Deal or no deal.

My reason for wanting a 2nd vote is that for all the bravado & bluster, Boris, Gove, Farage or the guy whom convinced me, Daniel Hannon, too a man NEVER conceived that we’d be facing a no deal Brexit. It isn’t what we were sold and it’s going to be a fucking disaster that will dwarf 1979s winter of discontent. And will resonate for decades. I was a leaver, I was sold a pup and I’m bloody furious. For the good of everyone & everything, we leave with a deal or we swallow our stupid pride & rescind article 50. Because the deal we had was 1000 times better than anything were likely to get.


Who to believe. 

Monday, 24 August 2009

Was Lockerbie suspect working for US?

Published Date: 27 October 2008

By David Maddox

CAMPAIGNERS yesterday renewed calls for the United States to answer fresh questions over a Lockerbie bombing suspect.

Former Labour MP Tam Dalyell and Edinburgh law professor Robert Black urged the Scottish and UK governments to answer reports there is evidence Abu Nidal was a US agent.

They have long believed Abu Nidal, who died in Iraq in 2002, and his Popular

Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command were responsible for co-ordinating the bomb that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988 with the loss of 270 lives.

Intelligence reports, said to have been drawn up for Saddam Hussein’s security services, said Kuwaitis had asked Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, to find out if al-Qaeda was present in Iraq.

The reports referred to Abu Nidal’s “collusion with both the American and Kuwaiti intelligence apparatuses in co-ordination with Egyptian intelligence”.

And campaigners said the latest evidence adds weight to the claims that Libyan secret agent Abdelbasset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi who was found guilty of the atrocity in 2001; and the Libyan government were scapegoats to cover up a wider plot.

Mr Dalyell said the reports added weight to the theory that Lockerbie was a “tit-for-tat” attack for the shooting down of an Iranian passenger airliner by the warship USS Vincennes in 1988, and was allowed by the US administration.

He said the claims that Abu Nidal was working for the Americans would explain some of the mysteries that surrounded the Lockerbie outrage. These included a notice that went up at the American embassy in Moscow warning diplomats not to travel on Pan Am flights, and senior South African figures being “hauled off” the plane before its final flight.

The diplomats were replaced by students, who lost their lives.

Added to that is the mystery over why then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher overruled her transport secretary, Cecil Parkinson, and stopped a public inquiry into the attack. It has been claimed this was because the US administration did not want an inquiry.

In a joint statement issued yesterday, Mr Dalyell and Prof Black said: “If the American public had known of a link with Abu Nidal, and had known that the US government knew enough to pull VIPs off the plane and let home-going students take their place, there would have been fury at a time of transition between the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr.

“The fact that the Iraqi government
either executed Abu Nidal or forced him to commit suicide suggests they had discovered he was an American spy.”

Mr Dalyell and Prof Black who with Lockerbie relative Dr Jim Swire persuaded the Libyan government to hand over Megrahi for trial said they were “deeply and personally concerned” about the Libyan, who is suffering from cancer.

There are some pretty awful allegations in there. One can only hope & pray that It’s rubbish…………Cant we?

Surely you can’t still want us to stay in this asset stripping Merkel led Mafia?
Cadbury moved factory to Poland 2011 with EU grant.

 Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with EU grant.

 Jaguar Land Rover has recently agreed to build a new plant in Slovakia with EU grant, owned by Tata, the same company who have trashed our steel works and emptied the workers pension funds.

 Peugeot closed its Ryton (was Rootes Group) plant and moved production to Slovakia with EU grant.

 British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles to be built in SPAIN using SWEDISH steel at the request of the EU to support jobs in Spain with EU grant, rather than Wales.

 Dyson gone to Malaysia, with an EU loan.

 Crown Closures, Bournemouth (Was METAL BOX), gone to Poland with EU grant, once employed 1,200.

 M&S manufacturing gone to far east with EU loan.

 Hornby models gone. In fact all toys and models now gone from UK along with the patents all with with EU grants.

 Gillette gone to eastern Europe with EU grant.

 Texas Instruments Greenock gone to Germany with EU grant.

 Indesit at Bodelwyddan Wales gone with EU grant.

 Sekisui Alveo said production at its Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park foam plant will relocate production to Roermond in the Netherlands, with EU funding.

 Hoover Merthyr factory moved out of UK to Czech Republic and the Far East by Italian company Candy with EU backing.

