Back to the
Reading from the screen becomes easier if you make the sentences shorter. You can do that by narrowing the webpage frame.
My impressions of the Brexit process
The other week, it was announced that British Prime Minister Theresa May and EU negotiator Michel Barnier had reached an agreement about Brexit. Now, I haven't read the 580 pages of this deal, but I get the impression that the British people are being conned on a historical scale, and that this deal serves no other purpose than to win time and to create a situation in which Brexit can suddenly fall off the table, and these are my reasons for thinking that.
Technically, there isn't even a deal. It has been said that many details still need to be negotiated ('Terms of Britain's exit leave much undecided' - The Times, November the 22nd). So one of these "details" can one day rise to become a formidable obstacle, and then the narrative will be: "So long as not everything is agreed, nothing is agreed." Mrs May's promises that Britain will now finally get back the control of its borders and that the vast payments to the EU will be a thing of the past, can still turn out to be premature.
In June 2016, Michael Howard, a former Conservatives leader, voted for Leave. He mentioned three undeniable advantages the UK would get from a true Brexit:
1) The UK wouldn't have to transfer money to Brussels anymore.
2) The UK would be able to stop the immigration from EU countries.
3) The UK's Parliament, not the European Court of Justice, would become the highest legislator of the country again.
Mr Howard added that other advantages and disadvantages people were mentioning were only speculation.
1) The periodical transfers will be over, but a whopping 39 billion pound have to be paid. I've heard Jacob Rees-Mogg tell many times that nothing has to be paid at all, and I'm sure that many Britons were pleased to hear that, until he suddenly compromised towards the PM a few weeks ago and announced that a payment of 20 billion would be fine with him. If only he'd got his way, you can now reflect regrettingly....
2a) Does the deal mean, yes or no, that British carpenters, masons, gardeners, plumbers, electricians, waiters, warehouse workers, painters, lorry drivers are no longer second choice in their own country, compared to the East European workers? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. It's an issue I never see the BBC address.
2b) The immigration from non-EU countries isn't checked by Brexit, and that is becoming a very big problem very soon. Is Mrs May's government going to sign the United Nations Global Compact on Migration next December, that hardly veiled declaration of war on Europe as the white man's continent? Because if the UK government will sign, the thousandfold repeated promise 'we will now get back border control' will result in the most bitter disillusion with politics you have never thought possible.
Every Briton who has emigrated to, let's say Australia, can tell you how much trouble he had to go through before he got the okay from the new country's authorities.
Contrarily however, the masses of Asians and Africans who want to go to Europe - you presumably know that Africa's population is booming - well, they will get all sorts of rights that will ease their Europe-bound migration, once this UN document comes into effect. It even prescribes the governments to make pro-immigration propaganda (!), and it doesn't matter very much whether the migrants want to enter Europe legally or illegally, because the traditional European decency of wanting to live by the rules, of obeying authorities, of respecting other countries' laws, that kind of decency is becoming sóóóó hopelessly out of date in today's world, people, the UN absolutely wants us to realize that new times are coming, together with a couple of million foreigners. Or, more likely, tens of millions. And their tens of millions of families after that.
3) For the duration of the transition period, it's the European Court of (In)justice that will remain the highest court of law in the UK. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think that that means that professional Remainers can continuously appeal to the ECJ to pass judgments that will support their ceaseless efforts to sabotage Brexit, regardless of the powerless protests of Westminster's pro-Brexit politicians.
I've seen a lot of praise in the old media for Theresa May as to have made a deal the compromises in which are also appreciated by the Remainers. The editorial comment of the Mail On Sunday of November the 18th was such a piece. Now, it goes without saying that when a referendum is held and 52% vote 'yes' and 48% vote 'no', it is a good democratic tradition to make the outcome acceptable for as many people as possible. The catch however is that there are a few political subjects that don't lend themselves for compromises. The matter of sovereignty is one of those subjects. Either the British capitals call the shots in the UK or Brussels, in the final analysis. There is no grey area in between. There is no room for compromises there. And although I am not British myself, my assessment of the British spirit tells me that the Leave voters want Britain to be her own master, and that's why I am suspicious about the old media's praise for No 10's compromises, like I am also suspicious of those who reacted to the deal like "Well, it's not ideal, but we Leavers can't get everything that we want, right?"
"The PM's deal is worse than stay in the EU". That's what former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said on November the 23rd. Two days before that, Amber Rudd said that "no Brexit is more likely than no-deal". They may not have that motive, but it sounds like sowing the idea in the general public's mind that Brexit might not be on after all. Amber Rudd, a close ally of Theresa May if I'm not mistaken, also said she "doesn't think" a second referendum will take place - so she doesn't rule it out. Respect towards the Leave voters of 2016 would sound differently.
