What is the real ‘Orwellian nightmare’ now?

"In its near universal display of contempt for the masses, the liberal intelligentsia is exhibiting a particularly ‘Orwellian’ trait: uncritical political conformism"

Mick Hume
Spiked.com 

In the 70 years since George Orwell wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four, the word ‘Orwellian’ has become a form of lazy political shorthand. It is used to condemn anything deemed to smack of the sort of Big Brother system of authoritarian control Orwell described in his last and greatest novel. The irony is that many of those who use it today might also have a touch of the ‘Orwellian’ about their views.

As the Guardian’s Dorian Lynskey outlines in his widely acclaimed new book, The Ministry of Truth: A Biography of George Orwell’s 1984, published to mark the 70th anniversary, the meaning of Orwell’s masterwork has often been reinterpreted over the years to suit the prevailing fears of the age.

Thus in the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Union, the focus was on the threat of Stalinist totalitarianism. In the 1980s, concerns were more likely to be expressed about the ‘Orwellian’ potential of hi-tech surveillance systems and CCTV cameras. When the actual year 1984 came around, many of us young radicals imagined plenty that was ‘Orwellian’ about the British state’s year-long war to defeat the striking miners.

When Lynskey comes to now, however, he does the same thing and reinterprets Nineteen Eighty-Four to fit the prejudices of the present. Almost predictably, he begins his book by linking the dystopian world described by Orwell with Donald Trump’s America. He quotes Trump’s adviser, Kellyanne Conway, who claimed – in the row over the true size of the crowd at his presidential inauguration – that she was using ‘alternative facts’. This is why, Lynskey tells BBC News, people are now turning to Orwell’s novel again, ‘for what it says about truth. And flagrant lies. And the nature of exerting power by distorting reality.’

Thus a discussion of the importance of a 70-year-old classic can become yet another exercise in blaming lies – and, implicitly, the stupidity/gullibility of voters – for Trump’s victory over the liberal establishment. Many try to claim that similar propaganda lies were behind the mass vote to leave the EU – effectively blaming Big Brother tactics for the Brexit revolt.

Read more

Farage's Emphatic Victory in European Election Spells Doom For Both Tories And Corbyn

George Galloway
RT  via Sott.net

Desperate spin notwithstanding, the tsunami created by Nigel Farage's six-week old Brexit Party may sweep away centuries-old parties which may now begin to split into their constituent parts.

But first a word about Farage. As a populist politician he is perfectly evolved. Cheerful, possessed of only the ordinary vices, personable, a communicator of genius. He is neither a philosopher nor an ideologue but gripped by one iron-clad obsession - British withdrawal from the European Union.

Single-mindedly pursued for a quarter of a century, this obsession has changed the course of history in a way not matched since Mr Churchill in the summer of 1940, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair not excepted.

I have privately criticized him for prematurely departing the stage when Brexit was won after the 2016 referendum - but in fact his timing has been perfect. He gave the ruling elites, conspiring to wreck Brexit and defy the voters, just enough rope. And now they have hanged themselves.

The Duke of Wellington was still telling his Battle of Waterloo war stories in the British Parliament when the Tory Party was last this kind of void in British politics and that was only because they hadn't then been formed. In getting on for 200 years the Tories have largely lorded over us and this week they polled in single digits. The departure of Theresa May has triggered a scramble of candidates for her job but it is bald men fighting over a comb.

The Labour Party as we know (and some of us loved) it, is dead. The coalition of Blair-Labour and Corbyn-Labour, of Remain members depending on Leave voters, of right-wing wreckers and liberals masquerading as leftists, identity-politics freaks and shop-stewards peace campaigners and blood-soaked warmongers, that Labour Party is dead.

Jeremy Corbyn's 70th birthday party was surely spoiled as the results emerged on the day. His sincere, often skillful, walk down the middle of the road had ended as such walks always do - in his being hit by the traffic going both ways. I have known Corbyn for nigh 40 years and for decades had a close personal and political relationship with him. I have been his most stalwart defender on a daily basis in the British media for four long years - I could show you my scars. And so it pains me to say that this is the end of the line for him.

