Ukraine, Invasion the EU and UK – Defence and Security Part 3

Having dealt with the (spurious) argument about “proximity” requiring the UK to re-engage with the EU (alleged – no evidence!). Let us look at the facts of existing defence and security. Of the 27 members of the EU, twenty (20) are already members of NATO – a defence and security treaty of over 70 years with the UK as a founding member. Additionally Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are neutral! So to allege a lack of engagement is close to being preposterous! If there is a wish to replace NATO then this should be made explicit. I could go into a lot more detail but EU behaviour has to be taken into account. Thus far their record has not been error free. Germany’s “ostpolitik” has failed spectacularly. French desire to lead Europe (after de Gaulle) depends on German money – the bus always has to be driven by a French person no matter who pays the bill. The UK has very superior intelligence capabilities which is why the EU wants us to be with them but their way of working would be very difficult for an independent nation state – as many MEP’s have said they are in the process of building an Empire. It will take the EU many years to shed itself of the view that the only way to do things is the EU way. So let us put this away in the filing cabinet under “Another Nonsense Idea”.

The "proximity" argument explored - a comedic

Imagine you are on the London Underground. You sit down and then a person with a strong, noticeable (and unpleasant) body odour sits next to you. You could move to the next available seat but that would only put you one seat away from that smell. The train stops, no one gets off and another person sits next to you in the previously available seat. Horror of horrors! This person also has a very unpleasant smell emanating from them, only this time it has all the indications that the person has had an anal accident of significant proportions! A truly unfortunate and very undesirable example of “proximity”.

On another journey on the Underground you have chosen a seat which has a vacant seat either side of you. The train stops . No one leaves and two people enter the carriage and sit on either side of you. One has a very definite perfume which you enjoy experiencing. The other is dressed in expensive and stylish clothing, smells clean and has a cherubic outward appearance. Neither engages in discussion and both leave two stops later. A much more fortunate and desirable example of “proximity”.

The point is simple, without further clarification “proximity” of itself (as per Paul Mason, Andrew Marr and today David Lammy and John Healey) in relation to UK/EU Defence and Security is close to being meaningless.

Poor Journalism again!

As a subscriber to the New Statesman I have digital access to articles both those printed and those published on the Web site. Last week I came across an article on the Web site by Paul Mason entitled “The Ukraine war has invalidated Brexit”. So I thought I had better take a closer look since “invalidated” usually means not legally acceptable. On closer investigation this, at best, just more Journalistic hyperbole. So I haven't missed a decision of the Supreme Court nor even a unilateral decision of the ECJ. However warming to his hyperbole Mason asserts (i.e. without a shred of evidence) that Brexit in it’s original form is dead and refers especially to “defence, energy and even trade”. Of course the phraseology “in it’s original form” is meant to be pejorative and therefore not related to any prior rigorous analysis, objectivity nor subsequent rational conclusion. I would just ask for the evidence – there is none! - because the events to which Mason refers are only 3 weeks old! To bolster his argument he then goes on to state that the “alliance” between Russia and China (of militarised dictatorships) means that the UK is isolated and therefore geographic proximity matters a great deal now. The UK is supposedly unable to survive without the (s)mothering hands of the EU. In support of this argument he suggests that discussions between the USA and Venezuela (about energy supplies) are an example of what is required (last time I looked the distance between Caracas and Washington was 2059 miles by air!). Not a lot of proximity there! Moreover $60 a barrel is the point at which it becomes profitable to start pumping American shale oil! (currently Brent Crude is $114 {21^st March} per barrel). So the UK must “re-engage” with the EU. Please provide evidence that the UK has dis-engaged and that the EU has not – shall we look at satellites, science and security. Again partiality and lack of objectivity! He (Mason) states that the UK has walked away from 70 years of leadership in Europe. Au contraire the UK has not wanted to lead the EU for many and varied reasons – e.g. Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties (ever closer union) despite promises were never consented to by the electorate; history – two world wars originated on the continent of Europe; Charles Michel (President of the Council of the EU) has openly sought to create an empire out of the EU (with support from Macron). If there was ever a dangerous thought that is it! Throughout the piece there is the conflation of the EU and Europe

which is both geographically and politically incorrect. Additionally it would seem that it is alright to refer to Britain but not the UK. I think it is about time this narrative by this remainer should be confined to the dustbin as it is devoid of meaningful analysis, objectivity and sense! Poor Journalism and even worse reasoning.

I shall come to Marr later!

The Owen Paterson Affair (November 2021)

I thought I could retire but this is just too much. Failures of intelligence, common sense and decency!

