This page highlights some of the major topics of the moment, majoring on the state of the Brexit capitulation.
Our active members and supporters usually meet on a Wednesday evening at 7pm for a "pint and a pie" at a local hostelry, to discuss the topics of the day in a relaxed manner. Not everyone stays for the "pie", and newcomers (no need to be a member) are encouraged to make our acquaintance - contact us or join our email list and we will let you know where we will be.
Perhaps we in Hampshire don't know the half of it.
This article should give us all pause for thought.
(12/08/2019) An accessible discourse on where the EU is today . . . they could have lumped the UK in with France and Germany in the club of pathetic politicians, but maybe they give us the benefit of the doubt due to the Brexit vote. Heaven knows where this will end - it will probably get a lot worse before it gets any better.
(10/08/2019) This illuminating little article has little to do with Brexit and a lot to do with the state of our so-called government today. As our new Prime MInister is known for a degree of independent thought perhaps there is hope that he may pay attention.
It illustrates the huge gap between the practical people who have to work within our energy policy (driven by the "imperative" of "man-made climate change"), and the politicians and scam-artists who at least partially now misrule the world.
Support and pray for the former and do what you can to refute the latter:
(14/08/2019) See also this article by the same author.
(07/08/2019) Follow this report on our Defence page.
(03/07/2019) Some of you may be aware of the legal case to establish that we left the EU on 29th March 2019 (currently going to the Court of Appeal, having been summarily dismissed as "having no legal merit" on first application).
This would not appear to be a difficult case to understand, so I explore the main argument below. There are other supporting arguments but they are not central to the case. Also may I make clear that this article is the opinion of a layman with no legal training.
Read on . . .
The first act of relevance is the UK's European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017
An Act to confer power on the Prime Minister to notify, under Article 50(2) of the
Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the
EU. [16th March 2017]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
1 Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
(1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
(2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European
Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
2 Short title
This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
(This Act was passed following the "Gina Miller" case that established that the powers of Her Majesty's ministers under the "Royal Prerogative" could not be used in conflict with existing Acts of Parliament)
So what exactly does the famous Article 50 say?
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
Note that it is Article 50(3) that provides for a maximum period of two years after which the notifying state will automatically leave the EU, and establishes how this period may be extended.
But the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 only gives the Prime Minister the power to notify under Article 50(2).
It does not give her any powers under Article 50(3), including extending the period, and it explicitly overrides “ the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment”.
The English Democrats’ case is that legally therefore there is an unassailable argument that we must have left the EU on 29th March 2019 because the prime minister had no power under our law to extend the “period” under Article 50(3), and Article 50 expressly states that the member state’s own constitutional arrangements apply.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
The case goes on . . .
(18/06/2019) At a recent talk at an event hosted by the Campaign for an Independent Britain, Neil Warry outlined the bare bones of the political reform that the Harrowgate Agenda group would like to see for the UK post Brexit. No doubt this is controversial, but isn't that what politics is all about?
As far as I know UKIP currently has no position on the Harrowgate Agenda, but UKIP does believe that the Brexit fiasco clearly demonstrates that reform of our constitution to wrest power back for the people of the UK is essential if we wish to recover a functional democracy.
(11/06/2019) Professor Gwythian Prins takes apart the story of how we got to where we are now. Sit down with a nice cup of tea and give yourself the time to hear it through.
See more on our Defence page.
The Government has chosen and has worked industriously since the referendum to subsume us under EU control in all materal aspects including full EU Military Union through the "political declaration" included within Mrs May's thrice-rejected and inappropriately named Withdrawal Agreement.
All this in direct defiance of the people of the UK who have chosen to resume life as an independent sovereign nation of the world.
These positions are diametrically opposed and fundamentally irreconcilable.
One of these positions must fail.
(05/06/2019) You may not hear of this candidate from the mainstream (but I would be delighted if you do). Tulsi Gabbard's speech at CADEM 2019 is along lines that many of us could support even if we have doubts about some inconsistencies in the underlying assumptions.
For a fuller discussion around the implications, click on the link to this Collective Evolution article.
Whilst we might cynically expect that her speech will be ignored by the mainstream and disappear without trace, the fact that someone is making such a speech at a Democratic Party Convention is a sign of how things may be changing.
(31/05/2019) MHRA is the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency - GOV.UK responsible for regulation of the use of medicines in the UK.