When his effectively number-two-man Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell - like so many an erstwhile Trotskyist - joined the betrayal of democracy cause in a tweet, the morning after the results, the writing was on the wall for Corbyn. McDonnell joined up with Labour's disloyal deputy leader Tom Watson, leadership hopeful Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, and Shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer QC, to demand an immediate volte-face by Corbyn in full unequivocal support for a new referendum. With Labour campaigning for remaining in the EU he signed Corbyn's political death warrant.

Read more

'Brexit' claims its second scalp: Theresa May announces resignation as UK PM

Harry Yorke
The Telegraph

Theresa May has confirmed that she will resign as leader of the Conservative Party on 7 June in order for a leadership election to take place this summer.

Following a widespread revolt over her 'new Brexit deal', the Prime Minister has finally caved to growing calls from her MPs to step down. Her decision follows a meeting with Sir Graham Brady, the leader of backbench Tories, in Downing Street this morning.

Mrs May said that the process of electing her successor would begin the week after she finally stepped down as Conservative leader. She said she had informed the Queen that she would continue to serve as Prime Minister until that process was complete.

In an emotional statement on the steps of Downing Street, she said she had "done my best" to get her Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament but acknowledged she had failed to do so. 


"It is and will always remain a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit," she said.

"I have striven to make the UK a country that works not just for a privileged few but for everyone and to honour the result of the EU referendum." 

Read more

Extinction Rebellion: the new millenarian cult

Austin Williams
spiked.com

Over the past week, large groups of protesters have brought traffic to a standstill in central London. They have glued themselves to bus stops, pavements and Jeremy Corbyn’s fence. They have stood on top of trains, barricaded bridges, painted slogans on corporate headquarters and planted trees in the streets. Meanwhile, politicians have remained on holiday or cowered in Westminster. The police appear to have no idea what to do when confronted by a mass of people who don’t care if they are arrested. This is Extinction Rebellion (XR) – a new environmental protest movement that is spreading across the country.

I’d argue that three things have influenced the rise of this movement. The first is Brexit. Indeed, the politics of anger, disillusion and frustration unleashed by Brexit are possibly the most significant. There are no statistics on the Leave / Remain make-up of the environmental protesters, but one suspects Remain is overrepresented. That said, to her credit, Dr Gail Bradbrook, self-styled co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, told the Today programme that similar disruptive tactics would be ‘perfectly reasonable’ from Brexiteers ‘if democracy is not being honoured’.

The XR protesters – as Jon Snow might say – are mostly white, middle-class and often elderly. They are demonstrating their frustration that environmentalism isn’t getting enough coverage in the press and that, as XR puts it, ‘conventional approaches of voting, lobbying, petitions and protest have failed because powerful political and economic interests prevent change’. The first claim might seem to fly in the face of reality for the rest of us, who see climate campaigns, global-warming paranoia and environmental journalism at every turn. But the second point is the most contentious.

The conclusion drawn by XR activists is that democratic change is impossible and disruption is the only way to force change. Rather than pledging to improve the democratic process, to hold people more firmly to account, they are campaigning to work around it. It is the democratic process that they seek to overturn, not capitalism. Forget the old-fashioned arrogance of the Occupy movement’s slogan, ‘We are the 99 per cent’. Forget the stubborn Remainers’ assertion that 48 per cent takes precedence over the 52 per cent. XR types say that they only need ‘the involvement of 3.5 per cent of the population to succeed’.

 Read more

The war on No Deal is a war on democracy

Comment: Brexit has always been a mistake by the Elites overshadowing the incumbent government and most MPs who are largelt eurocratic in their worldviews. Therefore, Brexit was never EVER meant to be a genuine attempt to foster a truly independent, self-regulating country - or even something akin to the kind of sovereignty Scandanavia has. Theresa May has always been tasked with obfuscating, delaying and generally scuppering any hope of a real Brexit. People don't seem to get this still. It's not incompetence - it's purposeful subversion of democracy where voters wrong-footed the elite crowd psychology. But like similar referendums of the past (think the Lisbon Treaty) the vote is simply re-introduced are sufficient propaganda saturation and they get the answer they want. 

The same will happen in this case, albeit after a particularly tortuous route. 

The British Establishment had no intention of leaving and have spent much of their waking hours making sure that it'll never happen. This includes the Eurocrats who would suffer considerable harm if Britain did exit. 

Therefore, much of the various Euro-British meetings and the hysterical overanalysis dispensed by the MSM is pure theatre.

