Peterborough: Police Investigaing Man Who Claims He Burned Brexit Party Votes

via Politicalite:

A Peterborough man, believed to be a Labour party activist living in Peterborough caused a a ripple of excitement on Twitter when he tweted a claim that he ‘burned’ postal votes that would have helped The Brexit Party’s Candidate Mike Greene WIN the by-election. His claim is as yet unconfirmed and given that he claims to be a member of the Jew – hating Labour Party, he could simply be a sad, iadequate attention seeker with mental health issues.

Having said that, Cambridgeshire Police are taking the claim seriously and are now investigating the claim. Alan Roddis made his outrageous claim in a closed group called ‘Peterborough Politics’ – a popular local discussion forum on Facebook that Politicalite has previously exposed as promoting extreme left and anti-semitic ideologies, including many made by local Labour activists.

Commenting on the election Roddis said, “She [Lisa Forbes] got nominated (elected) because 3 people including me burned over a [sic] 1000 votes for TBP [The Brexit Party], and laughed while doing it.” Roddis, whose brother – also active in the predominantly Labour-leaning, Hamas-supporting group – is understood to be a supporter of Lisa Forbes.

Once the comment was leaked a social media shitstorm erupted as people posted demands an immediate investigation, but as of yet, the originator of the claim has refused to answer any follow-up questions.

One concerned voter, who took to a Vote Leave online group chat, asked its admin if anyone from The Brexit Party was taking action to investigate Roddis’ claim, to which they confirmed that they indeed had.

The Daily Stirrer
Greenteeth Digital Publishing

Google Spends Just $20 Million A Year To Control The U.S. Government

It’s unlikely that regular readers of this blog or The Daily Stirrer will have failed to notice one of our favourite games is revealing the true nature of the fascistic corporate entities that have been handed control of the internet by inept, virtue signalling, rent seeking politicians whose corruptibility is on a par with their technological illiteracy.

Yesterday we exposed the extent to which Facebook’s top management were aware of the extent their platform was being used to illegally obtain personal information from web users who don’t even have a Facebook account, today we move on to Google. We reported several years ago that the Search and Advertising giant, known for its rabid enthusiasm for all far left causes, had established such a cosy relationship with The Obama Administration that Google executives were regularly sitting in on government meeting in |The Oval Office.

It has often been said tht if voting changed anything they’d abolish it, and those who hoped things might change under Donald Trump will be disappointed to learn that while the US president is making noises about curbing the power wielded in Washington DC by representatives of Silicon Valley high tech corporations, those companies are so deeply embedded in government departments that little has changed in terms of the influence the tech corporations have on government policy, so much so in fact that buying favourable treatment from government is no longer a significant expense.

Google has recently severed links with six of the largest lobbying firms it had employed, in an apparent attempt to overhaul its global government affairs and policy operations amid greater government scrutiny of its business, according to a Wall Street Journal report. Over the last few months, the company has tried to give the appearance of lowering its profile in the capital, as well as scaling down its Washington policy team, and releasing two senior executives who helped develop its “influence operation” into one of the largest in the U.S. capital. The influence operation had been spending about $20 million a year on lobbying politicians and government officials, reducing the number of lobbying firms firms contracted to push Google interests which between them consumed about half of that cost seems to suggest a scaling back of political activity. But where Google is concerned things are seldom what they seem to be.

The change of direction is explained as part of a “continuing modernization” of Google’s influence operation.” That it comes at a time when Google and other high tech giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are facing heightened government scrutiny of the shadier areas of their business is surely a factor in this change of direction.

The Department of  Justice is widely reported to be preparing an antitrust investigation into the company alleged unfair and unconstitutional business practices while both houses of Congress and state attorneys general in various states are also reviewing its methods, particularly those which violate users’ right to privacy. Some politicians are even calling for the company to be broken up into smaller, independent businesses.

And so Google is planning to reallocate the paltry $20 million per year that it has been using to control the government and spend it on … you guessed, trying to control the government in slightly more subtle ways.

Among the firms and consultants who are no longer working for Google are “Charlie Black, a longtime Republican strategist, and firms that have relationships with senior Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, including Off Hill Strategies LLC, which has ties to fiscally conservative Republicans.”

People who claim to be in the know about the restructuring plan say the aim is to focus the company’s global reach in order to help it deal with regulators and lawmakers across regions and markets.  That certainly sounds convincing in view of the monster fines levied by the European Union and various national governments, fines so large and so numerous they must have stung despite the size of google’s annual revenue. The moves are also being spun as a shake up of interfaces with government by Google’s new head of policy and government relations, Karan Bhatia.

Bhatia was recruited in the summer of 2018 as Google’s VP of Policy and Government Relations and tasked with reviewing the company’s lobbying needs. Susan Molinari, a former Republican congresswoman, stepped down as Google’s head of Washington operations last year and the company has yet to name a successor.

