Conservative Party Tells Theresa May: Just Go!

The British Prime Minister Theresa May has come under increasing pressure from her own party to resign, following her mishandling of Brexit.

Government ministers are currently holding talks with senior Labour Party members in a bid to thrash out a Brexit deal which would secure the support of MPs across the house, thus cutting out the need for Mrs May to rely on the support of Brexiteer Conservative MPs.

However, the move has angered the pro-Brexit right wing of her party, who have intensified their calls for her to set a clear leaving date.

Mrs May is due to attend a meeting of the 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs this evening, at which the need to set a clear date is likely to be put to her. Sir Graham Brady, chair of the Committee, has already requested “clarity” on her departure.

Leading Eurosceptic Sir Bill Cash told the Press Association: “The time has come for her to resign. She needs to be given a date. The sooner the better. But it needs to be done in an orderly manner.”

Mrs May had previously pledged to quit if her Withdrawal Deal gains majority support in Parliament, but with the deadline for Brexit now pushed back to October, it is not clear what plans she has to go if the deal is not passed.

A landslide loss of council seats by the Conservative Party at last week’s local elections has further ratcheted up pressure on Mrs May. Party bosses were quietly touting a figure of 1000 losses as their nightmare scenario – but on the night they shed in excess of 1,300 seats.

The party is expecting similar losses in the upcoming European elections, due to be held on May 23rd. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the 1922 Committee, has insisted Mrs May announce a “road map” for her resignation following the European elections.

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage told the Press Association: “I’m amazed she is still there.”

Meanwhile, grassroots Conservatives are planning to vote on a motion of no-confidence in Mrs May on June 15th.

Members of the National Conservative Convention will be asked to vote on a motion stating that “we no longer feel that Mrs May is the right person to continue as Prime Minister to lead us forward in the negotiations” and “therefore with great reluctance ask that she considers her position and resigns”, Conservative Home has reported.

FORMER AUSSIE PM RUDD: UK trading with the Commonwealth to make up for leaving the EU is “utter bollockS”

By Penny Hoffmann

Kevin Rudd, the 26th former Prime Minister of Australia, is sometimes a quite the unprofessional politician like many of Australia’s choices. Among various situations he has put himself in from being so down-to-earth, he has become a bit of a cheeky fella in the news and on the political stage for playing handball with school kids, needing a fitness instructor to lift him up for chin ups, being caught eating his ear wax during Question Time, and saluting George W. Bush at a NATO summit which “was just uhh… it was just a joke”.

Mr. Rudd’s take on brexit will surely ruffle the feathers of many brexiteers.

Rudd tweeted the following on March 11:

“With the clock ticking down to Brexit Day, here are my arguments in the London Guardian on why Britain should remain in the European Union. In contrast to Howard, Abbott and Downer cheering on the Brexiteers – all to reconstitute a British imperial rump.”

He stated in a recent article by The Guardian that swapping the current Britain-European Union trade agreement and relationship with a Britain-Commonwealth one is “the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism”:

“I’m struck, as the British parliament moves towards the endgame on Brexit, with the number of times Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India have been advanced by the Brexiteers in the public debate as magical alternatives to Britain’s current trade and investment relationship with the European Union. This is the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism. It’s utter bollocks.”

Rudd stated that Britain should remain in the European Union, and that “Labour and the Conservative remainers should unite to defer the exit date beyond 29 March 2019. They should then support legislation for a second referendum”.

Kevin Rudd describes brexit as a suicide note that will leave a large mark in world history:

“If Britain proceeds with giving effect to what future historians will legitimately describe as the longest suicide note in history by leaving the union, the cold, hard reality is that the mathematics simply don’t stack up in terms of credible economic alternatives to Europe. Much as any Australian, Canadian and New Zealand governments of whichever persuasion would do whatever they could to frame new free-trade agreements with the UK, the bottom line is that 65 million of us do not come within a bull’s roar of Britain’s adjacent market of 450 million Europeans.”

Remaining in the EU, according to Rudd, would benefit Britain economically and politically because authoritarians around the world seek to bring down the unification of Europe on things such as values, thus weakening the west.

Rudd supports a second referendum because it offers “a clear, informed choice between two tangible, concrete proposals: either voting for Theresa May’s deal, or for Britain to remain in the Union. That’s when I believe Britons’ native common sense, as well as their wider sense of international responsibility, would ultimately prevail”.

Rudd described Australian (“Oz”) brexiteers as having a goal of returning to old Anglo-Saxon times:

“They too, like the core of the British Brexiteers, are driven by a conservative political romanticism that we can all somehow go back to that ancient Arcadia of a white Anglo-Saxon world with “imperial preference”, all consummated by the solemnity of a Lord’s Test.”

