Proof of Brexit without the Exit. Jelly for brains.

Absolute stupidity!!

March 22nd

The government has decided that it is a good idea to change the colour of the British passport from burgundy to blue after Brexit but has decided to give the contract to the Franco Dutch company based on price. How nonsensical is that?

First of all to change the colour to blue is merely a cosmetic decision, gesture politics to appeal to the masses, so they think, but there have been many companies which have gone bust because they had the idea of investing in an image change, especially on the shop front and ended up over extending themselves on something which is none productive to the bottom line.

The whole problem is that Britain is leaking money away from the general economy in many ways, with the topmost being legal tax avoidance of multinational companies who have a buying power over the smaller business operator who do pay their full whack of tax. Child benefit for children of foreign nationals whose children may not be living here and so the money is being sent out of the country and not spent locally.

Foreign countries running vital utilities, who may receive government subsidies and again where profits find their way abroad and there has been one mention of a railway company taking profits to invest in their own railway in their native country. Madness.

Selling off iconic British companies to foreign investors who then move production out of the country or own the product and then re badge the product under their own name.

These are just a few examples of many more and the comment by the spokesman this morning has justified such behaviour because we are in a global market. This indicates business as usual and a challenge to this was met with resistance.

So far there has been total nonsense over the events of Salisbury and the only sensible reaction has been from Jeremy Corbyn in a statesman like manner. From Blairism to Cameron there has been little change in ongoing agenda, therefore it must be suggested that the civil service within, and perhaps a shadow government is the culprit. It is quite obvious that Teresa May has dodged situations where there would be live open debate and that whenever there is a detailed policy announcement she is merely reading from a script.

23rd March:

This is a continuation from yesterday’s initial input. Despite being pushed for time in order to be out of the door in a timely manner, with just minutes to spare before posting, it was felt necessary to make comment about the passport issue and on returning home discovered that there was only 100 mb of data left until midnight.

This was just enough to allow the discovery of the fact that the tender for the UK Passport  contract was submitted by our government on the European union’s electronic tendering journal and last October  that a tender for the design of which it had been announced could be done by Germany or France. Additionally the end of the 10 year cycle for passports just happens to coincide with the pre announced deadline for Brexit in March 2018.

Now this is very interesting because this morning, the 23rd. of march, it was announced on the radio that negotiations will begin between the UK government and the European Council, Tusk’s domain, to discuss a trade outline agreement which must be completed by October ready for Parliament to give support, or not, ready for the March 29th deadline for actually leaving the EU.

Yesterday morning I had written more than intended despite time restraint and it may have looked a little out of context but I was aware of the possibility that what we have in yesterday,s announcement is actually a template which denotes further intentions during the ongoing negotiations.

Jacob Reese Mogg has pointed out how the government rolls over without having the belly tickled:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/934193/Brexit-news-BBC-Newsnight-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Theresa-May-transition-deal-roll-over-latest

When it was mentioned that the French had won the contract because it was £50 million cheaper  than the UK tender submission by De La Rue, a well established British company then it seemed that the bottom line was more important than the continuation of the company which is an employer and will pay company taxes into the economy as well as the workers who will be taxed and also spend their earnings locally thus benefiting society as a whole. This difference is roughly 10% of the whole contract.

The question then is who’s bottom line? Could there be a privatised element within the passport office? After all it is the UK citizen who ultimately pays the cost so therefore there must be a profit motive for awarding the contract to a foreign state, one which had deliberately screwed us over regarding our fishing waters as a condition of joining the EU in the first place.

The French themselves said that they would not allow passports to be manufactured outside of France for security reasons. This is an obvious consideration for the UK considering that migrants are flocking to France in the hope of illegally entering the UK. The French must be laughing their sock off.

Forgeries are a problem as it is without possible leakage into the Black Market via the French:

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dark-web-vendors-sell-blank-british-passports-entry-passport-database-just-2000-1509564

The result of the Brexit referendum has been known since June 2016 and the deadline for exit has already been announced yet the government deems it fit to tender for the passport contract under EU rules which should not really apply to us after so called departure next March, one year on from now.

It’s as if the people running the country are not so interested in acting for the National interest but rather are acting more like spivs perhaps for own self interest. Even last September the newspapers were already revealing that the design for the passport could go to a German or French company when this had traditionally been done in house by De La Rue. This information was initially revealed to the Sunday Times by a government insider September 2017.

A final Word:

[Quote]

‘British icon’

Earlier, De La Rue boss Martin Sutherland told the BBC’s Today programme:“Over the last few months we have heard ministers happy to come on the media and talk about the new blue passport and the fact that it is an icon of British identity.

“But now this icon of British identity is going to be manufactured in France.”

He added: “I’d like to ask Theresa May or Amber Rudd to come to my factory and explain to our dedicated workforce why this is a sensible decision to offshore the manufacture of a British icon.” [unquote]

 

 

 

 

 

This was a comment that I made one year ago today, made and forgotten until now. Interesting.