It is worth noting that in 2006, Google was spending about $800,000 on lobbying and had four firms on retainer. By 2018, the company was retaining 100 lobbyists from 30 ifferent firms at an annual cost of $21.7 million to lobby Washington politicians and top civil servants and was the largest spender on lobbying among US corporations, despite the relatively small dollar amount for the massive tech giant.

The company also makes donations running into $milliond to think tanks, political research units, universities and media consultancies that help Google shape the debate into its business practices.

Meanwhile, Google employees (under no pressure from management of course, after all seeing colleagues sacked for questioning liberal dogma would not make anyone feel coerced into joining the orgies of virtue singnalling,) helped the company become one of the largest sources of donations to the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Records show that Google employees donated a total of $1.6 million to Clinton’s 2016 campaign and after Obama, whose campaign was backed by Google took office in 2012, Google and its lobbying team enjoyed an incredible run of successes in Washington, including having the FTC drop a planned anti-trust case. The company also benefitted from favorable FTC net neutrality rulings (which decreed that favouring the websites of its own busineses and its biggest advertisers in search result listings was not unfair to competitors,)  and secured favorable legislation on self driving vehicles.

But over the last few years the company has continued to hit headwinds from both sides of the aisle while its public image has taken a beating over privacy concerns and critics claiming that its political bias influences which content is censored.

Google is an enemy and must be broken up, or freedom dies.
The Google empire is anything but a force for good, As we have reported the corporation enjoys an unhealthily cosy relationship with governments and security agencies, with only the European Union, China and Russia having proved capable of standing up to it …

Google Now Has Access To Millions Of Patient’s Health Records


A controversial deal between tech giant Google and the National Health Service (NHS) will allow artificial intelligence units access to 1.6 million confidential medical records. Since 2014, Google has partnered with several scientists in an attempt to understand human health, but a new report reveals the data gathering goes far beyond what was originally anticipated – well now there’s a surprise.
US-EU Privacy Shield Data-Sharing Agreement Blasted as Inadequate
The issue arises from the strict EU laws — enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — to the privacy of citizens personal data. As we all know thanks to the material leaked by Ed Snowden and others the United States National Security Agency (NSA) does not regard anything as private,

Apple Hypocrisy On Users Privacy Sets Standard For Silicon Valley
When I searched for images depicting the spy-in-your-pocket nature of a certiain rather fruity technology firms products, I was amazed (not) to find all had been blocked. still, a quick hack, a screWhen I searched for images depicting the spy-in-your-pocket nature of a certiain rather fruity technology firms products, I found that strangely all had been blocked. No worries, a screen grab of an old image gave me this.n grab and we got the picture.

Going To War Against The Evil Empire
Matt Drudge, and love him or hate him, nobody can seriously suggest he has been an influential figure since the early days of the world wide web, recently claimed he had been told by a US Supreme Court judge that new copyright laws currently being pushed through the United States legislative system will finish …

Who Runs America? US Federal Trade Commission Takes Orders From Google
Barak Obama runs America surely, you might well be thinking. We would argue that no US President since Eisenhower has truly run the USA. But the latest revelation of how cosy the Obama Administration has become with corporate business, to the extent that government departments are taking instruction from Google will shock even the most cynical Americans

Google Meets White House Officials Every Week, Why?
We have been very suspicious for ten years of the way Google with such apparent ease achieved a dominant position in web search. How did it happen, did Google do something evil, did they invoke the powers of darkness in their meteoric rise. Or were there even darker forces at work, powering Google to a position in which their internet technologies could dominate global information flows? Here’s something cynics should read.

EU taking on Google – Well One German Publisher Is
Those New World Order fanatics at The Guardian, bless them, seldom miss a trick when it comes to promoting the single European Superstate and the globalist agenda. Their latest misrepresentation is to try and make us feel the European Union is somehow protecting our freedoms even as the bureau rats of Brussels are taking them away.

Pissed Off With Government/Microsoft/Google Online Spying? Be Completely Anonymous Online
Not so long ago our biggest worry online was malware, virus software, trojans and worms plagued the internet cost many people a lot of time and worry. Since about a year ago everything has changed, protecting our digital privacy is the issue and the enemy is no longer spotty little nerds hunched over computers in dimly lit basements, but governments and major technology corporations.

Artificial Intelligence: Will It Kill Human Society?
The media, the so called ‘experts’ and politicians hail every technological advance as if it will btransport us from reality to a utopian paradise. but does Artificial Intelligence and related internet and computer technology pose theats to human society that far outweigh any possible advantages? Whateve, Google plan to put machines in our place on top of the food chain.

