The Queen’s Active Role in the Right Wing Coup 1159

Our obsequious media is actively perpetuating the myth that the monarch can do no wrong, and is apolitical. In fact the monarchy has been active and absolutely central to the seizure of power from the Westminster parliament in a right wing coup. Yesterday’s collaboration at Balmoral between the Queen and Jacob Rees Mogg is only the latest phase.

The monarch appoints the UK Prime Minister. The convention is that this must be the person who can command the support of the majority in the House of Commons. That does not necessarily have to be from a single party, it can be via a coalition or pact with other parties, but the essential point, established since Hanoverian times, is that the individual must have a majority in the Commons.

The very appointment of Boris Johnson by Elizabeth Saxe Coburg Gotha was a constitutional outrage. Johnson may have been selected by Conservative Party members, but that is not the qualification to be PM. Johnson very plainly did not command a majority in the House of Commons, proven by the fact that still at no stage has he demonstrated that he does. I do not write merely with hindsight.

Johnson’s flagship policy was always No Deal Brexit. Contrary to the monarchist propaganda spewed out across the entire MSM, not only is it untrue that the Queen had “no constitutional choice” but to appoint Johnson, the Queen had a clear constitutional duty not to appoint a Prime Minister whose flagship policy had already been specifically voted down time and again by the House of Commons.

The Queen has now doubled down on this original outrage by proroguing the Westminster parliament in conspiracy with old Etonians Rees Mogg and Johnson, specifically so that the House of Commons cannot vote down Johnson.

The monarchy will always be an extremely useful institution in promoting the political aims of the upper classes, not least because of the ludicrous media promulgation of its infallibility. When you have former Prime Minister John Major, senior Tories like Philip Hammond and Michael Heseltine, and the Speaker of the House of Commons himself all talking of “consitutional outrage”, it is plainly preposterous to insist that the monarchy cannot, by definition, have done anything wrong.

The Queen has appointed a Prime Minister who does not have the support of the House of Commons and then has conspired to prevent the House of Commons from obstructing her Prime Minister. That is not the action of a politically neutral monarchy. The institution should have been abolished decades ago. I do hope that all those who recognise the constitutional outrage, will acknowledge the role of the monarchy and that the institution needs to be swiftly abolished.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations


1,159 thoughts on “The Queen’s Active Role in the Right Wing Coup

1 2 3 4 5 7
  • Robert Firth

    Thank you, Craig Murray. You have given us another reason for dumping the filthy, ungrateful bloodsucking parasite called Scotland.

    As for your comments about Her Majesty, kindly recall it was your vile pederast James VI who initiated the Union of Crowns, and the dynasty that plunged us into three civil wars in 150 years. Your hands are stained to the elbows in English blood.

      • Tom Welsh

        “What do you call Prince Andrew?”

        Nothing (except HRH or “sir”) until actual evidence is cited and proven.

        • N_

          What do you call Fred West? Bear in mind that he died before any case against him could be proven in court.

        • donna mckenzie

          oh, they got video of his arse going up and down, up and down….somewhere in US of A! Florida and beyond! Why fun he had!

        • Maxstein

          “What do you call Prince Andrew?”

          Nothing (except HRH or “sir”) until actual evidence is cited and proven.

          What do you call Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG, Tom? (Strange he still holds these titles. Paperwork no doubt…)

          Is ‘prince’ Charles pedophile friend and former lodger (is this a pun?) Peter Ball still a bishop?

          On another note, what sort of upbringing does one have to have experienced to accept an ideology where their own children’s lives are deemed to be worth less than another persons at birth? Are ‘royalists’ really fit to be parents? I always found this willingness to be subservient odd; to be willing to sacrifice their own children’s lives before some strangers. Particularly when the other family seem to be a bunch of Jimmy Saviles.

          One wonders what sort of home movies the Gotha clan have of the Eton crews day trips up to the castle?

        • OnlyHalfALooney

          Only untouchable in the UK. I wonder if Andrew Windsor is flying around the world willy nilly as he used to…

    • Terry callachan

      Just the elbows ?
      The bloodsucking parasite is England , always has been , English independence will shrink England to its rightful status a speck on this planet so poisonous it has enforced great sufferance to many millions across the world.
      It’s no longer possible for England to fool so many people ,the internet put a stop to that.
      England had best prepare for hard times.

      • J Galt

        As (I hope) a fair minded Scot I would remind you that for most working class English the times have usually been hard – read your Dickens.

        Here’s to an Independent England with her Parliament in somewhere like York for instance – serving the interests of all her people and not just a few.

      • John2o2o

        I think he was Elizabeth’s heir anyway Tom.

        “The Treaty of Perpetual Peace was signed by James IV of Scotland and Henry VII of England in 1502. It agreed to end the intermittent warfare between Scotland and England which had been waged over the previous two hundred years and although it failed in this respect, as the hostility continued intermittently throughout the 16th century, it led to the Union of the Crowns 101 years later.” (wikipedia)

        Scotland’s King James IV was then married to Elizabeth’s aunt, Henry’s daughter Margaret Tudor as part of the peace treaty.

        Henry had also anticipated that it might lead to the union of the crowns.

      • Tony

        I am not at all sure that this is true. I do not think that she named a successor at all.
        I think it was the people who surrounded her who went for James.

    • Hamish Kirk

      Mr Firth might care toi reflect on the mentor of Charles Windsor. I refer of course to Louis Mountbatten.

        • Willie

          Mountbatten, like Andy was pretty prolific with the use of his boaby – and especially so it seems with young men.

          A generation on the Andy boy continues the family theme with over a thousand lovers some of whom it seems were young girls.

          Another generation on and another royal Prince Harry is caught on camera naked in a hotel room in Florida with a bevy of girls.

          The behaviour of this family of hereditary elites is clear for all to see once it is exposed.

          Now here’s the question – is the Queen the same?

          Her sister Margaret liked younger men and a bevy or two in Carribbean islands.
          So, what of our Queenie or is she lily-white long to reign over us.

          • Vivian O'Blivion

            Bit off to attribute Harry’s behaviour to a hereditary causation. Harry is a ginger and clearly of Spenser / Hewitt decent.