16th March 2017 Continuation of Dutch election comments.
Having already said that there was more to write, the following morning, the day of the Dutch election, I had absolutely no feeling what so ever to do so and considered, as is often the case, to just let it just pass and forget it. However early this morning I awoke at 04:40 and felt the urge to write down the thoughts I had on Tuesday but which had not been completed.
It looks like a good result in the Dutch elections. I really expected the Turkish demonstrations to push people to vote overwhelmingly for Geert Wilders party but it looks like they turned to alternative right wing parties also with concerns about Islamic Immigration.
As a result of the Turkish agitation I had been expecting people to vote in favour of Geert Wilders party and the result showed that there was a huge movement away from the liberal left with gains also for other parties extolling his values.
It was the agitation that seemed to coincide with the preceding day of the forthcoming election and which drew media focus on the protests, perhaps for emphasis, but there was only brief attention given to Germany and seemingly a side note reference to the fact that France had allowed rallies to go ahead there. In Switzerland permission was also declined, then persuasion to allow based on upholding free speech then agreement not to go ahead because of fears for her personal safety. There was no animosity as a result of this. (There is a possible reason for this and the clue could be in the fact that it has historically served as the banker for despots and in this role has always managed to maintain neutral status at times of war).
Because a regular Facebook contributor had previously posted a photograph of Geert Wilders in Jewish costume complete with the scull cap taking part in a ceremony, this image kept coming to mind amongst other thoughts so decided to pose some questions. I had previously heard about The rejection of Geert Wilders on his visit to the UK years ago and accepted that is par for the course for anybody who stands in a position to challenge the establishment so that was pretty normal, and although I am aware of Zionism and the problems that are said to stem from it, it is not a hobby horse of mine so tend to reserve judgement as well as comment. However in this case thoughts seemed to crystallise around these issues, feeling them to be a significant link and relevant context.
On searching I found an article of Geert Wilders attending a meeting in California held by the American Freedom Alliance in which he was proclaiming that Countries need Zionism. For him to be openly proclaiming Zionism then it is reasonable to believe that this organisation is also Zionist. It is interesting how Wilders party also includes ”Freedom” in its name.
The AFA seems to be making all the right noises that would appeal to the anti establishment frame of mind and contains all of the popular issues that people are generally concerned with and you would never know if there were Zionist tendencies or not. However an organisation that seemingly supports the AFA wrote an article that casts them in a different light to the impression given on their own web site.

[Quote]: “My friends, what we need today is Zionism for the nations of Europe,” Wilders, founder and leader of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, said at the “Europe’s Last Stand?” conference, organized by the American Freedom Alliance.” Posted in 06/10/2013
by JNS.org [unquote]

Looking from the Turkish angle it is evident that Turkey and Israel have historically worked together in Intelligence, Security and subversion and although they had fallen out they are now back together again since 2010 when it was the IDF that approached Turkey. This came about because Syria blocked a gas pipeline that was to run from Arabia and Qatar all the way to Israel and ultimately across Turkey to Italy for sale through Europe, pushing the Russians out of this market. The deal failed in 2009 and this is why I believe Israel re established relations with Turkey in 2010 and the war for regime change in Syria began in 2011.
Turkey has been a player regarding ISIS in Syria and it has been reported that ISIS casualties receive medical treatment in Israel. It has also been mentioned that America, under Obama, had been responsible for creating ISIS. The pipeline from Turkey to Haifa in Israel is still waiting to be connected so it seems that the war in Syria will not end until the connection can be made and Russia remains Assad’s ally therefore it looks like Russia is being played by Turkey in the scheme of things.
I also seems that Israel regards Holland as the gateway into the EU, particularly because it is multi lingual so this gives sense to why they would want one of their own running the country.
Here is a comment that shows that there had been organised agitators:

[Quote] Dov Segal
This report is from AFP journalists. As usual, misleading.
According to the AFP.
“After several hours of calm demonstrations, police moved in to disperse over 1,000 people gathered close to the consulate, charging the crowd on horseback and using dogs to regain control.
Protesters hit back, throwing rocks at riot police, while hundreds of cars jammed the streets blaring their horns and revving their engines.”
What actually happened?
There was a relatively peaceful demonstration outside the consulate in Rotterdam. Lots of Allahu Akbars and Turkish songs. They were waiting for a speech from a Turkish minister.
When they heard that the minister had been sent back to Germany most of the Dutch/Turks started to leave.
As the demonstrators were leaving, the Dutch riot police started to stand down, moving back to their trucks.
Then a group of about 200 young Turks began to attack the police from behind. The riot police regrouped and charged their attackers.
Sounds a bit different to the AFP narrative.
The AFP forgot something as well.
The rioters were not singing Turkish songs any more. They were hurling epithets at the police.
They were screaming, “Jews, cancer Jews”.
Mar 12, 2017 9:54am [unquote]

RGH

Now we know why the UK Government would not send a sample of nerve agent to Russia to be inspected and why there was the urgent bluster and bullying of Russia.