Reasons To keep Google Away From your Credit Card Information
I did not use Gmail a lot because although the mail got through, I started to be bombarded with targeted ads related to keywords used in my mail exchanges (they weren’t keywords as far as I was concerned, just conversation. That did not worry me much but the idea that Google were sharing my email content with the bastards throwing these ads at me did.

You Will Be Told Biometric Identification Is For Your Security, But When You Can’t Do business without It, It Becomes An Assault On your Privacy
Latest plans to extend biometric security, allegedly for our safety and protection but really we suspect to extend the powers of surveillance enjoyed by central authority, ought to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and triggers wholesale resistance to the march of technology. Are you ready to start defending your freedom?

Don’t be Evil, Google Will Do It For You
Google have abandoned their “Don’t Be Evil motto. Good thing really, they are becoming more evil every day. The latest plans to integrate our brains with their servers may seem like a science fiction freaks wet dream, but these creepy nerds are serious …

Don’t Be Evil, That’s Our Job Is Google’s Real Motto
Don’t Be Evil said Google’s web page. But the search engine giant is the most evil of all the technology companies (though the rest can make Satan, Beelzebub, Belial, Azazel and the other Biblical demons look like choirboys. Read of Google’s latest step in advancing their evil agenda to take over our lives and make us all slaves of their technology.
A collection of articles by Ian R Thorpe on the unethical and dishonest ways Google has gained an unhealthy degree of influence over the internet.

Little Donny Tusk The Polish Has Been Tells Britain How To Vote.

Senior European Union officials have once again intervened in a British election, as European Council President Donald Tusk urges Londoners to back his preferred candidate when voting on Thursday.

Donald Tusk, who is the President of the European Council and was the centre-right Europhile Prime Minister of Poland from 2007 to 2014 made the remarks in support of his former Deputy Prime Minister, Anglo-Pole Jan-Vincent Rostowski who is standing as a Change UK candidate in London for Thursday’s election.

The top Eurocrat released a statement Tuesday in which he told pro-remain Brits to vote for the recently founded Change UK party, which supports a second referendum as a means to keep the United Kingdom inside the European Union. POLITICO reports Tusk’s remarks as: “Jan Rostowski worked with me as finance minister of Poland for six years and then as my Deputy prime minister.

“Not only was he the best finance minister in Europe during the financial crisis, he is also a very dear friend who would make a great MEP for London, which I know he loves. I urge Londoners who want Britain to stay in the EU to vote for him.”

While Rostowoski was Poland’s Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister under Tusk, he was born educated in London, part of a community of Polish citizens in exile during the Nazi and Communist eras.

The Change UK party has enjoyed a difficult first two months, since it was established by a group of globalist, centrist Labour and Conservative Members of Parliament who left their respective parties citing concern over the nation’s direction over Brexit. Claiming to represent a frustrated sizeable majority of Brits who felt unrepresented after the country voted by a margin of over 1.2 million votes, they are instead polling at less than five per cent.

This failure to resonate with voters has been thrown into particularly sharp contrast by the runaway success of the Brexit Party, which is also less than two months old but is polling in first place for Thursday’s election.

Tusk, who was PM of Poland from 2007-2014 and is a staunch ally of arch Eurofederalist Hausfrau – Volksfuhrer Merkel, and has been ‘threatening’ Brexiteers with the torments of Hell, whilst working eagerly to derail/cancel/reverse Brexit, has a big angry – red splodge on his record which should dissuade anybody from giving any credence to anything he says:

He has been accused of responsibility for the Smolensk air crash, which conveniently wiped out practically the leadership of his (and  Hausfrau Volksfuhrer Merkel’s) whole national sovereignty supporting opposition leadership. It is known Tusk engineered the cover not merely the cover-up on the Polish side:

from Wikipedia:

April 2010, a Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft of the Polish Air Force crashed near the Russian city of Smolensk, 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 exile Ryszard 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.

The pilots were attempting to land at Smolensk North Airport—a former military airbase—in thick fog, with visibility reduced to about 500 metres (1,600 ft). The aircraft descended far below the normal approach path until it struck trees, rolled inverted and crashed into the ground, coming to rest in a wooded area a short distance from the runway.[2]

Both the Russian and Polish official investigations found no technical faults with the aircraft, and concluded that the crew failed to conduct the approach in a safe manner in the given weather conditions. The Polish authorities found serious deficiencies in the organization and training of the Air Force unit involved, which was subsequently disbanded. Several high-ranking members of the Polish military resigned, under pressure from politicians and the media.