More than once, I've heard televized people talk disapprovingly about those who voted for Leave. They were doing it for nostalgic reasons, or for shameless racist reasons, what a disgrace that people nearing the end of their lives had blocked the future of the young in this way, and so on. Subsequently, these Remainers point at the fact that 77% of the under-25s are in favour of Remain. In my view, this is a representation of affairs that may sound reasonable to many, but is in fact misleading.
It goes without saying that only the generations with memories of the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s are well-placed to compare life in Britain as it was before 1975, to life in Britain as an EEC and EU member. The younger generations only know the latter period of course, and will understandably regard that as the "normal" life.
I wrote it earlier: I really do hope that today's young people put their trust in their own parents and grandparents, rather than in the media or in the people they look up to, the celebrities of sports, film, music and VR entertainment who, whether these stars realize it or not, are only getting free and positive publicity in the mass media in exchange for speaking opinions that don't rub the pro-EU and pro-immigration rulers up the wrong way too much.
With regard to the content of the books the last couple of generations had to study at school and at the universities, these books have been written and selected under the auspices of system-loyal civil servants for about half of a century by now, if not longer, so these books talk of Christianity as "a" religion and these books want the students to consider themselves "global citizens" rather than selfconfident British nationals. Who then could reasonably blame the majority of today's young people for thinking that the EU is a good institution?
It's like when you think about the acts of Islamic terrorism in the Western countries. If you are born in the 1990s, you don't know any better than that the threat of Islamic terrorism has always been there. Only the earlier generations have vivid memories of the decades in which people couldn't even imagine our countries would once have that problem.
I distrust their silence on Torahism, but I do put value on the negative reactions of people like David Davis, Boris Johnson, Steve Baker, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage on the Brexit deal ('Brexit means REMAIN!' Nigel Farage so angry about 'lowest point in lifetime' - Daily Express, November the 15th). Boris Johnson, who resigned as Foreign Secretary over Mrs May's approach of Brexit, warned that the British people didn't vote Leave to become an EU colony. Now, many media reports are eager to portray the opposition of senior Tories as an instrument to further their own political career at the detriment of Mrs May's, and perhaps this is partly at play here, but the intensity and the frequency of their reactions is another indication for me it's a bad deal for Britain, and quite a few of the pro-Brexit politicians have resigned from the Cabinet to suit their action to their word. I have a lot of respect for that.
No 10 and Brussels have agreed that the transition period will end on December the 31st, 20xx. That's the year that's literally agreed: 20xx. Would you ever sign a job contract or mortgage contract that ties you down till the year 20xx? Neither would I, but Mrs May did, shackling the whole of Britain to it. Leaving that end date open, is to the advantage of the Remainers. It gives them the strategic advantage of time. They can and will endlessly hammer on the rise of a new generation that want to have its say. If the coming general elections have been held, in 2022 at the latest, the outcome will be seized upon as "a new political reality that demands a second referendum". In the undefined period of 2019-20xx, one or more major shocking events will undoubtedly take place in the world, stunning or upsetting the nations, and again the people who 'Remain' for a living will label it as "a new political reality that demands a second referendum".
Quickly after Britain voted for 'out', PM David Cameron made way for Mrs May who said: "Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it." But two years later, she suddenly introduced the possibility, speaking in the House of Commons, that the Brexit wouldn't go on at all: "It's my deal, no deal or no Brexit at all." She said the same thing to the rebellious pro-Brexit MPs in her own party: "A no-confidence vote could stop Brexit." She has said to see a risk of uncertainty, division or (again) no Brexit at all. By saying such things, she is repeatedly making her own position a factor in the Brexit process. She is actually saying: "It has to be done my way, or else..." That's a very inappropriate move. A historic decision was taken in 2016. For the first time in the EU's history, a member state decides it wants to step out. That decision, that expression of the nation's will, has to be carried out, regardless of the question who is or who isn't the Prime Minister. People didn't vote for 'yes, the UK must leave the EU, on the condition that Theresa May feels happy during the entire Brexit process'. They voted for 'yes, the UK must leave the EU', period.
In a BBC report about the fierce discussions in the House of Commons, I've seen an MP exclaim: "Why has the Prime Minister made pledges at the dispatch box and then gone to Brussels to do the opposite?" I've also seen that Mr Farage called Mrs May 'the most duplicitous PM' he ever saw in action. So there is this strong reproach in her direction that she is actually handling Brexit two-facedly. It reminded me of a seemingly similar moment in Dutch politics, when prominent MP Alexander Pechtold criticised the VVD, the party of Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Mr Pechtold said* that in The Netherlands, the VVD are always running down on the EU, and that the VVD are always only stressing the problems, but in the meantime, they always docilely set their signature in Brussels.
