Richard Dearlove Helped Blair Kill Millions. The Security Services are a Danger to Our State and Society 490

When Sir Richard Dearlove was Head of MI6, the Blairites adored him as he approved the lying Dossier on Iraqi WMD which led to wars, invasion, the death of millions and the destabilisation which continues to wreck the entire Middle East. Now, as he writes to Tory constituency chairman advocating the hardest of hard Brexits, had they any capacity for self-reflection the Blairites would probably be thinking it was after all not such a great move of Tony to appoint the hardest of hard right nutters to head our overseas intelligence service.

In my last post, I noted how evidence against me was actually manufactured when I opposed the policy of torture and extraordinary rendition. I have explained ad nauseam that, having been in a senior position in the FCO at the time, I know that Blair’s dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction was a tissue of deliberate lies, and not just an honest mistake; furthermore it is impossible to read the Chilcot report without coming to that conclusion.

The UK has security services which operate dishonestly and illegally. Interestingly, I cannot say that they are currently out of the control of the UK government; the evidence is rather they are willing to engage in every dirty and dishonest trick at the behest of corrupt politicians like Blair.

Dearlove regularly features in the media shilling for maximum Cold War. His letter yesterday on the dangers of intelligence and security co-operation with the EU, as undermining NATO and the UK/US/Five Eyes intelligence arrangements, is simply barking mad. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. He makes no attempt to describe the mechanism by which the dire consequences he predicts will follow. Amusingly enough, although those consequences are dire to Dearlove, to me they are extremely desirable. If I thought that May’s withdrawal agreement would undermine NATO and the CIA, I would be out on the streets campaigning for it.

But there is a very serious point. There is something very wrong indeed with the UK security services, which are most certainly not a force for freedom or justice. That MI6 can be headed by as extreme a figure as Dearlove, underlines the threat that the security services pose to any progressive movement in politics.

If Scotland becomes independent, it must not mirror the repressive UK security services. Furthermore it must be very chary indeed of employing anybody currently working for the UK security services. If Jeremy Corbyn comes to power in Westminster, he will never achieve any of his objectives in restoring a basic level of social justice and equality to society in England and Wales, without revolutionary change in major institutions including the security services.

My own view on Brexit is that the best deal for England and Wales would be EEA and customs union, essentially the Norway option. It seems that the Labour leadership have essentially got that right, but are making a complete pig’s ear of articulating it, presumably because of their desire not to antagonise their anti-immigrant voters.

Scotland demonstrably has a strong and strengthening pro-EU majority and this is the logical time for Scotland to move to Independence, with the assurance of strong international support. I trust the Scottish government is finally going to move decisively in that direction inside the next month.

490 thoughts on “Richard Dearlove Helped Blair Kill Millions. The Security Services are a Danger to Our State and Society

1 2 3 4
  • Steven Douglas Keith

    Craig, you stated that the British security services are not at the moment out of the control of the UK government. My belief is, that it is the government itself that sometimes strays from the control of the security services. Governments come and go, the parties must face elections. The state apparatus is a permanent state of affairs. Sure, individuals, like Dearlove may be promoted by PM’s, but they are elevated from within. They were always there. Is it not, that the deep state is the entity that drives the policy of governments and those elected politicians must play the game or else. As Tony Benn once said, the Conservative MP, A. Neave, himself a secret service man since his days in uniform through WW2, told him privately, that if Benn were to become PM he would be assassinated. H Wilson, as PM, was monitored by his own side and alternatives calculated should he have to be removed.
    Please, let me know your thoughts.
    Thank you for your time. You are appreciated.

    • philw

      Security services are by their nature difficult to control. After 911 it seems that in the US and UK they have used the opportunity to increase their power hugely. It is well past time to haul them back into line. A root and branch restructuring and thorough-going change of personnel will be needed.

      • Rhys Jaggar

        You have to rid every major professions of all its plants too. London Medicine is awash with spies and you do not become a consultant without embracing that community. Medicine is not about human health, it is about avarice, control and spying. Financial Services launder dirty security service revenue streams and several banks are well known covers for spying. The Press is infested with them and the Public Schools and Russell Group Universities are a scouting area for perpetuating the sordid order.

        The whole State Apparatus is designed around coercive control by psychopaths, narcissists and sociopaths.

        Eliminating decency is the first test for anyone seeking promotion.

        Sick, very sick.

        But unfortunately, very, very true……

    • Alex Westlake

      I’m very sceptical of conspiracy theories, but as I’m sure you know Airey Neave was himself assassinated. He was Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and would almost certainly have taken the role in government had he survived. Some believe there was more to it than a terrorist attack. See his Wikipedia page

      • Jack

        Alex Westlake

        No one wants to be called a conspiracy theories etc.
        But who could imagine Integrity Initiative before it got exposed? And that group is not the only one..

        • Tatyana

          Good point, Jack.
          I can bet, many people who mentioned that anti-russian hysteria is something unnatural, something arranged on purpose – those people were called crazy conspiracy theorists.
          There’s the word for this phenomenon – gaslighting, i.e. pretending that one’s perceprion of reality is wrong.
          Thus, British government not only participated in fooling people, but also in gaslighting them.

          my method to decide what is likely and what is unlikely is to use my eyes, memory, ask questions and check sources.

        • John2o2o

          Who could imagine the Integrity Initiative before it was exposed? In short, ME.

          It is so obvious – eg, the Skripal affair with all the MSM lies and the way in which the Times and the Guardian continuously promote bogus anti Russian narratives. (Perhaps the Times’ lowest hour being their claims about Masha and the Bear. Which I now discover to be very good – as children’s cartoons go).

    • Ruth

      ‘The Privy Council allied with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Cabinet and Cabinet Intelligence Unit which is the real control over the security and intelligence services are part of the secret permanent unaccountable Government.’
      ‘The roots of this sinister power are rooted in history, particularly that of the usurping Tudors. The Privy Council and secret services have developed since then and it is wrong to regard MI5 and MI6 as the sole such bodies. As Douglas Hurd told a Commons Select Committee regarding nuclear proliferation they are but two tributaries of the main stream of intelligence. The communication and eavesdropping unit GCHQ works extensively with the intelligence and security services and with those of other countries including the intelligence services and National Security Agency of USA and with the Services of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Each regularly circumvents domestic laws for the benefit of the others under programmes like “echelon” and agreements between UK and USA. Politicians and civil servants and other leading figures who get out of line can be surveyed or bugged and then threatened, blackmailed, framed up or worse.’ From ‘My experiences, the Scott Inquiry, the British Legal System’ Gerald Reaveley James

  • Tom Welsh

    “There is something very wrong indeed with the UK security services, which are most certainly not a force for freedom or justice”.

    Yet again I wonder at Craig’s astonishing (though obviously well-meaning) naivete. Can it honestly be said that any “security” services, anywhere in the world, have ever been “a force for freedom or justice”? That’s not what they are for. The best that can be said is that, sometimes, in the most favourable circumstances, security services can protect honest citizens and give them a safe environment in which to meet, discuss and deliberate without being threatened by external forces.

    All that is wrong with the UK security services is that, exactly as intended, they carry out the will of the current government (or perhaps its owners). This has the huge advantage of plausible deniability – moreover, if the security services manage to keep their operations secret, no one may ever know about them. How many US citizens are aware of the important role played by the CIA and other US agencies in creating, paying, arming and helping terrorist organizations like ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham? How many UK citizens know the truth about the Skripal circus, or what it was really meant to accomplish?