Various conspiracy theories about the crash have since been in circulation, and are promoted by Law and Justice‘s leaders Jarosław Kaczyński (twin brother to Polish President Lech Kaczyński, who died in the crash) and his deputy, Antoni Macierewicz, who claim the crash was a political assassination. Polish and international investigations did not find any evidence supporting this version.[2]

That’s the official story. There is no such thing as a minority report when government inquiries are discussed, but independent investigations have come up with some very interesting findings.

http://smolenskcrash.eu/new…

http://smolenskcrash.eu/new…

https://news.sky.com/story/…

http://konferencjasmolenska…

http://www.smolenskcrashnew…http://www.smolenskcrashnew…

Note how happy Tusk looks in link above, on the very evening of the crash! The expression on his face is similar to that of US President George W Bush on being told of the disaster at New York’s World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Like he is double-air-punching for joy as he grins at Putin. Incredible! Once he realizes a camera is on him, he wipes the grin and substitutes a look of concern. Talk about a ‘smoking gun’!

http://www.smolenskcrashnew…

The anti – Brexit message from Mr Tusk comes just weeks after the European Union’s Brexit coordinator, Belgian Federalism maniac  Guy Verhofshit  who, critics say, has been deeply antagonistic towards the United Kingdom during Brexit negotiations — travelled to London to campaign for the Liberal Democrats.

Praising the enthusiastically pro-European Union membership party, whose election slogan for this vote is imaginatively titled “Bollocks to Brexit“, Mr Verhofstadt told supporters in a leafy London square: “This is Europe. Europe. It’s all Europe.”

Top European figures did not publicly call on the British people to vote one way or another during the 2016 referendum where Britain chose to leave the European Union, a matter of regret in Brussels where it is apparently believed that instructing voters to stay in Europe could have swayed the decision. European Commission Chief Jean-Claude Juncker said this month that he should have intervened, saying had he done so he could have “destroyed the lies” which he claimed caused Brexit.
RELATED:
Europe Unglues
Brexit and The EU
Europe – Greenteeth catalogue
The Daily Stirrer

The Word Tells Trump And USA “You’re Fired”

via Zero Hedge

Some ironies are just too precious to pass by.

The 2016 US presidential elections gave us Donald Trump, a reality TV star whose famous tag line from his show “The Apprentice” was “You are fired!” Focus on this tag line; it is all that is important to this story. Some Trump Derangement Disorder sufferers might disagree. This is because they are laboring under certain misapprehensions: that the US is a democracy; or that it matters who is president. It isn’t and it doesn’t. By this point, the choice of president matters as much as the choice of conductor for the band that plays aboard a ship as it vanishes beneath the waves.

I have made these points continuously since before Trump got into office. Whether or not you think that Trump was actually elected, he did get in somehow, and there are reasons to believe that this had something to do with his wonderfully refreshing “You are fired!” tag line. It’s a fair guess that what motivated people to vote for him was their ardent wish that somebody would come along and fire all of the miscreants that infest Washington, DC and surrounding areas. Alas, that he couldn’t do. Figurehead leaders are never granted the authority to dismantle the political establishments that install them. But that is not to say that it can’t be done at all.

What happened instead was that the political establishment spent two years thrashing about in search of a reason to say “You are fired!” to Trump but has been unable to find one, and so Trump remains in office, although to say that he “remains in power” would be to invite sardonic laughter from anyone who knows what real political power smells like. Trump is but a prisoner in the White House, just like his predecessor was. Ironically, the quest for Trump’s impeachment has been fruitless as far as firing him, but most fruitful in terms of enhancing his ability to not only fire lots of establishment figures but perhaps even send them to jail—with the help of the Justice Department—and his character traits of extreme rancor, spitefulness and vindictiveness should be most conducive toward that end, making for a fun spectacle. His numerous enemies and detractors may yet look back wistfully on the halcyon days when they could lambaste him with impunity.

The quest to stop Trump started well before the election, with Obama and the Clintons collaborating on misusing federal resources to dig up dirt on Trump; specifically, evidence of “Russian collusion”… and they couldn’t find any. They did manage to find some “Russian meddling” (in the form of Facebook clickbait ads) but the evidence they dug up was too ridiculous to show in court. Too bad they didn’t look for Ukrainian collusion and meddling, or Israeli collusion and meddling, or Saudi collusion and meddling, because then they would have found plenty—enough to not only knock Hillary Clinton out of the running but also to lock her up … READ ALL >>>

Russiagate: FBI’s Steele story falls apart: False evidence was used to justify bugging Trump campaign.

American story maybe, but I think anyone reading this blog will remember the Skripal poisoning case and may be aware the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal had links with Christopher Steele, a one  time UK ‘government asset’ who was commissioned by the US Democratic Party to discover or create evidence that would link Donald Trump to the Russian government and thus disqualify him from the presidency.

After a two year inquiry into the alleged Russian collusion failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing by Trump or any of his campaign team staff, evidence is now emerging of malfeasance by leading Democratic Party politicians and prominent figures in law enforcement agencies.

Here’s more from The Hill

The FBI’s sworn story to a federal court about its asset, Christopher Steele, is fraying faster than a $5 souvenir T-shirt bought at a tourist trap.