It recently closed down Immuno-Biotech, and had the businessman who was running it tried in court on charges relating to the supply of an unregulated treatment for cancer. The MHRA sought a fourteen year prison sentence, but the judge imposed a sentence of fifteen months, and "accepted that Noakes had acted out of a genuine desire to treat people; he noted that GcMAF had been instrumental in successfully treating people who had been written off by the medical profession and added that he was looking forward to GcMAF being made available to the public.".
There is a great deal more information behind this story - please follow the link above to read it.
If this article is true, it seems that we in the UK may be spending untold sums through the NHS for unpleasant and often ineffective cancer treatments that may in many cases be utterly obsolete - and all the MHRA can do is to close the supplier down and prosecute the people involved under a legal technicality?
Who owns our medical establishment and to whom are the MHRA responsible?
(29/05/2019) For all those wondering how we got here and pondering the enormity of disconnect between the governors and the governed, may I suggest a visit to the Salisbury Review? It may not make you feel any the more comfortable with current circumstances, but it surely offers a thoughtful range of political comment and shows that moderate logical and pertinent views are still to be found - if you know where to look. Surely well worth the modest subscription charge.
(20/05/2019) This was not a UKIP rally - in fact it was a rally for a competing candidate of whom not everyone approves, but these scenes appear to show that the police escorted a group including hooded and masked individuals a considerable distance to "counter-protest" against a legitimate and peaceful EU election rally. Why did this group need a police escort? Did they come under attack at any stage? This group of counter-protesters were then filmed throwing projectiles at both the legitimate rally and the police, apparently unprovoked.
How was this reported by the BBC? "It is unclear where Mr Robinson ... was during the trouble" and "Police said they understood that many of the people involved were not from Oldham". Well, his whereabouts seem clear enough to me, and as the police themselves seem to have escorted the "people involved" for some distance to get to the rally, they could hardly say otherwise. Chief Supt Neil Evans is quoted as saying "Those involved can expect to be arrested and dealt with robustly". I should hope so, but will these words be followed by action? We shall see.
How was this event reported by other mainstream media? All of them report the violence but seem remarkably coy about reporting who perpetrated the violence. Again, it seems clear enough to me.
I note the Sun's picture of a single policeman standing in front of a bunch of placid rally attendees standing around, many casually filming events on their mobile phones, with the caption "Police pushed back Robinsons' supporters after bottles, bricks and eggs were thrown by both sides". Really?
Watch the footage and judge the veracity of that for yourself.
Also do watch today's news programme by UK Column. Were GCHQ and now Gavin Williamson fitted up over Huawei's involvement in our security networks - and more? This is unmissable.
Gerard Batten kicks off the UKIP campaign, no holds barred. We haven't even finished the council elections yet . . .
(27/04/2019) Visit our Defence page for the latest update.
Vote UKIP in the local elections. Accept no substitute!
(15/04/2019) The Daily Mail has come up trumpole with a bit of whimsy from Richard Littlejohn at which we may all have a chuckle. Who says non-Brexitting must be serious?
(15/04/2019) A thoughtful piece in Brexit Central reminds us of the real struggle underlying the current Brexit hiatus - the struggle for who governs our nation - and it isn't the usual Tory-Labour fright-fest.
(15/04/2019) Sir John Redwood has written to the Attorney General asking him to confirm (or deny) the legal implications of agreeing Mrs May's so-called "EU withdrawal" deal, which appears to me to hand total control of our "withdrawal" to the EU.
Is this the same Mrs May that is championing the fight against "modern slavery"?
As ever, see what they do, never judge them by what they say.
(09/04/2019) Briefings for Brexit publishes an article by Michael Pinton explaining exactly why the EU cannot succeed in moulding the disparate nations of Europe into a single country - let alone the UK.
A robust exchange which lays a lot of myths to rest. Watch!
(03/04/2019) This is not official UKIP policy.
But it is - if these reports are to be believed - an imminent calamity in the making. This is why I am now highlighting this on our home page.
Put aside your worries about the somewhat lurid presentation (personally I could also have done without the background "music"), watch the film, follow up the links on our Links page, and make your own judgement.
STOP PRESS: Brussels says no to 5G.
Links to earlier entries:
I take my hat off to 1&1 for providing an easy and inexpensive way for anyone to set up their own wesite, domain name, and email server, on someone else's cloud. More power to their elbow!
Use the above links to
display earlier entries
Westmonster (something to do with Arron Banks...)