    Having spent as long working with computer software as Craig has in politics, I am very much aware that, in the world of IT, proper security militates very strongly against every other feature that users value. It adds considerable cost, reduces performance, and makes everything far more complicated and difficult. Its only merit is that it is sometimes absolutely essential if systems are not to be penetrated or taken over completely, with all the possible consequences.

    Human security is quite similar in those respects. It is the most evil of necessary evils.

  • Node

    the evidence is rather that [the UK security services] are willing to engage in every dirty and dishonest trick at the behest of corrupt politicians like Blair.

    Or perhaps … both the UK security services and politicians like Blair do the bidding of the same hidden controlling elite.

    • D_Majestic

      My thought also. When I began to post online in 2004, I would have laughed at such an idea. Now I think the probability is huge. It explains so many things which are unbelievable anomalies.

    • Deb O'Nair

      I have no doubt that the western states ‘security services’ are under the direction, if not outright control, of an ideologically driven group executing a geopolitical agenda. Through the unaccountable security services of a state they can exercise direct control of the media, politicians and other public bodies. Not only are they unaccountable but often given immunity from legal prosecution, as is the case with MI5 (who’s old logo used to be a capped triangle (pyramid) complete with all seeing eye). These organisations are the greatest threat to personal freedom, liberty and democracy than the paper-tigers they wave about to justify their huge budgets and often illegal and anti-democratic activities.

  • Alex Westlake

    Norway is not a member of the Customs Union, instead it is a member of EFTA. Membership of the Customs Union is what prevents us from making our own trade deals, which was a big pitch of the Leave campaign’s case. How an option which keeps us in the CU is being described as “Norway” is something I fail to understand.

  • Courtenay Barnett


    A single word comes to mind – ‘criminal’.

    The UN Charter says it all at Article 2 (3):-

    “The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
    3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

  • TFS

    1) You see Craig the problem with your view is, unless I missed something in the original vote. It was was won by a majority, and the vote was LEAVE. You’re grasping at straws. Oh, and for the record, had I voted for Remain, I would still hold you to account on this, and because of people like you I would now be definately be voting to Leave.

    2) The vote was a UK vote, not an English, Irish, Scottish, Tory, Liberal, Yorkshire or any other kind of sub group.

    3) Puhleezz! Why not say it straight Craig, ‘presumably because of their desire not to antagonise their RASCIST voters’ . Maybe that satirical commedian Jonathan Pie, could show how smug and arrogant your view is on this particular subject?

    4) Pro-EU. Is it Scottish ignorance that lends itself to this view or those lovelly EU printing presses?

    Many EU state recently abstained from a vote tabled by Russia ‘against the glorification of Nazism’ if I’m not mistaken. Which of those EU abstained? And that’s the kind of EU you think Scotland should become part of, a union which is giving money to Pro-Nazi Ukraine, which voted against the motion?

    And the sad part, I suspect most of the Brexiteers are happy with the idea in some ways of the EU. We just cannot hold our own to account. Why complicate that task with another tier of lamers and liars, warmongers and fraudsters?

    • Casual Observer

      So now that coming out is more than just an abstract notion, ie, its more readily apparent what being out actually means, what’s wrong with consulting the ‘Will O the People’ again ???

      I’d have to assume that the vigour of the Brexiteers condemnation of any further consultation, reflects their worry that referendums in general are so prone to gusts of transient opinion, that the outcome of the last may be reversed ?

      • TFS

        Did you really suggest

        Whats really wrong with consulting the ‘Will of the People Again’ as your argument?


        You act like Ian Hislop bemoaning the the decision and subsequent discussions. Now it is a normal sense such things occur as part of the course, but what is plainly evident is that a so called consultation is attempt to reverse a previous decision. A similar snideness by Ian Hislop and disdain was self evident, to such an extent that he could barely contain the bile.

        Tell me. Do you understand the nature of a Democracy and the fact you are trying to subvert it, or is it beyond your comprehension? Again, had I been a Remainer, I would sit with the Brexiteers seeing that their Right was upheld, but you seem to be of that other breed.

        What has been shown is the disregard to the notion of Demoracy from Politicians and you.

        • Casual Observer

          Things change. And there’s no doubt that at the time of the referendum, it was not clear what the result of voting for the off would entail as there were quite a few options being kicked about. I seem to recall that even St Nigel was touting a Norway solution which entailed becoming part of the EEA ?

          I can understand why you ‘Democracy’ waving folk want things set in aspic, but the fact remains that now a much clearer picture of who wins and who loses is available, it seems perfectly reasonable to look for confirmation from the electorate.

          I really fail to see how such a move can be regarded as Undemocratic ? Or are you suggesting (fearing) that a better informed electorate may come up with a revised opinion ?

        • Deb O'Nair

          “Do you understand the nature of a Democracy and the fact you are trying to subvert it”

          Democracy in this instance being an illegally funded campaign, based on proven lies, run by proven liars who were working directly for the interest of a bunch of foreign and tax-exiled rich men. What is there that’s not worth subverting?

        • Wall of Controversy

          And apparently Craig has entirely forgotten how much he cares for the downtrodden people of Catalonia. Now he simply adores the EU once more… consistency is really not his strong point!

    • Borncynical

      “Many EU states recently abstained from a vote tabled by Russia ‘against the glorification of Nazism’…”

      I’m glad you have highlighted this. The pathetic excuse given by the UK and others who abstained or even voted against the motion was that to support the motion would be an affront to the principle of ‘freedom of speech’. I don’t believe for one minute that that was the true reason.

      I have for several years now been seriously concerned at the neo-Nazi tendencies being increasingly demonstrated by the EU (such as its support for, and effectively encouragement of, patently Nazi behaviour and sympathies of the Kiev Government, and its failure to reproach any of the former Soviet Republics for official events and public holidays commemorating historic Nazi activities and celebrating key Nazi/rightwing public figures). All this, combined with the right wing backgrounds of NATO officials who work hand in glove with those in command of the EU, led me to express my concerns as a matter of principle by voting to leave the EU.
      This being my reason for voting to leave, I take great umbrage at being accused by some ‘remainers’ of voting to leave for racist reasons. This couldn’t be more ironic … my moralistic concerns are for the ‘foreigners’ or minorities who are subjugated and persecuted by those already within the EU or likely to become members in due course who promote or display Nazi philosophies.

      I think I can hold my head up higher for taking this stance than the people I know who piously consider themselves more virtuous than me for voting to ‘remain’, which they did on the grounds that by leaving the EU it might make organising their summer holidays in Spain more difficult and/or more expensive for them.

      • Republicofscotland

        “All this, combined with the right wing backgrounds of NATO officials who work hand in glove with those in command of the EU, led me to express my concerns as a matter of principle by voting to leave the EU.”

        What do you expect Nato’s headquarters are at the Pentagon, America has a strong influence on the EU unfortunately.

        I should add, if you feel this way about the EU, I can’t imagine how you feel about Britain as it’s a lackey a 51st state of the USA, and after Brexit (No Deal) US firms will flood Britain seizing control of anything they can make money from.

        Then you’ll wish you were still in the EU.