Brexit day is scheduled for the 29th of March, 2019.

 

FARAGE IS BACK: What will his return entail for the future of Brexit?

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Britain, Brexit – Nigel Farage announced his return to British politics on Friday in a Telegraph article entitled “The time has come to teach the political class a lesson: I’m back fighting for a real Brexit,” where he pledged “to give Leave Means Leave my absolute and total support. I will help them to raise funds and will go back on the road to campaign once again.” In the article, he also labelled the Chequers statement as a “betrayal”, a document delineating Conservative PM Theresa May’s suggestions for the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Farage is especially known for his Euroscepticism, having left the Conservative party in 1992 after they signed the Maastricht Treaty, and becoming a founding member of the United Kingdom Independence Party. In 1999, he was elected as a Member of European Parliament (MEP) and was subsequently reelected in 2004, 2009 and 2014, causing countless controversies in the parliament through his numerous rants about the flaws of the EU. He summarized his views on the EU as follows:

Post-1949, there was some sensible ideas put together, namely, the Council of Europe. Let’s have a Europe where we sit down together, where we have a free-trade agreement, minimum standards on work, on the environment… We can do all of these things without a European Commission, without a European Parliament, and without a European Court of Justice. Yes, it’ll mean you’ll lose your job, Mr Barosso [11th President of the European Commission], but apart from that, why can’t we do things as mature democracies? Yes, I want you sacked Mr Schultz as well, I want you all fired. We can do those things, and that is a positive way forward. Taking away from people the ability to govern themselves, and transferring that power to the European Commission, we’re headed for a Europe of rebellion and violence. Let’s take the democratic route.

After 52% of Brits voted to leave the European Union in 2016, he spoke before the European Commission again, asserting “Isn’t it funny, that when I came here seventeen years ago, and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me! Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now, are you?” Farage has thereby been perceived as having had a large impact on the results in 2016, ranked 2nd “most influential Right-winger” by the Telegraph in October 2013, and named “Briton of the Year” in 2014. After he resigned as leader of UKIP in 2016, he hasn’t been particularly influential in British politics, outside of his op-eds and podcast/radio show on London Broadcasting Corporation. In 2017, he also became a contributor on Fox News, where he additionally comments on American issues, promoting Trump and was in July one of the proponents of him earning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring better relations between North- and South Korea. Yesterday, he asserted he’s coming back to British politics:

Over the last few months, and particularly since the Chequers betrayal, scores of people have stopped me in the street to ask: “When are you coming back?”

Well now you have your answer: I’m back.

Back in the game of British politics, ready to make an influence on Britain to move it back in the right direction for a “real” Brexit. But whither does this direction lead? What will his return entail for the future of Brexit?

Farage describes the organizers of Leave Means Leave, Richard Tice and John Longworth to be “principled businessmen” who see “Brexit as the ultimate opportunity to regain some national self-confidence, to restore our democracy and to make us all richer and more successful by going global. They want to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit that burns so brightly in millions of men and women.” On their website, they assert that “Unequivocally, Leave means leaving the Single Market, leaving the customs union and UK courts no longer being subservient to the European Court of Justice.” Chequers do not mean Brexit, they say, for its suggestions do not meet these criteria.

Leave Means Leave was established in July 2016 in the aftermath of the Brexit vote as a political pressure group campaigning and lobbying for “a clean Brexit.” “This week,” says Farage, “it declared plans to re-launch the referendum campaign up and down the country.” The founders explained on Thursday,

When we set up Leave Means Leave after the referendum, we thought it might be needed for six months. We hoped that we could trust the Government to do the job they had been instructed to do by the British people. People knew what they were voting for. They dismissed the ridiculous scaremongering of Project Fear and voted in the largest numbers ever to leave the EU.

None of us imagined that, two years on, we would have to refight the battle. We never dreamt that we would have to attack some desperate “Chequers” proposal from the Prime Minister, which led to the resignation of two of the most influential Brexit-supporting Cabinet ministers [David Davis and Boris Johnson]. None of us feared being let down by other Cabinet Brexiteers, who we thought we could trust. Today, they are trying to sell thin gruel to Brexit voters as if it were some sort of delicacy. It is a con, and must be exposed as such.

Crucially, this will be a nationwide effort, not an intellectual exercise from air-conditioned offices in London. We want to take our campaign to the people. So many ordinary voters feel let down by their MPs.

The next six months will determine the future direction of our country. It is nothing less than a Battle for Britain. Do we want to remain handcuffed to an outdated, protectionist bullying bureaucracy as a vassal state? Or do we want to be a bold, ambitious trading nation, retaking our rightful place on the global stage as a strong independent country, enjoying the significant economic benefits that flow from a proper Brexit?

