express has had enough.

We must find some way of hopping out of the bubbling water. This is why we have been sponsoring opinion polls in both Tory and Labour constituencies. MP’s such as Nicky Morgan and Heidi Allen have tried to stop us, which attests to their jitteriness as well as the reliance on intimidation as a standard Remainer ploy.

This polling shows there is clear support for a Brexit party which will deliver what the electorate thought it would be getting after the referendum.

The centre left talk but never quite act on setting up a new pro-Europe electoral alternative, bizarrely convinced that repeating an action will produce a different result. Einstein’s definition of madness. What they and we agree on however is that there’s a gap in the political market. Brexit Express intends to help fill it.

Jeremy Hosking is a City financier, Conservative donor, and the founder of the Brexit Express campaign group

[TonyGosling]

SYNARCHY: THE HIDDEN HAND BEHIND THE EUROPEAN UNION
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/synarch ... pean-union

BY LYNN PICKNETT & CLIVE PRINCE—

While questions remain about the existence of a single global elite with an agenda that goes beyond simply keeping itself very, very rich, there are certainly groups that want to run the world for quite other reasons. And with the increasing globalisation of political and economic institutions, it has become easier for a relatively small group to inveigle itself into quite staggeringly influential positions. One cabal in particular reveals – alarmingly – what a small group, driven by a fanatical belief system, can achieve from the shadows. And writing as we are in the United Kingdom, this group is on our doorstep, and has been for over a century. And although perhaps small in number, its reach is big.

Our research into this subject – detailed in The Stargate Conspiracy (1999) and The Sion Revelation (2006) – demonstrated that every major step in the development of the European Union from a simple trading body to a borderline superstate can be traced back to a very specific ideology, which upholds rule by an elite from behind the scenes. But this isn’t just about politics. Astonishingly, this ideology is also about mysticism and magic.

This shadowy politico-occult movement is synarchy, which was developed by the Frenchman Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves, the Marquis d’Alveydre, in opposition to the rise of anarchy in the second half of the nineteenth century. To him the ideal synarchist state would be a rigid social hierarchy topped by an elite that is predestined to rule – absolutely at odds with the then emerging concepts of democracy, individual liberty and social mobility.

Central to Saint-Yves was the creation of a united Europe, a call for which appears on the first page of his first book on synarchy, Keys to the East (1877). He believed that his perfectly balanced society reflected deep cosmic laws, with which his elite perfectly resonated. They are also directly guided by the powers that rule the universe – as he believed himself to be.

Saint-Yves claimed that in the ancient past an advanced civilisation – based, of course, on synarchic principles – had governed the whole world. This golden age lasted from 7500 to 4000 BCE, before imploding due to a global catastrophe, remembered in legends such as Atlantis. Since then the occult powers-that-be have periodically reintroduced the revelation of synarchy, sending or inspiring figures such as Moses and Jesus – and, naturally, Saint-Yves himself.

He adopted the idea, popular in nineteenth-century esoteric and theosophical circles, that spiritually advanced masters – to him preservers of the synarchic revelation – existed in Agartha, a hidden realm in the Himalayas. He confided in his closest associates that he had been visited by its emissaries.

Another significant aspect of his version of history was that clandestine societies had transmitted the secret of synarchy throughout the ages. It comes as no surprise to discover that his ‘spiritual fathers of synarchy’ were the usual suspects – the Knights Templar.

For a time in the 1880s and 90s Saint-Yves’ ideas were seriously discussed in political circles in France and elsewhere in Europe. In 1886 he formed the Syndicate of the Professional and Economic Press to promote synarchy to political and business leaders. Several members of the French Parliament joined, including government minister François Césaire Demahy – later a founder of the influential nationalist movement Action Française – and Paul Deschanel, who became President of France in 1920. Saint-Yves was made a chévalier of the Légion d’honneur in 1893.

In the end, however, Saint-Yves’ followers realised things would have to change radically. After his death in 1909, and particularly in the uncertain aftermath of the First World War, they knew they could never achieve their ambitions through conventional means – and turned to stealth. They decided on inveigling their members into key positions in political and economic institutions intending on creating, in the words of Richard F. Kuisel, a specialist in twentieth-century French political history, “a world government by an initiated elite.”1 Synarchy came to stand for ‘rule by secret society’, which in practice makes it difficult to distinguish between card-carrying synarchists and those merely under their influence.

TOWARDS EUROPE’S ‘UNITED STATES’

The most high-profile late nineteenth-century devotee of Saint-Yves was the physician Gérard Encausse (‘Papus’), a leading light among French esoteric societies. He blended the teachings of his ‘spiritual master’, the eighteenth century occult philosopher Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin, and his ‘intellectual master’ Saint-Yves. Encausse founded the Martinist Order, into which he absorbed synarchist principles – so that, unusually, it had political ambitions, including the formation of ‘a United States of Europe’. Delusions of grandeur, one might have thought…

Encausse’s death in 1916 resulted in a schism in the Martinist Order over its involvement in politics. The activists, under Victor Blanchard – head of the secretariat of the Chamber of Deputies of the French Parliament – formed the breakaway Martinist and Synarchic Order, which established the Synarchic Central Committee in 1922, designed to pull in promising young civil servants and “younger members of great business families.”2 The Committee soon became the Synarchic Empire Movement, or MSE (Mouvement Synarchique d’Empire) in 1930, under dedicated firebrands Jeanne Canudo and Vivien Postel du Mas.

Canudo is best remembered today as an energetic campaigner for European unity and founder of several youth organisations in the 1930s, select members of which were inducted into the esoteric synarchist orders that she led together with Postel du Mas.

An important witness to these events was the celebrated Parisian litterateur Maurice Girodias (publisher of scandalous sensations such as The Story of O, Lolita, Henry Miller’s Sexus and William S. Burrough’s The Naked Lunch). As a teenager in the 1930s he was involved both with Canudo’s European groups and an esoteric society that met at Postel du Mas’ luxurious apartment to hear the ‘secret masters’ speaking through teenage trance medium Laurette. Girodias said of Postel du Mas’ magical salons: “I saw at his feet men of science, company directors, and bankers.”3

BEYOND TOP SECRET

The MSE produced an important but beyond Top Secret document – its very existence unknown to outsiders until 1941 – entitled The Synarchist Revolutionary Pact for the French Empire, usually known simply as the Synarchist Pact. The exact authorship is uncertain but the main candidates are Postel du Mas and the businessman Jean Coutrot. It was only as a result of Coutrot’s apparent suicide under the Nazi Occupation, when copies were found among his possessions, that anyone knew the Pact existed.4

This highly scary document set out a programme for “invisible revolution” or “revolution from above”: that is, taking over a state from within by infiltrating into high office. The first step was to take control of France, before creating the “European Union” – then, tomorrow…

Saint-Yves did not invent the concept of a federal Europe. For example, Victor Hugo is credited with first using the term ‘United States of Europe’, although – probably not coincidentally – he was a close friend of Saint-Yves in the French ex-pat community in the Channel Islands in the 1860s.

But it became a serious political force when the Pan-European movement was established in 1923 by the Austrian Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, described by Otto von Habsburg – in rather telling terms – as the “guide and prophet” of a united Europe. He famously won over Winston Churchill, who began espousing European unity from 1930 and wrote a foreword to the Count’s 1953 book An Idea Conquers the World. The Count was a committed believer that cosmic forces shape events, giving him at least the profile of a synarchist. (Sadly we have no information about Churchill’s views on the more occult aspects.) But there is evidence of a closer connection with the French synarchists.