This was brought to notice by today’s information packed, as usual, UK Column of 16th March.

Craig Murray

Of a Type Developed by liars
[Quote]
”I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve gas as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a “novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China.” [unquote]
Read on from this link:
Of a Type Developed by Liars (UK Column at 3:31)

Shifting Definitions and Illiterate Officials: 23:09

Also of important interest is the Kit Kat Tapes 32:56 Deceiving the British public over Brexit:
don’t HAVE A BREX, HAVE A KITKAT Bombshell tapes reveal how top Whitehall officials compared Brexit to a KitKat with chocolate layer hiding UK ties to Brussels

UK Column:
UK Column News – 16th March 2018

Jeremy Corbyn demonstrated reasonable sanity by his reasoning, in parliament yesterday,15th March, which is very sound and who it appears is agreed with by the majority of the population judging by a radio phone in program. Proof of who was responsible for the nerve poison attack in Salisbury which became effective on Sunday 4th. of March

[Quote]To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security
Jeremy Corbyn
British opposition Labour leader [unquote]

It is unbelievable that the Country being run by politicians who all agree with each other, in all it’s permutations, that Russia is guilty by association without proof. In this case what better a way to convince the public of Russian guilt for something which could quite easily be a false flag event, because of their past track record.

To ignore International due process and to give an instant ultimatum can only be received as a insult, and the corresponding indignant response, which would be a natural one given the air of disrespect is also used as said proof of culpability.

In my opinion Britain itself is behaving like a rogue state and this is crystallised by their behaviour in Syria, supporting the terrorists and their front group to garner public sympathy, the White Helmets. Just look at the extensive, on the ground, reporting by Vanessa Beeley on this matter. This is the track record of the UK unfortunately:

Vanessa Beeley on the White Helmets

The Curiosity of The Re-emergence of SMOLENSK at a None Anniversary Time

In Poland there is a cloud of suspicion over Tusk because not only was he not on the aircraft that was brought down in Smolensk, but it is also felt that he did not do enough to secure a thorough investigation and as such is felt to have committed treason.
There are questions about how a low flying aircraft over trees could break up the way that it did and about the lack of survivors. It has been suggested that there was a bomb on board and if so there must be a further question to how it was activated at the precise place armed actors lay in wait to murder any survivors.

A previous contributor to the original UK Column forum, Bluthund, before it unexpectedly ceased operation without warning or explanation in the summer of 2011 put forward the theory by his father that the shock wave from an external explosive device would be enough to break up an aircraft and also added the suggestion that the assailants could have hailed from the EU. That was said in 2010.

It is known that the people who represented the Polish government at that time were strongly independent and did not take kindly to the dominance of the EU and just like Britain has kept hold of their own currency, the Zlotty and as a result Poland has been able to become prosperous and increase the well being of it’s population, that is why many Poles of the first migration 2004 have returned.

[Quote] On 10 April 2010, a Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft of the Polish Air Force crashed near the city of Smolensk, Russia, killing all 96 people on board. Among the victims were the President of Poland Lech Kaczyński and his wife Maria, the former President of Poland in exileRyszard Kaczorowski, the chief of the Polish General Staff and other senior Polish military officers, the president of the National Bank of Poland, Polish Government officials, 18 members of the Polish Parliament, senior members of the Polish clergy and relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre. The group was arriving from Warsaw to attend an event commemorating the 70th anniversary of the massacre, which took place not far from Smolensk. [Unquote]

Here is an analysis video translated with English subtitles telling of the conversation of the persons awaiting to finish off any survivors. Although the opening box overlay says what it does. I have a different viewpoint on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54IxJfPxBoU

This video is new and was found just now while deciding to write my take on events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxC4WiTsreg

Here is a link to an upload of the video soon after but the original was not as blocky as this version. What this version does retain is the gun shot where the video momentarily pauses between the bent bough curved back on itself. At this point a shot could be heard and at the same time an instantaneous disturbance by what appeared to be the result of the blast. In this video though any such effect is obscured by the blockiness of the low bitrate video. The original gunshot blast was something that I had pointed out on the forums at the time and it had appeared afterwards that the video had been doctored to remove the blast effect by perhaps removing a frame or two of the video at that point. Other videos would move quickly past that point.

Having come across the video at the time by chance, I was aware that there wasn’t much news of the accident seemed to be very sparse and it was only in bringing up the subject with a Polish friend and work colleague at our place of work that he showed a more high definition version of the video and said that the person in white who’s arm could be seen moving was a religious minister. Additionally over time it was mentioned that the flight recorders had been retained in Russia despite requests for their return by the Polish government. Also it took much protest to have the bodies returned to Poland and that those that were had body parts missing or were those of others, suggesting that attempts were made to conceal evidence of the cause of death.

