Who lobbied David Cameron

Whoever lobbied David Cameron to lay on the Brexit referendum must have wanted to break up the British Union. 76% of Conservatives, who voted for Brexit do not care about Scotland.

The effect of Brexit now is that Northern Ireland becomes aligned closer with Ireland towards the EU. Now Scotland is jealeous of Northern Irelands’ special status and they want much of the same. Scotland had a majority to stay in the EU during the first referendum and rather want to leave Britain and become an independent European nation rather than leave with the UK.

Quite obviously the home nations feel better off with the EU.

Labour now only want to agree to the New Deal if it comes with an option for a new referendum. That kind of poker mentality is probably not what I would support. Fair enough that people want to re-refer because it has been such a long time and elections generally happen regularly and/or sporadically.

People’s right to change their minds is enshrined in our democratic laws.

The argument just leave because we are tired of it, would be called bad parenting if parents had that attitude with their kids to just buy them the favourite toy or let them play computer games all night just to get some peace.

Yet there is now a fast-growing petition on the government website,

Hold a referendum on whether to leave with the deal offered or remain in the EU

love your neighbour

There is this Poker game going on, Europe says, there will be no deal possible and UK is likely to drop out without a deal and UK says, we’ll drop out without a deal anyway.

It’s just like children trying to impress each other, proposing strength that just aren’t there really.

So the EU has gotten Britain over a Barrell because of the Irish and Northern Ireland border.

I am trying to get to find out what the history of this is and how everything went to pot in these areas.

I know something about a potato famine, killing many Irish people because the UK took all those spuds away as exports. Yet being an immigrant without any relatives in Northern Ireland or Ireland, the facts are hazy for me. But looking this up on Wikipedia it seems the Irish Free State got established in 1922, not that long ago. In 1949 Ireland became a Republic.

Well it seems the British government needs to have a look into the relationship with the Home Nations because we constantly see squabbling over Scottish or Welsh independence. Perhaps the Queen wants to stand down and allow some fresh thoughts into the debate, as longest serving monarch, perhaps she also has the most troubles over her reign.

It is very important to firstly get on with your neighbours and always keep friendly with them because if circumstances change and a country is under International law and regulations, then there is nothing that can be done.

Britain cannot blame the EU for applying international law to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, to ask them to do so, would be completely crazy. Unless of course the UK has gotten a secret argument and asks the EU to join a British deal with Britain being in charge. Yet that would jeopardise all other arrangements the EU would have with other nations.

Whilst Boris says Britain can save 1 Billion per month, the Insititute for Fiscal Studies says it would cost business 1 1/4 Billion to deal with administrative and other changes.

A no-deal Brexit would push the borrowing requirements for the UK to a 50-year high. So where is the rational basis for wanting out of the EU?

 

In the interest of national unity

Today’s unanimous judgement of the Supreme Court will strengthen national unity and is good for Britain’s future.

Had the Supreme Court found against the appeal of Gina Millar and quashed the Scottish ruling, then the rift between Britain’s regions would have deepened considerably.

MP’s are calling for a Unity Government whilst Boris Johnson is at the UN Climate Summit and has endless calls to resign. Boris said he would not resign. But if even Nigel Farage asks for the sacking of Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s adviser, then things are getting really serious for the government.

Boris behaved like a tinpot dictator and probably could get into the history books as the shortest serving Prime Minister ever.

The Supreme Court quashed the prorogation as if it had never happened. So all laws, which were in preparation do not have to be done again.

Boris writes to Tusk

man carrying child

Photo by Ba Phi on Pexels.com

Whilst yesterday the Brexit Secretary already signed the order to scrap all EU related laws being valid in the UK from 31. October 2019, Prime Minister Boris Johnson wrote to his Excellency Mr Donald Tusk on the same date to ask for a renegotiation of the Back-Stop.

Looking that the EU consists of 28 member states and all members have to agree to any deal and that the last deal took 3 years to negotiate, it seems just a tactical letter rather than one that is seriously meant to be expected to achieve a result.

The main reason to ask for renegotiations is the desire to keep relations with everything Irish smooth.

Yesterday I watched the documentary about the Lord Mountbatton assassination and the Bloody Sunday history and out of that came the Good Friday agreement.

Of course the follow on peace is something we all appreciate. I used to work in Central London when the IRA set off a bomb on a bus in Aldwych on 18. February 1996.

But on the other hand, border negotiations worldwide are usually concentrated on the basis of country borders and political or economical agreements.

Boris Johnson really just wants the EU to help the UK to overcome previous grievances with Irish inividuals, so that they do not re-emerge because of a hard border.

And whilst the UK is terrified to loose more territory, because Northern Ireland could try to follow suit with the Scottish Independance desires, I think asking the EU to change a deal because of emotional and internal problems is a bit much to ask.