Doubtless many of those who believe in the elitist project of the EU for allsorts of romantic reasons will be happy that Brexit won't happen. But they are probably the same people who believe that a gaggle of muslims brought down the twin towers on 9/11 and gender equality should be taught to pre-school kids. 

How can you reason with that?

---------------------

Brendan O'Neill
spiked.com


The political elite’s hysterical hatred of No Deal is a cover for their contempt for Brexit itself. 

So there goes Brexit. Voted for by 17,410,742 people, voted down by 313 MPs. Backed by the largest number of British voters ever to back anything, seen off by a gaggle of MPs who hate what we voted for. Make no mistake: this is what last night’s slim win for Yvette Cooper’s amendment means. It means the only remaining policy option that resembles Brexit – leaving the EU without a deal – has been legally obliterated. If the House of Lords now gives the nod to the Cooper legislation – and being a hotbed of Brexitphobic elitism, there’s no reason it wouldn’t – and if the EU agrees to a further extension to the Article 50 process – which it might well do – then Brexit as we knew it is finished. 

It can feel difficult sometimes to grasp the gravity of the situation we face: the largest democratic vote in the history of this nation is being betrayed before our very eyes. Ignore the crowing Brexit-blocking MPs who say that the victory of the Cooper idea simply means that a ‘catastrophic’ No Deal Brexit will no longer be an option, and that brave MPs who are so much cleverer than us pig-ignorant plebs have saved Britain from the ‘cliff edge’ of ‘crashing out’, etc etc. These Orwellian euphemisms are simply a disguise for what the political elite’s war on No Deal represents – a war on Brexit. When you hear MPs saying ‘We have to prevent No Deal’, what they really mean is: ‘We have to prevent Brexit.’ And preventing Brexit of course means preventing democracy, disenfranchising millions, overturning 100 years of a democratic contract that defined modern Britain. This is the end of an era.

Read more

With a Hard Brexit Looming, UK Invites 10,000 Foreign Troops Over for Military Exercises

Mint Press News

LONDON — As the drama over Brexit continues to reach new heights, the U.K. government has raised eyebrows by announcing that it will host 10,000 foreign troops for a massive military exercise beginning the day after Brexit had been set to take place.

The announcement of the exercise has raised the specter of a post-Brexit “martial law” scenario, given that the Theresa May-led government has been examining the possibility of declaring martial law in the country in the event of a no-deal Brexit since at least this January.

According to a government press release, the NATO-affiliated military exercise known as “Joint Warrior” will take place from March 30 until April 11 and will see the U.K. host 10,000 soldiers as well as 35 warships, five submarines, and 59 aircraft and helicopters. Thirteen countries will participate, including the United States, France and Germany, and the exercise will occur in areas spaced throughout Scotland, Wales and England.

Though the exercise has occurred for several years, its timing the day immediately after Brexit has raised concerns that the Tory government may, in fact, enact its publicly acknowledged no-deal Brexit martial-law plan despite claims from Health Secretary Matt Hancock in January that, while such an option exists, it “isn’t the focus of our attention.” When the exercise was announced on March 14, Brexit was set to take place March 29 but, a two-week extension having been worked out with the EU, that date was recently changed to April 12, the day immediately after the exercise is set to end.

Following the extension, Politico reported that the EU had essentially taken control of the Brexit timetable and a “no-deal” Brexit still remains the most likely option come April 12, with some EU leaders giving a Brexit deal a 10 percent chance of passing in Parliament.

Read more

The Who's Roger Daltrey likens the EU to 'a f***ing mafia'

Westmonster

 Rock Star and front man of The Who, Roger Daltrey, has given the European Union both barrels and compared it to the "mafia" during an interview at Wembley.

Asked by Sky News if Brexit would somehow be bad for British rock music (wtf?), Daltrey hit back hard and said: "No. What's it got to do with the rock business?"

He was then asked (for some reason) how they would tour Europe and hit back: "Oh dear. As if we didn't tour in Europe before the fucking EU. Oh give it up!"

Daltrey then adds: "If you want to sign up to be ruled by a fucking mafia you do it."

And he compares it to be "like being governed by FIFA"

Doubt you'll be seeing this clip replayed much elsewhere...