*Original text: "...de VVD die altijd maar op Europa afgeeft, de VVD die altijd maar de problemen benadrukt, en die er zijn en die ik ook heel serieus wil nemen want Europa is nog niet af, maar ondertussen tekenen ze altijd bij het kruisje" (source: Pauw & Witteman, 11th November 2013).
Talking of Steve Baker, who resigned as a minister in the Department for Exiting the EU, I've seen his indignation over the patronizing way he and his colleagues were instructed in by No 10, prior to the Chequers Cabinet meeting they attended. When he talked about that on the BBC, I thought: "If the civil servants around Mrs May are even treating Cabinet members like little children, what on Earth are they taking the average man in the street for?" Who are these people, these high-ranking civil servants who see Prime Ministers come and go? Contemplating that question, two newspaper articles come to my mind then.
The Independent had a story headlined 'Brexit: Government whips ordered to return to Westminster as Theresa May faces prospect of no-confidence vote' on November the 21st. In the article, Mark Francois MP, who sent a letter of no-confidence to the 1922 Committee, was quoted:
He [Mr Francois] added that now the details are available on the Brexit agreement, "we can truly see how awful it is". "The prime minister has been surrounded throughout this process by a praetorian guard of highly pro-European senior civil servants who, I believe, have never accepted the result of the referendum," he wrote.
Another newspaper article about Britain's civil service that I found interesting is
We were lied to! Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years, published in the Daily Express of September the 30th.
Absolutely worthwhile everyone's attention, but the article left me with these two questions. If this Express story is true, then why haven't the other media picked it up? It's a matter of the highest national interest, but I can't recall ever having seen the BBC pay attention to this. If this Express story is not true, how come the other media don't criticly confront the Express with its untruths? Untrue stories of this magnitude seriously undermine the public's trust in politics.
When a country applies to become a EU member, it has to accept 80,000 pages of legislature. When you let that sink in [eighty-thousand pages], you realize the EU is not a cordial alliance of independent and selfconfident countries that after some good talks have come to agree there are some issues you can better solve by a united approach than on your own. You realize that an organisation that wants to push 80,000 pages, written in Legalese, down your country's throat, is a prison of nations. (I don't know who coined that phrase, but he or she was struck by genius.)
How the EU has been luring nations into that prison? By bribing the upper layer of the nation: 1) Vast amounts of money for new infrastructure, so that the big companies in the country, eager to snatch a piece of that action, will push the politicians into applying for EU membership. 2) Well-paid jobs in the EU Parliament, the EU Commission and other EU institutions. The price is being paid by the overwhelming majority of each country, the ordinary citizens, who are losing their say over their own country more and more, and whose taxes are financing Brussels the Briber.
Such an organisation could always be expected to make it as hard as possible on Britain to arrive at a reasonable deal. The EU's main drive in the Brexit process is never said aloud: the other countries must be discouraged to follow Britain's example.
At the other side of the negotiating table, Prime Minister Theresa May was seated. Now, getting the best possible deal for Britain would always have required a negotiator who was totally committed to it. Negotiations like these are very hard, extremely demanding. So only someone who thoroughly felt it in his heart and in his soul that Britain should leave the EU, could have acquired the best possible deal for the country. Mrs May however was never going to be that conviction negotiator. In June 2016, she voted for the UK to remain in the EU. Combine the EU's mentality and Mrs May's decades-long commitment to the EU, and on the combination of these two factors alone, you could foresee it was always going to be a bad deal.
Each time I hear Labour politicians comment on the Brexit process, it always sounds as if they, with the exclusion of everything else, are only looking at it through the prism of 'how can we get into government?' It is such petty, predictable, cheap opposition politics... And on BBC World, I saw how Labour's John McDonnell as a guest on a Reuters forum was asked: "There is going to be a Brexit, right?" He hesitated and gave a deflective joke for an answer. So, no resolve to make a true Brexit happen at that side of the House of Commons either.
Most mass media in Europe are in favour of the EU. More than once, I've seen commentators on Dutch TV, Belgian TV and German TV express their amazement and bewilderment over those strange Britons who want to leave the EU and all its boons.
An example of this pro-EU bias. The ZDF is the German TV channel that together with the ARD are more or less the BBC1 and BBC2 of Germany. A telling example of how the ZDF want the Germans to look at the Brexit was this recent headline* of a ZDF Ceefax message: 'Covering May's back: the EU pleads in the Brexit deal's defence'. So the ZDF is presenting the situation as a battle in progress in Britain, with evil people who are sneakily targeting Mrs May from behind, but the EU is not going to let that happen, so it speaks out, loud and clear, in favour of the deal she and Brussels made. That's not neutral reporting on the dispute; that's taking sides against the Brexiteers. The fact of the matter is that the rebellion within the Tory party against the Brexit deal is quite out in the open: I believe that nearly 30 Tory MPs have made it publicly known they lost their confidence in their Prime Minister.
