(28/09/2019) Roger Bootle (founder of Capital Economics and author of many books) discusses the Brexit situation - in a very accessible manner, so don't be put off by the complexity - he cuts to the main issues and links politics and economics and psychology together with the history. Very human.
(26/09/2019) I wonder if this is what they had in mind when insisting that the prorogation be overturned?
(25/09/2019) As a politcal website we are expected to address the issues of the day, so Lord Lilley's comments on this
judgement seem to us to be both pertinent and sensible.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that our Remainers are quite content, nay, determined, to continue to overturn our long-established customs and practices to keep us all under the control of the EU, in outright defiance of our referendum result.
I think they should be very careful what they wish for. Personally, I cannot see how Parliament will productively use its extra time, so controversially secured, to enhance its reputation . . . no doubt we will soon find out.
(25/09/2019) Trump continues to amaze - do watch this speech.
And let's not forget our very own Boris - in his trademark inimitable flood of rhetoric and reason:
Following on from Boris' speech, this article highlights some of the misgivings that the police are noting concerning the onward rush to implement "AI" - does anyone actually understand what this term means, how it can be honestly and openly used, and how it might be misused either inadvertently or by design?
As if to underline the point, it has been announced that Google has "achieved supremacy" in quantum computing. In truth this is just a proof of concept exercise so far, but it does seem to herald the dawn of a new age of computing that has the potential to rewrite the laws of computation as we know them - we just have to ensure that this is done to the benefit of mankind, and not to our detriment.
(24/09/2019) A non-UKIP viewpoint on Brexit. Quite exemplary.
(24/09/2019) An interesting presentation by one of ours (as in English). A bit deep but by no means inaccessible.
(22/09/2019) See our Defence page for James' sally on EU Defence Union - shamefully kept under wraps in the UK Parliament - but will Nigel Farage now get behind him or sack him?
(16/09/2019) Like many I have neither time nor inclination to keep myself abrest of all the latest political posturings - but happily Jeff Taylor comes to my rescue yet again. Do "like" and "subscribe" to his channel if you think he does a good job.
UK Column reminds us that the EU Defence Union to which Mrs May has unconditionally committed us effectively give the EU perpetual control over our military and civilian security organisations and is utterly incompatible with the UK leaving the EU. This issue that the Government has so far kept buried will have its day, preferably sooner rather than later.
(09/09/2019) Amidst all the furore over Brexit, it's easy to lose sight of what the monetary mandarins are up to. Redress the balance, watch the video.
"Mon centre cède, ma droite recule, situation excellente, j'attaque".
(My center gives way, my right retreats, situation excellent, I attack")
This pretty much sums up the situation that our Prime Minister finds himself in. The videos below demonstrate just how busily the remainers in Parliament are currently burying themselves beneath a growing heap public contempt (best not to interrupt them :) . . . and how Boris probably does have plenty of scope to take advantage of their stupidity to take us out on 31st October.
Legal beagles might also wish to read this article, which explores possible loop-holes in the drafting of the "Cooper-Letwin" bill that would enable the Prime Minister to legally wriggle out of the intended obligation on him to extend the Article 50 period by whatever period the EU was pleased to offer.
No doubt there are more where these came from - but you get the picture.
(06/09/2019) In the midst of all the current Parliamentary shenanigans it is easy to lose sight of the topic that nobody talks about - will we regain control over our armed forces and security and intelligence operations when we leave?
I say "regain control" because we have already signed up to most of it - and the detail of the remainder seems to be sitting around done and dusted awaiting only the final signature.
Read what Brexit Central has to say about this on our Defence page.
(05/09/2019) Courtesy of Sky News Australia
(05/09/2019) By throwing Parliamentary convention to the winds, have our parliamentarians contrived to hand control of the "negotiations" back to Brussels and to keep the current hamstrung Parliament festering indefinitely?
If the Global Warmists are paying attention then they could be next. See our Links page for more on this topic.
(03/09/2019) He repeats his message that he wants a deal, doesn't want a general election, but hints that he would not shy away from the latter if Parliament decides to frustrate his government's Brexit policy. Oh, and any Conservative MP who votes against his government's Brexit policy will be thrown out of the Party and deselected . . .
(03/09/2019) Prime Minister Johnson's decision to prorogue Parliament has prompted the usual suspects to unleash a veritable hurricane of outrage and accusation - I guess Boris must be doing something right.
They claim that "no deal" would be a "disaster" - yet strangely they don't want to support the Prime MInister in negotiating a deal, and all their actions seem designed to undermine his negotiating position with the EU. One can only conclude that opposition to "no deal" is simply a pretext to cover their real ambition - to keep us under permanent EU control, come Hell or high water.
This vieo offers a very American viewpoint, but when interest rates plunge, banks can no longer make profits. WIth negative rates they will be in big trouble. Consequently share prices of EU banks have been plunging over the last year.
What will happen when they go bust and you and I can't get our money out? Are some of them bust already (but on life support from the Central Banks)? Bank failures affect everybody.
Now it is true that the UK isn't in quite such dire straits as the EU, but an economic collapse in the Eurozone will surely have huge negative consequences for us too.
The temptation will be for the Central Banks to resort to more "unconventional" monetary policy - but European unemployment is still little if any better than during the 2007/9 financial crisis, so how successful has "unconventional" monetary policy been so far for the man in the street?
The negative rates phenomenon is almost global - the USA as the holder of the world's reserve currency still holds out but for how long?
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)
<< New text box >>
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.
(August) The case goes on . . . or it did until a judge dismissed it a second time as being "totally without merit" - without it ever being heard in Court.
Given the huge interest in this case, I wonder why they simply dismissed it out of hand rather than allowing the case to be properly heard and properly dismissed in open court? Does justice no longer need to be seen to be done?
Links to later entries:
Links to earlier entries:
Use the above links to
display earlier entries