In their 1968 Synarchy and Power, André Ulmann and Henri Azeau interviewed one of the inter-war members of the MSE, who claimed it had “inspired the action of Coudenhove-Kalergi and his pan-Europeanism.”5 Coudenhove-Kalergi also lent his support to pro-Europe groups formed by the MSE’s Jeanne Canudo.

Maurice Girodias’ involvement with the synarchists began as a 16-year-old when, at a Theosophical Society lecture in 1935, he was intrigued by a group in flamboyant Templar garb led by Postel du Mas and Canudo. He was told they were “schismatic theosophists with political designs, and they are linked to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi… who is a champion of the United States of Europe… Their aim is to launch a pan-European political party and to institute in the entire world, commencing with Europe, a society obedient to a spiritualist idea.”6 In conversation with Girodias Postel du Mas named Coudenhove-Kalergi as one of the two major promoters of his and Canudo’s plans.

THE HOOD AND THE ILLUMINATI

In the tumultuous aftermath of the First World War, like the rest of Europe France became polarised between communism and fascism. The mid-1930s saw the creation of several clandestine far-right groups, both civilian and military, which were integrated into a single network under the control of a three-man Superior Council. Although it gave itself no particular name, the press dubbed it the Cagoule – or the sinister-sounding ‘Hood’.

Indeed, the Chicago Tribune’s correspondent in Paris, William Shirer, summed up the Cagoule as “deliberately terrorist, resorting to murder and dynamiting, and its aim was to overthrow the Republic and set up an authoritarian régime on the model of the Fascist state of Mussolini.”7 Italy supplied the Cagoule with funds and arms and, in return, the Cagoule assassinated anti-fascist Italian refugees in Paris.

The Cagoule was led by chévalier of the Légion d’honneur Eugène Deloncle, with the other Council members being Dr Henri Martin and Colonel Georges Groussard, who oversaw cabals within the military. It was funded by wealthy industrialists, including Eugène Schueller, founder of L’Oréal – who obviously thought synarchy was “worth it” – in whose company’s headquarters the group met.

Although most of the Cagoule were simply anti-communist extremists, who had probably never heard of synarchy, there’s no doubt that there was a strong connection between the MSE and Superior Council, particularly Deloncle. The connection was acknowledged by Shirer8 and by Richard Kuisel, who writes: “Strangely enough, although the Cagoule was an archenemy of Freemasonry, it imitated Masonic ritual, symbolism, and method of recruitment. The head of the Cagoule, Eugène Deloncle, even likened its recruiting procedures to the ‘chain method’ of the Illuminati.”9

Basically, through the Cagoule, the synarchists had taken over terrorist groups for their own ends, planning to precipitate a state of emergency that would enable its chosen man to step in as a strong leader to restore order “in the interests of public safety.” And their chosen man was Marshal Philippe Pétain.

In September 1937 a series of bomb explosions rocked Paris, intended to kick-start a wave of armed attacks to spread chaos and confusion. But a lucky break led the police to caches of arms and ammunition around the city and Deloncle was arrested.

An official report pointed to the MSE, noting “affiliates of the Synarchic Movement were very numerous and already in place within, and at the head of, the major organs of the state, ready to take charge.”10

It is hard to overestimate the influence of the synarchists. They were – and no doubt still are – hardly a bunch of nobodies. A major player in this story was none other than François Mitterrand, later France’s longest-serving President. Although he was to reinvent himself as a socialist, before and during the Second World War he was very much of the extreme right.

Even at the time it was rumoured that Mitterrand was a member of the Cagoule. But more sensationally, Henri Martin’s family claimed he had actually planted the 1937 bombs.11 But while no firm evidence exists to support Mitterrand being a cagoulard, and he strenuously denied it when confronted with his shady past in the 1990s, he certainly had the connections, besides the relevant political – and indeed, esoteric – views.

Mitterrand believed in rule by an elite – preferably an elite of one: himself. Although from a relatively modest background, he always had an unshakeable belief in his personal superiority, even seeing significance in his family’s origins in the town of Bourges, where a field called the Champs de Mitterrand marks the exact centre of France. ‘Mitterrand’ means ‘middle of the land’.

When the ultra-ambitious Mitterrand finally achieved power he notoriously governed through his ‘clan’ of friends and relatives, famously remarking that he needed only “fifty well-placed friends to run the country.”12 And he began building the clan during those pre-war days, around leading cagoulards, particularly those close to Deloncle.

Mitterrand was a close friend of conspirator in the assassination of the Italian anti-fascist Rosselli brothers, Jean Bouyver, and of François Méténier, Deloncle’s assistant who was sentenced to 20 years for his part in the 1937 bombings. But the closest family connection was with Deloncle: Mitterrand’s brother Robert married Deloncle’s sister-in-law just before the outbreak of war. It is inconceivable that Mitterrand never met the Cagoule’s mastermind and top synarchist. Also, as we will see, like Deloncle Mitterrand was deeply fascinated by esoteric and mystical matters.

SECRETS OF THE HITLER-FRIENDLY STATE

Although the Cagoule’s plans to create a state of emergency to bring Pétain to power failed, of course this was achieved three years later by an even greater crisis. In June 1940 France fell to Nazi Germany, Pétain emerging as the leader of the new Hitler-friendly French State, based in Vichy.

Almost immediately after France’s ignominious surrender some claimed elements in the military had connived in the defeat, believing that jumping into bed with the Nazis would enable Pétain to achieve his cherished national reorganisation.

So it is all the more disturbing that one of Ulmann and Azeau’s ex-MSE informants told them that a senior figure behind the group and “one of the mentors” of the young men being groomed for future greatness in the 1920s and 30s was none other than General Maxime Weygand.13 No doubt not coincidentally married to Saint-Yves’ great-niece, he was Supreme Commander of French and British forces at the outbreak of the Second World War, and in June 1940 it was he who advised the French government to ask Hitler for terms.

French researcher Roger Mennevée argued that Vichy represented the climax of the first phase of the plan outlined in the Synarchist Pact – taking power in France in preparation to extend it to Europe – using the Germans to do what the Cagoule had failed to three years earlier.14 Ulmann and Azeau note that, coincidence or not, Vichy was organised precisely on synarchist lines.

Both the Occupation and Vichy were seen as an opportunity by the synarchists. In Paris, Postel du Mas and Canudo positively welcomed the German overlords. One investigator into synarchy notes of one of her pro-Europe organisations, “the majority were found, after 1940, either in the corridors of power in Vichy, or in the collaborationist circles in Paris.”15

In Vichy, unsurprisingly, former cagoulards rose to the top, particularly in the dreaded Milice, Vichy’s equivalent of the Gestapo. Deloncle was freed from prison – and formed a political party to build a ‘new Europe’, while Henri Martin and Colonel Groussard enjoyed high-level roles in the intelligence and surveillance network. Historian John Hellman states bluntly that former cagoulards were behind the “manipulation, control, and orientation of Pétainist France.”16

Although a one-to-one connection between the Cagoule and the synarchs may sometimes be something of a leap, the latter were undoubtedly active in Vichy. Shirer declares there is “no doubt” that synarchists “infiltrated the highest posts in business and finance and in the government bureaucracy.”17 Certainly many of the young hopefuls groomed by the MSE rose to Vichy’s upper echelons – including Yves Bouthillier, Minister of Finance from 1940 to 1942.

What about Mitterrand? Imprisoned in June 1940, he escaped from the Occupied territory in December 1941 to the Vichy zone. He was welcomed by ex-cagoulards who got him various government jobs (his main sponsor was the father-in-law of both his brother and Deloncle) and was even awarded Vichy’s highest honour for services to the state, the Francisque Gallique, in 1943.