 ICI integration into Holland’s AkzoNobel with EU bank loan and within days of the merger, several factories in the UK, were closed, eliminating 3,500 jobs

 Boots sold to Italians Stefano Pessina who have based their HQ in Switzerland to avoid tax to the tune of £80 million a year, using an EU loan for the purchase.

 JDS Uniphase run by two Dutch men, bought up companies in the UK with £20 million in EU ‘regeneration’ grants, created a pollution nightmare and just closed it all down leaving 1,200 out of work and an environmental clean-up paid for by the UK tax-payer. They also raided the pension fund and drained it dry.

 UK airports are owned by a Spanish company.

 Scottish Power is owned by a Spanish company.

 Most London buses are run by Spanish and German companies.

 The Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to be built by French company EDF, part owned by the French government, using cheap Chinese steel that has catastrophically failed in other nuclear installations. Now EDF say the costs will be double or more and it will be very late even if it does come online.

 Swindon was once our producer of rail locomotives and rolling stock. Not any more, it’s Bombardier in Derby and due to their losses in the aviation market, that could see the end of the British railways manufacturing altogether even though Bombardier had EU grants to keep Derby going which they diverted to their loss-making aviation side in Canada.

 39% of British invention patents have been passed to foreign companies, many of them in the EU

 The Mini cars that Cameron stood in front of as an example of British engineering, are built by BMW mostly in Holland and Austria. His campaign bus was made in Germany even though we have Plaxton, Optare, Bluebird, Dennis etc., in the UK. The bicycle for the Greens was made in the far east, not by Raleigh UK but then they are probably going to move to the Netherlands too as they have said recently.
Anyone who thinks the EU is good for British industry or any other business simply hasn’t paid attention to what has been systematically asset-stripped from the UK. Name me one major technology company still running in the UK, I used to contract out to many, then the work just dried up as they were sold off to companies from France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc., and now we don’t even teach electronic technology for technicians any more, due to EU regulations.
I haven’t detailed our non-existent fishing industry the EU paid to destroy, nor the farmers being paid NOT to produce food they could sell for more than they get paid to do nothing, don’t even go there.

 I haven’t mentioned what it costs us to be asset-stripped like this, nor have I mentioned immigration, nor the risk to our security if control of our armed forces is passed to Brussels or Germany.
Find something that’s gone the other way, I’ve looked and I just can’t. If you think the EU is a good idea,

 1/ You haven’t read the party manifesto of The European Peoples’ Party.

 2/ You haven’t had to deal with EU petty bureaucracy tearing your business down.

 3/ You don’t think it matters.

Austerity great if you’re loaded. 

Gradually more and more people are waking up to the fact that austerity wasn’t actually a necessary political response to the economic crisis, but actually an ideologically driven policy to use the crisis as an excuse to transfer as much wealth as possible from the majority of people to the already super-rich minority.
Local government services annihilated all over the country, in-work benefits slashed, disabled people impoverished, police and other emergency services severely cut back, flood defence schemes cancelled, the slowest economic recovery in history, the deficit nothing like eliminated, UK wage deflation since the crisis the the joint worst in the developed world with Greece.
Corporation tax slashed from 28% in 2010 to 17% in 2020 and an average £100,000 per year income tax cut for Britain’s 13,000 income millionaires.
It’s extraordinary that 24% of the electorate actually voted for the continuation of this ideological lunacy.


For 50 years, Prime Ministers have used duplicity, obfuscation and downright dishonesty to con – or try to con – the British public.1962

HAROLD MACMILLAN made the first, failed, attempt to get Britain to join the Common Market. The move was eventually vetoed by the French President, Charles de Gaulle, in 1963.

However, even Eurosceptical Cabinet ministers such as Enoch Powell were taken in by Macmillan’s protestations that entry was merely about the organisation of a free-trade bloc.

In fact, as the Treaty of Rome that founded the Common Market pointed out, the goal was of an ‘ever closer union’ economically and, more crucially, politically. That last element was kept very quiet.


THE Tories’ 1970 General Election manifesto promised that Britain would once again negotiate entry to what was by then known as the European Economic Community. TED HEATH did more than negotiate: he took us in. Having said that Britain would join only ‘with the full-hearted consent of the British parliament and people’, Heath pressed on with entry even though the enabling Bill passed its second reading by only eight votes in the Commons.

The people were never consulted. Heath didn’t even tell his Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, that signing the Treaty of Brussels to secure our accession committed us one day to joining a single currency – Sir Alec forced Heath to admit this afterwards.