Recently, while pursuing research on The EU stance on Brexit the events of the Smolensk aircrash came to mind and I was most curious why Donald Tusk was not on that aircraft, thus initially thinking that he had remained behind in Poland. However the opposite was the case in that it had been reported that he had already been in Russia for two weeks earlier before the day of the air crash, and a different report stated three days .

Now this point is interesting because a news paper report stating that journalists who had only recently arrived in Russia went directly to the crash site and that Donald Tusk was with them. So by implication, without clarification, the impression was that Donald Tusk also had also only just arrived in Russia.

Another Polish internal report made the claim that there was no motorcade waiting at the airport to receive the Polish Government on arrival because it was already known in advance that it would not be required. A differing report pointed out that the aircraft that was transporting the vehicle and which was ahead did not land.

 

Would it not be necessary for Russia to maintain a constant pretence? So the most obvious question would be where was the whereabouts of Donald Tusk during the immediate expectation of the Polish contingencies arrival? Its an open question.

There has been speculation that it was an explosion on board the aircraft that brought it down and one report claims traces of Nito, then the next obvious question is what are the logistics in activating an explosion on board at the required location, since the assassins must have already been laying in wait to carry out their dirty deed of execution to ensure no survivors.

[Quote] ”in early May, the Polish public learned of yet another startling revelation. According to Poland’s Agency of Internal Security (ABW), someone in the Russian Federation hacked into President Kaczyński’s cellular phone only a few minutes after the crash time (the crash occurred at 10:41 AM Russian time, while the first break-in occurred at 10:46 AM) and checked his voice mail. [unquote]

The Suggestion by Bluthund’s father eight years ago is most likely closer to the truth and Polish investigators have recently carried out experiments to duplicate the same type of damage sustained by the fabric of the aircraft by building a section of fuselage to the same specification and scale, and the type of damage sustained has been duplicated exactly. The results lead to the conclusion that a thermobaric charge was used to bring down the aircraft which causes a shock wave and consequent explosion.

 

 

 

 

Such a weapon would more accurately be used at a lower flying altitude than at normal cruising height and it seems that this was implemented by fooling the pilot on the location of the landing strip. This appeared to be achieved by placing dummy landing lights in the vicinity of the wooded area. This area would also provide cover for the perpetrators.

 

 

 

 

[Quote] ”A thermobaric bomb is an unusual type of explosive, that doesn’t incorporate oxygen molecules, thus requiring atmospheric oxygen. Sometimes called fuel-air explosives, the name comes from Greek and literally means “heat” and “pressure.”

The most interesting thing about this bomb is the fact that it actually produces two blasts, the first being the dispersion of a cloud of liquid or powder explosive using a small detonating charge, and then the main explosion, when a second charge ignites the cloud, producing the actual deflagration.

The advantage of this bomb is the fact that it combines the power of both forces, intense heat and huge pressure, to destroy even the most inaccessible targets. It’s not more than a mix of a monopropellant fuel explosive and a highly energetic material, like powdered aluminum.

Being an ideal package of two crushing forces, even on their own, condensed in a tight space, the thermobaric bomb is ideal for blasting underground targets, like army bunkers and missile silos, while at the same time limiting collateral damage.

The intense concentrated fireball combined with devastating blast overpressure destroyed a large one-story masonry type building in Iraq in only one round, coming from a Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon-Novel Explosion (SMAW-NE), from a distance of 100 yards (91 meters).[unquote]

Testimony of witness:

[Quote] ” Anatoly Zhuyev is another witness of the last seconds of Tupolev’s flight. Zhuyev stood on the road by the garages. From his position he could see the back of the aircraft. According to Zhuyev’s testimony, he saw a huge blast behind the tail of the aircraft that looked like an enormous egg yolk. “When the aircraft emerged for a short time from the fog, there was a moment when the engines roared, and then there was this blinding flash. After the flash the aircraft tried to gain altitude” Zhuyev testified later. The aircraft already flew past the birch tree, flying at the altitude of more than 10 metres above the ground. [Unquote]

2018 is not a time of a significant anniversary but it is a time of significant Russia bashing.

In 2010 there did’t seem to be much coverage by mainstream media at the time and most information was online but now there is MSM activity at this time in March 2018.

Back in 2010 the West was on good terms with Russia and Putin, it was a two way relationship and at one time  President Clinton expressed to Tony Blair that Putin is a decent chap and that they could work with him.

[Quote] ”At the end of 2006, Sergey Yastrzhembsky, the special presidential representative for developing relations with the European Union, expressed hope that Russia and Brussels would mend ties. He believed that Germany’s presidency of the European Union in 2007 would facilitate the process.
But the dialogue on the new Russo-EU agreement on partnership and cooperation reached a deadlock due to Poland’s veto, Prokudin and Ardaev highlighted.” [unquote]

There are two differing reports coming out of Poland carried out by those who sincerely seek the truth and those in power who willingly follow the Russian narrative and seek to cover up the truth.