    • Jeremiah

      Racist people the English, poisonous for tge rest of the home nations, leaders in racism in fact. Robert here epitomises.

      • Loony

        Yeah Jeremiah you are so right on. A few poisonous smears against a whole race of people (the English). Now go right ahead and make the same poisonous smears against say Kenyans. See how that works out for you. Not so well is the answer, which is you have nothing to say about Kenyans and just sit back and lap up the plaudits from your virtue signalling fan base of of bigots and idiots.

        • .giyane



          Will you be virtual signalling tomorrow in Downing Street to the head ape with the banana wig that you don’t approve of his broguing parliament at this time?

        • Jeremiah

          Loony there are characteristics which just have to be owned. The people of the land that invented “Johnny Foreigner” and enslaved West Africa and imprisoned Kenyans in concentration … considerable achievements, Plenty of bigots among the Brexiteers too. Predominantly English the Brexiteers I have noticed.

    • pete

      Re “filthy, ungrateful bloodsucking parasite”

      The only part of Freudian analysis that ever seemed to me to hold much validity was the idea that criticism of the other was frequently not about the other but about oneself, a desire to see in others faults unconsciously harboured in oneself or that criticism of the other was just self disclosure. So when I read the phrase “the filthy, ungrateful bloodsucking parasite called Scotland” I see an Englishman talking about his nation, and I wonder if the author of the remark has any knowledge of the history of England.

      I believe Craig is rightly outraged by Bozza’s attempt to outmanoeuvre the normal parliamentary process as a way to shoehorn the Brexit process into some sort of closure. This dilemma was forced onto us because of a confusion about the meaning of the word democracy. We do not have and have never had a participatory democracy, it is a representative democracy and whatever the mass of the people may want may not be the best idea. Of course we do not have the best political system in the world, that does not exist, however succumbing to the ill-informed opinion of the masses is not the answer, particularly when led by a career politician whose best knowledge of the world is based on Greek Myth.

      Due to a change in my e-mail address my avatar has changed, I can do nothing about this.

    • John2o2o

      Actually Robert, the union of the crowns was the indirect result of the “Treaty of Perpetual Peace” made in 1502 between James IV of Scotland and Henry VII of England and in which Henry’s daughter Margaret Tudor was married to James IV of Scotland.

      James VI of Scotland was their great grandson and the heir to the English crown after Elizabeth’s death.

  • Mary Pau!

    What determines someone’s nationality? Their country of birth? Their father’s country of birth? Their mother’s Their grandparents? Maybe it is their surname? I am personally a republican. But we are very shaky ground in insisting the Queen is German. Her mother was Scottish and grew up in Scotland. Her father stayed with his family in London during WW2 and gave no indication that he thought himself to be anything other than British and a Londoner.

    I am a keen amateur genealogist and am probably unusual in being able to trace all my ancestors as English back to the 16th century, except for one great great grandmother (anglo-swiss.) But my generation and our children are much more mixed. My sister in law is a proud Scot. My husband of Scottish-Huguenot descent. My brother in law is German-Belgian . My grandchildren have dual British- American nationality. Like most Remain supporters they are citizens of anywhere, not somewhere, as the saying goes. That probably includes most posters here.

    By all means press for an independent Scottish republic in the EU. You have my full support. But misplaced rants about the Queen’s original surname and ancestors and how she exercises her role as head of state of the UK, are not I suggest, the best way to advance your cause.

    • Terry callachan

      What determines someone’s nationality you ask, well the laws of the land do it’s as simple as that.
      Each country has its own interpretation but the queens mother was certainly not Scottish ,she was born in hitchin England and even though she lived a while in Scotland that doesn’t make her Scottish , she was English because she was born in England to English parents .
      One more thing dual nationality hides true nationality which in times of war comes to the fore as many people around the world have discovered so forego the misplaced rants about how Scotland chooses its future and who should have a say.
      Amateur genealogists should know there is no such reality as having citizenship of “anywhere “,go do your homework or correct your nonsensical post.

      • John2o2o

        While you are correct Terry, I’m not sure you can really deny that the Queen mother is without Scottish connections as her father was a Scottish peer. The 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Of course it may suit some to try to argue that the Queen has no sort of Scottish connection.

        The question of whether birthplace defines nationality is an interesting one. Both Boris Johnson and Eamonn de Valera were born in New York City, as was Winston Churchill’s mother. The Duke of Wellington was a Irishman.

        • Kempe

          Duke of Wellington born in Ireland into the (protestant) English aristocracy that ruled the country at the time. As he said himself being born in a stable does not automatically make one a horse (or something like that). I doubt the Irish population at the time would’ve been in any hurry to recognise him as one of their own.

          • Tom Welsh

            Some inconsistency here maybe, Kempe? I have repeatedly been told that, although my parents and ancestors were all pure Scots as far back as I can trace them, I am not Scots because I happen to live in England. Whereas a Polish immigrant who has lived in Glasgow for a few months is Scots.

            Why would that principle not apply to the Iron Duke? Or indeed any “English” aristocrats who choose to make their main residence some Scottish castle?

        • kathy

          Reply ↓
          August 29, 2019 at 20:55

          While you are correct Terry, I’m not sure you can really deny that the Queen mother is without Scottish connections as her father was a Scottish peer. The 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Of course it may suit some to try to argue that the Queen has no sort of Scottish connection.

          “While you are correct Terry, I’m not sure you can really deny that the Queen mother is without Scottish connections as her father was a Scottish peer.”

          I doubt there was any validity in Scottish aristocratic titles since they were conferred by the English.

        • John A

          Apropos the Duke of Wellington being Irish, on account of being born there, he famously replied, if I were born in a stable, would that make me a horse?

      • Iain Stewart

        “she was English because she was born in England”
        Well Jesus was born in a stable but he wasn’t a horse, as the saying goes.

        • Loony

          There are millions of people who were not born in England but who live in England and are therefore English. Why would you possibly bring up the physical location of someones place of birth if not to make some form of despicable racist point?