Read more

Brexit and Bad Faith

Craig Murray 

My long article on the Chagos Islands sat unfinished yesterday, despite my passion for the subject, as I was horribly fascinated by the Gothic twists and turns of the Brexit debates in the House of Commons. I seldom write on the subject, but some observations seem now called for.

The Westminster system of handling business is designed purely to handle binary questions disputed between two major parties. Where those parties are both themselves hopelessly riven by internal conflict, and the issues not simply reduced to a manageable number of binary choices, Erskine May just cannot cope.

Parliament thus ended up yesterday with a vote in which the majority of MPs who voted against May’s Withdrawal Agreement view its Irish Backstop provision as almost the only decent thing in it – an opinion with which I tend to concur. They however were egging on the antediluvian DUP/ERG faction to join them, on the basis of an argument that the Irish Backstop is terrible and could be permanent, neither of which anyone sensible really believes.

It says something about the insanity of UK politics that the debate quite seriously hinged around discussions of what happens if the EU acts in bad faith and used the “backstop” deliberately to trap the UK permanently in the Customs Union. The notion that the EU is acting in “bad faith” is frankly ludicrous. No trading partner has ever accused the EU, which has the most transparent negotiating process on trade deals of any country or trading bloc, of acting in bad faith. In its own interest, yes. In bad faith – ie lying and tricking – no. 

Read more

Blackmail, Balderdash and the Brexit that Wasn’t

Tom Luongo

After a lot of drama, British Prime Minister Theresa May came back from Brussels with a breakthrough on Brexit.

Only it wasn’t. 

While the changes to the protocol that governs the implementation of the Irish Backstop are an improvement they are far fro enough to allay the rightful fears of Brexiteers and the Northern Irish.

From the beginning of this process, the EU has been in blackmail mode. They’ve made it clear that they would not negotiate in good faith or even at all. That much has been clear. 

The biggest question has been whether May herself was working in the British people’s best interest or was she simply a stalking horse for further EU integration of the entire continent of Europe.

Never forget that the EU has imperial ambitions. Those that have been its architects saw it as regaining the mantle of the center of the world as the U.S. bankrupts itself maintaining an empire around the world, fighting against the rise of Russia and China.

It sits in the weeds, making byzantine bureaucratic law and building both a fiscal and political union through these under-handed back doors.

And the people of Europe have woken up to it. The Brits voted to leave the EU because of this. 

Euroskeptic parties are rising across Europe. The latest rebuke of the EU came in Austria’s Salzburg, a traditional center-left stronghold just voted for a Lega-style nationalist/populist majority.

Read more

UK under pressure from US to adopt aggressive anti-BDS posture in post-Brexit negotiations

Middle East Monitor

 

The UK is under pressure to adopt a more aggressive posture towards the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in exchange for better trade deals with the US in post-Brexit negotiations between the two countries.

Details of the post-Brexit trade negotiations-which suggest Britain is unlikely to get softer treatment than other US allies-were released last week in an 18-page document by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), led by Robert Lighthizer. Listed amongst the “negotiating objectives” of the Trump administration is a demand for the UK to take a more hostile stance towards BDS.

With respect to commercial partnership between the two countries, USTR said it wanted to “discourage actions that directly or indirectly prejudice or otherwise discourage commercial activity solely between the United States and Israel.” BDS was identified as a major threat by the US trade representative who called to “discourage politically motivated actions to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel.”

Read more

Israel, UK and Brexit

Gilad Atzmon 

Introduction by GA: The following is a translation of the last segment of an article in Ynet  yesterday on Brexit. The article explains that: the Jewish State has located itself as post Brexit Britain’s gateway to the world: “Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign separate trade agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.” And that: “Israel has become Britain’s strategic ally.” And, of course, “the British government totally disregard the boycott campaign against Israel. On a political level, they boycotted the boycott.”

A few years ago we learned that back in 1982 Oded Yinon devised an Israeli ‘plan for the Middle East.’ The following Ynet’s segment provides us with a glimpse into the current ‘Israel’s plan for Britain.’

If you have been puzzled by the insane institutional campaign against Corbyn  (BOD, Jewish Chronicle, CAA, etc.) the Ynet article raises the possibility that the campaign has not actually been about ‘antisemitism.’ It is more likely about shekles: Corbyn in Number Ten could easily interfere with ‘Israel’s plans for Britain.’ The Ynet article may also help Brits to understand the bipartisan forces that operate intensively to push Britain to break away from the EU. For some reason some of the staunch Israel supporters within the Government and in the Parliament are also pushing hard for Brexit. Ask yourself, do they do it for Britain, Brits and British national interests or are they, once again, serving the interests of that dark and oppressive foreign state.   