        • Shatnersrug

          I think it’s all moot, the capitalist powers that were at force in the build up to the First World War and continued though the second are again on the rise – we have

          the Anglosaxon Block ✅
          (USA, Britain, Aus, Canada etc)
          The EU block ✅
          (Mainland EU counties led by Germany – we’ll have to see if France breaks out or puts its lot in with Germany as I suspect)
          Asian Block ✅
          (China, Japan currently a us vassal but we’ll see if trump does remove the bases)
          Russian block ✅
          (Possibly allied with China, again we’ll have to see)

          This is what will play out over the next 15 – 25 years it’s an unavoidable trait of capitalism that when it can no longer acquire by trade then it will acquire by force. And we can see leaders rising in every capitalist base that are quite prepared to entertain a third instalment of the Great War.

          Back home socialism is rising in people’s movements across the west and this will never do for capitalism, the solution? Get them in the army of course. So what do we see? EU leaders calling for an EU army, suggestions of it being conscription. British govt trying to encourage militarism in normal life, the pentagon suggesting a return of the draft.

          You could call it a conspiracy, but it isn’t really it’s a natural response of leaders who are committed to capitalism and to wielding absolute power as the number one.

          Sorry to rain on the parade. I just can’t see any other direction next for geopolitics bar full negotiations, a commitment to peace and sharing of resources. But those are not the leaders we have on the rise.

          • Loony

            You appear to have accidentally omitted reference to 100 million plus people that were killed in socialist regimes for being “enemies of the people” Due to their superior intellect some socialists were able to identify that people with “soft hands” were enemies of the people. Naturally they had to be slaughtered.

            Incidentally capitalism requires capital. Hard to see where capital is coming from when interest rates have been reduced to zero. Another feature of capitalism is the concept of creative destruction. The 2007/8 period saw this idea consigned to the scrapheap. I do not know what it is that you have identified, but it is certainly not capitalism.

          • TFS

            Sorry Loony, but there was not Reply button on your post.

            I’ve never seen it examined before, please point me in the right direction.

            With regards to Capitalism, Socialism, Communism I have never seen explained the human nature of scum floating to the top and thus being the major cause of deaths perpurtraited under those idealogies.

            My own perception, with only cursory glance, is that the deaths are attributable to people not holding those at the top to account, regardless of ideadlogy. Just look at the West, (Capitalism, Christian, Catholic). How many deaths has that conglomeration of idealogies caused?

            I my view, Its greedy corrupt people and they manage to float to the top in any idealogy.

          • SA

            “Incidentally capitalism requires capital. Hard to see where capital is coming from when interest rates have been reduced to zero. ”

            You have swallowed the lie hook line and sinker. Have you tried to obtain credit at less than one percent recently? No neither has anyone who is a normal citizen, Interest rates mean nothing because we are charged any rate demanded, including eye watering rates of some credit cards of over 30% for the disadvantaged and of course if you are a saver you are given a paltry 0.1% interest on your savings.

            “You appear to have accidentally omitted reference to 100 million plus people that were killed in socialist regimes for being “enemies of the people” ”

            Figures out of a hat.

          • Republicofscotland

            “So what do we see? EU leaders calling for an EU army”

            I’m for an EU army why shouldn’t the 27 protect the bloc as one?

          • Vercingetorix

            Shatnersrug, all true. Really what the UK public should be asked if whether, with respect to Orwell, they wish to be a constituent of either (a) Oceania or (b) Eurasia.

            In the final analysis, all this nonsense is that straightforward.

          • certa certi

            ‘Asian Block’

            There is no such thing and its will remain a least likely scenario. Too many NE and SE nations share a distrust for the PRC due to historical grievances and racial fears that trump rational behaviour.

          • Johny Conspiranoid

            “You could call it a conspiracy, but it isn’t really it’s a natural response of leaders who are committed to capitalism and to wielding absolute power as the number one.”

            The natural response of leaders who are committed to capitalism is to conspire to further the needs of capitalism, so the two explanations are complementary. One can’t happen without the other unless the needs of capitalism can be met in an entirely public and accountable way.
            Can the analysis of class strugle proceed without an analysis of the conspiracies it generates?

        • TFS

          Wow, thats your argument. Being in the EU is better that being in with America.

          How about I suggest not being anyones Bitch and certainly not with those Warmongers, Nato.

          Will that do it for you?

          Last time I looked, Scientists suggested the ECO time bomb is ticking loudly.

          I dont want more trade, I want less and more Eco trade. That ticking Eco bomb, it’s kinda important to me and my family.

          Hey, who knows, maybe the UN, the ICC could actually do its job against SpartUSA and EU, which would solve a lot of problems with the loudness of that ticking.

          • Republicofscotland

            “Wow, thats your argument. Being in the EU is better that being in with America.”

            No, I’m merely pointing out that in my opinion the US will have an even greater influence on Britain once we’re out of the EU. Trump’s no fan of the EU he recently dowgraded EU diplomats withput even informing the EU. America loathes certain EU bodies because they attempt to hold Israel to account.

            Alas Westminster will always be the USA’s bitch as you put it, the “Special” relationship and all that.

        • Jo Dominich a

          RoS you are oh so right. One of the reasons the EU pulled the negotiating plug on the TATT is that the USA were not in the least interest in a reciprocal agreement beneficial to both blocs but rather, as the EU neogitating team said, they were not willing to compromise on anything, were demanding that the EU Food Standards be scrapped to allow for the import to EU of chlorinated chicken, doctored beef and a host of other food related issues. Notwithstanding this, the major reason was because the USA were seeking to close millions and millions of jobs within the EU and moving them to the USA. The EU are not going to re-open the negotiations, a good thing as at least it protects jobs in the EU countries. May’s Government will bend over graciously and suffer severe anal damage in allowing the USA free reign to import what they would like here without any reciprocal agreement in place. After all, what is the loss of a million jobs in the UK to this Government? it doesn’t affect them or their cronies does it?

    • Jo1

      “smug and arrogant”

      I’m thinking kettles and pots, plus you’re also bloody offensive with your “Scottish ignorance” jibe.

      Your main argument on “the majority” falls at the first fence when the result itself was just about half and half. That makes the result anything but decisive. And that is highly problematic. For in a vote of this significance 52% to 48% doesn’t cut it.

      We are also now at a point where no one has a scooby what to do next. The electorate is divided, the cabinet is divided, the Commons is divided…all over a vote that wasn’t legally binding in the first place.

      Finally, if you used any sort of logic at all you’d perhaps have the guts to recognise why the wishes of devolved parts of the UK should have mattered. Why? Because that other “sub-region”, England, had the numbers to outvote everybody!

    • Jo

      And an EU also having a fighting so called russian disinformation set up…has virtually excluded Russia from PACE…a French foreign ministry that seems rogue…Merkel would not nor successor recognise Crimea as succeeded to Russia…costing their economy hundreds millions…..etc etc…does nothing but let ukraine get away with war crimes against humanity….etc etc…and Macron etc etc

    • Dungroanin

      In light of the IoS/II revelations DeeDee’s links with Salsibury were also covered by Mr Bell

      So because it seems Bercow double blinded them this week – the DS are all hands to the pump to keep the Plan A hard brexit ship from sinking, within sight of the statue of Liberty.

      The media muppets and populists have kicked off the undelayable GE campaign.

      The AS, brexiteer in disguise , putin loving trotsky nazi tropes are underway.

      They are really really desperate, the british voting public are smart enough to see that with help from Indy sites like CM’s and our sharing of truth with friends and families, the MSM is increasingly ineffective.

  • bj

    Interestingly, I cannot say that they are currently out of the control of the UK government;

    Ah, what superior style — the double negative, and the bracketing with the euphemism “Interestingly”.