          • Deb O'Nair

            And conversely I was born in England but I do not identify as English, at a push I acknowledge that I’m British (cos that’s the passport I have) but even then I like to caveat it with my Italian-Jewish descent, Oy Vey Maria being a family favourite song.

          • Tom Welsh

            Loony, your comment seems to propose a remarkable principle: that anyone belongs exclusively to the nation where he or she resides at a given time. That has several unfortunate drawbacks.

            1. What about people who move from one country to another, taking their main residence with them each time? Are we to see them as English this year, Irish the next, then Polish, then Indonesian, and so on?

            2. Do you really deny the existence of separate nations or races of human? Do you maintain that the only difference between Mr Salmond and Xi Jinping is that they live in different places? If you were to move to Japan or Kenya and set up residence there, do you really think the locals would consider you one of them?

            Political correctness may give one a comfortable feeling of being right at the centre of the herd – but it is logically incoherent and absurd. (Which of course are also virtues in the centre of the herd).

      • N_

        I’ve heard that the “queen mother” viewed herself as Scottish, for what it’s worth. Does it matter?

      • Mary Pau!

        Citizens of anywhere refers to a common concept among Remainers that they are citizens of the world (or maybe of the EU) and reject what they see as narrow concepts of national identity. This mindset is particularly prevalent among the the internationally mobile classes who work in occupations which can take them anywhere in the world to work.

        In this class in which I include my son, currently living in London and working for a world wide Finance group. He was previously based in New York City for seven years and has no great national allegiance to the UK or England. He and his wife who is American of Irish Scottish extraction regard Nationalism as anarrow and outdated as a concept. (Their children were born in the US while he was working there. Hence their dual nationality).

        My son and daughter in law see themselves as international citizens and are strongly pro-Remain. I imagine they would support Scotland being in the EU for economic reasons but have little support for the SNP except as a means to that end.

        On her father’s side the Queen Mother could trace her Scottish ancestors back for many generations and the family spent much time at its hereditary home of Glamis castle. The idea of a Scottish hereditary aristocracy is a difficult one for republicans but while you may reject their titles I think you can scarcely deny that the Earls of Strathmore are a long established Scottish family.


        • Laura Collins

          This kind of philosophy belongs to the elites alone though. Not everyone can enjoy this status, this being the reason for its possibility from the outset. Hence the idea that the Queen mum is Scottish – only through elitism.

        • Yr Hen Gof

          There is some doubt as to where exactly Elizabeth Bowes Lyons was born, although her birth was registered in Hitchin.
          Indeed there is also a rumour; doubtless scurrilous regarding the identity of her biological mother.
          By the time her father’s wife Cecilia had birthed eight children, just maybe she felt she’d done enough and Claude could look elsewhere for a bit of intimacy.
          Was it their French cook who caught his eye?

          The Duke of Windsor often referred to the Queen Mother by the sobriquet ‘Cookie’, a nickname that apparently she loathed.
          Certainly the funeral of her parents’ cook was very well attended, commanding as it did a royal family turnout.

          As to her nationality, well, she, her father, grandfather and great grandfather were all born in England, as was her father’s wife, her father, grandfather and great grandfather. By anybody’s estimation, I’d say that makes her English.

          Titles, however ancient mean nothing, they like lands were handed out for battles won, money lent and whoring in the king’s bed.

          Between the wars my late mother was in service to Lord and Lady ‘X’ (family still extant) and I imagine you can guess what servants were like when it came to royal gossip…
          I daresay she’d have had a view on Downton Abbey too, I doubt it would have been a positive one.

    • kathy

      Each country has its own set rules to determine nationality…but where your loyalty lies is a different matter.

  • Monteverdi

    What mother when confronted with the details from her favourite son’s MI5 File and their possible leakage to the mainsteam media would refuse Boris’s simple request ?

    • Tony


      However, the use of blackmail files is important. They forced JFK to dump Sen. Stuart Symington as his running mate in 1960 and to name LBJ instead.

      JFK paid with his life for that decision:

      “When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson, if he was vice president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy.” Jack Ruby.

  • AnCan

    Well, for unbiased, even-handed coverage of political events in the UK, one need look no further than Canada’s CBC, specifically the evening program, The National. Last evening’s (Aug. 28) show was a fine example. Look, the Queen has a (former) Commonwealth to consider and there is a bigger problem in the globe and that would be the-leader-of-the-free-world to the south of us. If anyone across the pond watches this show, you have to remember that Canadians will be comparing the Brexit question to the epic mess that would occur if our economy had to unwind itself from the American one. The coverage tells Canadians that a no-deal Brexit is no big deal. (And Canada would be happy to ship you fresh fruits and veggies, by the way, if the EU gets snotty about it.) Long live the Queen! 🙂 🙂

    • jake

      If your OK with her constitutional role as head of state, that’s fine.
      Either way…she still owns your central bank.

    • Dungroanin

      The propaganda from across the pond for the falling Anglo 5+1 eyed empire is that Canada would somehow finesse its own deal with the EU to give preferential treatment to the brexited remnants of the UK?

      Fruit & Veg? – i suppose having legalised marijuana there, shipping billions of pounds of it to the ‘motherland’ would be a jolly whiz. We could even encourage it by making one of our 5 a days.

      The Commonwealth being a ghost of the greater 5+1 Imperialist expansion – made up of the non-Anglos is pretty much defunct as most of thesr scarred lands and countries drop into other orbits. They certainly don’t seem to keen on having the English Royals continuing to have the leadership role. The commonwealth games is a spent competition too.

      Down with the ancient despots and their criminal looting pillaging and aristo land grabbers! Long live the rest of humanity!

  • Chris Downie

    While I agree with Craig’s analysis of Johnson, I stand by my prediction that he will win a General Election when he calls it. I think it’s time the SNP leadership stopped playing their “stop Brexit” games and accept the inevitability of it, and go back to working full-time to achieving their MO. If they let “the mandate” expire (and I fear Sturgeon and Murrell are trying to do just that, while counting on scraping through in 2021 as a minority government, with pathetic opposition and little to challenge their grip on power until at least 2026) then the grassroots YES movement will never forgive them. I for one would hold them partially accountable for whatever havok Johnson and his cabal of scum decide to wreak on us.