Newly unearthed memos show a high-ranking government official who met with Steele in October 2016 determined some of the Donald Trump dirt that Steele was simultaneously digging up for the FBI and for Hillary Clinton’s campaign was inaccurate, and likely leaked to the media.

The concerns were flagged in a typed memo and in handwritten notes taken by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec on Oct. 11, 2016.

Her observations were recorded exactly 10 days before the FBI used Steele and his infamous dossier to justify securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and the campaign’s contacts with Russia in search of a now debunked collusion theory.

It is important to note that the FBI swore on Oct. 21, 2016, to the FISA judges that Steele’s “reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” and the FBI has determined him to be “reliable” and was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to their informant, who simultaneously worked for Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign to find Russian dirt on Trump.

That’s a pretty remarkable declaration in Footnote 5 on Page 15 of the FISA application, since Kavalec apparently needed just a single encounter with Steele at State to find one of his key claims about Trump-Russia collusion was blatantly false.

In her typed summary, Kavalec wrote that Steele told her the Russians had constructed a “technical/human operation run out of Moscow targeting the election” that recruited emigres in the United States to “do hacking and recruiting.”

She quoted Steele as saying, “Payments to those recruited are made out of the Russian Consulate in Miami,” according to a copy of her summary memo obtained under open records litigation by the conservative group Citizens United. Kavalec bluntly debunked that assertion in a bracketed comment: “It is important to note that there is no Russian consulate in Miami.”

READ FULL ARTICLE >>>

So now evidence of what really went on during the 2016 campaign is emerging it backs up our reports on information leaked by Wikileaks and other whistleblower websites.

RELATED:

Members of Obama Administration To Be Investigated For FISA Abuses?

Poisoned Russian Spy Linked To Christopher Steele

Former Democratic Party Chair Donna Brazille Accuses Clinton Campaign Of “Rigging” Primary

Dreams Die First (poem)

Notre Dame Fire – Are French Government Engineering A Cover Up?

NOTRE DAME ARSONIST ON VIDEO?

It should’ve been on every newscast in the world.  Instead, alt-news web sites are the only ones showing evidence pointing toward what I’ve said all along:  MUSLIMS SET THE FIRE IN THE NOTRE DAME CATHEDRAL.

LINK-MUSLIM MAN SEEN ON BALCONY DURING NOTRE DAME FIRE

Video 1.  As the fire on the roof rages, we see a Muslim man walking on the exterior balcony of the bell towers.  Notice the white Muslim skullcap.  Fire can be seen on the right.  [Video uploaded by Dave Klassix on YouTube.]

LINK-MAN ON ROOF SEEN SHORTLY BEFORE FIRE

5:05 p.m., April 15.  Less than two hours before the fire began, we see a man on the roof.  Three flashes of light go off.  Is this the same man in Video 1?  Are these incendiary devices set by remote control?  [Video uploaded by Ola Andersson on YouTube.)

These are questions the MSM and French officials should be asking, regardless of their “official explanation” – an electrical short in the wiring.  (All the wiring had been replaced in the 1990’s and is not old as they have tried to lie about.)  Hadn’t the media/French gov’t made up their minds while the fire was still burning?  Or is it because they don’t want to admit the truth?  The fire was set by Islamic immigrants they invited into their country.

How did the fire burn so quickly?  Have you ever felt solid oak?  It’s as hard as a rock and does not burn easily.  What really fueled that fire?

Why were the firemen so slow to react?  Why did it take up to three hours for them to begin spraying water on the fire, after it was already out of control?  The MSM ridicules Pres. Trump for tweeting “Must act quickly”.  Since when did common sense become something you laugh at?

Another damning question:  Why was a tweet removed saying Macron would rebuild Nortre Dame in accordance with the times?  What is Notre Dame going to be replaced with?  Is this what they wanted all along?

The Notre Dame fire is being referred to as France’s 9/11 in more ways than one.  Just as the U.S. gov’t knew Bin Laden/al-Qaeda were going to attack, so I believe the French gov’t knew of the plot to destroy Notre Dame.

Easter Sunday – April 21, 2019, Sri Lanka.  290 people are killed and 500 injured when a radical Muslim terrorist group named “National Thowheed Jamath” set off a series of bombs in Christian churches and 5-star hotels. The media has refused to name them as Muslim, calling them “religious fanatics”.  (Statue of Jesus survives the blast.)

What is the goal of the controllers?  Why are obvious facts being swept under the rug?  Why is it now “racist” to say Muslim terrorists did something?  What if we here in the U.S. have to start dealing with the same problems Europe is having if Trump is replaced with a Democrat eager and willing to take in these foreign devils?

https://ericreports.com/

Is The Brexit Fiasco A Deep State Stitch Up?

by Barney Lane, posted on Quora

I think of “deep state” as being about the behind the scenes machinery of government; the inner workings of the civil service and secret negotiations of politicians.