  • .Peter

    My own view on Brexit is that the best deal for England and Wales would be EEA and customs union, essentially the Norway option

    Daydreaming does not negate reality.
    That is not an option at all, as Norway already has indicated that the UK will not be welcome to join the club.

    “But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of the Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party…

    Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option we have been telling you this for one and half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years – it is still part of the grown up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.””

    • MJ

      Norway is not a member of the EU so it would not be a party to any agreement between the UK and the EU, even if that agreement resembled that between Norway and the EU.

      • .Peter

        It is about the option that the UK would join the EFTA, which to my understanding is the Norwegian option.

        “The Norway model includes two key European organisations: The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, along with Lichtenstein and Iceland, is a member of both.
        EEA membership is only available to either EU or EFTA member states. So, under a Norway-style Brexit, Britain would leave the EU, join EFTA, and then become the 31st full member of the EEA.”
        This article clearly states that a Norway option would include a Membership in EFTA.
        “Lund speaks as She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.”
        I could not find any reaction that would oppose Lund’s views in this case, either in her assessment that the UK joining EFTA would be undesirable, nor government spokespeople countering her contention to reflect the official view of the Government.

        Brexit does not have include the option of a Norway plan nor a second referendum – that time siimply gas passed. Unicorns can be imagined, but have no basis in reality. It is either a hard Brexir, Mays plan as approved by the EU without any further changes – the EU has that option clearly ruled out – or NO Brexit at all.
        Everything else is just delusional thinking, which apparently is a hallmark of the present state of the population and its leaders in the UK.

    • Alex Westlake

      “But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement.”

      Other Norwegian MPs, even within her party, have taken a different view. She’s speaking for herself. As leader of Norway’s European Movement she would like to see Norway join the EU, so obviously she would not want to see EFTA strengthened by the addition of the UK

    • sc

      What’s it got to do with Norway though? Wouldn’t we be negotiating with the EU to get a position similar to what Norway has? Why would it be a problem for Norway if we did that? Does it have to be agreed with them as well?

      • Deb O'Nair

        Why do you keep asking the same question when it has been pointed out numerous times?

        “EEA membership is only available to either EU or EFTA member states.”

  • Loony

    Why is it so hard to comprehend that the EU is a neo-liberal entity that is dedicated to reducing the living standards and welfare of those within its borders. Some claim that EU institutions were designed to benefit France – well just take a look at France today.

    What kind of faux humanitarian would lend support to an institution intent on a return to serfdom. The masses of the British people are not racist, but are seeking to lift the yoke of oppression from their backs – and for their pains they are smeared at and ridiculed at every possible opportunity. If the British fail it will not be long before your your currently imagined and non existent horrors become all too real. If the government of Macron falls then it is a racing certainty that Le Pen will sweep to power – and yes by sheer stubborn and unwavering stupidity you will have breathed life into actual fascists.

    Despite the smears and the undiluted ignorance the mass of the British people will continue their wholly munificent quest to lift the iron heel of oppression from their throats and from your brains.

    For so many years so many people have been trying to communicate a message – and now despite the best efforts of the establishment the people have heard and understood the message. “Forces have been looting my humanity…hands of law have sorted through my identity. But now this sound is brave and it wants to be free – anyway to be free”

    For the more “sophisticated” of you try some Goethe “There are none so firmly enslaved as those who falsely believe themselves to be free.” And if you don’t want to see an uncontrolled resurgence of fascism across the European continent then heed to advice of Leonardo that “it is easier to resist at the beginning than at the end” and throw your full and undiluted support behind the mass of the British population.

    • Dungroanin

      Trying on a new sheepskin Loon?
      I can see your big teeth and eyes.
      Where is that hatchet..

        • Dungroanin

          Which bit ? The gaslighting of the EU? Or of the UK voters?
          ‘Lord knows we ain’r racists we just wants our fair share of the pie – instead of it ALL going to them thieving eurocrats – beggar my neighbour indeed.

          I’ll happily retract if i have missed the point.

    • Republicofscotland

      “Why is it so hard to comprehend that the EU is a neo-liberal entity that is dedicated to reducing the living standards and welfare of those within its borders.”

      Lets not forget the UN investigation into extreme poverty in the UK foisted on the poor and disabled by the British government.

      Nor the British Red Cross describing the NHS as a humanitarian crisis. Or the Windrush scandal, the Rape Clause policy etc.

      I should add that the EU 27 citizens vote in their governments, the EU did not vote in Macron, the French public did.

      I think you’ll find the British governments ideology is devoted to reducing the living standards of the poor and disabled. Give me the EU anyday over Westminster.

      • Enquirer

        “I should add that the EU 27 citizens vote in their governments, the EU did not vote in Macron, the French public did.”
        And that was not a ringing endorsement but for many, a vote to keep Le Pen out.

        • Republicofscotland

          Yes, the public of any nation can only vote for whoever is put in front of them. Macron, in my opinion was definitely the lesser of two evils.

          Clinton the warhawk, or Trump the egotist, May the prevaricator, or Corbyn the hesitant.

          Choices, choices.

      • Loony

        If you are in favor of the EU then why are you so obsessed with “extreme poverty in the UK” or with the British NHS or with Windrush (which is a purely British issue).

        Surely a good European would be equally interested in such issues throughout the EU.

        I note that as a “good European” your reference to”extreme poverty in the UK” is not compared to anything. Why not compare extreme poverty in the UK to extreme poverty in Bulgaria? According to the EU the risk for Bulgarian pensioners of “extreme poverty or social exclusion” ranked the highest in the EU. Why is that of no interest? In Bulgaria people with disabilities face a higher risk of social exclusion than in any other EU state.

        Why might this be? Well the EU also tells you that Bulgaria is one of the most aged countries in the world. This is obvious really when you consider that there are 2.5 million Bulgarians working outside of Bulgaria and only 2.2 million Bulgarians working in Bulgaria.

        How very humanitarian to totally undermine the social fabric of Bulgaria and then congratulate yourselves on you liberalism and compassion – always making sure of course to resolutely ignore anything connected to Bulgaria – a country you are desperate to be in a union with.

        If it is true that the British government is devoted to reducing the living standards of the poor and disabled then they are doing a pretty poor job in comparison to what has been inflicted on the poor and disabled in Bulgaria.

        • Republicofscotland

          “If you are in favor of the EU then why are you so obsessed with “extreme poverty in the UK” or with the British NHS or with Windrush (which is a purely British issue).”

          Duh! Because I live in the UK, and I see the effects of more than a decade of Tory ideology disguised as much needed austerity.

          If you also live in the UK, of which you boast is doing great by leaving the EU, then either you walk about with your eyes shut, or you want out the EU so much that no matter how much devastation Brexit causes you’ll be a happy chappie.

          What I do know is that the largest trading bloc in the world will still trade among themselves after we’re out, and the EU will continue to provide grants to its members for development as they’ve done in the past in the UK.

          Can you say the same of the Tories, on say farming grants after we leave?

          • Loony

            You seem confused.

            Do you live in Scotland, the UK or the EU?

            Pretty much all UK politicians despise their electorate. However in the UK they are content to ignore the people. When it comes to Bulgaria UK politicians appear totally genocidal. How can it be any other way when a majority of the working population are working outside of the country of their birth?

            If you like the EU then at least have the basic decency to explain what it is about about the EU that is so good that it justifies the total destruction of Bulgarian society and the Bulgarian economy.

          • Dave

            Duh, Its EU austerity! That’s why Labour shared the Conservative cover story of needing to balance the books! Books can be balanced over a long or short period depending on priorities. The short period was chosen to save the Euro, the long period provides the money tree.