    • N_

      Things are so volatile that I doubt anyone is counting on something as precise as there being no Scottish GE until the one that is scheduled for 2021 and then the SNP winning a plurality and forming another minority government.

      If I were Jeremy Corbyn I would promise the SNP (in secret) another independence referendum so long as they voted exactly the way I tell them to in Westminster until either Brexit happens or it is reversed whether by revocation of A50 or by referendum. Another indyref would be a slap in the face for people in Scotland because they’ve already made their position clear, not just in 2014 but also in the 2017 Scottish GE, but…well, take one for the team, eh?

      • Karl

        Position clear in 2014? What? After pensioners being phoned by Labour activists and told they wouldn’t get a pension in an independent Scotland? After being told we were an economic basket case and would be out of the EU? With shipyard jobs promised that never materialised, with threats of not being able to use the pound, with promises of a federal U.K. and Scotland leading the way in an equal family of Nations? Position clear in 2017?Majority of M.P.s being from SNP? Scottish Parliament also had enough independence supporting MSPs to support an independence referendum. Your arguments are completely devoid of substance.

    • Dungroanin

      If the establishment thought that bobo could win – he would have called an immediate election and had a sufficient extended majority to just rubberstamp the No Deal that they always wanted.

      The obvious reason it hasn’t been called is they know that victory is not only not guaranteed but a large number of their seats are marginal, including many cabinet members, Johnson too. As are many of the controlled opposition MPs who would disappear round the bend instead of clogging up wc as many are doing now.

      As for election pacts and secret agreements pre elections – that is a complete no-no. Such deals are twisted in a election campaign and are pointless until the numbers are known after the count. They should be illegal.

  • John2o2o

    I’d just like to say in advance to my adoring fan base that I appreciate your words of support, but it really isn’t necessary to say so in public.

    1) I am not a unionist.
    2) I am not a monarchist.

    I want to say something that I know a lot of people on her will not like (just for a change).

    My fear is that a lot of nationalists compromise Scotland’s chances of securing independence by clinging to an illogical strong dislike of the monarchy. To that end I would encourage those of that opinion to really examine what it is they are afraid of.

    Canada exists as a strong independent nation. Entirely free of the tentacles of Westminster and Boris, yet it has the Queen as it’s head of state.

    It may be that Scotland could become a republic. Having both options open to Scotland: independence as a republic or independence with the Queen as head of state gives Scotland a stronger hand and makes independence more likely in my opinion.

    … If you can get over this bizarre dislike of the monarchy. I just do not understand it. I personally have no strong feelings about the monarchy either way.

    I think there is a danger that if the Queen exceeded her constitutional powers (as I think Craig would perhaps like) then that could damage the monarchy (which I think is what Craig would want) and although I think it unlikely the UK could end up becoming a republic.

    I think there is a danger however that if the UK became a republic then independence for Scotland could actually be made harder.

    Just my thoughts on this matter for your consideration.

    • Hatuey

      2020, I’m starting to wonder if you are taking the piss with this nonsense.

      The very idea of a monarchy is ridiculous and goes against the grain of the most basic notions of fairness, equality, and democracy. The idea is insulting and absurd to anybody with a brain.

      • Ishmael

        Exempt the monarchy, they seem fine with the idea. & still can play basic games like monopoly i’d assume?

        Woke Royal. “…? ? I INSULT MYSELF!”

        Maybe that’s why they kill so many defenceless animals, compensatory violence.

        • .giyane

          Vicarious violence, and HRM is head of the Anglicans.

          I’m going for a spot of Fox hunting tomorrow. Paper trail.
          Downing Street 12 pm.
          Something tells me the dictator won’t be in so we drive around till we find him.

      • Ort

        Hatuey, I’m a US resident, and my native disdain for monarchies was doubtless exacerbated by avidly reading Samuel “Mark Twain” Clemens’ anti-monarchical writings during my impressionable youth.

        But I’m surprised to read your withering rejection of monarchy, whose defenders revere it, or accept it as just another form of government. It isn’t.

        No matter how the modern versions have been tarted up with “constitutional” legalisms that purport to reduce the position to that of just another secular head of state, monarchies nevertheless exist upon a tacit presumption of divine right.

        Do you really dispute that the Defender of the Faith represents a pedigree that has been specially chosen, blessed, and empowered by the Creator and Supreme Micro-Manager of the Universe to rule the nation?

        I’m skeptical too, but I thought it might just be me. 😉

        • Hatuey

          I will simply never accept that anyone is intrinsically superior to anyone else, except in good old “content of character” terms. And even then it’s an uncomfortable idea to carry around.

    • J Galt

      Yes subtlety is required not republican grandstanding.

      I’ve always thought that a lot of Unionist cannons could be spiked by going for Dominion status, for Christ’s sake I’d even accept a wee Union Jack in the corner of the Saltire (for a time) – is Canada any less independent than Ireland?

      Salmond was the man to do it whilst chatting away to her Maj about the gee-gees.

      We need to be thinking on our feet here folks not frightening the pensioners with shite about republics. Remember this is a process – it doesn’t have to be perfect from day one.

      • bevin

        Canada is certainly, now, independent of the UK. The same cannot be said of its poodle like relationship with the United States.
        Swapping Westminster for Washington was a very bad bargain. Those proposing to swap Westminster for Brussels ought to think about that.

    • kathy

      “My fear is that a lot of nationalists compromise Scotland’s chances of securing independence by clinging to an illogical strong dislike of the monarchy.”


    • N_

      For someone who says he’s not a monarchist, John, you sound just like one. The monarchy survived in Australia because of people who said in polls they weren’t monarchists turning out and voting in favour of the monarchy in a referendum.

      The UK cannot become a republic, unless “become” is used to mean “disappear and be replaced by”.

      • Robyn

        There was more to the Australian republic referendum than that. PM Howard was criticised for wording the question in a way that, it was believed, would achieve his aim of retaining the monarchy. Many who wanted a republic definitely did not want a ‘President’ and did not want anyone in a new Head of State role to be chosen by politicians. The question was:

        A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

        Do you approve this proposed alteration?