The Brexit Hurricane

 https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5456081,00.html

 “…It turns out that on some fronts the British began to prepare in advance. When it decided to withdraw from the European Union, Britain was even more enthusiastic about reaching agreements to sign bilateral trade agreements, this time not through the EU, but with countries around the world. The Brits saw the signing of these trade agreements as evidence of Britain's steadfastness. Time and time again, British leaders, headed by Teresa May, said that "Britain can maximise its business and commercial potential beyond the EU as well." Israel was one of the first stations in that campaign. Once out of the EU, Britain will have to sign such agreements with each state, and Israel will be the first.
Read more

Still Confused About Brexit? It's Actually Pretty Simple...

Comment: This is a great article on the political power-plays going on behind the farce that is Brexit. However, I think it overplays how much immigration/terrorism played a part in the wish to leave the EU. It is almost caricatured in that respect.

EU corruption and decisions being made at Brussels (thus outside the "democratic" process of UK parliament) and an economic one-size-fits-all is at least equal to, if not more of a concern for many of those who voted leave than a blanket xenophobia. Ordinary British people - rightly or wrongly - have traditionally and generally been an extremely progressive country when it comes to cultural integration and continues to be to this day.

So, while immigration and terrorism does play a big part, it is not the primary driver here.  I think this is more about the EU hitting ordinary people in the pocket and fuelling the disillusionment and suspicion of EU dictates. There are multiple reasons, all of which point to more sovereignty and independence. British people are becoming acutely aware that they've been had. In that respect it follows very closely the Yellow Vests movement in France and the anger that resulted in the election of Trump.

---------------------


Joe Quinn
Sott.net

Brexit blather is back in the news again. To listen to politicians and media talking heads, you'd think it's all rather complicated and 'beyond the ken of mere mortals'. In reality, however, 'Brexit' is quite simple: for the last two and a half years, the British establishment has been trying to make Brexit go away.

Don't believe me? Explain why, then, that of the 650 UK Members of Parliament, about 70% come from constituencies where the majority of people voted for Brexit, while among all Members of Parliament about 70% have made it clear that they favor remaining in the EU.

In addition, the Conservative government which approved the referendum in 2015 was lead by David Cameron, who has always been against leaving the EU. His successor, Theresa May, who negotiated the pseudo-Brexit deal that would effectively keep the UK in the EU, and which was voted down yesterday by a massive majority in Parliament, is also against Brexit.

So the obvious reason why the last 2.5 years of British politics has been an utter farce, and why the British people find themselves in this current mess, is that while a majority of British citizens voted to leave the EU, a large majority of their MPs on both sides of the aisle (and the British 'establishment' itself) do not want to leave the EU and are determined to make sure it never happens. To claim otherwise would be to suggest that British politicians were as clueless about the nature of the UK's relationship with the EU as the British public. But that's not the full story.

The decision that Brexit would not happen was taken immediately after the 'Leave' vote in the referendum in 2016, and that fact was evident to anyone with eyes to see. The politicking of the last 2.5 years had little to do with Brexit and everything to do with internal UK political power games, i.e. British political party mandarins and individual politicians feathering their own nests with an eye on their future positions within the British political system, which they are sure will remain an integral part of the EU. The Conservative strategy so far has been to hold on to power by attempting to convince their voter base (who want Brexit) that Theresa May's 'deal' is actually Brexit, when it clearly isn't at all. The EU has been on exactly the same page as Theresa May all along.

Read more 

'I don't know if that is what the British voted for' Trump questions May's Brexit strategy as he lands for first UK presidential visit

The Telegraph

onald Trump has arrived in the UK for his first trip as US president, after he appeared to question Theresa May's Brexit strategy - asking if what the British people voted for is really being delivered.
 
The US president, who touched down at Stansted Airport on Thursday afternoon, said the UK now appeared to want to get “at least partially involved back with the European Union” - an apparent reference to Mrs May's so-called Chequers plan. 

Stepping off Air Force One, Mr Trump gave a brief wave to the crowd before descending the steps holding the hand of the first lady, who wore a fitted beige dress and red belt.