Soon afterwards Mitterrand hastily changed sides, joining the Resistance and making his way to London to ally himself with the Free French – the only episode allowed to be remembered after the war. He wasn’t the only Vichyite to jump ship. Many French synarchists began cosying up to the Allies, as it was increasingly obvious that the tide had turned against Hitler. Henri Martin joined the American covert organisation, the OSS, and Deloncle established contact with the British SOE, although he was killed in a gun battle with the Gestapo in January 1944.

In November 1943 a group of Free French analysts drew up a report explicitly examining synarchists in Vichy and, lately, in the Resistance, acknowledging the reality of synarchy and its considerable influence.18

Unbelievably, Mitterrand emerged from the conflict a Resistance hero and a left-wing politician, his connections with Vichy and his far-right background assigned to the collective amnesia that conveniently gripped France after the war.

But as he clearly had cagoulard sympathies and connections, he must have shared their aims – despite his later bluster to the contrary. And with his interests, associations and chameleon-like changing of political colours in order to achieve his goals he certainly looks like the perfect synarchist. But most suspicious by far are his extraordinary efforts to create the European Union…

THE EU: AN ALTERNATIVE HISTORY

The ‘European project’ began on 9 May 1950 with French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman’s announcement that France and West Germany had agreed to co-ordinate their coal and steel industries. Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg took up his offer to join in, leading seven years later to the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC).

Schuman was only the front man. The prime mover was actually Jean Monnet, the most influential businessman and economist in post-war Europe. Period. The massive international power base he had built up before and during the war gave him immense political influence while keeping out of the public eye. It was Monnet who had secured the Allies’ backing for General de Gaulle against Roosevelt’s opposition, and in return, de Gaulle gave him responsibility for rebuilding the French economy and industry – a position he used to achieve his great dream, laying the foundations for the EEC.

The ‘Schuman Declaration’ was the result of intrigue, trickery and subterfuge by Monnet,19 his most audacious trick being to get French and West German governments to set up a supranational organisation to co-ordinate their industries without realising exactly what they had signed up to. This radical new concept, of an organisation with control over individual nations’ industries but with its own, outside autonomy, laid the foundation for all that came after. Unsurprisingly, Monnet became president of the new body, called – with a chillingly Orwellian tone – the High Authority. Shuman became the first president of the European Parliament in 1958.

What was really going on? A rather large clue lies in the fact that Monnet was another pre-war protégé of the Synarchist Empire Movement. In 1936, Vivien Postel du Mas told Maurice Girodias that, alongside Coudenhove-Kalergi, Monnet was an influential promoter of the synarchist agenda. He certainly publicly supported Canudo’s pro-Europe groups. And one of Ulmann and Azeau’s ex-MSE informants went so far as to describe Monnet as a “true synarch… whose membership of the movement was never in doubt for the true initiates.”20 (Note the occult-sounding “initiates.”)

Schuman, too, had pre-war synarchist connections, although not as direct: he had worked closely on political reform in France and European integration with the professor of law Louis Le Fur, a synarchy activist.

POWER FOR POWER’S SAKE

The Single European Act of 1986, which established free trade and movement between EEC states, was the culmination of the process set in motion by the Schuman Declaration. Over the years the EEC had come to include the UK and Ireland, among others, but the original idea had gone as far as it could.

It was Mitterrand who went beyond the original concept by proposing not just closer economic, but also political, union. The 1992 European Union (‘Maastricht’) Treaty not only turned the EEC into the EU, but for the first time gave the European Parliament powers over member nations (until then it had only an advisory role). Was this the beginning of a European superstate? It also agreed on a single currency, establishing the ‘eurozone’ and the European Central Bank – now terrifyingly beleaguered. All this was Mitterrand’s initiative (aided by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl), including changing the name to the ‘European Union’. Straight out of the Synarchist Pact.

Mitterrand made his second bid for the presidency in 1981 – but unlike the first sixteen years before, backed by Jean Monnet, this one was successful. He held the office for two seven-year terms, only being prevented from a third term by the onset of the cancer of which he was to die in 1996. His presidency is remembered for its corruption and the blatant nepotism of his ‘clan’ being rewarded with positions of power.

Political historians accept that Mitterrand was purely interested in power for power’s sake, and for the enrichment of himself and his clan, with no real political agenda or vision – except when it came to the ‘European project’. There, he was driven by the desire to see a fully integrated Europe, which he declared “takes precedence over everything.”

But was Mitterrand a card-carrying synarchist? He moved in the right circles, through his pre-war associations with the Cagoule’s leadership. His pursuit of closer European integration certainly fits the synarchists’ core objective. And his interest in esoteric matters also fits the profile – which tends to be downplayed by Mitterrand’s biographers, although it is explored in Nicolas Bonnal’s Mitterrand, the Great Initiate (2001). He employed astrologers – even for major foreign policy decisions – believed in reincarnation, and was interested in UFOs.

Even more intriguing to Dan Brown fans – and indeed, our own – is the fact that he had a special veneration for Mary Magdalene, focused on her cult centre at Vézelay. And much has been made of him visiting the celebrated ‘village of mystery’ of Rennes-le-Château (actually only the most high-profile of several visits) during his 1981 election campaign.

Nicknamed ‘the Sphinx’, Mitterrand was also fascinated by ancient civilisations: as President he oversaw a great accumulation of Egyptian antiquities by French museums and universities, believing there was some connection between that civilisation and ancient France. Saint-Yves would have agreed.

As President, Mitterrand also spent some 30 billion francs on a major programme of public building, mostly in Paris. Like all egomaniacs he was driven to leave his solid, tangible mark on history. But apparently, there was more to it than that. His monuments’ esoteric symbolism is acknowledged even by mainstream writers, such as Marie Delarue in her 1999 study, tellingly entitled A Republican Pharaoh. She refers to the Parisian buildings as “a journey for initiates,” noting they “seem to relate more to personal destiny and François Mitterrand’s pronounced taste for hermeticism and the Sacred Science, than to the politics of socialist governments.”21

The most famous of his monuments is the great glass pyramid outside the Louvre, unveiled in 1993 to mark the bicentenary of the French Revolution, and clearly reflecting a link between ancient Egypt and France. But the most imposing public work is the Grande Arche de la Fraternité in the La Défence area of Paris, completed in 1989 and designed by the Danish architect Otto von Spreckelsen. Bizarrely – and rather ambitiously – it represents a three-dimensional ‘shadow’ of a hyperdimensional cube that he called a “porte cosmique”: ‘cosmic gateway’ or perhaps even ‘stargate’…

But “the most beautiful, most esoteric and least known of the Mitterrandian Great Works”22 – and his personal favourite – is the 1989 Monument to the Rights of Man and the Citizen in the Parc du Champs-de-Mars, in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower. Modelled on an Egyptian funerary temple and aligned to the Sun on the summer solstice, it is literally covered in esoteric symbolism, much of it obviously Masonic. After Mitterrand’s death his staff revealed that he often visited it at night, silently meditating.

In both action and belief Mitterrand certainly fits the profile of the synarchist. But remember that synarchy’s elite believed itself to be in direct contact with powerful non-human intelligences who effectively pulled the strings of those in power. Or perhaps Mitterrand was simply under the synarchist elite.

So…

Nobody can pretend the journey from the Schuman Declaration to today’s EU has been untroubled. It has been repeatedly obstructed by those opposed to a federal Europe, and diverted by vested interests – political, economic and even criminal – seeking to turn it to their advantage. The whole thing simply can’t have been planned and directed exclusively by the synarchist elite. But on the other hand, it is undeniable that things have turned out how Saint-Yves and his followers would have wanted. And given that all the major steps along the way were the initiative of individuals with direct synarchist connections, it would equally be wrong to dismiss their influence on the EU’s creation.