        • N_

          Yes I certainly would have voted for the anti-monarchist option. The line that being against the monarchy wasn’t sufficient for a voter to choose the republican option won the referendum for the monarchy.

          Another fact is that the entire official republican side agreed not to criticise the monarch or the royal family personally. No monarchy has ever fallen unless the monarch is criticised personally. The monarchy got exactly the kind of “republican” campaign that it wanted.

          And so the monarchy won the referendum in a country where a large majority of people said they were against the monarchy. It was a classic case of propaganda successfully winning a vote against large-scale apparent opposition. Many of the idiots who voted for the monarchy tell themselves to this day that they didn’t vote for the monarchy but rather they voted against a bunch of politicians who wanted to stitch them up. Well yes, they did vote for the monarchy and they should be ashamed of themselves.

          • N_

            And today we get confusion such as @John2o20’s writing about the possibility that “the UK” might “become” a republic. Perhaps that was only poor wording, but even so, it relates to the point that many think of the monarchy as though it’s natural. This is evident in the way that people unthinkingly refer to the country by the name of its monarchist regime. It reaches levels that are so extreme they make me want to vomit, such as when weathermen refer to rain “over the east of the UK”? The UK is a monarchist political regime. It is not a country. (The country is Britain). It is not a piece of territory. Am I being clear about one of the ways that propaganda works? People should think of it the next time they “Google” something or “Hoover” their carpet.

            People living under monarchist rule never spoke like that in France or Russia or even in more recently centralised countries such as Germany and Italy.

  • shugsrug

    Craig, great post as always. Thought provoking producing some good debate. Some not so good, and some shameful.

  • DonnyDarko

    Bingo !! I’d always thought of the Monarchy as a bit of a safety valve in case Parliament went rogue. They would step in, sack the PM and allow the country to reset and choose someone more sensible. Actually, its turned out to be the opposite. Far from being a benign yet powerful force within , they’re still the enemy of the people. We finance them, we allow them to wander through our institutions untethered and when the chips are down, they go for your throat. They are not cute, or harmless, and they are far from the constitutional Monarchy they claim to be. They are leeches of the 33rd degree.

    • Deb O'Nair

      “I’d always thought of the Monarchy as a bit of a safety valve in case Parliament went rogue. They would step in, sack the PM and allow the country to reset and choose someone more sensible.”

      I too had laboured under that misunderstanding, now I’m just waiting for the next Hitler to pop out of the woodwork. I see Johnson as a Friedrich Ebert; laying the foundations for economic collapse in the name of national unity, whilst tilling the fertile ground of self-absorbed nationalist extremism.

  • Andy Whiteman

    Spot on Craig. I dissed her in 2008 when she and the rest of them vanished during the bank induced crisis that cost me my business. They are an anti democratic anachronism.

  • Jack

    The coup against democracy begins and ends with those who refuse to accept the result of the EU referendum and actively work to block it. End of.

    • Ishmael

      Yea, leaving the EU is just like leaving the pub. A or B. Just let them sort the details.

      And nobody can change their mind, & it means no-deal or it means nothing, because I said, These institutions have always done our bidding & worked in our interests. What treachery of all those who don’t agree, said it was based on lies & backed by foreign off shore investors. So what? It’s about England.


      …..I accept it. I accept it for what it was, a “simple choice” that did not arise out of community demands but was hosted upon them by “opposing” factions of the ruling capitalist class, & each “side” milks the attention of those they stirred up. But both intend to make like bandits by setting government policy in favour of their corporate investments, Arms, private healthcare, etc. (though we will be fighting terrorism, not promoting it, honest)

      So no, You may not like it but reality is not just your conviction of what is. Certainly not “simple choices” handed down by a class that have done nothing but keep us down & screw us over. This is just another example. Jack boot “democracy” can kiss mine.

      • N_

        The Leave vote equals the “Enoch was right” vote.

        There are only a very few exceptions, such as Dennis Skinner and Gorgeous George Galloway. The mass of Leave voters were the “Enoch was right” mob.

    • Anthony Cottrell

      I accept the result of the referendum. It doesn’t fill me with joy but I have total respect for the fact that more people who wanted to leave got off their arses and voted than remainers. I believe that we should have a country which respects the rights and hopes of the whole country, not just the half that votes the same as me.

      Something for which I have no respect, however, is the meaningless little “end of” that leavers appear to believe will stop any opposition in its tracks. If Ealing Studios were still conjuring up Cockerneys that made Dick Van Dyke sound like he was born in Plaistow, they’d all be saying “end of” to end arguments and “you’re ‘avin’ a larf’ to express disbelief, “bruv” to replace “me old cock sparrer” and so on. ‘End of’ doesn’t magically destroy arguments. My old dad and mum, both dead now, went through absolute hell for six years 80 years ago to stop what the Conservatives are now doing to our human rights. They’ve both been dead a long time now; my mum at an early age as a result of contracting T.B. twice in an age when “the poor people’s disease” as it was then called in the days before the Tories made their last stand against working class access to decent health care, curtailed your life quite radically. Being bombed out of three sets of lodgings in Peckham didn’t help and being Jewish didn’t do much to quell her fear when Moseley and his fascists were on the streets and lionised, along with Hitler by the champions of patriotism Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail. If you’d been in Peckham at the time, you’d have told her that it was her and her kind who were responsible for us being bombed by the Germans, fighting against fascism instead of just going along with it. You can’t blame those fascists.

      • N_

        What is the limit of the obnoxiousness that a majority can vote for in a plebiscite and still have the result of their action enjoy your “total respect”?

        You mention the Daily Heil. Surely you noticed how the right wing media, not openly fascist and openly racist but only because so much is said with forked tongues these days, propagandised heavily for Leave?

        You need to look at Leave and what it meant, and what it means.

    • Ian

      I love it when people say ‘end of’, especially when they haven’t even set out a rational case. As if they can hide behind a mere assertion and cannot justify what they say. Pub talk.