The UK should chin up and rather try to engage with Northern Ireland and Ireland on positive momentums to draw them closer to us rather than expect the EU to be sympathetic.

It’s either remain or take the deal but not whinging and crying like a baby. That is what Boris Johnson’s letter really is.

I think Boris Johnson is trying to sell us a polemic no-deal outcome on the Brexit talks. As the EU is really not that bad, it is a force for good in Europe. It amalgamates a lot of states who strive for peace – at least amongst each other -, which is positive.

Trying to make us look like we are dependant on the kind mercy of the EU to manage our own affairs, is really not improving Britain’s status in the world.

 

government v. private sector

Just as I recommended to some job seeking women the other day to join the Conservatives in their voluntary activities, like meals for the poor etc, I realise that within the Conservative Party no poor person ever stands any chance of achieving anything simply because of a lack of money. It is not possible to get any career moves out of volunteering for the Conservatives at all. The opposite is the case, they use you and abuse you instead.

The Conservatives especially and all voluntary organisations in particular, simply thrive on private donations, and unless you can put money into it, you cannot do anything within it, anything other than doing what you are told.

You cannot work your way up, simply because you have no saying power, which is only activated once you put money into it.

That is why the government is so popular and why people prefer the state to the private sector because the private sector does not allow people to work their way up from nothing. That is especially so in the Conservative Party who have public donation schemes and say the more you donate the more say you have in he policy making. Yet for government run services you do not need money, all you need is perseverance, trustworthiness and sheer will to succeed.

Money has one funny side-effect and that is corruption and because everything can be bought if the price is right, the leadership in political parties is money driven and therefore corrupt. I do not think that political theory does play any role in politics these days because as soon as any party comes into government they suddenly change their strategy, tactic and leadership style to accommodate economic strategies and international diplomatic requirements. All little party members are mere pawns on the game board. There is no spontaneity possible and that might be the reason why political parties and voting become increasingly unpopular.

The strive for power knows no borders and people who shake hands one day can find themselves in the media the next being branded as belzebubs.

I would not recommend that anybody who wants social equality and/or an ability to make politics join any political party in the UK but rather instead lobby politicians and use complain procedures and pressure groups to achieve goals.

The Conservative can never achieve great popularity because they rely on the minority for their power. Only about 7% of UK citizens own 90% of the wealth, so their sources of finance are so much restricted to those 7% of persons who hold absolute power over the party.  In Labour the problem is the leadership devices policies in conjunction with the money people and we can see now how recently they joined forces on several occasions to keep the power threats in the knot. My own libel trial saw Conservatives and Labour follow a common strategy and now the Lutfur Rahman situation shows that Labour and Conservatives join forces to get rid of the one that is not a member in either powerful party. Stephanie Eaton has shown true female and/or Liberal intuition by voting to keep East End Life against her Labour husband, the Labour and Conservative Party.  Zakhir Khan tried to break the political mould by standing for the Conservatives with not much success.

The demand for control drives both Labour and the Conservatives who want to hold the strings to control the UK, there is nothing in between. This is not unlike a time of war when we see that in the UK all work together to defeat common external enemies but now within the UK, the government and the Labour party help to create an enemy within the country to drive out individualism.

I think its a recipe for disaster and won’t work because there is no war on in the classical sense and this strategy just creates unnecessary paranoia and makes whole population groups feel uncomfortable. Of course for the Conservatives there are in first line single women and mothers who are the hate figures and then of course groups of immigrants, apparently they also hate churches now because churches support child-rich families.

Then of course the UK is falling apart at the seams. The Irish are getting upset again, the Scottish are about to become independent and so the UK is getting smaller and smaller with only the financial sector being the main source of income through banking and finance deals.

What of course many rebels have not realised is that one can fight finance with elected purchases or withholding of spending in certain areas but instead people usually follow all types of incentives to spend money and then rather rebel instead of being more cautious with whom they spend their monies in the first place.  Of course the poor are always brought to their knees by hiked up domestic costs and all they can do is work  and pay but then to ask for minimum wages and living wages does not make any difference to who holds the financial power strings at all, in fact wage demands are merely puppet string movements in the theatre of life.

In fact it does not make the slightest bid of difference who runs essential services, whether its the government, the state or private business, its irrelevant, the most important factor is that the services is required.  Seeing now that under this new government the UK borrows even more than under Brown just shows how empty the whole new strategy actually is. The fact is that whoever runs service cuts will have to contract in Labour and if its not the state but the private industry their strategies won’t be much different from the state. But because the state is less corrupt and has more stringent rules and already has all the intelligence at hand, I reckon the state will always prove the winner for public services.

Blog Stats

  • 53,135 hits