Of course, Saint-Yves’ vision did not end with the creation of the EU and the eurozone. They merely marked the beginning of the ultimate synarchist dream of a true United States of Europe. Building on those foundations, and bringing about even closer integration, depends on overcoming the individual nations’ interests, which has always presented a problem – unless the situation changes drastically.

And that is precisely what is happening right now with the major crisis in the eurozone, which has brought the EU to the brink of make-or-break. Senior figures – including the European Commission President José Manuel Barroso – have declared that the only solution to the crisis and preventing it happening again is an even greater level of economic and political integration. The same conclusion has been reached by the likes of the powerful financier George Soros, who has called for a European central authority with greater powers over the member states. On the other hand, some believe that the crisis will be the downfall of the EU. And synarchists – no matter who or where they are – simply can’t let that happen.

If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.
FOOTNOTES

1. Richard F. Kuisel, ‘The Legend of the Vichy Synarchy’, in French Historical Studies, spring 1970, 378.

2. André Ulmann and Henri Azeau, Synarchie et pouvoir (Julliard, 1968), 63.

3. Maurice Girodias, Une journée sur le terre (Éditions de la Différence, 1990), vol. I, 411.

4. The Pact was finally published in 1946 by Raoul Hussan, writing under the pseudonym Geoffrey de Charnay, in Synarchie: Panorama de 25 années d’activité occulte (Médicis).

5. Ulmann and Azeau, 64.

6. Girodias, vol. I, 149.

7. William L. Shirer, The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Enquiry into the Fall of France in 1940 (William Heinemann, 1970), 209.

8. See Shirer, 217-20.

9. Kuisel, 385.

10. Quoted in Jean-Raymond Tournoux, L’Histoire secrète (Plon, 1962), 173.

11. The allegation was made to journalist Pierre Péan, during his research for Une jeunesse française: François Mitterrand 1934-1947 (Fayard, 1994), see page 109.

12. Quoted in John Laughland, The Death of Politics: France under Mitterrand (Michael Joseph, 1994), 60.

13. Ulmann and Azeau, 116.

14. Writing in Action, 2 November 1945.

15. De Charnay, 69.

16. John Hellman, The Knight-Monks of Vichy France: Uriage, 1940-1945 (Liverpool University Press, 1997), 331.

17. Shirer, 218.

18. The report is reproduced in Ulmann and Azeau, pages 293-310. Ulmann was one of the Free French analysts, who worked alongside Mitterrand after his ‘defection’.

19. See, for example, Merry and Serge Bromberger, Jean Monnet and the United States of Europe (Coward-McCann, 1969).

20. Ulmann and Azeau, 63.

21. Marie Delarue, Un pharaon républicain (Jacques Grancher, 1999), 8.

22. Delarue, 50.


The above article appeared in New Dawn Special Issue 18.

[TonyGosling]

Brexit deal 'does not breach' Good Friday Agreement
3 December 2018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46428851#

Theresa May walks past the Christmas tree outside 10 Downing StreetImage copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Theresa May has resisted demands that advice offered by the attorney general on Brexit be made public
Theresa May's Brexit deal does not breach the Good Friday peace agreement, according to legal advice received by the government.
The government has published a summary of the advice after facing pressure from all parties in Parliament.
Some unionists argue the prime minister's deal with the EU would amount to a breach of the agreement.
The government paper says the deal does not "affect the principle of consent or any other provision... in any way".
Brexit: A really simple guide
Q&A: Irish border Brexit backstop


Media captionCox: Brexit backstop a 'calculated risk' for UK
Speaking in the House of Commons on Monday, the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said the Brexit backstop was a "calculated risk".
The Northern Ireland backstop is a last-resort plan designed to prevent a return to a visible Irish border.
It would mean Northern Ireland would stay aligned to some rules of the EU single market if another solution cannot be found by the end of the transition period in December 2020.
May's political fight
The government has resisted demands that legal advice offered by the attorney general on Brexit be made public.
But it may have broken Parliamentary rules by not publishing the advice, said Commons Speaker John Bercow on Monday evening.
That is likely to delay the start of five days of debate on Mrs May's Brexit deal, which is due to start on Tuesday.
John BercowImage copyrightHOC
Image caption
There was a case that a contempt of Parliament has been committed, said John Bercow
The prime minister said the full legal advice on the Brexit deal is confidential.
But MPs say that does not respect a binding Commons vote last month, which required the government to lay before Parliament "any legal advice in full".
The prime minister is facing the fight of her political life to get MPs to back the deal in a vote next week.


Media captionThe Good Friday Agreement: A brief guide
The DUP's Sammy Wilson said it was important for MPs to know exactly what they are voting for and the implications for Northern Ireland.
Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill said the backstop contained in the EU withdrawal agreement is the only way to protect the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.
She insisted that was the case whatever decision Parliament took on the publication of government legal advice.
SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said that whatever the legal advice was, Brexit remained a terrible idea.
Colum Eastwood and Michelle O'NeillImage copyrightPA
Image caption
Colum Eastwood and Michelle O'Neill say the Brexit backstop must remain in the deal
He added it was reckless for anyone to maintain there was an alternative to the backstop.
Alliance Party deputy leader Stephen Farry and Green Party leader Clare Bailey also argued that the backstop must be protected as the minimum required to protect the interests of people in Northern Ireland.
The politicians were speaking after meeting a number of civic groups at Stormont.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Israel’s plan for post-Brexit Britain
https://www.redressonline.com/2019/02/i ... t-britain/

4th February 2019 QuickPress, British stooges, Home
Israel's plan for Brexit UK
Introduction by Gilad Atzmon

“If you have been puzzled by the insane campaign against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, spearheaded by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Chronicle, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, and others, the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘anti-Semitism’. It is more likely about shekels, in that Corbyn in Number 10 Downing Street could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain’.”

The following is a translation of the last segment of an article on Brexit published in Israel’s Ynetnews website on 3 February. The article explains that the Jewish State has located itself as post-Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world. It says: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.”It continues: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregards the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”

A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli “plan for the Middle East”. The following Ynet segment provides us with a glimpse into the current “Israel’s plan for Britain”.

If you have been puzzled by the insane campaign against British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, spearheaded by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Chronicle, the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, and others, the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about “anti-Semitism”. It is more likely about shekels, in that Corbyn in Number 10 Downing Street could easily interfere with “Israel’s plans for Britain”.

The Ynet article may also help Britons understand the bipartisan forces that are operating intensively to push Britain to break away from the European Union. For some reason, some of the staunch Israel supporters within the government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself: Do they do it for Britain, Britons and the British national interest or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state, Israel?

Below are the excerpts from Ynet , translated by Gilad Atzmon. Emphasis added throughout. (For the original article in Hebrew, click here.)

The Brexit hurricane
“… It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When Britain decided to withdraw from the European Union, it was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Britons saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain’s steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that “Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well”. Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.

In recent years, Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally. Innovation, technological, intelligence and cyber capabilities have made Israel one of the most popular potential partners for Britain. The volume of trade between the two countries rose to a record $11 billion last year, of which $5 billion was Israeli exports to Britain, and the rest was British imports from Israel. After the United States, Britain is the largest exporter to Israel. Trade relations span a wide range of fields – energy, pharmaceuticals, food and technology – and the British government total disregards the boycott organisations against Israel. On the political level, it boycotted the boycott.

In the past year, teams from the British and Israeli economy ministries have gathered to discuss bilateral trade agreements. They had to draft new agreements, since the current trade agreements between the two countries were within the framework of the European Union. Ohad Cohen, head of the Foreign Trade Department in the Ministry of the Economy who was in charge of the talks on the Israeli side, said that the British had entered talks with a simple task: to continue without unnecessary shocks and to repeat most of the clauses in the agreement that Israel signed with the EU in 1995.