[Quote] ”To begin with, the crash itself seemed quite suspicious. The post-Soviet Russians have been evasive and uncooperative from the outset, assigning blame exclusively on the Polish side throughout. Furthermore, their behavior has exhibited many disturbing signs of an apparent cover-up. The liberal post-communist Polish government, in turn, has consistently and pusillanimously sought to accommodate Russia. For quite a few Poles, the combination of Moscow’s stonewalling and Warsaw’s docility created an unsettling impression of collusion to suppress the truth, not unlike the collaboration between the Soviets and their Polish-speaking vassals to smother the truth about the Katyn Forest massacre. [unquote]

My personal suspicion was that there was an equal hand involved but now that ‘Russia bashing’ is the flavour of the last five years or so then the MSM are now in over drive attempting to blame it exclusively on the Russians. Who knows the inner motives of what took place in Salisbury at this particular time? Only asking.

https://www.unian.info/world/1577657-putin-tusk-recording-contradicts-polish-and-russian-reports-macierewicz.html

https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20120514_Smolensk2YearsLater.pdf

http://www.doomedsoldiers.com/polish-tu-154-crash-russia.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IieGMnTD-QM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3466dPCjAT0

BBC report on five year anniversary.

Anatomy of a Crash Site Co operation not taken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1vgKKpkDM

A Proposal for a Solution to the Irish Border problem re Brexit Negotiations.

Mrs May, in a recent speech said that the UK will uphold EU standards or even better. Therefore a solution to the Irish border question which is a stumbling block to further negotiations and which is in fact of the EU’s making as a result of insisting Ireland vote twice on the Lisbon Treaty to secure a yes vote.

The proposal is that Northern Ireland maintain the EU standards in keeping with the rest of the UK, something which is already part of our present relationship, and also keep in place levels of purchase tax equivalent to that of EU VAT in order to ensure that there are no benefits from smuggling across the border, therefore for all intents and purposes the border remains fluid.

When Britain finally leaves the EU a different level of purchase tax may be introduced in the UK mainland and if it is lower than the level of VAT then Northern Irish citizens will be compensated by a corresponding reduction in income tax to balance it out.

This will facilitate smooth day to day living but the trade off will be customs checks at British Ports of entry which would also facilitate checks on who comes and goes. This will be a necessity and as a such the control of movement will also mean not being part of the Single Market as dictated by present EU rules.

A proposal would be that trade with Russia be stepped up, and this anyway is something that the EU countries are presently active in, while the UK is kept busy with its anti Russian rhetoric. As a traditional sea faring nation we could send and receive container ships directly to and from Russian ports.

Of necessity in Northern Ireland, the fluid border would require that citizens have identity cards which are checkable to the source of origin and the efficacy of issue. This would be necessary as a consequence Ireland’s special circumstance. Therefore these identity cards would act as an internal passport, as it were, for public services and the right to buy property. Perhaps one day Ireland, North and South may wish to unite or perhaps even Southern Ireland leave the EU altogether.

The Irish problem instigated by the EU may in the end result in Britain leaving without a deal which may be more simple but difficult in the short term but better in the long term by not being stitched up to the EU’s own advantage.

Of special interest:
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2009/10/irel-o01.html

EU freezes Brexit talks until Britain produces Irish border solution
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4IT_YK6RpM

By the way, This was discovered after completing and posting the above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz-0lH0wCHY 

The following content must have been expressed by myself at the time of the Conservative competition for the position of UK Prime Minister as a result of David Cameron’s resignation after the result of the Brexit vote in June 2016. The date below is that which is the date shown on the document when it was copied and pasted to a different computer so losing the original date of origin which is really annoying.

The information about the English business woman and the plight of her business was obtained during the run up to the election itself on a phone in radio program. There were many such calls but this one stuck out and was worthy of quoting for the sake of those who would have us believe that Brexit was all about immigration and nothing to do with how badly Britain had been treated from the very beginning the moment that we were allowed to join the original European Economic Community. The details of this outrageous treatment is documented in the UKIP pdf called Stolen Seas.

Donald Tusk has now shown his hard balling stance towards Britain regarding negotiations for business and this had already been predicted, it is only now that he is showing his hand. He is the President of the European Council of which Rompouy has said himself is not accountable to the European Parliament.

What had originated as the EEC has transmuted into the EU which is the European Union, a political entity which serves itself to the detriment of business regardless.

Before this week it was fine for the EU to slap tariffs on the UK as part of the punishment for daring to leave the stifling and restrictive fold of the EU. The fact that Donald Trump has decided to slap a tariff on imported steel to make a correction on the dumping of cheap imports which result in the decline in the home steel industry is very sweet in terms of Donald Tusk’s reaction which demonstrates that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander as far as the EU is concerned, the true characteristics of a bully.

Since it seems that the link to the Stolen Seas document has now become elusive I have decided to track it down to save the frustration of anyone wishing to take a look:

http://ukip-ashford.co.uk/images/Stolen%20Seas.pdf

25th January 2018

This morning it was announced on the news that Mr Juncker said that if the new prime minister was a pro-remain figure, Article 50 should be activated “in two weeks after his appointment” — but if it was a supporter of the leave campaign, “it should be done the day after his appointment”.