They arrived at 1.50pm on a private airfield close to the airport where three MV-22 Osprey helicopters - used to transport Mr Trump's  staff and security team - and two VH-60N White Hawks were waiting.

They were met by International Trade Secretary Liam Fox, the Lord-Lieutenant of Essex Jennifer Tolhurst, chief operating officer of Stansted Airport Brad Miller as well as a regiment of RAF airmen.

Read more

Monty Python’s Cleese to leave UK due to British press - ranked bottom of EU trust league

Omar Baggili
RT

Actor and comedian John Cleese has declared he will leave the UK later this year due to the “lying and triviality” of the British press – ranked the least trustworthy among 33 European nations. 

Cleese appeared on BBC Newsnight on Tuesday to express his frustration at the current state of Britain. While exasperated at the level of debate on Brexit, he more pointedly stated that his “particular beef” was with the British press.

The 78 year old, a long-time Liberal Democrat supporter who voted leave in the 2016 EU Referendum, came armed with a clipboard and chart to highlight the research carried out by the EU each year on the trust level, in the printed media by its citizens.

The eccentric actor got BBC presenter Emily Maitlis to confirm that according to the extensive public opinion polling carried out by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the UK is ranked last out of 33 European countries on levels of trust in the press.

Cleese laughed when Maitlis suggested the statistics illustrated that the UK press was robust, adding: “Least trusted does not necessarily mean not true.”

Cleese, who has been a vocal supporter of electoral reform, advocating a move to proportional representation, as well as press reform, told the BBC that he was upping sticks to relocate to the tiny Caribbean island of Nevis in autumn later this year.

"It’s one of the nicest islands I’ve ever been on. The relationship between the races is absolutely superb. The people there are really kind,” he said of Nevis.


So has the UK got an issue with levels of public trust in the print press and the media more widely?

Based on the EBU’s latest 2018 report, which surveyed approximately 1,000 people aged 15 or over in 33 European nations in 2017, it would appear so.

As Cleese said, the UK is ranked 33rd out of 33 on public trust in the press. Almost two-thirds of British people surveyed “tend not to trust” their print media. Only 23% “tend to trust” and 4% “Don’t know” if they trust the British press - meaning the British public have a net trust level of -50 in the written press. 

Read more

What They're Not Telling You About the Brexit Sellout

Paul  Joseph Watson

Millennials 'have no qualms about GM crops' unlike older generation

The Telegraph UK 

 

The advent of genetically modified crops caused a scandal in the 1990s. 

But the younger generation is largely relaxed about eating GM foods, new research has shown, as farmers called for a post-Brexit technology revolution. 

 

Two thirds of under-30s believe technology is a good thing for farming and support futuristic farming techniques, according to a survey. 

 

Only 20 per cent of millennials expressed concerns about the benefits of gene editing or genetically modifying crops, despite decades of opposition and media warnings. 

 

The poll of more than 1,600 18 to 30-year-olds, carried out for the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), also found that around two thirds of young people support the use of drones in livestock farming to count sheep and in arable farming to assess, monitor and spray crops. 

 

A similar number also supports the use of innovations such as unmanned aerial vehicles to improve crop security and yields while only one in five object to the use of self-driving tractors on farms. 

Read More

Theresa May – Wannabe Con Artist of the Year?

Grete Mautner
New Eastern Outlook

The image of a fatal woman or femme fatale is a sort of an ideal that some women would pursue throughout their lives. This is particularly true for businesswomen, and those females that are dreaming about a political career, as those are generally inclined to show the world that no heels are too high for them. However, a femme fatale of today is unlike Teffi’s classic demonic woman that would wear the black velvet cassock, the chain on her forehead, the bracelet on her leg and the portrait of of Oscar Wilde on her left garter.

Yet, it was Oscar Wilde who made the adventurous spirit of “Jersey Lily” extremely popular with English girls, using her as prototype for his protagonist in Lady Windermere’s Fan. The real name of “Jersey Lily” was Emily Charlotte Langtry, but she would be forever remebered by her nickname. Born in 1853 on the island of Jersey in the family of a priest, she would adhere throughout her life to the belief that one’s captivating appearance and self-confidence were enough to navigate this life without much hardship.