“They came and said: ‘Whatever was, will be,’” Cohen said. “In other words, they wanted Israel to continue to trade with Britain on the same terms, with full customs exemptions, and to make very small changes to existing agreements, especially in quantities. Britain has named Israel as one of the first countries with which it wants to sign a bilateral agreement, and it is important for the British government to ensure that the commercial ties between the two countries are not harmed.”

According to Cohen, the negotiations were oblivious to the many changes that have stirred the British political system in the past year. The British did not arrive with any panic for the negotiations with Israel, not even when ministers resigned one by one and Theresa May’s government was crushed under the wheels of Brexit. “The only difference is that they were required to set up a unit that deals with trade agreements, which they did not have before, because before everything went through the EU institutions in Brussels,” says Cohen.

Thus, in the coming month a trade agreement between the two countries is expected to be signed. After Israel, Britain expects to sign trade agreements with some 70 other countries, including its closest ally, the US. The agreement with the Americans is very important, because for a Brexit government this is a prestigious card and proof that Britain can stand on its feet even outside the European Union…”

[TonyGosling]

Europe - The Final Countdown 1986 (Official Video)
588,312,987 views
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw


(Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one)

We're leaving together,
But still it's farewell
And maybe we'll come back
To earth, who can tell?
I guess there is no one to blame
We're leaving ground (leaving ground)
Will things ever be the same again?

It's the final countdown
The final countdown

Oh

We're heading for Venus (Venus)
And still we stand tall
'Cause maybe they've seen us (seen us)
And welcome us all, yeah
With so many light years to go
And things to be found (to be found)
I'm sure that we'll all miss her so

It's the final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
Oh

The final countdown,oh
It's the final count down
The final countdown
The final countdown
The final countdown
Oh
It's the final count down
We're leaving together
The final count down
We'll all miss her so
It's the final countdown
It's the final countdown
Oh
It's the final countdown, yeah

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

'We don't care about society's elders who remember Britain in the days before Brussels. They're going to die soon anyway', intimates generous John Major.
Young people 'will neither forget nor forgive' politicians responsible for #Brexit, warns John Major. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 67666.html

Celia Moore
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?stor ... 1274106225

It's the banks, and those who want to control, profit from, and monopolise the supply of food, energy, and just about every facet of our lives. Once the EU have been delt with, it will be the turn of our government and the banking system. The young people will 'never forget, nor forgive us', if we dont don't deal with the whole lot of you. Your party sold off assets, that belonged to the public, you ignored the voices from poorer regions, and local industries were destroyed so that global players could take advantage of slave labour overseas. You have no right to speak for 'young people', who still have a lot to learn from the experiences of their parents, who will clarify a few things before you try and plant seeds in their head.

[TonyGosling]

LIVE: Former #Brexit minister Steve Baker appears before MP committee
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pwZ1saqBc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pwZ1saqBc?t=45m[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6pwZ1saqBc?t=45m

[TonyGosling]

Common Market Debate | European Union | Audience Debate | 1970
part 1
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJGdZC6VQ2s[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJGdZC6VQ2s
part 2
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOkg_ASzN0g[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOkg_ASzN0g

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Course she'll lose, again.
It's blindingly obvious.
Welcome everyone to the week the #Brexit decision, biggest UK voter turnout for 25 yrs, was stitched up, not by Brussels but by the Oliver Letwin, Yvette Cooper, corporate establishment. The enemy within.
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may- ... d-11658716

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

EU prepares to demand multi-billion pound increase on divorce payment from Britain in return for Brexit delay
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... e-payment/
theresa may
Theresa May has less than two days left to save her Brexit deal CREDIT: PA
Gordon Rayner, political editor James Crisp
10 MARCH 2019 • 9:30PM
The EU is preparing to impose punitive conditions on Britain as its price for agreeing a Brexit delay if Theresa May is forced to ask for an extension this week.

Member states are “hardening” their attitudes towards a delay and will demand “legal and financial conditions” including a multi-billion pound increase to the £39bn divorce payment.

With no signs of a breakthrough in the Brexit negotiations to change the existing exit deal, Parliament is expected to reject the deal for a second time on Tuesday, before voting later in the week to extend Article 50.

EU sources suggested that the only way for Mrs May to win the vote is if she finds her “inner Churchill” and reaches out across the political...

Tony Blair secretly advising Emmanuel Macron on Brexit as former PM accused of 'unacceptable...

Analysis: What does the EU stand to lose in a no-deal Brexit?
First of seven Britons identified among 157 killed in Ethiopian Airlines crash
Brussels has treated the British Government with condescension bordering on contempt over Brexit
Minister claims 'only two' members of Cabinet still support Theresa May as she faces growing...

[fish5133]

The big cheers and laughs in House of Commons when May said if her deal or a deal not accepted Brexit might not go ahead says it all. Laughing in the faces of 17.4million.
Its so painful watching some of the politicians using their weasel ways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiUFPjulTW8

[TonyGosling]

Brexit amendment vote: Which MPs REBELLED against Theresa May in Benn vote?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -MP-rebels

BREXIT votes are once again underway in the House of Commons, as MPs embark on their third day of landmark votes. How many people rebelled against Theresa May in the Benn amendment?

By LIAM DOYLE
PUBLISHED: 19:15, Thu, Mar 14, 2019 | UPDATED: 20:05, Thu, Mar 14, 2019

Benn Amendment: MPs reject control over parliamentary time

The Benn amendment is the latest to be voted out in Parliament, as MPs continue to deliberate how the UK exits the EU later this year. This is the third day of voting and has seen Parliament reject Theresa May’s revised bill, and vote against allowing the country to exit without a deal in place. Another collection of amendments are underway today, culminating in a vote on the motion to extend article 50, which ultimately extends the Brexit date past March 29. Voting on the Benn amendment revealed which MPs would have power taken away from the Prime Minister and given to Parliament in deciding the path of Brexit.

The Benn amendment essentially called for Parliament to be able to decide the path forward for Brexit.

The amendment would have enabled the House of Commons “to find a way forward that can command majority support”.

This means the House of Commons and Lords would be allowed to decide what kind of Brexit deal should be negotiated.

The amendment was ultimately defeated by a majority of two, 314 votes to 312.

READ MORE: EU condemned by French nationalists

Which MPs rebelled against Theresa May?

Sebastian Payne, the Financial Times’ Whitehall correspondent, revealed the list of Conservative MPs who had voted against Mrs May.

According to him, some 16 conservative MPs backed the Benn amendment.

The Press Association revealed a different list of six Labour MPs who voted against the Benn amendment.

READ MORE: MPs vote to EXTEND Article 50

Theresa May Benn vote
16 MP's voted for the Benn amendment (Image: GETTY)
The 16 Tory MPs who backed the Benn amendment were:

- Guto Bebb

- Richard Benyon

- Nick Boles

- Ken Clarke

- Jonathan Djanogly

- George Freeman

- Justine Greening

- Dominic Grieve

- Sam Gyimah

- Rob Halfon

- Philip Lee

- Oliver Letwin

- Antoinette Sandbach

- Nick Soames

- John Stevenson

- Ed Vaizey

READ MORE: Varadkar warns Trump YEARS before Brexit is sorted

RELATED ARTICLES

Health Secretary slated as MPs vote to DELAY Brexit - 'You've FAILED!'