            True Britain isn’t a member of Euro, but has been following a policy to keep within the joining rules when that becomes possible. Hence why, now there is no prospect of Britain joining any time soon, the Chancellor has suddenly announced the “end of austerity”!

            And hence why promoting Scotland independence as a way to escape “Tory austerity” is silly.

        • Jo

          Bulgaria a major arms supplier to syrian opposition forces too……hhhmmm…extensive report coupla days ago

          • Loony

            Yeah must be true.

            Try to remember that Bulgaria was the only country ever to voluntarily apply to join the USSR, What do you think happened to Bulgaria when the USSR collapsed? Why not avail yourself of the extraordinary freedoms afforded by the US Constitution? Check out how many times President Clinton visited Bulgaria and ask why?

            Ask these questions and then ask who in Bulgaria has benefited from arms sales. If you come to any answer other than a few individuals who have prostituted themselves to the US deep state then you are doing it oh so wrong.

            If you pass the first part of the test ask who is after the US deep state. Here is a clue, the walrus was Paul and the enemy of the US deep state is Trump.

            Finally ask who is enthralled by the US deep state? Your answer here would be the EU. Who is determined to destroy the EU? Answer British Brexit voters. If you don’t like them because they appear uncouth to you then you will have to make do with European Fascists. In due course you may work out that Fascists are a lot less pleasant than British people who spill beer down their shirts. Your free choice.

    • pete

      Yes, now that you mention it I remember that promise in the Treaty of Rome, where they said they were “an institution intent on a return to serfdom”. Thanks for highlighting it.

    • Jo Dominich a

      Loony, it is not the EU that is intent on returning their populations to serfdom – they have far more stable economies than we do here, they have far better health services and education services than we do here, they have better employment rights, better standards of living, better wages – I could go on. It is this bunch of public school boys and one Fascist Prime Minister who is intent on creating a proletariat this is poor, disempowered and held in contempt.

  • bj

    I wonder when it became ‘accepted’ in the UK for a head of the security services (or members of the armed forces) to publicly express opinion on matters of politics.

  • Republicofscotland

    “I trust the Scottish government is finally going to move decisively in that direction inside the next month.”

    I should hope so as well, watch out for the unionist ramping up the anti-independence rhetoric, aided and abetted by the media, the Treasury and undoubtedly MI5.

  • Jack

    Interview with Chris Williamson – MP, he discusses the new Integrity Initiative leaks revelations including the organisation infiltrating Bernie Sanders’ campaign, it’s efforts to influence the entertainment industry and it’s attacks on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party.

    Corbyn is attacked but dont care unfortunately, is he a goner on the russia-hysteria?

  • Muscleguy

    Everywhere needs spooks even if all they do is counter espionage. For eg after Indy we will need to keep a close eye on civil servants and and other functionaries for passing info to rUK and acting as agents for it.

    It would be frankly astonishing if rUK did not suborn or has not already lined up moles for post Indy and we have to be prepared to detect and act appropriately about them, by for eg feeding them false intel or turning them under dire threat of prosecution.

    I understand why it was repealed but we may regret repealing the law of sedition. I suppose since pretty much everyone at the start will have dual citizenship we can always deport them to rUK and strip them of Scottish citizenship in punishment.

    The question is will we have a formal MI6-like foreign espionage service? or will we just do it ad hoc via our diplomatic service?

    • Muscleguy

      I mean everyone assumes the diplomats include some spooks so it would seem a waste for all of ours to be straight diplomats.

      That doesn’t mean we ape MI6 in being an interventionist CIA mini-me, just that keeping a weather eye on others is just sensible. I don’t think we should indulge in industrial espionage though. We claim to have invented the modern world and are still doing pretty well so protecting our own stuff should suffice.

  • mog

    Craig, on May 25th 2017 your wrote in reference to the Manchester Arena bombing:
    ‘ For the record, I do not think it is remotely likely the British state was implicated in the attack. I knew a lot of senior people in the security services, and a few in special forces, and there is not a single one I suspect would do this kind of thing, or not actively seek to stop it if they came across it. I simply discount the idea.’

    Do you stand by this statement in light of (1) all that has come to light that connects the alleged attacker to the security services; (2) all that remains concealed or uninvestigated about the attack; and, (3) your opinion expressed here that ‘the security services are a danger to our state and society’ ?
    On (3), is it legitimate to ask just how much of a danger is the secret state?

    • Borncynical


      Interpretation of Craig’s statement also depends on what is meant by “the British state” and “implicated”. The Abedi family was one of many who were actively invited to live in this country by Cameron when May was Home Secretary. Our Govt knew full well that these people were anti-Gaddafi activists in Libya so invited them to the UK to prevent their being called to account in Libya for terrorist activities and facing punishment (i.e. for “humanitarian” reasons). There was the added bonus that the UK Government thought they could exploit the knowledge and mindset of such activists to carry out their bidding in Libya with a view to ousting Gaddafi. That was why the Abedis and others like them were given the freedom to travel to and from Libya at will and without hindrance at borders. I have also heard via someone I know who has closely followed the history of this that one of the conditions given by the UK Government to such activists was that in return they should guarantee that they would lie low in UK society and live as responsible (and grateful) citizens here; unfortunately I do not have a point of reference to support this contention. Nevertheless, by my interpretation of events the British state was very much implicated in the [Manchester] attack and they should at the very least be answerable to questions about the circumstances of the Abedis’ arrival in this country. But this all appears to have conveniently been swept under the carpet.

    • Borncynical

      A further thought on the issue of the UK Govt turning a blind eye to terrorists (my post of 12 January 10.51)… it strikes me that the apparent circumstances of Libyan terrorists being welcomed in the UK have alarming parallels with the recent integration of White Helmets into UK society, which has occurred with very little – if any – publicity. There was a UN meeting on the White Helmets on 20 December 2018 which, not surprisingly, received no coverage that I have seen in the MSM. I attach a link and it is well worth the 1 hour and 20 minutes of watching time. For anyone with only 6 minutes to spare who would like to see remarks made about the 400 or so White Helmets brought to ‘the West’ I would recommend viewing the segment between 1 hour 7 minutes and 1 hour 13 minutes.

    • Borncynical

      Let me try again with the link in my post at 11.58.

    • Borncynical

      Sorry to keep taking up web space with my failed attempts to get a link to UN discussions on the White Helmets. Anyone interested can either ‘search’ using the info in my post at 12.09, or simply search for “UN White Helmet discussions 20 December 2018”.

  • wardropper

    “…and this is the logical time for Scotland to move to Independence, with the assurance of strong international support. I trust the Scottish government is finally going to move decisively in that direction inside the next month.”

    We should just have in mind that EVERYTHING will be done to prevent that from happening.
    After all, when I reflected on the referendum a few years ago, I could see very clearly that our Monarchy, the Establishment in general and all those who blindly serve them both, simply could not conceive of a scenario where Scotland would be “lost to them”, since the land is considered by them to be a mere appendage to England. And when people like that cannot conceive of a given scenario, they certainly have ways and means of obliterating it.

  • Mist001

    My thoughts are that the current SNP leadership don’t really want independence, that’s why Nicola is continually pushing for a second (peoples!) vote on Brexit. She knows that remaining in the EU means remaining a part of the UK because an independent Scotland would be out of the EU so she can’t really argue to remain in the EU and then take Scotland out of the EU.