With Farage’s “absolute and total support,” Leave Means Leave is sure to get a boost of influence considering his reach and reputation (for instance, he has 68 times as many followers on Twitter as them), but is the British public open to their message? According to the latest annual British Social Attitudes report by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen Social Research), the party most against “allowing free movement of people in return for free trade in the EU” is, unsurprisingly, UKIP, at 67%, but they also have a large minority of 40% in the Conservative Party to appeal to, though its leader was the architect of the Chequers Statement.

Leave Means Leave know their base, and what they stand for, but as they weren’t sufficient in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, is it reasonable to expect that things will now turn out differently? Is Farage the steroid they need to win the race for the future of Brexit, and can he make them sufficient for achieving this goal? Or will they again be overhauled by the political establishment they consider to be indifferent to the wishes of the British majority?


More by Goldfire Media:

Nigel Farage Threaten Return as UKIP Leader if Theresa May Continues “Brexit Betrayal”

Both Tories and EU Diplomats Skeptical to May’s Forced Soft Brexit Blueprint

Jeremy Corbyn Pictured Commemorating Palestinian Terrorists Responsible for Assassinating Jordanian PM and 11 Israeli Athletes

A Case for Leaving the Left-Right Axis as a Model for Political Analysis

Investigative Journalist Assaulted By Security and Banned from UN for Covering $6-Billion Budget Meeting

 

 

U.N. Race Relations Envoy Ridiculed by British MPs For Claiming Brexit Causing Increase in Discrimination in Britain

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Great Britain, Politics – U.N. race relations envoy E. Tendayi Achiume infuriated British politicians on Friday after suggesting that Brexit has become more discriminatory following the Brexit referendum on June 23, 2016, specifically mentioning ‘structural racism’ in the British political system and the anti-semitism of the Labour Party. ‘I think the environment leading up to the referendum, during the referendum and after the referendum has made racial ethnicities more vulnerable to racial discrimination and intolerance,’ the envoy opined. She especially targeted the British immigration and terrorism policies of PM Theresa May. The U.S.-based lawyer reached the conclusions following twelve days of traveling across the country and talking to victims of racism.

British MPs have been highly skeptical of the conclusions made by Ms. Achiume, calling them ‘complete rubbish’ and ‘not worth the paper they are written on,’ and claiming that she’s completely misunderstood the vote. One of her biggest critics in the House of Commons may have been Tory MP Peter Bone, who said that Ms. Achiume was ‘totally ill-informed and doesn’t understand Brexit’ for making the claim that Britain is more discriminatory now than it was before Brexit. Mr. Bone suggested rather the current immigration policies under the European Union to be racist as they allow E.U. nationals to move freely to the U.K. while establishing stricter control on members of other nationalities, and suggested that the immigration system should be equal for all applicants no matter the country of origin. Another Tory MP, Jacob-Rees Mogg, who has been highly vocal of his support for Brexit, also had some harsh words for Ms. Achiume, targetting the credibility of U.N. by saying ‘The UN ought to have better things to do than issue tendentious reports about the UK.’

Not only does Ms. Achiume believe that Great Britain has made bad legislation regarding immigration and terrorism, she believes it’s a part of ‘structural socioeconomic exclusion‘ of racial and ethnic communities in the country. She, along with other U.N. ‘experts’ on the issue, repeated this in a U.N. report, where they also claimed there to be a ‘criminalisation of people of African descent and other minorities in the UK’ – whatever that may mean.

She isn’t, however, the first U.N. dignitary critical of the human rights record of Great Britain. Among them are Yves Cabannes, Raquel Rolnik, Rashida Manjoo and Leilani Farha. Most nutorious of them is Mrs. Rolnik, a critic of the British ‘bedroom tax’ – a measure initiated in 2013 reducing housing benefits for people with spare bedrooms – has become infamous for admitting to have sacrificed an animal to Karl Marx while studying for her Master in architecture so he would ‘leave her alone’ to study in peace.

Ms. Achiume’s report on Brexit’s implications for the prevalence of discrimination in Great Britain will be published in June 2019, but are unlikely to have big effect on British policy-making considering her already having lost respect by British politicians for suggesting the correlation.

Syrian Military Base Struck by Britain, France and U.S. Following Douma Chemical Attacks

Picture credit: AP

By Stefan M. Kløvning

Syria, National Security – A military base in Syria expected of holding chemical weapons ingredients were struck by American, British and French missiles on Saturday, as retaliation for the Syrian government allegedly being behind the attack in Douma on April 8, which took the life of up to 75 people and injured about 500 more. British Prime Minister Theresa May maintained that this was not done to intervene in Syria’s civil war or an attempt of regime change, but solely…

…about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties. And while this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian Regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity.