Roger Federer: Superfan John Bercow gives House of Commons shout out
Parliament Article 50
Parliament has now voted to extend Article 50 (Image: GETTY)
The six Labour MPs who voted against the Benn amendment were:

- Kevin Barron

- Ronnie Campbell

- Caroline Flint

- Kate Hoey

- John Mann

- Graham Stringer

[TonyGosling]

BREXIT LIVE: EU pours cold water on May's Brexit delay win – 'ALL EU27 need to approve'

BRUSSELS have poured cold water over Theresa May’s Brexit victory by reminding the UK that “Article 50 requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 member states”.

By CARLY READ
PUBLISHED: 06:59, Thu, Mar 14, 2019 | UPDATED: 20:31, Thu, Mar 14, 2019
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Brexit vote: MPs vote to SUPPORT Article 50 extension
A European Commission spokesman fired off a quick response moments after a vote to delay Article 50 was won 412/202, with a majority of 210. The ballot will allow Mrs May to iron out a better deal or post-Brexit Britain, though not without their permission the spokesman reminded the Prime Minister. The spokesman said: “We take note of tonight’s votes. A request for an extension of Article 50 requires the unanimous agreement of all 27 Member States. “It will be for the European Council (Article 50) to consider such a request, giving priority to the need to ensure the functioning of the EU institutions and taking into account the reasons or and duration of a possible extension.”

Guy Verhofstadt - @GuyVerhofstadt
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/stat ... 7722295296
Under no circumstances an extension in the dark! Unless there is a clear majority in the House of Commons for something precise, there is no reason at all for the European Council to agree on a prolongation. Even the motion tabled for this evening by the UK Gov. recognises this.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Ignore the nay-sayers – here’s why we’re still on course for a clean Brexit on 29th March
https://brexitcentral.com/ignore-nay-sa ... 9th-march/

Christopher Howarth
Christopher Howarth is a senior researcher working in the House of Commons. Prior to this he worked for Open Europe, as a Conservative Foreign Affairs Adviser and senior researcher to a Shadow Europe Minister.

The Withdrawal Agreement has been defeated twice by historic margins, for all the reasons we are all too well aware of – not least the inability to escape the horrors of the backstop. In normal times a government defeated on a major policy would show some contrition, maybe even resign, but not this one. MPs are going to be invited to vote again and again until, well, they sign away their right to vote to the EU27. This is an idiotic policy that is bound to fail. If you ask the same question, you get the same answer. Before the second defeat of the ‘deal’ and Tuesday’s vote on a motion to take ‘no deal’ off the table, I wrote that the Brexit result “is already a foregone conclusion”, asserting that it’s already a certainty that we will leave on 29th March without a deal or without the backstop. So far I have not heard any credible counter-arguments. So, following this week’s events is this still true? Yes, and more so. So where are we now?
We are two weeks away from Brexit with very few sitting days left in the Commons and Lords. This makes the Remainers’ games very, very difficult. They have to push their deal or proposition through. Opponents hold the castle, guarding the pass.
The Commons has just voted decisively against a second referendum – the only remotely viable way to reverse the result of the first – by a resounding 334 to 85 votes.
The Commons has voted to take ‘no deal’ off the table in a non-binding motion. This is obviously an affront to logic and the UK’s negotiating hand, but does not change the situation from the last time Parliament did this.
The Commons has rejected the constitutional monstrosity of the Benn amendment to take control of the Order Paper to allow indicative votes next week.
The Commons on Thursday passed a Government motion to ask for an unspecified extension for an unspecified purpose.
So will the Prime Minister bring the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration back for another try? Quite probably; she has not shown any imagination ever since she first embarked on a secret two-year attempt to embed the UK in a permanent customs union. She did not blink at the reception Chequers received, she barely blinked when defeated by 230 votes. Honourable pro-Leave Cabinet Ministers resigning left, right and centre is all just water off a duck’s back. Yes, she will try another vote, Plan B is Plan A and C-Z ditto. She will lose. There is a parliamentary rule in Erskine May that you should not ask the Commons to vote twice on the same subject. This was arguably broken on Tuesday, but it’s worth asking: can she now extract changes to her deal to present a new proposition? The answer is probably no. No, because the Prime Minister does not want to change her deal. No, because when presented with the chance to vote on the Malthouse proposals for alternatives to the backstop, she refused (along with her Brexit Secretary). She has allowed her own Cabinet to sabotage her negotiating hand, because she is not proposing to negotiate. She does not support changing the backstop – so it won’t be changed. There is a European Council meeting on 21st March, so might it be possible the EU27 throw the Prime Minister a new meaningless piece of paper for the Attorney General to opine on? Still possible, but it is already clear it will make no difference. MPs will be asked to vote on the same deal and will give the same answer. But that is not everything. There are some genuine fears exercising some MPs, pushed out by Number 10 and certain ambitious Cabinet Ministers, who want to vote for the deal and be Prime Minister. Potential fears: 1. If MPs vote down the ‘deal’, they will allow Remain MPs to force through an extension?
In fact the guaranteed way to an extension is to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement as the Government has itself argued (and the Commons has passed a motion to the effect) that it will require an extension to prepare legislation to implement the deal. Therefore, MPs voting for the deal will also have to vote for an extension, otherwise the deal will time out as the passing of the legislation is a condition of ratification. But running with the argument, we have ruled out a second referendum, and won’t extend to implement the ‘deal’ when the deal is defeated. What is left? Will the Prime Minister tear up her deal and seek an extension for something else? The EU will not allow an extension for no purpose (as acknowledged in the Government’s motion passed on Thursday), and nor will the Conservative Party or Parliament. The last deal took two years to negotiate behind the backs of the Cabinet, there will not be any new negotiation, so will the Conservative manifesto be ripped up and the UK participate in Euro-elections? No. The Prime Minister is not that foolhardy. At worst, we might see a short extension to prepare for ‘no deal’, but that itself is unlikely and hardly a reason to back a disastrous deal. 2. If MPs vote for the ‘deal’ they may get a new Prime Minister? And tidy up afterwards?
A line touted by various Cabinet Ministers, this is a fundamentally dishonest argument. Not only would any promise by the Prime Minister to stand down be ignored, it would not solve anything. In the backstop even Genghis Khan as Prime Minister would come up against the fundamentals of international law. But we won’t have Genghis Khan, we will no doubt have a Prime Minister who voted for a deal that he/she now seeks to unravel against Foreign Office and Civil Service advice. An unlikely and self-serving tale. 3. Labour will vote for the ‘deal’?
This scenario comes from the same school of thought that believed Labour would vote for a second referendum. It misunderstands the nature of opposition and the Labour leadership. Labour have no interest in taking part ownership of an unpopular deal. They want government and leaving the Tory Party in sole ownership of the deal suits them just fine. 4. The ERG and DUP will fold?
The most ludicrous and lazy of all journalist lines, spun by an increasingly desperate small group of centre-right commentators and think-thanks close to the Cabinet, is that the DUP are biddable, and the European Research Group will fold. This is rot. It should come as no surprise that the DUP are Unionists and the ERG MPs are largely life-long eurosceptics committed to the UK Parliament making UK laws. This is not going to change. Of course, there are trades in the normal course of politics, but no party or group can trade away policies that are existential to their identity. Sir Bill Cash will not agree to the EU legislating in the UK any more than the DUP will agree to separate treatment for Northern Ireland. And remember the Withdrawal Agreement cannot pass without the DUP or ERG. So there we are. The ‘deal’ will be defeated again. It may be defeated several more times until the Prime Minister is dragged from her roulette table. So, what of the other horror scenarios being used on MPs? They have no substance. There is no reason to vote for the deal you dislike because you fear the machinations of someone else – particularly when the machinations are ephemeral and vaporous. A miasma seeping out of Downing Street and its allied think-tanks. MPs will not be fooled by this. Why vote to give the Prime Minister a victory into a permanent backstop if you want someone else to negotiate the trade deal? Why believe the threats of a Conservative Government that it will act against its own and the country’s best interests to threaten its own MPs into submission? These are dark arts, practised by a particularly hapless novice wizard. Downing Street’s last weapon is fear – fear they may do something even worse to themselves than they were already planning! To paraphrase the lesser Roosevelt, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – and MPs are not fearful of a weak unimaginative Government desperate to push through a failed deal. Parliament does not want to re-join the EU, it does not want a referendum. It cannot ask for an extension to implement the deal if MPs don’t want the deal. And nobody could stomach another drawn-out negotiation going on for potentially years and the imminent prospect of European Elections, manifestos, campaigns and all that comes with them. Once you have eliminated all the alternatives, the conclusion is staring you in the face – the UK will leave on 29th March and take back control.
Article 50 Big Picture OpinionTags: backstop, Christopher Howarth, DUP, European Research Group, no deal, Theresa May, Withdrawal Agreement