I can’t help feeling that nobody in our Parliamentary Democracy comes out of this smelling other than like a cow shed before cleaning! I must say at the outset that “paid advocacy” is an extreme danger to our democracy and certainly that is what Owen Paterson did! But what about the Lobbying Industry! However how will history look at this minor matter. There is a very difficult question about natural justice and the agreed procedure whereby these matters are considered and disposed of! First, how can the procedure be fair if the Adjudicator states, prior to full investigation, that the “defendant” is guilty! I state this in the positive as the Adjudicator has not sort to deny it! Second, how is it that the “defendant” is prevented from cross examining the testaments/evidence. Third, where is the right of Appeal? Without these provisions (safeguards) justice will tend to be arbitrary and capricious! Now these are not excuses for Paterson’s behaviour but as those who have only a passing acquaintance with Justice will know any one of those failures would lead to acquittal in most British Courts. So how did the “mother” of parliamentary democracies get itself into this mire? This is a rhetorical question as we know the corrupting influence of sharp elbowed Politicians and Journalists together with Social Media and 24 hour rolling news like to give the impression that there are straightforward answers – there are not!

There is also the question of what the appropriate punishment should be?

So Owen Paterson has resigned. The New Statesman and various others – BBC, Sky News etc. will not admit their complicity in the corruption of due process. MPs from the Expenses Scandal have been too scared to even speak up for due process and thus the whole thing degenerates into a partisan slanging match (at best). Worst of all from what I have seen Owen Paterson was naive in thinking that what he did was all right when many others MPs, Civil Servants advantaged themselves in more subtle ways – post Public Service – well paid jobs in the private sector!

In many ways it is well that Paterson has resigned and without holding my breath perhaps Parliament will reform the Standards Procedure. But one that does not properly and fully conform to the rules of natural justice will mean it is only a matter of time before another case will arise!

It is now clear the EU is Hostile to anything the UK does

 First they wanted us to reverse the referendum decision of 2016 as others had done previously (see Ireland - twice). Then they discovered there was some backbone (Except Teresa May et al). To deliver the democratic decision (a concept completely alien to the EU) an unsatisfactory Withdrawal Agreement (remember the name Sabine Weyend it will re-appear - as an unaccountable bureaucrat she famously said the price of Brexit was Northern Ireland - words that will, I hope and expect will haunt her to her dying day. Then we have the Covid19 pandemic. The EU wants transparency they said. Then they said we will invoke regulations to prevent vaccine exports (prohibited under WTO rules). Now they say they want reciprocity - haven't seen much of that in any negotiations with them. What reciprocity means to them is that since they (EU) have made such a mess we should all suffer equally to get them out of the mire!. Talk about stinking fish! Which brings us back to Sabine Weyend - it was, of course, she who prolonged negotiations with Astra Zeneca seeking a better price - which is a bit difficult because it was being sold at cost (the insistence of Oxford University). Now Weyend and von der Lyen are Merkel's placed people - are you getting the message. This has become a cover for the German Empire of Europe where they stay in the background and allow those pompous French to think they are driving the bus! In the meantime many thousands of Europeans will die because of the EU's incompetence. The UK is being asked to share those deaths for the same reason. Saving the face of EU bureaucrats is apparently more important than the lives of ordinary people. And going back to the Withdrawal/Trade Agreement could someone explain to me how if you are in perfect alignment (as we are) so far as regulations and sanitary conditions are concerned why stuff is finding it so difficult to get into Northern Ireland if it is not for the anality of the EU. What happens to that French truck that has English mud on its wheels? (no need to answer as you know!) Neither agreement can survive under those actions.

Tories revert to type over Cladding of High Rise Flats

Today's announcement of more financial support for people trapped in High Rise Flats with incendiary cladding shows Tory difficulties with wealth and reluctance to tackle vested interests. Most of these properties are Leasehold and the Freeholders and Developers are getting away without paying for their, at least, incompetence and at worst deliberate duping of Leasehold Tenants, i.e. selling something which was/is not safe. However no liability falls (apparently) on them. They should be pursued with the ultimate penalty the extinguishment of their Freehold rights. If Labour was the true supporter of property reform and justice this what they should be saying!

Brexit the NI Protocol and the Free Trade Conundrum

The EU decided to implement the classification of GB as a third country from 1st January but GB will only introduce Customs and Import controls from July 2021.

In GB there would appear to be widespread concern at exports to the EU and to NI. I say appears as without more evidence that these difficulties are actually widespread it is problematic that political noise is drowning out reality!

Questions that need to be objectively assessed are:

1) are checks on goods from GB to NI made deliberately and unduly onerous?

2) are EU Officials in NI strictly abiding by their role as advisory only?

3) with regard to GB exports to the EU are checks on goods made deliberately and unduly onerous?

4) what does an objective and thorough investigation show in relation to EU Customs and Import Controls from other 3rd Countries compared with those applying currently to GB.

All of this has to be seen against the background that there is a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and GB. So before rushing into unilaterally applying Article 16 of the NI Protocol or even repudiating the Withdrawal Agreement it is necessary for evidence and facts!