I couldn’t believe what I had heard and thought to myself that he hasn’t learnt anything. It is proof of the dictatorial nature of the EU representatives and their fickle diktats.
To top it off a little later we then heard that all 27 had agreed that there would be no concessions and that the single market will come at a price and it was added that the strict decision was to deter others thinking that they could get a better deal than what they already have.

It is incredible. Its as if the EU is being run by the Mafia and that the price for being part of it is equivalent to protection money. You could say that they are out mafiosing the Mafia at their own game and Juncker is playing it tough to make a point.

In fact Britain, while a member of the EU bent over backwards to accommodate its dictates but it was known that other countries within its confines adopted to varying degrees or not as they saw fit.

There is the recent story of an English business woman who had to write off a three hundred million pound business because a competitor in the EU was failing to follow the strict guidelines set out by the EU itself and so could undercut her in price. The lady went to her MEP who said that he was powerless to do anything to help and told her that she must contact a Lobbying group. She discovered that the first meeting with the Lobbyist would cost her £12000 plus a retainer. This is what British business is up against in the EU.

Perhaps it is better to cut our losses and make up the difference by not being in the single market by expanding business to the rest of the world where there are no trade barriers or compulsory fees charged for doing so. I have never been a fan of those cards from banks where you have to pay a fee in order to obtain enhanced benefits. It means that you have to spend more than intended in order to benefit when in fact you may not want to spend anything at all.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-29/eu-leaders-set-timetable-for-brexit/7552830

 

The posts referring to Donald Tusk are related to each other. My feeling about how the negotiation will play out is that he will soft soap us to get what he wants, all signed sealed and delivered and then will go on to hard ball us regarding the economic negotiations. Why from Tusk. Because I believe that Tusk bears influence and will show the type of influence by what has gone before.

We have observed a change in tack from the beginning from when it was originally expressed that we cannot be allowed to come away with a better deal than the rest of the EU after having left and this I feel remains the same sentiment.

Tusk has an angry countenance towards the UK for daring to break away from the EU but he tries to conceal it with the words that do not match his countenance.

I was dismayed that he was re elected as President of the European Council, the very body that was born out of the Lisbon Treaty and which was one that made Ireland vote again until a ”YES’ result was achieved, precisely because of what I feel from him and it is significant that he had the full support of the other members except Poland who have constantly supported the UK and who are also critical of Tusk despite the fact that he is one of their own countryman.

It is the undying support of the others for Tusk that signify the danger because between themselves they can orchestrate a difficult exit for the UK simply by the way they choose to vote on each issue, which for all intents and purposes will be classified as ‘democracy in action’ and there needn’t be any logic to it. The rules are that all member States must agree unanimously.

This is information has been put together, revealed from separate searches on particular topics at different times to satisfy certain questions, and the content found supports theories based on general knowledge and then that information in turn will have then given rise to searches to prove other insights and put together like a puzzle. All information is already in the public domain.

The following article from the Daily Express presents a claim from the brother of former President of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, who was tragically killed in the air crash in Smolensk in 2010, claiming that Donald Tusk was responsible for Brexit due to his unwillingness to give way on requests for change by David Cameron.

Headline from the Daily Express:

Donald Tusk ‘directly responsible for Brexit’ and made sure ‘UK got NOTHING in new deal’

[Quote] PRESIDENT of the European Council Donald Tusk is facing pressure to “disappear” from European politics after he was blamed for Britain’s sensational decision to leave the European Union.

Leader of Poland’s Law and Justice Party Jaroslaw Kaczynski said the top Polish Brussels bureaucrat played a “dark role” in Britain’s fall out from the crumbling bloc on Friday.
He said: “A particularly dark role was played by Donald Tusk, who conducted negotiations with the British and in fact contributed to them getting nothing.
“Hence, he is directly responsible for Brexit and should simply disappear from European politics. But this concerns the whole of European Commission in its present composition.”
[Unquote].
Donald Tusk ‘directly responsible for Brexit’ and made sure ‘UK got NOTHING in new deal’

Now it is curious that Tusk who is the president of the European Council for a second term, which came into being as a function of the Lisbon Treaty, has so much influence on how Brexit is conducted because according to the words of Rompouy ” The European Council is not answerable to Parliament‘.

It seems that there is a two way interchange between the European Commission headed by Junker and the European Council headed and controlled by Tusk.

Tusk had once been asked if he would like to be President of Poland and Tusk replied that he would like to remain as Prime Minister because it had more power than the Presidency which only has the power of the veto. This reveals the type of man Tusk is because he had pushed for political reform in Poland when he was Prime Minster where even the power of the Veto would be take away under his proposed reforms of the Polish Constitution thus leaving no influence at all for the President. It was quite obvious that there were strong differences between Tusk as Prime Minister of Poland and Lech Kaczyński as President.