Copyright BrexitCentral 2019 Privacy Policy Contact Us

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

'Beauty will save the world.' Dostoyevsky
The Word Turned Upside Down. The strange death of the Left’s opposition to the EU
Posted on March 19, 2019 by michaelcrowley1
https://michaelcrowley.blog/2019/03/19/ ... to-the-eu/

If the Labour Party had accepted the referendum result, had embraced it, we would have left the EU by now and might also have a Labour government. There would also be less social division abroad than is currently the case. But they have reneged on their election promise of 2017, perpetuated and fed off the social division and set their teeth against Brexit from the Momentum foot soldiers up to the leadership. They now campaign for a second referendum, against a no deal option and there isn’t a deal they would vote for save their own which would leave us in the customs union and the single market, i.e. in the EU. In doing so they have not only betrayed their overwhelmingly working class leave constituency but democracy itself. And it’s a historic betrayal, not only in the sense of its magnitude but also in the narrative of the wider labour movement’s struggle for universal suffrage beginning at the Putney debates and spanning the centuries to the suffragettes. It is a rejection of the principle that ordinary people should strive to exercise political authority through the vote. We have now a Left in Britain that likes to toddle off to see Mike Leigh’s film Peterloo and then despair in the pub afterwards at the poor of 2019 who voted for political independence.

8-benncorbyn

In the Labour movement that I was part of from the late seventies until a few years ago opposition to pan European economics and government was mainstream. Now it is extremely marginal, virtually extinct. By the very definition of the term (see the French Revolution) the Left side of politics is about widening access to political power and the Right is about the narrowing of authority. The EU by definition is a project of the Right. At my final Labour Party branch meeting I was roundly booed for saying I had voted leave and was called ‘Tory scum’ by a member who looked to be in the midst of retaking his A levels. Many in the room were completely unaware of the social democratic case against the growing power of the EU, nor were they aware that until very recently Corbyn had been an opponent of the EU for all of his career, hanging on to the coat tails of Tony Benn. I went to see Corbyn at Leeds during his first leadership campaign. Half way through he told the more than 2000 assembled, ‘…if the EU isn’t delivering for ordinary working people we will consider our membership.’ I wasn’t the only one who stood up to clap. Now the serial rebel is imposing the whip on MPs to stop Brexit. So how did he and the rest of the labour movement learn to love the oligarchy?

In Corbyn’s case it is because he has become increasingly opportunist and sees frustrating the Brexit mandate as a means to force a general election. It seems obvious to him to put party above country, above democracy. The Left has always been a curious cocktail of principled stands and popular posturing. I joined the Socialist Workers Party at the time of punk and the Anti Nazi League, a lot of teenagers did. Initially I didn’t understand why thereafter ‘the party’ made a virtue of unpopularity. But Corbyn wants power. To his credit he is far more serious about it than Miliband was. He and his shadow cabinet appeared so intoxicated by the scent of it during the 2017 general election that the following morning he repeatedly proclaimed Labour had won. What was darker was his response to the atrocity of the Manchester bombing which took place during the campaign. I was in Sydney at the time and was aware that the Prime Minster had called a halt in campaigning. We switched on ABC to see Corbyn proselytising to reporters that Britain’s foreign policy was to blame for the murder of 22 mainly teenage girls at the Manchester Arena. The fact that the bomber was the son of a refugee taken in by Britain is only part of the point here. What I saw was a politician so desperate to make ground he was prepared to exploit an atrocity before the names and scale of the victims were even known, during the nearest this country ever gets to mourning. Corbyn has put in a shift on the back benches and now at last he feels cometh the hour. The 2017 manifesto was an un-costed utopian basket case that had students queueing to have their debts written off. Now he is mapping every move back and forth across the Brexit board game. A former comrade said to me “Jezza is playing a blinder on Brexit.” The most radical domestic political event of our lives isn’t something Labour leaders should be playing with.

To explain the wider Left’s opposition to leaving the EU, even after the referendum result, you have to go back to the Thatcher years, from 1984 onwards. After the defeat of the miners and a second Tory election victory the Left had to reconcile themselves to the fact that the emancipation of the working class was not an act of the working class itself, but was something that the council might do on their behalf. Then Thatcher’s legislation and Kinnock’s purge put paid to that so they looked to Brussels instead. Whilst in Britain workers were reading tabloids, crossing picket lines and buying Filofaxes, the French and other continentals were electing socialists. Europe was cool and was providing European law to protect workers in Britain in place of the unions. There was TUPE for when you were privatised, the working time directive when you needed a break from your VDU. I was a shop steward during this period and was sent on day long courses by my union to gen up on European health and safety law. I became a full time irritant to management not because I had a militant workforce behind me but because I had a handbook of progressive regulations to quote from. A Bleak House version of Scargill.

In the face of declining working class support the Left became managerial in outlook and the Labour Party increasingly a party of managers in spirit if not in occupation. Fast forward to Corbyn’s Labour Party and the influx of numerous ex Trots in mid-life, a lot of young people and an aggressive form of identity politics. Prioritising and defining all things by race or age or gender etc is inherently managerial and undemocratic. It is not hard to see how the party membership gets behind the House of Lords, John Bercow or Gary Linekar to support what is in effect an anti-democracy movement.

Democracy has never been something the Left has valued for its own sake. The very idea has always been viewed as a sham. Believing instead that the real contest lies in the power relations of capital or as Corbyn refers to it ‘a rigged system’ doesn’t lend itself to respecting the result of plebiscites. Furthermore one is taught early on that the voters are rigged as well, that they possess a ‘false consciousness’. In short everyone who disagrees has been brainwashed. Politics for the Left and the managerial classes is not a matter of opinion, of real and perceived interest, it is a matter of right and wrong. Throw in the Left’s new Stalinist handbook that states unless proven otherwise white working class people are racist and leave voters are obviously nothing more than malign and stupid. A discussion with them regarding the merits or otherwise of the EU goes nowhere. If you want to end the free movement of labour because it suppresses the wages of those in unskilled work, you’re a racist. If you’re concerned about unprecedented and unsustainable population growth in the UK, you’re a racist. If you think people should be governed by consent, you’re a Tory. In many ways the contemporary Left bear many of the hallmarks of the far Right. They are censorious to the point of banning speech, books and removing paintings; they make a virtue of segregation based on race and gender and many loathe and fear the working class. The Guardian ran an article in the wake of the referendum arguing that voters should pass an intelligence test; the very same strategy that was used to disenfranchise black people in America.

“Intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people. Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history, etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.”

George Orwell.