In this piece, I argue that yes, the deep state has played its part, but the main issue is the weakness and susceptibility of our Prime Minister, to manipulation. In short, May has been soft and pliable with the EU, who know her as “Mrs No until she says Yes”, while being infuriatingly stubborn with her own party and country.

To start with, let’s consider what we know. For me, these are the relevant facts:

Leave won the 2016 referendum, Cameron resigned, the Tories appointed Theresa May as leader and Theresa May said she would deliver Brexit

Theresa May lost her majority in the 2017 General Election, meaning she would have to depend on the votes of all her own MPs plus those of the DUP to get legislation through

Theresa May sacked her advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, effectively replacing them with Olly Robbins, a civil servant. Shortly afterwards, she dropped DExEU from having a lead role in the exit negotiations, putting Olly Robbins in charge

Theresa May’s first notable move in the negotiations proper, was to accept without a fight, the EU’s sequencing demands. This was a major surprise. Notes of the meeting showed the EU delegation acting both surprised and delighted. Minutes show EU officials asking for reconfirmation that this was really the UK’s position

In late 2017, Theresa May allowed talk of remaining in the customs union to resurface, doing nothing to clarify the government’s policy, which was to leave the customs union

In December 2017, Theresa May signed a political agreement giving away £39 billion and signed us up to a “backstop” that would commit the UK to remaining under EU control until it had found a way of managing the customs border in Ireland, in a way that satisfied the EU

When the political declaration was converted into legal text, Theresa May said “no British PM could sign this”. This was the only thing of note, that Theresa May said about Brexit in the first half of 2018. She later did sign it

In mid-2018, Theresa May faced a backbench rebellion attempting to force legislation to keep us in the customs union. Theresa May invited the ringleader Dominic Grieve to Downing Street to persuade him to drop his rebellion. It is understood that she made him privy to a plan that was at this stage, not widely known. Dominic Grieve promptly dropped his rebellion

In July 2018, Theresa May held the Chequers summit where she unveiled the Brexit whitepaper. She told her government, the meeting would not end until everyone had agreed to it and if anyone resigned, ministerial transport would not be available for the trip home

The whitepaper horrified some ministers, who believed it amounted to a customs union in all but name. Boris Johnson resigned. David Davis resigned

In his resignation speech, Davis criticised May for sidelining his department, which had been set up to prepare the UK for its departure from the EU, while instead favouring her own civil service adviser Olly Robbins

In replying, Theresa May said Davis’s department had not come up with a workable plan

In an article in the Telegraph, Davis replied that this was deeply disingenuous. His department had a detailed and carefully worked out plan. It was she, the PM who had chosen to ignore it while developing her own alternative plan without telling anyone

Johnson wrote in the Telegraph, that Theresa May had allowed the Ireland border to become prominent in the negotiations because she had unquestioningly accepted the EU’s framing of the issue and had not even tried to find a solution

Come December 2018, the EU published their Withdrawal Agreement (WA). It was very similar to the Chequers whitepaper, except that it lacked the May/Robbins scheme for the UK collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU. The WA’s political declaration sought a future relationship that would build upon “the single customs territory”

Minutes of the meeting where Theresa May signed the WA showed that the EU had said “The customs union will be the basis for the future relationship. The EU will retain all control”. Theresa May had signed a document that she knew the EU interpreted as implying a permanent customs union, and in which the EU would retain full control

The WA was voted down three times by Parliament. Most notably, it was voted down by Brexit-supporting MPs who believed it was “not Brexit” and by the DUP who believed it had sold out their territory

The Brady amendment gave Theresa May a mandate to renegotiate the Ireland backstop, which keeps the UK in a customs union with the EU until the EU approves the UK’s plans for managing the border

May largely ignored this mandate, saying she would not attempt a renegotiation but instead, half-heartedly said she would “seek changes”

On the basis of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the main reason Brexit (in this incarnation) has failed, is that Theresa May changed course. While her general stance was initially to the liking of Brexit supporting MPs, her final deal, was not.

Having lost her majority in parliament, she inevitably had to work harder to reconcile the interests of her MPs, who had different opinions. However, it is clear from the above that at each node of the decision tree, she leaned towards her remainer MPs. She didn’t tell anyone this was what she was doing or why, she just did it.

Her eventual WA was a death by a thousand cuts, non-Brexit Brexit. But what happened to make her change course? That’s the key question.

By any standard, her behaviour in office has been extraordinary. Consider where the Tories were at the start. Dominic Lawson wrote about this in the Sunday Times, this morning in Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it. [1]

Only two years ago the Tories were united under the firm but fair leadership of the headmistressy Theresa May, Farage had been rendered irrelevant and Labour was still riven by the shock of a referendum outcome that pitted it against the very people (the industrial working class) it was formed to represent.