*Original text: Rückendeckung für May: EU befürwortet Brexit-Abkommen
This weekend, November the 24th and 25th, the Brexit deal will be signed in Brussels, and I think the following will happen next. If you already feel annoyed by the numerous voices who want a second referendum, wait what will happen after March the 29th, 2019, the day on which this excuse for a Brexit takes effect. Brace yourself for a media bombardment of awkward and heartbreaking stories that will all have the same underlying message: "Look people, this is how the Brexit you wanted turns out in everyday reality. Would you have voted the same way, if you had known that before? You wouldn't, would you?"
So the pressure to have a second referendum will mount. More and more opinion leaders, once pro-Brexit, will be shown to have changed their mind, and then, the decision to have that second referendum will be taken and a date for it will be fixed. The renewed Remain campaign that will then be unleashed, will dwarf every other advertising campaign, every other PR campaign the UK has ever seen before, into oblivion. It will be so massive and comprehensive (and so lucrative for some very happy PR companies), that the majority is bound to tip over to the other side, so that the whole Brexit can be cancelled altogether.
We've arrived at the last quote in this article. It's what I heard Lord Owen say on the BBC, on July the 31st. Lord Owen has a seat in the House of Lords as an independent member:
“Throughout Parliament, they want to thwart Brexit, lying that it is this problem or that. The EU is a religion for them they can’t stop believing in. The mood in the Brexit cities and towns might start getting ugly. Theresa has been given an extremely difficult hand and she has shown courage and persistence, but it is a shame we didn’t get a Leaver for Prime Minister”
When I read back my comment of June the 23rd, 2016, on the outcome of the referendum, I clearly see how my great joy of the moment over the Leave majority totally eclipsed my sense of political realism. I automaticly but wrongly assumed that the British government would formulate some firm key principles, warranting that the Brexit would become what the majority was hoping for, and then went to work to deliver it, but I should have known better.
Richard Schoot, 24th November 2018 (with some
corrections later on)
P.S.: In paragraph 14, I overlooked the fact that the Brexit deal has still to be voted on in the EU Parliament and in the House of Commons. (26th November 2018)
The Western countries are in very big trouble, in my opinion, as there are solid reasons to assume they’ve turned into Torahist dictatorships. It’s very important to know what Torahism is. Please read
my main text
If you come to agree with my views, please remember that the only way out is a patient and peaceful way. Not a single person can be held solely responsible for the present situation. It looks like we are ruled by people who actually can’t help themselves they are misleaders, and we are letting them mislead us on and on.
Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others, before their anger causes them to do foolish things.
Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian Patriotic parties, and so the more people will get to know about this initiative, the greater the chance some true, constructive change in politics will ever come about.
So your drawing this website to other people’s attention would be very welcome, but now a warning is due. Since the 2013 revelations about the secret surveillance of our e-mails, phonecalls and internet surfing, sending an e-mail or calling someone up has become something you should think twice about. That’s the bitter and disgusting reality the Western world descended into, in the past half of a century, despite the sacrifice of nearly a hundred million lives in two world wars, and despite the huge defence costs it took to hold our own against Communism.
So I am a bit between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, I don’t want to see people land in trouble, and resisting malevolent rule has always been a very short road to trouble for people’s personal lives.
Yet on the other hand my initiative needs people to spread the word about this website, because the old media ignore it, and not for noble reasons, I fear.
If you are in a dilemma, my best advice to you would be to pray, and to ask God to help you choose between passivity and activism.
In my article
Suppose, the reversal takes place next week. Then what?, as well as in the main text, I am exploring how the political change can be brought about, once the nations have become aware of Torahism.
Torahism is the forgotten evil in politics. It is forgotten because the Nazis were terribly aware of it, and Hitler’s crimes against the Jewish people were abysmal enough to make everyone with a heart ignore Torahism, let alone criticize it. That however created a unique window of opportunity for Torahism, and it is most probably exploiting that to the full, from the 1960s to the present day.
I sent my digital book to the academic world of Great Britain instead of my own country, for the reasons I put forward in the text ‘It is time to introduce myself’, 9th June 2005, on the initial page.
I am trying to conduct this initiative in the spirit of the Jew I am mentioning in the first line of this website.
Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.
PRINTING THIS TEXT TAKES 8 SHEETS
Back to the