    So that was that, but then I was doing even more thinking and came up with what I currently think is a more realistic angle, which is:

    As it stands, she and Scotland are not allowed to hold a second referendum because the Edinburgh agreement doesn’t allow for it. Neither can she drag Scotland into independence by any other method since as she’s not shy of telling people, she’s acting in the best interests of the Scottish people. Since the Scottish people voted 55-45% in favour of remaining a part of the UK, then she can’t be seen as acting against the interests of the Scottish people.

    So we see Nicola pushing for a second Brexit vote in the unbelievably naive assumption that if a second vote is held, she can then go to the PM and claim that since a precedent for a second vote has been set, then the same should apply with a second vote on Scottish Independence. Though it pains me to say it, I honestly believe this is what Nicolas’ strategy is. Of course, the PM will rebuke this and we’re back to square one but without any leverage whatsoever.

    Which brings me to Alex Salmond. I truly believe that he’s been seriously stitched up over these sexual allegations, but I don’t believe it’s dirty tricks by the state. My belief is that the allegations have been engineered from within the higher echelons of the SNP itself. Alex Salmond used to be leader of the SNP and then suddenly without any explanation that I can find, he abruptly resigned the position around about the early 1990s. He was fairly quiet until he came back and regained the leadership of the SNP where in my view, he showed himself to be the greatest politician and leader that Scotland has ever seen and took us the closest to independence that we’ve ever been.

    Unfortunately after the defeat, he resigned once more and handed over to Nicola Sturgeon who is nowhere near the leader that Salmond was /is. I think it suits the purposes of the SNP better to have Nicola as leader and so to prevent a third comeback by Salmond, these allegations were invented solely to prevent him from doing that.

    So after all that (phew!), those are my current beliefs, although I’m quite willing to accept that I’m barking up the wrong tree.

    All told, I doubt very much that we’re going to have Scottish independence so long as Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Mundell are running the show.

    • Mist001

      ** I did of course mean Peter Murrell, NOT David Mundell**, although it seems to be an easy mistake to confuse the two since neither of them want Scottish Independence.

      • steviemac

        Supporting a ‘people’s vote’ sets a very dangerous precedent for overturning a close referendum result if it doesn’t go the correct way. If a future Scotland votes for independence in a close run referendum the template is there to subsequently overturn it using the current remain strategy.

  • freddy

    The notion of nationalism is antithetical to the vision the EU project has laid out for itself; this includes Scottish nationalism. There will never be a truly independent Scotland on joining, regardless of the corruption, greed and venality of her current “occupier”. She will never have her own evil SIS, there will be an evil EU-wide version.

    What do we know about power? Do we think its corruption extends only to the anglosphere?

    We all noticed Merkel and Macron pushing for a club of sovereign nations…no wait, they abhor nationalism. Ever closer union…nationalism is treason

    Ask yourself, why does this blog never go further than sticking it to the UK? Why are there no profound thoughts on how Scotland would prosper – and retain its identity – outside of UK, and in union with the EU?

    I saw some FB links to Yellow Jacket protests in Scotland, so I think it has reached you. The EU is a globalist beast. Soros has a long reach.

    • Baalbek

      You are drinking far-right Kool Aid. Soros is certainly a greedy and amoral capitalist who advances his class’ interests at the expense of low and middle income earners. Claiming, however, that he is a super man who controls the EU makes you a useful idiot for fascists and their agenda.

  • karlof1

    The so-called security services of the UK and USA are tasked to support Empire, which is the antithesis of Justice and Freedom. As the current exposure of the Integrity Initiative portrays, they are also treasonous organizations and utterly inimical to democracy. Even if they served a useful purpose, their negatives so greatly outweigh any positive benefit. The logical result is to eliminate them in their current form.

  • Jo1

    “I trust the Scottish government is finally going to move in that direction inside the next month.”

    Good luck with that Craig because, right now, I doubt the SNP is in a position to make a decision on anything.

      • Jo1

        How so, RoS?
        Have you been in hiding this week?
        Nicola could not look more incompetent if she tried. This Salmond case has seriously damaged her and created division in the SNP.
        And from what I saw on Thursday at FMQs the opposition Parties have plans for her. I think she’s going to be busy.

        • Republicofscotland

          I think you’ll find the opposition parties Greens aside, always have plans for her as they take their orders from Westminster.

          Indyref2 will go ahead.

          • Jo1

            Oh I know that RoS but by anyone’s standards this has been a truly awful week for Sturgeon and, by association, her Party. Her performance at FMQs was utterly lamentable. To see both Carlaw and Leonard get the better of her was cringe-worthy.

            But, even before that, she had publicly backed Evans AFTER a judge had damned her investigation. She apologised to the two accusers and ignored the accused…Salmond. You know, the guy who’d been the subject of Evans’ dodgy investigation? Not a word to him. She even failed to acknowledge the words used by the judge to describe the investigation…words like unfair, unlawful and tainted with bias. Strong words indeed! But Sturgeon watered it all down to nothing. And, incredibly, she backed Evans.

            She also allowed Carlaw to practically cross-examine her at FMQs. Leonard joined in and by the end of it she was virtually agreeing to a Parliamentary Inquiry into herself! And still not a word of criticism of Evans. Why so keen to protect Evans?

            I’m not a member of the SNP, RoS. I have a number of friends who are and, frankly, they are livid with Sturgeon. They don’t get why she has backed a Permanent Secretary who, we know for sure, ran a dodgy investigation against Salmond. They’re seeing a Scottish media that doesn’t care about the truth because journalists are wetting themselves that Salmond’s in trouble and Sturgeon is now too. They know the agenda is to thwart the SNP and to kill off independence. They also know that only a minority of folk will look for the facts while most will swallow the drivel fed to them by the media. And they think, after this week’s events, Nicola Sturgeon has enabled the media and the opposition Parties to make sure this thing runs and runs! That’s why I question Craig’s timeline of inside a month for an Indyref2 announcement. I think Sturgeon has screwed up so badly that SNP members and voters trust her about as far as they could throw her after this week.

  • Sharp Ears

    Not forgetting Dr David Kelly, found deceased in July 2003 on Harrowdown Hill. One of those killed by Blair.

    Experts call for David Kelly inquest
    Official cause of David Kelly’s death is ‘extremely unlikely’, say group of legal and medical experts

    Grieve, as Attorney General, turned down the request for an inquest and in 2011, Judge Nicol refused to grant a judicial review of that decision. The lawyers did well out of it of course.

  • James

    “My own view on Brexit is that the best deal for England and Wales would be EEA and customs union…”

    This has been my believe for some years, much reinforced by what happened not so long ago in Barcelona.

    But it seems fiendishly difficult to achieve thanks to all the silly political games being played in Westminster.

    Championing this should have been Corbyn’s moment, but he seems to have become so obsessed by ending freedom of movement – for the average person the best thing about EU membership – that he has tied himself into a Gordian Knot.

    A totally unforced own goal – and very sad.

    • TonyF12

      Evening Standard reporting this evening that EU exit is likely to be delayed.
      No mention of the status of June 2019 elections if the UK extends Article 50. If UK is still in the EU we must have elections.

      • remember kronstadt

        My guess is that time has run out and that the PTB have made an assessment already and decided whether to better fight the imminent election with or without Jeremy Corbyn. Given that time is so pressing the transition is likely to be clunky. However, control of power is so essential for the tories as the winner will hold the keys to both the EU arrangements and what follows. Can’t see the tories asking for a postponement as it’s a sign of weakness or keeping may, but they will certainly throw everything into what will be a largely invisible campaign, scandal aside.