On looking at the position of Timmermans in the European Commission to do with immigration, it is clear that he is a very clever and capable man who seems to have his heart in the right place and can speak five languages fluently as well as his birth language. However he is fully commited to the EU Project.

While Immigration and it’s promotion within the EU was a priority, Timmermans was Junker’s right hand man and it can be observed that people enrolled in positions of EU administration have extensive experience in their field.

So when Brexit broke out, as it were, the most important priority was the enrollment of Barnier as Chief Negotiator because of his background experience in industrial negotiations. You can see that Ministers enrolled within the EU structure have continuous practice and experience in their chosen field from University onward. This means that Barnier superseded Timmermans in position of right hand man to Junker, as it has been observed and quoted. This compares greatly to how the opposite is true of the UK where ministers flit around from one position to another unrelated one at the time of a cabinet reshuffle.

So what we are arriving at is that Tusk who had extensive experience in making reforms, or meddling in the constitution of Poland is the man chosen to be president of the European Council which in turn is not answerable to the European Parliament. It looks like we have a cabal within the European power system.

[Quote] In an interview with the Financial Times in January 2010, Tusk was asked if he considered running again as Civic Platform’s candidate for that year’s presidential election. Tusk replied that although the presidential election typically drew the most voters to the polls and remained Poland’s most high-profiled race, the presidency had little political power outside of the veto, and preferred to remain as prime minister. While not formally excluding his candidacy, Tusk declared that “I would very much like to continue to work in the government and Civic Platform, because that seems to me to be the key element in ensuring success in the civilisational race in which we are engaged” [Unquote]

Tusk did not want to be president of Poland, preferring to be Prime Minister for its scope of power yet wanted to take away the only power that the President had, the veto, reducing him to a figurehead only.

Lech Kczynski was the 4th President of Poland until his death in Smolensk on 10th April 2010. At the same time Donald Tusk was Prime Minister from 2007 to 2014, until he became the first President of the European Council.

From Wikipedia:

[Quote]:
After being elected prime minister, relations between Tusk and President Lech Kaczyński were often acrimonious due to different political ideologies and the constitutional role of the presidency. Using presidential veto powers, Kaczyński blocked legislation drafted by the Tusk government, including pension reform, agricultural and urban zoning plans, and restructuring state television.[56]
In his premiership, Tusk has proposed various reforms to the Polish constitution. In 2009, Tusk proposed changes to the power of the presidency, by abolishing the presidential veto. “The president should not have veto power. People make their decision in elections and then state institutions should not be in conflict”, said Tusk.[57] Tusk again reiterated his desire for constitutional reform in February 2010, proposing that the presidential veto be overridden by a simple parliamentary majority rather than through a three-fifths vote. “Presidential veto could not effectively block the will of the majority in parliament, which won elections and formed the government”, stated Tusk.[58] Further constitutional reforms proposed by Tusk include reducing the Sejm from a membership of 460 to 300, “not only because of its savings, but also the excessive number of members’ causes blurring certain plans and projects“.[58] Similarly, Tusk proposed radical changes to the Senate, preferring to abolish the upper house altogether, yet due to constitutional concerns and demands from the junior coalition Polish People’s Party partner, Tusk proposed reducing the Senate from 100 to 49, while including former presidents to sit in the Senate for political experience and expertise in state matters.[58] Parliamentary immunity for all members of the Sejm and Senate would also be stripped, except for in special situations.[58] In addition, Tusk proposed that the prime minister’s role in foreign policy decisions would be greatly expanded.[59] By decreasing the president’s role in governance, executive power would further be concentrated in the prime minister, directly responsible to the cabinet and Sejm, as well as avoiding confusion over Poland’s representation at international or EU summits.[60] The opposition conservative Law and Justice party deeply criticised Tusk’s constitutional reform proposals, opting in opposing legislation for the presidency to garner greater power over the prime minister.[61]In an interview with the Financial Times in January 2010, Tusk was asked if he considered running again as Civic Platform‘s candidate for that year’s presidential election. Tusk replied that although the presidential election typically drew the most voters to the polls and remained Poland’s most high-profiled race, the presidency had little political power outside of the veto, and preferred to remain as prime minister. While not formally excluding his candidacy, Tusk declared that “I would very much like to continue to work in the government and Civic Platform, because that seems to me to be the key element in ensuring success in the civilisational race in which we are engaged”.[62] A day after the interview, Tusk formally announced his intention of staying as prime minister, allowing his party to choose another candidate (and eventual winner), Bronisław Komorowski.[63] [Unquote]

I believe that the proposed pension reforms by Tusk were to be detrimental, the reason that a work colleague of mine who had come to Britain during the 2004 influx told me that living conditions in Poland had dramatically improved for normal working people and that wages, Pensions and child benefit had now progressed to reach levels comparable to the UK, without general inflation as well as house inflation. This was in 2014. He had already sent his family back and also took out a mortgage on a property but he remained working in the UK himself. Polish people were already returning back to Poland a long time before there was any mention of a referendum here in the UK.