The vilification of the leave constituency has been unprecedented and the vast majority of the barrage, indeed the worst of it comes from the Left. In many of the missives if one replaced the words leave voter with Jew, Muslim or Gay there would quite rightly be outrage. But there isn’t. A colleague of mine who works in arts production was hounded out of work when he spoke up for Brexit. I know others who work in the media, including the BBC, who realistically fear being sacked if management find out they voted leave. Some remain voters I speak to think this is fine. My impression of much of the wider remain vote is that it was based on fear of economic catastrophe. Much of the Left’s motives boil down to a matter of self-image, of virtue signalling as being anti-racist, pro-immigration for its own sake rather than any analysis or understanding of how the EU operates and what it means for democracy across the continent. For if Britain cannot leave the EU, a wealthy island with a commonwealth, then how can the landlocked?

Corbyn will lose votes in Leave constituencies, he may well lose constituencies. He knows this but has decided to throw his lot in with the pro EU middle classes. Brexit was a working class revolt. Labour’s betrayal of its election promise feels like a watershed but there is a much greater schism upon us. Millions of us have come to the conclusion that the UK is no longer a democracy. The system is rigged and it is Labour who have helped to rig it. They have run to the House of Lords to Macron and to the EU to prevent Brexit. The Speaker of the House, a man who has a * to Brexit sticker on his car bumper has today found a caveat from 1605 that says we can’t leave the EU. Corbyn happened because of Iraq; Brexit happened because of Iraq. The electorate do not trust parliament, politicians are self-evidently not people of their word and they are impossibly remote. I predict a riot and I predict a sharp fall in turnout at the next election, if as it seems, we don’t leave the EU. If voting doesn’t change anything, why vote? People will find other ways to make their point.

The hope here for me, as Winston Smith put it, lies with the proles. Despite approaching three years of EU propaganda from the political class and the state broadcaster, the leave constituency hasn’t buckled, if anything it has grown as many who voted remain have become disgusted with the behaviour of the establishment. I suspect that increasing numbers of people want to leave the EU, want the House of Lords abolished. All the advances toward universal suffrage were as a result of demands by the people. It may be that we will have to revive the struggle once more. But while I no longer think politicians can be trusted I still think the people can.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Famous Israeli fraudster says he'll stop Brexit by telepathy

Uri Geller threatens to stop Brexit telepathically if Theresa May refuses to
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... eresa-may/

Anna Mikhailova, political correspondent
22 MARCH 2019 • 6:54PM
Follow
Uri Geller has threatened to telepathically stop Brexit if Theresa May refuses to do so.

The celebrity psychic, who became famous for his ability to bend metal spoons, has written to the Prime Minister saying: “I feel psychically and very strongly that most British people do not want Brexit.

“I love you very much but I will not allow you to lead Britain into Brexit.

“As much as I admire you, I will stop you telepathically from doing this.”

In the letter, published by the Jewish Telegraph, Mr Geller goes on to say: “Before I take this drastic course of action, I appeal to you to stop the process immediately while you still have a chance.”

The letter, which begins “My dear Theresa”, says Mr Geller...

[TonyGosling]

Brexit has left UK ‘in the grip of CIVIL WAR’, warns Wetherspoons founder Tim Martin
BRITAIN is in the grip of a “non-violent civil war” - and politicians from all parties have a responsibility to deliver Brexit quickly to prevent it damaging the fabric of the nation, Wetherspoons founder Tim Martin has told Express.co.uk.
By CIARAN MCGRATH
PUBLISHED: 13:47, Thu, Apr 4, 2019 | UPDATED: 16:20, Thu, Apr 4, 2019
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... heresa-may

Brexit: Andrew Bridgen calls for Theresa May to 'go NOW'UP NEXT:
This has turned into a non-violent civil war

Tim Martin

Mr Martin, an outspoken Brexiteer who has campaigned alongside the likes of former UKIP leader, Nigel Farage and ERG chairman Jacob Rees-Mogg, is a strong advocate of leaving the EU on WTO terms - the so-called no deal option. He told Express.co.uk: “As a businessman, I have to deal with uncertainty - but the bigger risk is this issue runs on forever. “This has turned into a non-violent civil war which is preoccupying everybody the whole time.

RELATED ARTICLES

‘A national humiliation’ Business leaders urge MPS to vote down deal

May's a Brexit LOSER says Wetherspoons founder
“The whole country is just getting totally dragged down by it.

“We have to leave or it becomes a tremendous constitutional problem.


“If we’re going to stay in a customs union, there will be years of wrangling ahead.”

Mr Martin said Prime Minister Theresa May’s negotiating team of “Remoaners” had proved themselves completely unable to match the EU’s officials, resulting in her unpopular withdrawal agreement failing to attract enough votes to get through the Commons.

Tim Martin
Tim Martin has said Britain has been engulfed by a "non-violent civil war" (Image: GETTY)
He added: “Project Fear has also dramatically exaggerated the risks of leaving without a deal.

“We just need to put this all behind us now so the country can move on - for everyone’s sake.”

Mr Martin said he had never donated any money to a political party, nor was he a member of one.

He said: “The thing is this completely cuts across party boundaries, it goes beyond parties.”

RELATED ARTICLES

‘Just get OUT NOW!’ Brexiteer says no deal Brexit is ESSENTIAL for ...

Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin demands Brexiteers hold out for no deal
Tim Martin Jacob Rees-Mogg

Mr Martin campaigns with Jacob Rees-Mogg (Image: GETTY)
As such, despite his lack of faith in Mrs May, he was sceptical about whether there was any point in replacing her with a new Prime Minister given the current deadlock.

He explained: “Whoever comes into power has to deal with the same problems, has to deal with reality.”

Nevertheless, he advocated “natural winner” Boris Johnson, who like him backs leaving without a deal in place, as somebody who could deliver the Brexit he believes 17.4 million people voted for three years ago.

Mr Martin yesterday explained his reasoning in an article circulated to media outlets in which he criticised CBI chief Carolyn Fairborn over her ongoing Brexit warnings.

He wrote: “Organisations like the CBI, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) and the British Retail Consortium (BRC), representing businesses which are too lazy to think for themselves, have repeatedly made false claims about the imaginary dangers of leaving the EU without a deal, and of trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms.

Theresa May

Mr Martin says Mrs May has surrounded herself with a team of "Remoaners" (Image: GETTY)
“The CBI has been the main promoter of rule from Brussels, helping to convince the government in the 1990s to join the disastrous exchange rate mechanism, which brought the country to the verge of economic collapse.

“It then urged us to join the euro and its current chief, Carolyn Fairbairn, relentlessly issued apocalyptic warnings about voting leave and, more recently, about the need for a deal at any cost - an economically illiterate concept.

“The UK public is extremely tolerant of debate - and understands that people have diverging views on many issues. However, Project Fear is a propaganda campaign, which has falsely claimed, over a number of years that prices will axiomatically rise in the event of no deal.

“This proposition is, quite simply, untrue, since no deal allows the UK government to scrap thousands of import tariffs on non-EU imports, which will reduce prices; to save £39billion; to regain control of fishing and to increase the level of democracy in the country.”

[TonyGosling]

Every region of England and Wales happy to leave the EU without a deal - except London if extension refused
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... mediately/

Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent 3 APRIL 2019 • 6:33PM

Every English and Welsh region outside the M25 is happy to leave the European Union without a deal if no agreement can be reached by the end of next week.

The study by YouGov asked voters “if Britain has not agreed a deal by April 12th, what do you think should happen?”.

The research found that only people living in London did not want to leave without a deal.

In London 48 per cent of voters agreed that “Britain should withdraw our application to leave and remain in the EU” against 26pc who backed leaving without a deal.

The picture was reversed outside London however. In the rest of the South of England 44pc were in favour of no-deal against 34pc who wanted to revoke the decision to leave....