      • David

        European Parliamentary Elections are mandated at sometime between May 23rd to May 26th 2019, according to the Council. The then elected deputies will drop from the current 751 to 705 if UK is not a member of the EU.
        All EU members will count the vote simultaneously starting at 11:00pm CET on Sunday May 26th, for transparency. This will be the 9th legislative EP assembly, Mr Dearlove is welcome to cast precisely one vote, should we still be in the EU, (but that latter point is entirely a question for the British elected government and their electors)

  • Bert van Baar

    You state: I cannot say that they are currently out of the control of the UK government; the evidence is rather they are willing to engage in every dirty and dishonest trick at the behest of corrupt politicians like Blair.
    Whatmade me think of every war previous to the last ones: were they started from the same rigged games as thes last ones? Was WW1 really a ‘game of chess’ between two members of the same Victorian family, their grandma and her nephew “der Kaiser”? Was the killing of the Austrain crownprince in Serajewo really an act of terror from a man from the people? Or was it a false flag operation to start that game of chess?
    Was WW2 really something against Hitler or was he just a tool for the UK/US to break the Sovjets? Why else did they help him to power and why else did they help him with technological aid for his trucks, airplanes, fuels and whatever you need for a big war?
    The words ‘False Flag’ is from the times of sail so there are numerous examples since then and even earlier.
    Nothing new under the sky, is there?
    Regards from Holland

  • John Goss

    “Scotland demonstrably has a strong and strengthening pro-EU majority and this is the logical time for Scotland to move to Independence, with the assurance of strong international support.”

    Fair enough. I am not Scottish and I think that Scots have the collective right to determine their own future. However you seem to want a say in Brexit for England even though you will not be here living in the economic mess that any Brexit deal or no deal would create. Then you would probably rightly (together with the Irish) be able to say how much better it is to be part of the EU. But that is not fair on the almost 50% of voters who voted remain. What was wrong with the referendum is that it did not have a sufficient majority for the poorly-informed electorate to make a rational decision. It was just left to the xenophobes to push their bigoted agenda which seems to have worked. However now if there was a referendum the result would almost certainly be different. All that nonsense about abiding by the majority decision is what has got us into this mess. The terms of the referendum ought to have included a proviso that at least 60% should be in favour of leaving. If it had been a parliamentary election parliament would have been hung.

    If I wanted to live in Norway that’s where I would go. While the EU has many faults, is top-heavy with bureaucracy, and benefits rich members over poor it has kept member states free from warring with one another, and for net-importers of food, like the UK it is an asset. I do not want to live in any kind of brexit society. Negotiations have been the biggest mess imaginable. Some of us in England do not want you Scots telling us what’s good for us, when what you think is good for Scots is something entirely different. Rant over!

      • Tom Welsh

        Good question! I have stated that I have Scottish blood going back several generations, but all that got me was a stern rebuke for being (I suppose) racist. I was informed by another commenter on this blog that living in Scotland is the only qualification.

        So although my parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. were all Scots, I am not as long as I live in England. A one-hour flight and, Shazam! I shall be Scots again. As is anyone from Japan, Tanzania or Chile who arrives in Scotland.

        • Tom Welsh

          So, to answer the implied question, all John Goss need do if he wants to become Scots is to got to Scotland and buy or rent accommodation. Or, if he is flush enough, live in a hotel.

          What that would do to his English nationality is quite beyond my powers of divination.

          Incidentally, I have dual British and Argentine nationality as I was born in the latter country. But apparently my Argentine citizenship must have lapsed since I left there in 1957 and have never returned.

          I’m not quite sure what happened during my many visits to the USA, Portugal, Tunisia, etc. When I flew to Wisconsin for Christmas, did I become a US citizen while there? Not according to Uncle Sam, that’s for sure.

    • fonso

      “It was just left to the xenophobes to push their bigoted agenda”
      I think you’re misremembering there John. The case for the EU was presented day in day out from every angle by virtually the entire political class, as well as by big business and celebrities, for months on end. All the remain arguments were aired over and over again on the news.

      • John Goss

        “I think you’re misremembering there John.”

        One of us is Fonso! MSM has been pushing the same scaremongering ever since May refused to have a parliamentary vote which she would have lost then and will lose next week. Suddenly, and this must have been evident to everybody, people in boats were making a mass exodus from France from horrible countries like Iran (perception of many though not me). We could not get this off our screens over Christmas just to drive home the hatred towards people of foreign skin and culture. It is no longer subtle.

        • Tom Welsh

          John, I voted to Leave and I would always do so in future. It has absolutely nothing to do with immigration or xenophobia. Europe is a marvellous place, and its various countries have great cultures and much to be proud of and enjoy.

          It’s the EU itself that I object to. When we first agreed to stay in the ***Common Market*** (note: exclusively an economic arrangement), I liked the idea of some kind of European union (as did Churchill).

          The devil is in the details (and in the fact that no European nation has anything like the same political and legal traditions that Britain does). The EU bureaucracy is thoroughly undemocratic, and is led by people who have no respect for democracy. It is also arrogant, dishonest and extremely dangerous. The US federal government is bad enough, but the EU is even worse. We have to escape while we still can.

    • Tony

      Ok John, let’s have another referendum.With a proviso that a 60% majority is needed to change the country’s direction and reverse brexit.

  • David Grogan

    Craig: you seem to be more concerned about Scottish independence than the rightness of things, although you are, without doubt, an honest and upright man. Would you not consider that any nation state attachment to a potentially totalitarian organisation as the EU (or potentially so) is not also a great danger for the freedom loving Scots? To exchange the yolk of England for that of an EU dictatorship appears contradictory. I admire your work and envy your experience. The potential for good of Scottish independence is admirable but it appears to be a mixed blessing in a Eurostrictive context,

    Best Wishes in your work

    David Grogan

    • Monteverdi

      Thanks for raising that. I agree wholeheartedly. This apparent contradiction in Craig’s beliefs always confuse me. His other observations on so many other subjects are always so well thought out and always on the ball.

    • Muscleguy

      The amount of Sovereignty we have to SHARE with the EU is orders of magnitude less than the sovereignty we have to CEDE to Westminster. I will give you a pass on not realising this if your information is the UK MSM since it is rarely examined and noted but it is nevertheless true.

      We have NO influence on Reserved powers at Westminster, our MPs even in the unlikely event of all Scots MPs voting as a block can always we outvoted on those and as we have seen with the Brexit power grab even devolved powers can be clawed back without so much as a by your leave and in the face of much protest and complaint.

      Independence in Europe will result in a huge gain in powers for Holyrood and come with a seat at the top table in Europe, Commissioners, a vote and veto at ministerial meetings etc. etc. etc. Fishing in the UK is overwhelmingly a Scottish activity but when WM sends fisheries negotiators none of them are Scottish. Last round Holyrood asked to send someone even as observer but were rebuffed. An English peer with no history of the industry went instead. Post Indy we will send a Scot to negotiate Scottish interests.

      The EU gave the UK govt £200m expressly for Scottish farmers. WM gave that money to English farmers instead and they have recently confirmed that money has gone and those Scottish farmers will have to lump it. I suppose you think that sort of thing is just fine and dandy?

        • Merkin Scot

          “There is no “share” about it. European law overrides national law.”