  • Ros Thorpe

    I’m genuinely open minded about this and most MSM have stated that she has no real power and no choice and simply performs a ceremonial function here. My belief is that she was presented with a fait accompli and was persuaded to comply by a creepy looking guy that she could relate to. My concern is that this is the first EVER prime minister, unelected and unworthy to put the queen in such a situation. She must be either as bad as him or very badly advised. She could have at least made him wait. The trouble with her majesty is that she’s largely fallen into a robotic following of convention.

  • Ros Thorpe

    The more I think about it the more I agree. What she could have done was to sit on this and delay a decision and by immediately complying it suggests either
    A) she’s ignorant of the implications of approving
    B) she’s biased towards prorogation

    Either way, she’s proved herself to be unfit and unworthy of the office she holds.

    • michael norton

      Queen Elizabeth is gagging for Hard Brexit, she has been all along, she has played her part well.
      When will the Remainers stop screaming, you have lost.

    • N_

      And why hasn’t the cow answered the letters she received from Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson? Did Jacob tell her not to?

        • N_

          Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson both asked for an urgent meeting. They should push the matter, but I doubt they will.

          There are many things they could do:

          * they could go to Balmoral and knock on the door
          * they could publish their letters
          * they could declare that they are sending reminders
          * they could publish any response
          * and in Corbyn’s case he could declare that if she won’t meet him then he will resign his membership of the Privy Council.

          C’mon Jeremy, get your copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals out.

      • Laguerre

        She has been predicted in the media to be about to refuse Corbyn. That, if anything, shows she is not politically neutral. If that’s the case, her time is up. Worse than the annus horribilis after the death of Diana, she is no longer good for purpose.

    • N_

      @Ros – Are you aware of the queen’s role on the Leave side during the referendum campaign? “Give me 3 good reasons to stay in Europe“. That was on the front page of the Sun on the day before the referendum. For those who don’t know, that is THE MOST IMPORTANT SPACE to propagandise in during a British national vote. The Wednesday is more important than the Thursday itself. Look at the headline in the Sun on the Wednesday to find out which side will win.

  • Doug Scorgie

    The grand old Duke of York he had ten thousand girls. He marched them up to his bed-chamber and…
    lost his memory.

      • Dungroanin

        No – it is procedural when the defendant dies pre trial.

        Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey said Tuesday that the indictment’s dismissal “in no way prohibits or inhibits the government’s ongoing investigation into other potential coconspirators, nor does it prevent the bringing of a new case in the future or the prosecution of new defendants.”

        It ain’t over. Ghislaine next. Then there are the plethora of servants.

        It may have brought pressure upon the royals but their skeleton cupboards are full – including some still living.

      • nevermind

        Lets make a deal telegram from the Black and white house…..You support Boris snolly G.Johnson, ehem, mam, and I will dismiss the Epstein case….Now off to watch a hurricane in Florida….

  • Tom74

    A Head of State at the very minimum surely has to be a check on the power of the Executive. If the Queen is not doing that – and, even worse, giving cover for a right-wing, rogue government – then we might just as well not have a Head of State at all.
    What is puzzling is that she and her advisers must have known it would look bad. I have to wonder whether there is some connection with the Prince Andrew allegations. Is it too far-fetched to think the Americans ‘deep state’ might agree to lose the Andrew file in return for the Queen enabling Brexit?

      • OnlyHalfALooney

        The Epstein case has not been “dismissed”. It has been closed because Epstein is dead.

        It is still possible for Epstein’s cohorts to be prosecuted primarily Ghislaine Maxwell. If one takes the filed documents at face value, she is just as guilty as Epstein, including (statutory) raping of minors. In fact her position is now worse, because she can no long plea bargain a lighter sentence in return for testifying against Epstein.

        Make no mistake, the FBI aren’t going to just drop this case. The Bureau has already spent a huge amount of money investigating Epstein and searching his homes.

        Andrew isn’t off the hook.

      • Deb O'Nair

        The fact that the Mail has shouted the word “DISMISSED” in their url shows that it is the lie they want to push. It’s totally normal for a case to be dropped when the defendant dies as it’s very hard to cross-examine a dead person or pass a meaningful sentence if they are found guilty in “absentia”.

    • N_

      ” Is it too far-fetched to think the Americans ‘deep state’ might agree to lose the Andrew file in return for the Queen enabling Brexit?”

      It could be that, Tom, yes. But I’d give it another dimension: forces can benefit from pushing a set-up right to the edge of the cliff and playing with it…will they hug it to them, or will they throw it off? A classic example was the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky case.

      Who knows, perhaps new information will soon be surfaced about the Paris tunnel job in 1997?

  • Petra

    Well worth a read ..

    Now we are getting right down the nitty bl**dy gritty. If it comes to pass that we don’t win this case due to some legal ”Westminster loophole”, we will at least have shaken many individuals to the core, in particular Queen Elizabeth II. It’s a start (continue to use it) followed by involving the EU and UN if this crowd of chancers think that they are going to get away with stymying our objective .. FREEDOM.

    LOVE IT …

    Counsel: The Claim of Right said ‘evil & wicked counsellors’ could not abuse the legal basis of the constitution of Scotland. Petitioners joke that it is too tempting to consider the similarities to events yesterday.

    Counsel: Idea that a Scottish Court cannot bind the Parliament in London is nonsense. Sovereign exists in Scotland & is subject to its court. Actions are now also being raised in England & Northern Ireland.

    Counsel quotes 1840 decision of Lord President Hope: Supreme Courts of every civilised country have power to compel every person in our noble constitution the law can compel the sovereign himself to do his duty & to restrain him from exceeding his duty.

    The petitioners case is partly based on the independent Scottish constitutional tradition that the monarch is in part subject to public responsibilities – to the people & the law. Her role is to serve, not to rule.

    The sovereign is not above the law, this has always been the tradition in Scots law. This is not an autocracy, of divine right. There is a duty of a constitutional monarch to revoke orders based on an abuse of power

    • Hatuey

      I’d enjoy the fireworks if they succeed but I must hope that they fail, hope that Parliament is prorogued, and hope that the U.K. drops like a stone off the Brexit cliff at the end of October.