Poland, like Britain had kept its own National currency the Zloty and likewise maintains many of its own National policies despite EU directives and even today it is threatened with expulsion from the EU. Poland really is our true ally and whom we pledged to to go to war to protect during WW2. Many of their pilots flew in the Battle of Britain.

The first shall be last

Came across this first when wanting to know more about Timmermans and his immigration policy

Timmermans was Vice President to Jean Claud Junker in the European Commission, an organisation founded in January 1958

https://www.politico.eu/article/frans-timmermans-dying-star-eu-next-big-thing-no-longer/

By delivering on migration, Timmermans eased the pressure on Juncker, who had faced persistent speculation that poor health would lead to his resignation. Then the U.K. voted in June 2016 to quit the EU, sealing Juncker’s fate and perhaps Timmermans’ as well. A leadership change would have signaled chaos in Brussels. The seemingly doddering Luxembourger would not need a designated survivor after all.

As it turns out, Juncker also had not yet given out his most crucial assignment, and it would not go to Timmermans. In the stunned frenzy that followed the British vote to quit the EU, Juncker tapped Barnier, a fellow member of the center-right European People’s Party, as chief Brexit negotiator.

It was a fast decision pushed by Selmayr in part because of fears that the European Council was angling to take the lead in the talks, and it blindsided top commissioners including the Vice President for Budget and Human Resources Kristalina Georgieva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Selmayr
In 2014, Selmayr became the campaign director for Jean-Claude Juncker during his candidacy for President of the European Commission, and he subsequently became head of the Juncker transition team and head of cabinet to the President of the European Commission when Juncker took office.[3]Media reports suggest Selmayr is a very influential figure in EU politics, with Politico describing him as “the most powerful EU chief of staff ever” in November 2016 and noting that even Juncker jokingly refers to him by the nickname “the monster.”[4] Tomáš Prouza, the Czech state secretary for European affairs said “when I need a decision to be taken on any file, I talk to Martin”.

In October 2017 he was accused in the British media of leaking details about the Brexit negotiations.[5] Selmayr has consistently denied such accusations. “We have an interest in strong negotiators in London”, he said at a public event organised by Politico in Brussels in May 2017.[6] In close teamwork with the Commission’s Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier, he helped ensuring an agreement on “sufficient progress” in the Brexit negotiations in December 2017.

Wikepedia:

[Quote] The European Council, charged with defining the European Union’s (EU) overall political direction and priorities, is the institution of the EU that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also takes part in its meetings.[1]Established as an informal summit in 1975, the European Council was formalised as an institution in 2009 upon the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Its current President is Donald Tusk. [Unquote]

This video by David Ike explains so much in his own inimitable way:

https://www.davidicke.com/video/449865/david-icke-germany-tyranny-social-media-censorship

It is my opinion that we are observing the unfolding of an agenda that began with the false flag attack on 911. This then gave the permissions for the assault to begin in the Middle East against Afghanistan and Iraq. Then coming up towards the scheduled pull out of these two countries we observed the transition to colour revolutions in the same style as explained in this article regarding the Ukraine. The great stumbling block to a clear run here is Syria which of course has the support of Russia. They have proved to be a hard nut to crack. I believe that the conflict with ISIS will be the vehicle to finally attempt to finish off Syria. Of course the parallel encroachment towards Russia in the same style that they observed happening in the middle East are bound to make them nervous. It would therefore be fair to say that the Russian pre-preemptive move to reclaim the Crimea was one of strategic importance to them.
I had pointed out some years ago that Russia had been steadily building it’s conventional forces (as is China), primarily for defense purposes and I felt that this was a move away from nuclear knowing that if there was a nuclear exchange there would be no winners only tragic survivors. It does seem odd that we have been steadily depleting our own armed forces while at the same time playing second fiddle to America. This has been a consistent policy in both the New Labour administration and the present one.
The EU has to be very cautious about being led by its nose into a war with Russia and if it does break out then it would be reasonable to expect every country to be a recipient of retaliation. It would likely be in their own back yard.
I had always been instinctively anti Communist and it was only in 1986 that I learned that my maternal ancestors in Lithuania had to go to the woods to burn their identity papers and had later to stay ahead of the Russian advance during the second world war. Now my instinct is different an never in a million years did I ever expect it to be so.
America had the firepower to bomb Iraq into the stone age with no concern about the tragic loss of life as well as historical heritage. There were no real plans for the aftermath and it remains a total mess still. We can take a lesson from this attitude and expect no qualms about it happening in our own back yard.
Ukrainians seek shelter in Russia from recruiters in Kiev

Please ignore the comment by the up loader on the actual YouTube video.

The commentary on the video are from true patriots. They reveal that previous Prime Ministers before the Referendum result have been facilitators for the EU and this can be safely said because David Cameron resigned his position the very next day.