      • Wikikettle

        I would sail to Scotland if it left NATO, had its own currency, removed WMD and Nuclear power. My other option is Ireland. I cant see the EU surviving. As to the Security services, they have failed. They have actually been instrumental in making us a backward, declining, war mongering state. I cant see how good people like Jeremy should sacrifice themselves for an indifferent population. We have inflicted death and destruction to so many weak countries. I am not proud to be British. I try and have a revolution in my own personal life and how I live. Those who claim to be patriotic have been the most un patriotic. The world is changing. Previously governments went to war to prevent revolution at home. No doubt we will follow the US into a hot war with Russia and China. Discuss….

  • Dave

    Many look for evidence that’s there to prove something, but a good detective also looks for the evidence that isn’t there, known as the “negative fact”, otherwise known in the Sherlock Holmes novel “Silver Blazes” as the “dog that didn’t bark”. Sherlock observed because the guard dog never barked, meant the dog knew the thief, the trainer!

    Anyone who made this elementary, but counter intuitive observation, knew Iraq had no WMDs, because none were identified. If you say they have them but can’t find any, is evidence they don’t have any! Instead the war-mongers relied on the audacious formulation “we know they had them and must still have them, because we can’t find them” and yet claimed the danger was so severe, the search to find them had to be abandoned!!!

    • Tom Welsh

      No one ever seriously believed Iraq had WMDs. Washington already had detailed plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11. For two main reasons: to harm and restrain Iran, and to get control of natural resources.

      It became glaringly obvious that even Dubya thought the whole thing very funny indeed – and, disgracefully, the White House press corps agreed with him and laughed loudly.

      A couple of million dead Iraqis and their families did not join in the merriment.

  • Geoffrey

    We were told over and over again that our security would be imperilled if we left the EU, now apparently we need a “No deal ” Brexit to make us safe.
    They can not both be true can they ?

    • SA

      The whole security thing is a red herring. We are not leaving NATO anytime soon whether we remain or leave and the special relationship will always be there.

  • John Goss

    As to Richard Dearlove and the spooks it cannot be plainer that since a certain orchestrated event that shall remain nameless there has been incessant war in the Middle East and human rights have all but been abolished. Habeas corpus has virtually gone and new iron-laws have been imposed whereby UK citizens can be sent by our Prime Minister to linger 23 (sometimes 24) hours a day in a US maximum security prison. Fake news is MSM news. Legal-aid is almost non-existent for poor people while the super-rich get even richer and rarely face justice.

    I tried to leave a comment on the last thread which when I went to post it came up with a message “This page isn’t working”. I refreshed it several times, restarted the modem, and still no joy. I took the risk of going back with the back arrow. Fortunately it was not lost but something strange had happened to it which I will keep to myself for now.

    • Tony

      Ah yes, that wonderful EU democracy, where we don’t get to vote for parties with policies/manifestos which will actually become the government of the EU. But we do get to vote for minions who will go off to the EU parliament to rubber stamp the decisions made by leaders who never put their policies before an electorate. Absolutely splendid. If you’re anti-democracy.

      • Republicofscotland

        Oh I see so the House of Lords, the second largest political body in the world behind China’s, which isn’t elected, and is stuffed full of party cronies, failed politicians and self entitled clergy, is of course not elected by the citizens of Britain.

        I’m also under the impression that the European parliament is elected by the citizens of Europe.

        • Dave

          The House of Lords has mushroomed during Britain’s membership of the EU. All the problems facing Britain have grown during membership of EU. Its Brexit that delivers the opportunity to reform Britain, because the revolt against Brussels is also a revolt against Westminster and all it takes is voting reform to achieve.

          • Mighty Drunken

            Just because we are members of the EU doesn’t mean all problems during that time are due to the EU. Most of the UK’s failings are due to the UK parliament. Getting out of the EU only makes Westminster more powerful.

          • Dave

            @ Mighty Drunken

            I agree Westminster are responsible, but my point is membership of EU is central to Westminster so attacking the EU is a way of attacking the Westminster establishment. Its the reverse of the SNP policy of attacking Westminster by supporting the EU.

            And the difference is due to different aims. Whereas the devolutionist SNP want to replace Westminster rule with Brussels rule, I would like to replace Westminster and Brussels rule with an independent and decentralised Britain and Ireland Union.

        • Tony

          The House of Lords is subjugate to the House of Commons. It is basically an advisory of elders to the Lower House. The European Parliament is a rubber stamp for it’s parent Commission’s decisions. We don’t elect a European government when we vote for Euro MPs, we don’t even vote on policy. And we certainly don’t get to vote the leadership out if we don’t like it’s policies. The EU is a non-democracy masquerading as one. You can argue about issues with UK democracy, and I expect I would agree with you on many points. But the EU is infinitely worse.

        • Tom Welsh

          Were you at all aware that the European “parliament” does not even have the power to propose legislation? Some time ago I compared the EU constitution with that of ancient Sparta, and found that Sparta’s would slightly more liberal and democratic.

          The US political setup is one of the best efforts ever to run a nation into a wholly undemocratic way while pretending it is democratic. But, with the benefit of an extra 200 years of experience, the EU has surpassed it.

      • FranzB

        Tony – “…decisions made by leaders who never put their policies before an electorate. ”

        Does this mean that UK governments are going to put their decisions before the UK electorate? Corporal Clegg told us in 2010 that he was going to get rid of Blair’s £3,000 tuition fees, instead of which he and Cameron dumped fees of £9,000 onto students.

        The EU parliament, which is elected on proportional representation, is more legitimate than the UK parliament, which is elected on FPTP. In the 2014 EU elections UKIP got representation in line with the votes they got. In the 2015 UK election, UKIP got 3.8 million votes and got one seat (the renegade Tory Carswell). I think the SNP got about 1.5 million votes and got 56 seats. The Greens got 1.1 million votes and no seats.

        • Tony

          And Corporal Clegg got his just dessert in the following General Election. A fate the EU leadership can never suffer.

        • Tony

          So, tell me Franz, is the EU parliament made up of political parties with leaders who will form the EU government should their party get a majority/ be able to form a coalition? What exactly are we voting for in EP elections? In the UK, people always voted (in absurdely low turnouts) along UK party political lines. Until UKIP came along. As we know, they changed the voting pattern: campaigning on European issues. Specifically, getting us out of the EU.

          • FranzB

            Tony – The EU government is essentially the EU council, which is made up of elected leaders from the member countries – as was seen on acceptance of the UK withdrawal agreement negotiated between Barnier from the commission (i.e. the EU civil service) and Olly Robbins from the UK civil service acting on behalf of May.

            The EU parliament will be required to validate the agreement, just as the UK parliament is required to ratify the May agreement. The EU parliament can amend legislation which then goes back to the council for acceptance / rejection.

            What are we voting for? MEPs vote on legislation and various other measures. e.g. when the EU wanted to sanction Hungary because of their anti-democratic policies, Tory MEPs voted against those sanctions, and for the anti-semite Orban:-

            “… a European parliament report on Hungary listed concerns about the erosion of judicial independence, decline of press freedom, growing corruption, increasing xenophobic attacks on migrants, including asylum seekers. It also accused Orbán of attacks on the billionaire philanthropist George Soros that included “clearly antisemitic stereotypes”.”


          • Tony

            But the EP never ever votes down Council policy, so it is not even a check/balance. And it has no say in the forming/composition of the EU government. So all we get to vote for is a big fat talking shop. We get no say whatsoever in which EU leaders/government we get. Thank you for confirming that the EU is a non-democracy Franz.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.