      Sometimes you need to pray for the things you don’t want.

        • Dave

          Boris and Gove are in a No Deal panic due to the Maybot and Brexit Party, who lack the courage and leadership to offer a patriotic Brexit compromise that would sweep the board in a General Election.

        • Hatuey

          Ian, no it isn’t. They think Brexit will ultimately be good for the UK economy. I don’t think it will ever be good and think it will be immediately highly destructive.

  • Jim Morris

    66%+ turnout in Shetland Holyrood by-election. Cynicalme says: How many were postal votes and what was the postal vote result?

    • Brianfujisan

      A sad result Jim.. are we looking at people who think they are Untouchable…I have been to the Shetlands….been out on the Atlantic Salmon farms.. my impression is .Shetlander’s Still think they are Vikings… They got as far as Largs..which is a few miles doon the coast to me on the Clyde.

      • Brianfujisan

        Sorry I don’t know how that first sentence got in there..It’s not a MOD from Craig’s

  • Darren Sharrocks

    The Queen sacked the Prime Minster of Australia in 1976. So if she can give him the boot, she could of said no in the UK.

  • Robert Harneis

    I admire your writing Craig but, all other issues apart, how can you overlook the fact that a No Deal Brexit is the law of land (so far!) because a majority of Members of Parliament voted for it?

    • Dungroanin

      No presenting a head or tails option does not constitute a vote for either.

      It is a mu question such as the classic ‘do you still beat your wife/children/servant?’

    • Deb O'Nair

      “No Deal Brexit is the law of land (so far!)”

      This simply highlights the “legal” flaws in the referendum itself, which was not legally binding. If it had been legally binding then the referendum result would have been voided when it was discovered that the Leave campaign had acted illegally and a new referendum would have to have been done. Additionally the media would have been subjected to impartiality and fair representation laws instead of giving Farage and UKIP 40% of the media coverage, finally the referendum legislation would have met far greater scrutiny in the HoC and the HoL.You can not base “legal” arguments on something that was not law in the first place.

  • Sackerson

    Right-wing coup? Bit rich, that – remember reading about Attlee proroguing Parliament in 1945 to help him with his nationalisation programme?

    Or the Whig (not Tory) jurist A. V. Dicey:

    “The discretionary power of the Crown occasionally may be, and according to constitutional precedents sometimes ought to be, used to strip an existing House of Commons of its authority. But the reason why the House can in accordance with the constitution be deprived of power and of existence is that an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors. A dissolution is in its essence an appeal from the legal to the political sovereign. A dissolution is allowable or necessary whenever the wishes of the legislature are or may fairly be presumed to be different from the wishes of the nation.”

    Or the fact that the EU is a neoliberal outfit serving multinational companies and pushing down the working class by arbitraging national workforces?

    Or the EU’s progress towards the disenfranchisement of the people?

    “The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion but in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must not take a decision without having received it.” The first part of the second sentence makes the position clear.

    It is true that member States still have the ability to veto proposals, and Guy Verhofstadt sees this as an inconvenience to be done away with: and the EU is already planning to scrap the veto on tax policy and foreign policy .

    And then the EU’s military adventurism: independent Irish MEP Luke “Ming” Flanagan has commented on how the EU’s interventions in Mali have already compromised the Republic’s policy of military neutrality – sorry I can’t immediately find the best video of his on this.

    I can understand your hatred of the “English”, it’s kind of a tradition, though not Scotland’s finest; but the idea that Scotland should be freer within the EU?

    Three years of MPs trying hugger-mugger to subvert a decision that they did everything officially to enable. It’s long past time that we had closure and started to rebuild our economy and society for the benefit of all its people.

    • Anthony

      “The EU is a neoliberal outfit serving multinational companies and pushing down the working class by arbitraging national workforces”

      It is. But the ideological bent of Britain’s cabinet is neoliberalism on steroids (check out the book ‘Britannia unchained’). The prime minister who appointed them is himself publicly recorded as having personally received hundreds of thousands of pounds this year from various hedge funds, private equity firms and vulture capitalists of all stripes. That is on the public record, no need to even start speculating about what such an individual has promised to Donald Trump.

      “It’s long past time that we .. started to rebuild our economy and society for the benefit of all its people”.

      Similar words are no doubt going to issue from Johnson’s gob in the months ahead, as they often did from Theresa May’s.

      • bevin

        “he ideological bent of Britain’s cabinet is neoliberalism on steroids”
        That is true. And Scots voters could get rid of both cabinet and neo-liberal policies, within the UK.
        That is not the case in the EU in which, (a) there is no parliament controlling the Executive and
        (b) the Scots are a small percentage of the population.
        the EU is not just neo-liberal, it has neo-liberalism written into its constitution.

        • Anthony

          Indeed, and if an independent Scotland were to adopt the Euro (as EU rules insist) it would quickly become easier for Scots to imagine the end of the world than the end of neoliberalism.

  • michael norton

    Since this topic is at least in part about Queen Elizabeth, let’s ask a simple question
    If you voted Brexit are you more likely to be a royalist
    or to put it the other way if you voted to stay in the European Union are you less likely to be a royalist?

    • michael norton

      This question then leads on to more questions.

      If you voted Brexit are you more likely to want the United Kingdom to continue as a whole country.

      If you voted for Remain are you less likely to want the United Kingdom to continue as a whole country?

      • michael norton

        If you think this through you get to the conclusion that Queen Elizabeth, who is the constitutional head of the United Kingdom is a Brexiteer
        and she will do anything she is asked to secure these choices.

      • Tom Welsh

        1. Being a member of a royal family.

        2. Being constitutionally assigned certain responsibilities in the government of a nation.

        The first condition is optional – a monarch could possibly be chosen by election or other means. The second condition is defining.

        • Anthony

          So Tom, what is it that makes some families “royal”, the basis of them being assigned a constitutional role in the government of a developed nation?

        • Republicofscotland

          Royals are just people whose ancestors were better at robbing murdering and pillaging than the average person, to be royal means absolutely nothing.

          However like pre-programmed ants some deluded folk cherish these cosseted feted parasities that are not elected by the people.