Thus, in February 2017, this column was headlined “Cheer Up, Mr Cameron, you won your party the greatest prize imaginable”. The former PM was being ridiculed almost daily, and yet, I argued, while the referendum result had trashed his reputation as a political winner, he was actually the accidental author of a miraculous transformation in his party’s fortunes: “Unintentionally, Cameron has achieved for the Conservatives something a string of earlier leaders signally failed to do. He has made them the party that is united over the vexed question of the UK’s relationship with the European Union and — a completely unexpected bonus — turned Labour into a house divided on this issue.”

That aged well, didn’t it? In fact the second half of that analysis still holds true and explains Labour’s continuing inability to come up with a Brexit policy that could be communicated coherently (or at all) on an election leaflet. But that column was written at the moment of the party’s greatest discomfiture, the week after parliament passed the bill to invoke article 50 — giving us just two years (ha!) to negotiate our departure from the EU. Corbyn’s three-line whip ordering his MPs to back the government’s policy led to resignations from the shadow cabinet and thousands of party members quitting in protest.

The reason Theresa May’s behaviour has been so extraordinary is that she did not need to lean towards Remain in her implementation of Brexit. The Tories were united around a clean Brexit. That was the referendum result. That was what the manifesto said. It could not have been clearer. Even those who did not agree with the result of the referendum, accepted both it and the government’s interpretation of it.

When murmurings about a “softening” of Brexit started to emerge, May could have acted to silence them, reminding her MPs of their manifesto commitments, but she did not. From a parliamentary arithmetic point of view, it was far easier for her to lean towards her Brexiteer contingent than her Remain contingent. Leaning towards her Brexiteers would not have angered her Remainers as much as leaning towards her Remainers have angered her Brexiteers. All she needed to do was to maintain existing party policy, to which all her MPs had explicitly agreed by standing for election upon its manifesto.

What happened? Theresa May is well known as someone who can be “captured” by her advisers. Who were her advisers? Before the 2017 election, her advisers were Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill — both clean Brexit advocates. After the election, her advisers were Olly Robbins and — as far as one can tell — the EU. In the past 2 years, May has spent many hours in the offices of her fellow European leaders.

Now, there’s an element of deep state at work here. An anonymous civil servant wrote an article in the Telegraph titled “Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside”[2] He or she writes:

A quick scroll though the social media accounts of my colleagues and you will find images of them proudly waving ‘Remain’ placards, campaigning for a ‘People’s Vote’, boasting ‘Jez we can’ and of course the usual apocalyptic messages of doom since the Brexit vote. The double-standards are astonishing. If I so much as followed the activities of Nigel Farage, I have no doubt that I would be called in for questioning. I re-call one conversation with a senior member of staff at the Foreign Office who told me she was ashamed when Boris Johnson was appointed Foreign Secretary as he is so “typically British”.

This department is particularly notorious for its anti-Brexit bias. My experience tells me that there is a genuine hatred of those who voted for Brexit. I recall my first day in the Civil Service as a graduate, being invited to a meeting of senior members of staff who spent the good part of two hours in agreement that the public made a “stupid” decision in the EU referendum.

Unfortunately, this bias doesn’t end with snide insults and childish quips. It goes to the root of their day-to-day work and has truly negative impacts on the way we conduct the important tasks ahead of us. I have in fact come across senior staff working on our post-Brexit relationships who openly talk down the prospect of a UK-US FTA and encourage anti-Trump hysteria. Many of them even joined the protests against the President’s visit last year. During his visit it was common to hear jokes about Trump’s assassination from the very people meant to be working with our closest ally. The only thing worse than being pro-Brexit in the Civil Service is being pro-Trump.

But it doesn’t stop there. There is a strong presence of Anglophobia, combined with cultural Marxism that runs through the civil service. It has meant that many Civil Servants, including myself, have been actively discouraged from co-operating with Think Tanks which are seen as being “too right wing” despite sharing our goal of promoting free trade. This attitude also prevails in our work with our closest allies, particularly in the Commonwealth, where we are afraid to be seen as overly keen to work with countries that are run by “rich white men”.

Contrary to popular belief, Civil Servants often shape the views of Ministers. This makes the prevalent leftist culture within the Civil Service all the more concerning. These ardent remainer and left wing civil servants are the ones who provide the briefings, select the invites and choose the priorities for Ministers. How did we get to this point? The Civil Service is one of the biggest graduate employers, whilst universities have allowed a leftist culture of political correctness to flourish in recent decades.

Brexit is the greatest opportunity this country has faced in years, yet our Government machine is currently working from within to frustrate it. This must not go on. In the next phase of the Brexit negotiations it is vital our civil service ceases to allow the massive remain voting bias that has so far helped scupper our post-Brexit future.