U.S. President Donald Trump spoke in a similar fashion about the decision, but didn’t mention any evidence of the Syrian government to be behind it. Mrs. May didn’t either, only referring to ‘a significant body of information including intelligence’ assumably indicating that they are.

According to Russia, the Syrian government struck down 71 of the 103 missiles launched against them.

The air strikes have been warmly welcomed by Western allies. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, Austrialian PM Malcolm Turnbull, NATO head Jens Stoltenberg, European Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker all deemed the air strikes necessary and justified as retaliation against the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against their own population.

Other nations, however, have been more skeptical. The Iranian Foreign Ministry, for instance, strongly opposed the attack. ‘The United States and its allies have no proof and, without even waiting for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to take a position, have carried out this military attack,’ they said in a statement. Iraq has also been concerned, referring to the possibility of the action being a catalyst for spreading terrorism in the region. The spokesperson for Indonesian Foreign Ministry Arrmanatha Nasir criticized the decision being done without prior authorization by the U.N. Security Council, asserting that ‘For Indonesia, peace and stability in Syria can only be achieved through dialogue and an inclusive political process.’

How do they know for sure that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack in Douma, without being able to present clear evidence? Mrs. May stated, and rightly, that Russia vetoed a resolution in the U.N. Security Council proposing an independent investigation into the chemical attacks, and that that has made it very difficult for them to figure out the true nature of the situation. ‘We have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this,’ she affirms. She therefore refers to the history of the regime with this, saying ‘The Syrian Regime has a history of using chemical weapons against its own people in the most cruel and abhorrent way.’

Is this really the case? The New York Times reported on the day of the chemical attacks that ‘Days after President Trump said he wanted to pull the United States out of Syria, Syrian forces hit a suburb of Damascus with bombs that rescue workers said unleashed toxic gas.’ But why would the Syrian government want to give the U.S. military a reason to stay in the region, or generally undertake such an attack against their own citizens with such strange timing? The story doesn’t really fit together unless the Syrian government would have a motive for doing so. Independent journalist Eva Bartlett proposes that the Western media has given a skewed picture of what is really happening in Syria. She has talked to many Canadians with relatives in Syria, whom she claims to say that are being told a different story about the situation than the Western media is promoting. She has also been to Syria 6 times to report on the situation there. ‘What you hear in the corporate media … BBC, Guardian, New York Times, etc. on Aleppo is also opposite of reality,’ she asserts. After the chemical attack in Khai Shaikhoun last year, the Syrian Army General Command explicitly denied them ever having used toxic gases against either terrorists or civilians, and that they had no plans of doing so. He asserted in the statement that ‘The armed terrorist groups used to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of using toxic gases against them or against civilians at anytime they fail to implement the targets of their sponsors and operators or when they are unable to achieve any advantages on the ground in an desperate attempt to justify their failure and to maintain the support of their masters.’ Whatever Eva Bartlett says about Fox News, there’s a reporter there on her side: Tucker Carlson. He observed the day after the Douma Attack that

Universal bipartisan agreement on anything is usually a sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen. If only there were no one left to ask skeptical questions. And we should be skeptical of this. Starting with the poison gas attack itself. All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don’t really know that, they’re making it up. They have no real idea what happened. Actually, both sides in the Syrian civil war possessed chemical weapons. How would it benefit Assad, using chlorine gas last weekend? Well it wouldn’t. Assad’s forces had been winning the war in Syria. The administration just announced America’s plans to pull its troops out of Syria, having vanquished ISIS. That’s good news for Assad, and about the only thing he could do to reverse it, and to hurt himself, would be to use poison gas against children. ‘Well he did it anyways,’ they tell us. ‘He’s that evil!’ Please. Keep in mind this is the same story they told us last April, you remember that?

It’s too early yet to cite any polls of public opinion in different countries about the air strikes, but many notable reactions have been promoted on social media. Some of them will be mentioned below.

9fd653716f73a991258ea5b83f3d36d2.png

  • Trump’s statement ‘mission accomplished’ being taken from George W. Bush’s in 2003

  • ISIS using airstrikes as cover

https://twitter.com/arturaskerelis/status/984972546742341632

  • Vote on Gab.ai (right-wing alternative media site) (n=894) on who supports or opposes Trump’s decisions on air strikes. 84% voted that they opposed. https://gab.ai/Archangel1111/posts/23762226
  • Won’t lead to expected results

(‘These strikes against engage us in a path with unpredictable and potentially dramatic consequences. France again loses an opportunity to appear on the international stage as an independent and balanced power in the world. MLP’)