Three years after the June 2016 there are still people beholden to the Brussels gravy train for personal, financial, and (perhaps) ideological reasons. They’re still sabotaging Brexit. Their slurs, smears, and lies still have Britain trussed up in Lilliputian red tape and tied to the eurovillage.
For a good slice of the last three years the voice of Tony Blair has been prominent among those protesting that the federal European showboat is more important than a mere referendum, even if it was the biggest vote for any single outcome ever in British history. He’s recently gone very quiet. Possibly someone has told him his contribution to Project Fear is counterproductive, that much of Britain hates him so deeply that Tony has the power to make Brexiters out of Remainers.
How do we feel about Blair some years after he handsomely won three general elections for Labour? Some allege that these days his biography is being moved in bookshops, copy by copy, into sections marked ‘Fiction’ or ‘True Crime’!
Britain is also the country where Blair’s bizarre dalliance with Wendy Deng or Murdoch, Chinese wife of the newspaper mogul Rupert, at some point between 2011 and 2014, aroused nothing but yawns and embarrassed silence. Wendy clearly outwitted both men. A feeling across Britain, that Blair is a man driven by an inner sense of purpose yet doesn’t know what that purpose actually is, grew stronger. Why did he really marry Cherie? Why was the eerie Peter Mandelson such a close friend? What on earth was he doing spending time with Murdoch’s steely, cunning wife – are we to imagine she’s fascinating company? What actually motivates this hollow puppet of a man? The skull-like visage of this once youthful politician increasingly reminds some of us of the repulsively aged painting in the final scene of ‘Picture of Dorian Gray’.
We’re all so caught up in the day-to-day rush of current events, the rolling squabble of Britain’s newspaper and television politics coverage, that Blair’s real legacy has faded from most people’s minds.
He is the man who promised to be tough in negotiations with the EU, but implemented the changes to British law they wanted, imposing, for example, the more cumbersome employment laws of the ‘social chapter’. He is the prime minister who strangely intervened to stop the lawful inquest of a dead weapons scientist on its first day, replacing it with an inquiry not based on any statute, an inquiry where testimony was taken without oath and without cross-examination. Blair is the man who removed 4/5ths of the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, making it an antechamber of retired MPs and other bought-and-paid-for trolls from across British politics.
Another interestingly high-profile character in the effort to overturn Britain’s biggest ever democratic decision (afterwards ratified by Parliament and then confirmed by pledges in the 2017 election) is John Major who taking over as prime minister after an internal Tory coup against the notorious eurosceptic Margaret Thatcher, signed the EU-creating Treaty of Lisbon without holding a referendum. Cynics might ask questions. Was his entry into Number 10 assisted from outside in any way?
Hereditary members of the House of Lords constituted a very serious obstacle to further ‘integration’ into the tangle of EU law. Signing all the members up to the Treaty of Lisbon (a major step towards the federal state that politicians repeatedly promised British voters in the 1970s was not the purpose of the EEC) was a major hurdle to clear as well. This, one of the most important question of the last three years, is still not being asked.
Open-mouthed with disbelief, Britain’s public has watched a succession of MPs or other public figures defending their EU connections or their firm’s tax breaks, all telling lies and hurling insults at anyone trying to carry through the 2016 and 2017 mandates to leave the European Union. It could hardly be clearer that they are agitating for a foreign power. They talk with two faces about being patriotic Britons and defending the ‘sovereignty of Parliament’ even while passionately arguing for a federation of European states wishing to reduce this Parliament’s sovereignty. Wishing to – in the words of Ken Clarke decades ago – reduce it to the status of a parish council inside the larger polity centred on Brussels.
Astonishingly, few journalists point out this obvious hypocrisy. Many journalists are part of this – either on the orders of media owners or because the damaging doomed EEC/EC/EU project is the nearest their shriveled souls can get to a spiritual belief.
Large firms love red tape and the EU, because they know how over-regulation crushes their smaller competitors (who are the core of the real economy), which is why large well-known companies are also onboard with the corporatist project of ‘European integration’.
Some of these agents of foreign interests, if we are very very forgiving, could describe themselves as ‘well-intentioned’ believers in the ‘European dream’. That’s no help. Philby, Burgess, and Maclean were well-intentioned, sincere communists who gave information to the USSR out of idealistic convictions – but they were still traitors.
Entertaining and charming as the mop-coiffed Boris is, the whole business of choosing another Tory leader, another prime minister, is just a diversion, yet another effort to distract us while the slowly-grinding gears of pro-EU corruption manoeuvre Britain into either returning to the fold, or being locked into May’s subservient customs union with EU law still supreme.
How did Heath and Macmillan (and Wilson?) conspire with the Foreign Office to conceal the nature of the EEC from voters ? Who brought down Thatcher, and why ? What dirt if any Brussels, Paris, and Berlin have on John Major, David Cameron, Tony Blair, Theresa May, and numerous others. Is civil servant Olly Robbins a useful idiot? Or does he await his sinecure reward in the afterlife of Euroheaven? What were Major and Blair preparing the ground for decades ago, and for whom?
Which is why it is important we find out what actually happened over the last fifty years, and that we begin the formal process of finding out now.
Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?
Subscribe To Quarterly Digital Edition
Subscribe To Quarterly Traditional Print Magazine (delivered to your door)
Mark Griffith is a financial trader whose weblog http://www.otherlanguages.org follows news on artificial intelligence, politics, economics, and other subjects. He is writing a book about whether AI will change how people live.
A decent read overall but it’s hard to see convincing connections between all the individuals listed to explain what seems to amount to a conspiracy to direct virtually everything in European history over the past fifty years towards advancing the European project. That particular implication requires substantiating before it begins to sound less paranoid. Yes, clearly the EU has become a monster over the past decades but it’s almost unimaginable that every leader in Europe has been “in” on some sinister secret to extend its reach. There are many questions surrounding David Kelly’s death and the true motives of political leaders etc. but suggesting connections between everyone isn’t necessary to explain how the EU has become what it is today.
An article with no purpose?
Read This. http://www.jar2.com/Files/Nazism/The_Europeische_Wirtschaftsgemeinchaft_Berlin_1942.pdf
Ever since Macmillan’s policy to ‘manage Britain’s decline’ the ‘project’ was his and his acolytes perceived saviour for post-war Britain. His protégée – Edward Heath – pursued the policy and sold Britain to Brussels on a lie in 1973. Margaret Thatcher started her political life supporting the ‘project’ but finally woke up to its true aims being realised and, on trying to resists the road to a European Federal State, she was disposed of and replaced by the Brussels stooge John Major. The forces to support the ‘project’ are colossal and a democratic vote to disrupt it will not deter their plan. To invert Carl von Clausewitz phase, ‘politics is war by other means’ and the war from 1914-on continues and Germany has now all-but fulfilled its aim for a pan-European empire. Britain is now at the point to repeat its dilemma in 1940 to ‘stand alone’ and look to the United States and to our old colonies to preserve real freedom.
Germany cannot do it alone. It tells France what to do on economic policy. But France is running Brexit policy for the EU. Why? because Monnet’s method is France’s policy to contain Germany. Barnier is n to negotiating with the UK on Brexit; his words and actions are directed at Germany. The fear is that a successful Brexit leads to a Gerxit.
The E.U. is a front and device to resurrect German power and its reputation after the Nazi era and for France to pretend that it is an influential world power. The Nazis are dead and buried but autocracy is alive and well in Brussels under German leadership.
Was this the start in 1940 , conducted in ‘America ‘, Hitler’s armoured train of which already 17 countries of Europe were making the parts for it !?