Add to that the misuse of Treasury resources for giving misleading information about the economic consequences of Brexit — resources that were refused to other departments requesting them for no-deal preparations — and it’s clear there’s an element of deep state at work. However, it is the weakness and stubbornness of our Prime Minister, that is the most important part of the explanation.

It’s like a disease. If you’re unhealthy and have a weakened immune system, you are more susceptible to diseases. For most healthy people, flu can be an unpleasant few days in bed. For weakened people, it can be a killer.

That the civil service has worked to frustrate Brexit is both credible and predictable. However, it is the Prime Minister’s susceptibility to it, that has led to the failure of her attempt to deliver Brexit.

Footnotes

[1] Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it

[2] Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside

RELATED POSTS:

Brexit Is Now About More Than Leaving The EU

Until now we have not posted anything in the past few days on Brexit. Our position is well know to our readers, let’s face it, the saturation coverage left nothing new to be said. The whole thing is a craptangle, but it was obvious from when the Conservative Party engineered a situation in which Theresa May was left as the only candidate for the leadership that there could be no other outcome.

EU “Sounds Alarm” Over New US Sanctions On Russia; Germany Threatens Retaliation
Late on Friday (21/07/17), Congressional negotiators agreed to advance a cross – party bill that would punish Russia for its (alleged) interference in the 2016 election according to the Wall Street Journal. And while it seems improbable that President Trump would sign the bill if it reaches his desk, the loudest complaint about the bill to date has emerged not from the Oval Office, but from US allies in NATO and the European Union …

Nigel Farage Swipes Back At Irrational, Screeching, Crazy Clinton
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a hysterical, irrational attack, filled with half truths and blatant lies, against the most prominent figure in the campaign to get Britain out of the EU (Brexit), UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, during a speech at a rally today. Mrs Clinton, responding to Farage’s address to a large and enthusiastic audience at a Donald Trump rally, may have been rattled at the prospect of having such a hihly effective campaigner in the rival camp …

Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
Brussels went too far, they crossed the line in moving from an economic union to a political pan – European political empire. In the end it was a race as to which member state would quit first, Britain, Natherlands, Denmark or Italy. In the event it is Britain.

Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The ‘Experts’
The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by ‘experts’ ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.

BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
Unless the testicularly deficient politicians stand up for their nations he only thing that will halt the European Union’s push beyond Europe’s geographical borders to incorporate Asian, middle eastern and north African nations is war. Power is addictive and the bean counters of Brussels have ambitions far beyond Europe.

The Hypocrisy and Snobbery Of The Remain Campaign And The Antidote

When I had to defriend a Facebook contact because she was arguing in favour of the EU, it was not simply because I support Brexit that I had become pissed of with her, it was the snobbish and condescending way she dismissed supporters of LEAVE and their case. People are entitled to their opinion on the European Union, but they should check the ‘facts’ they post in support of their arguments.

The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
After my short intro is a savage indictment by Brexit supporting Labour MP Kate Hoey of the way the Labour Party has abandoned the working class and is now trying to betray the party’s proud heritage and its roots in the industrial areas by taking Britain into an undemocratic, corporate controlled, capitalist friendly, elite dominated globalist control freak project.

Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
Few of you were aware probably that there is an EU referendum vote in The Netherlands this week. As usual with anything negative about the EU barely a word has been printed in the topic in mainstream media and the silence from our notionally unbiased national broadcaster The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been deafening.

French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don’t be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay.

Head Of European Institute: Brexit ‘Better’ For Everyone
Brexit would be the best result of Britain’s in / out referendum for both Britain and the EU i a Belgian professor who heads up the European Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) has said.

Johnson’s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. It’s time to be brave
OK, I know a lot of you think Boris is most accurately described by a word many people find offensive, but he’s put together a very good argument here on why we must leave the EU. Published in part here under ‘fair use’ terms and conditions, in the public interest …

Cameron’s EU Package: Not A Deal But A Few Turns In The Spin Machine
As we and almost everybody else predicted, David Cameron’s deal to improve Britain’s relationship with the EU is worthless. It changes nmothing, and can be vetoed once we have voted to stay in.

Cameron Plays Deal Or No Deal In Europe
David Cameron, who was apparently up all night trying to make other European leaders understand why his country needs a better deal in order to poersuade the prople it is a good idea stay in the EU. Unless Cameron gets what will enable him to sell the idea of surrendering national sovereignty to a Federal European Superstate ruled by a committee of unelected bureaucrats in to the British public he will not campaign for the UK to remain in the bloc

EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK
Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said at the E?U summit on British membership terms that the European Union wants to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, but it is not prepared to compromise the banking union (financial integration) or the further integration of monetary union (UK being forced to abandon the pound join the Euro?) to achieve this goal.