Heath also said that the common agricultural and fisheries polices would have no adverse effect on our farmers or fishermen. The consistent dwindling of our fleet since 1973 was a direct result of his policy and contrary to what he had promised.


HAROLD WILSON’S victory at the two 1974 General Elections was partly won on a promise to renegotiate the expensive terms of Britain’s membership of the EEC, and to have a referendum on whether to stay in. Though he painted the concessions he had won from Brussels as a great improvement, they were so inadequate that Mrs Thatcher had to go back to Europe to demand, and win, a far larger rebate.

Two pamphlets saying the deal was brilliant were sent to every household at the June 1975 referendum. They also protested that there would be no further sacrifices of sovereignty. Again, such promises were in direct contravention of the Treaty of Rome.


BEFORE the scales fell from MARGARET THATCHER’S eyes about the real agenda in Europe, she argued that the Single European Act (SEA) was essential to found the single market within what by then was called the European Community – the ‘Economic’ had been dropped because the community was about far more than just economics. In fact, the SEA did away with our veto on various important matters and opened the way for massive regulation from Brussels and greater interference in what had always been domestic matters. More worryingly, the habit started of important regulations being passed into British law by being debated late at night in an empty Commons or being forced through by Orders in Council.


JOHN MAJOR’S Tory government was very nearly brought down by the Maastricht Treaty. Ironically, he had represented it as a ‘great triumph’ when he agreed terms in the Dutch town just before Christmas 1991.

Mr Major was triumphant because he had secured an opt-out from the Single Currency and the Social Chapter: the truth was that, from then on, constant pressure would be put on Britain to opt in.

The Treaty established the European Union, with so-called pillars of common interest such as home affairs, justice and a common security policy.

Fears about loss of sovereignty were countered by Major and his ministers on two fronts: first, that signing up would give us more ‘influence’; second, that the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ – the EU only undertaking actions that could not be done better at national or regional levels – would prevent centralisation.

In fact, the EU has subsequently sought to expand its areas of competence, there have been few if any signs of more British influence whatsoever and the single currency is an ever-present threat.


LUCKILY for TONY BLAIR, the Treaty of Amsterdam came along just at the time when he was enjoying New Labour’s honeymoon period and basking in unprecedented public adulation. There was little appetite for an argument about the Treaty, or interest in its contents. This was fortunate for Mr Blair because the Amsterdam Treaty followed on from Maastricht in expanding the ‘competences’ of the EU, poaching yet more areas of sovereignty from member states.

A treaty that was said to be merely helping facilitate the smooth running of the EU in fact paved the way for a superstate.

It confirmed citizenship of the union and gave the EU the right to intervene in a range of matters concerning the fight against crime, social and employment policy, environmental and public health policies.

And it enabled the EU to operate a formal – and aggressive – common foreign and security policy.

Robin Cook boasted: ‘We are confident that we can emerge from Amsterdam with a text that will retain the national veto over issues of common foreign and security policy’. They did, but only temporarily.


THE Treaty of Nice was represented by the Government as a way of enabling the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 25 members. It was all about ‘improving’ institutions. In fact, it was about giving an enormous amount of additional power to Brussels.

It was all about ensuring ‘enhanced co-operation’, but to do this it removed the veto that member states had over anything that might be defined as resisting ‘enhanced co-operation’.

It reduced from two to one the number of British commissioners, enhanced the powers of the unelected President of the EU and paved the way towards Cabinet style government in the EU.

Qualified majority voting was extended in such important areas as appointing members of the EU’s Court of Auditors, and the member states lost their vetoes in 39 areas. As a result, the Treaty represented a further dilution of British ‘influence’ and a further surrender of sovereignty.


OF ALL the inexactitudes uttered over the years, none – except perhaps those of Ted Heath – can match the whopper perpetrated by PETER HAIN.  The proposed European constitution would give Brussels control over our foreign, defence and security policies, as well as allowing it to intervene in almost every area of governmental activity.

In fact, it is proposed that British legislators would be able to consider only those matters allowed by Brussels.

It would enable centralisation of the taxation system, and seems to imply that entering the euro is a necessary part of signing up to the new constitution.

Mr Hain has said there would be no referendum on the issue because it is merely a ‘tidying-up’ exercise.

In other words, the British people are not to be consulted on the most fundamental alteration of their sovereignty since the Norman Conquest.

Unamused of clacton.