This play and its message did not go unnoticed by Theresa May, who while following in the steps of “Jersey Lily” decided to become MP in the House of Commons as early as in her forties. Then, thought 1997-2002. she would be occupying all sorts of secondary positions in the Conservative shadow cabinet to later become first female Tory chairman. After the 2010 elections she was appointed Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities almost simultaneously. Moreover, these appointments were followed by May becoming Britain’s second Prime Minister after Margaret Thatcher.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that such a breathtaking political career can compromise anyone’s integrity, and it seems that May is no exception, since she at some point in time decided that her catastrophic handling of the Brexit situation wouldn’t be enough for her to make history.

Read more

Living in an Orwellian Tyranny

Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday Nick Timothy, Theresa May's former aide, was accused of using an  antisemitic slur in his article on Brexit. He co-authored a  Telegraph report titled,  George Soros, the man who 'broke the Bank of England', backing secret plot to thwart Brexit.

Not only did Timothy not criticise Soros as a Jew, he didn’t even refer to him as a Jew. But it seems the fact that Soros is a Jew was enough to censure Timothy as an ‘antisemite.’ It took no more.

Stephen Bush wrote in The New Statesman , “The reason that many find the Telegraph's treatment so disturbing is that Soros, who is Jewish, has been at the centre of a series of anti-Semitic conspiracies by the increasingly authoritarian governments in Poland, Hungary and Turkey.” It is mildly amusing that  the banal Stephen Bush can’t see that he himself employs an authoritarian manner of thought. Unless guilt by association has become Britain’s press’ MO, the fact that some regimes not approved of by Bush or The New Statesman decided to cleanse themselves of Soros’ infiltration has  little relevance to Timothy or his argument. 

Read more

Three Cheers For MEP Dan Hannan: Why Not A Better Brexit Deal For Everyone?

MishTalk.com
 
The EU values political correctness more than jobs.

The result was a collapse in support for Angela Merkel, and the rise of AfD and FDP in Germany. Let’s not forget Marine Le Pen in France, Beppe Grillo in Italy, and the far right in Austria.

For the sake of political correctness, the EU is bound and determined to punish the UK for Brexit even though new studies suggest that a Hard Brexit Will hurt the EU More Than Britain.

The European Union will lose more than twice as many jobs as Britain after a hard Brexit, research by one of the world’s leading universities found as tough UK-EU divorce talks begin in Brussels.

Hard Brexit describes what will happen if the UK and EU fail to reach a divorce deal by 29 March 2019. Britain would revert to WTO tariffs on imports and exports to and from the EU rather than the zero tariffs afforded by membership of the bloc.

The return of tariffs to goods and services would cost 526,830 British jobs and 1.209 million jobs in the remaining 27 EU member states, according to researchers at Belgium’s University of Leuven, one of the top 50 global universities. The damage would lead to a 4.48% drop in UK GDP and 1.54% in EU GDP, researchers found.

Free Trade Benefits

As I have pointed out previously, a free trade agreement can fit on a napkin. Her is my proposal once again: “Effective immediately all subsidies and tariffs cease regardless of what any other nation does.”

Read more

Does Brexit make a United Ireland inevitable?

RT

The proposition of a United Ireland has become not just acceptable in political discussion but, according to some, pragmatic since the seismic shift in the political terrain caused by last year’s Brexit referendum. 

Britain’s lurch into populism and the prospect of a new Scottish independence referendum has thrust reunification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland to the surface of political discourse, however unwelcome it may be to some.

“Brexit came out of nowhere, it was not in the British political script at all… What it effectively did was highlight that all of the rational arguments are now in favor of Irish reunification,” Kevin Meagher, an author and former special adviser in Northern Ireland tells RT.

While Brexit may have come as a shock to many, Meagher argues that the writing has been on the wall for years and that now, a United Ireland is the only logical outcome which serves the interests of all parties involved.

A referendum on Northern Ireland’s status, often referred to as a border poll, looms large as UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s hand reaches for the Brexit trigger.  

“If you have a border poll and there is a majority in favor of Irish Unity, that is not really the point at which you want to begin this conversation,” Meagher says.

“Before we actually come to that, we can start to intellectually understand how the Irish state may become more federal, with a large amount of devolution, there may be a strengthened constitutional right to different identity.

“That’s the conversation that should start to happen now.”

Read more