          The total Sovereign Grant for 2018-19, including the dedicated amount for Reservicing, amounted to £82.2m (2017-18 £76.1m), equivalent to £1.24 per person in the UK.

          The £82.2m Grant is made up of a Core Grant of £49.3m and an additional dedicated amount for Reservicing of £32.9m.

          Additional income generated from facilities management charges and property rental increased to £17.8m (2017-18 £17.3m), up 3%.

          The monies spent on the so called royals would be better spent elsewhere, millions of taxpayer pounds to kit out Willie and Kates new pad, or millions spent on security when a royal decides they want a jaunt around the globe is a burden to the taxpayer, and lets not forget in the 1970’s the Queen set up a body, its job to hide the Queens wealth from the public.

          She in the past and probably still does meets with heads of blue chip companies, who give her insider tips, then there was her buccaneer in Africa Tiny Rowland, who added to her considerable hidden fortune.

          Of course if the folk of the rUK after Scottish independence want to pay for the ukeep of these flawed characters posing as some sort of honourable Ruritanian monarchy then so be it.

          • Deb O'Nair

            “to be royal means absolutely nothing.”

            When Richard III was dug up in a car park they had to DNA test some guy in Canada to confirm it was Richard III.

          • N_

            The Richard III disinterment and reburial were a marketing wheeze for Leicester University.

            I’m told Winchester University have considered “finding” the bones of King Alfred for similar reasons.

          • Republicofscotland

            Author George Eccles, wrote on Twitter yesterday.

            “We now have a PM who nobody elected, meeting an aging monarch who nobody elected, jointly deciding to shutdown everybody who was elected, in order to force through action that nobody was invited to vote on.”

            Just about sums it up really.

        • N_

          @Tom – You seriously think having a constitutional role is what defines a family as “royal”?

          What do you think “D.G.” stands for on the coinage?

          • N_

            @Tom – I am still surprised that your take was so upside-down.

            Here’s a helpful schema:

            (members of royal families in which the head is a constitutional monarch)
            are a subset of
            (members of royal families in which the head is a reigning monarch)
            are a subset of
            (members of royal families)

    • Anthony

      Because his policies have their interests at heart and would bring material improvement to many of their lives following a decade of Tory austerity.

      • Republicofscotland


        Im sure he’ll be a better PM than Johnson, but we in Scotland have our own party that has already implemented policies that are good for the people.

        We don’t need Corbyn, maybe you’d do better to look at how Labour run Wales so poorly.

      • Hatuey

        “Because his policies have their interests at heart”

        Staggering that someone can say that and not be banned from this blog. As if Corbyn and the anti Semitic roadshow knows what’s best for the people of Scotland.

        Worth stressing that there’s a very easy way to find out if the Scottish people want independence. It’s called democracy and it can be expressed via a referendum.

        We don’t need to ask them if they want a referendum, though. They’ve already given the SNP 3 mandates to pursue one.

        • bevin

          “Corbyn and the anti Semitic roadshow ‘
          That is a measure not only of your contempt for the truth but of your contempt for your readers. There isn’t a person here who is unaware of the spurious and disgraceful nature of the charges that the Labour Party and Corbyn are anti-semitic.

          • Hatuey

            I guess I’m not alone in being wrong about that then… oh well, win some, lose some.

          • Hatuey

            Okay, I get it. It’s fine for Labour to attack the SNP and the idea of independence on any terms deemed permissible by the trashy English tabloids, but when it comes to the SNP doing likewise that’s another story.

            We have enough seemingly respected sources accusing Labour of anti semitism to warrant me saying it; and as long as Labour continues to undermine my country’s prospects of progress and development, I will continue to call the Labour party a shower of anti-Semitic crackpots.

            Maybe the anti antisemitism is some attempt to find balance after slaughtering all those innocent muslims in Iraq.

            Oh, am I not allowed to mention that either?

            Labour (red Tory) scum.

    • N_

      You’re losing it, RoS. Noticing that the people of Scotland have indicated twice that they don’t want independence isn’t ordering them around. It’s respecting them.

      • N_

        I.e. 45% for independence in the 2014 referendum and 37% for the SNP (add some for the “Green” Snotters) in 2017.

        Maybe announcing the result in 2014 was bossing people around too?

      • Republicofscotland

        The union was a farce from day one, the landed gentry were bought and paid for.

        The man and woman on the street had no vote, and from what I’ve read the such was the outrage at the gentry handing over Scotland on a plate to England that riots on the streets were common, and the ill gotten, union document was signed in a cellar in Edinburgh, away from prying eyes and the angry mobs.

        “Noticing that the people of Scotland have indicated twice that they don’t want independence”

        The recent polls say differently, and we have a mandate.

  • John2o2o

    I think, as I said yesterday that in my opinion this article is the poorest that I have read from Craig.

    My view is that the problem for Scotland is those that hold power. And those that hold power in the United Kingdom are those that sit in parliament and not the woman that sits on the throne.

    The constitution of the UK severely restricts the power of the crown. And yes, the UK does have a constitution. I would have thought that a trained historian such as Craig would be very well aware of this. The Queen really does not have much choice but to do parliament’s bidding. That’s the system.

    Have a read:

    The bigger problem is what to do with the armed forces if Scotland tries to become independent. The Queen is still technically the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the UK. Surely a mature and well thought out bid for independence is more likely to succeed if Scots can have dialogue with the monarch.

    I really don’t see how ad-hominem attacks on the Queen further Scotland’s interests.

    • Ian

      The whole thing about the Queen is a diversion. She has a ceremonial function, and no real political role. Of course she is the apex of the establishment and the aristocracy, but that is a different argument about the class system and the distribution of wealth and influence.
      The real action is happening elsewhere, not in arcane discussions about the monarchy.

      • N_

        She has a ceremonial function, and no real political role.

        Imagine saying something that is so denialist regarding what, like the rest of us, you know has just happened.

    • mark golding

      If fact Craig’s article is succinct and significant as it reflects the fact only the Queen can prorogue Parliament, as only a monarch can announce the proroguing of Parliament – so the government must ask the Queen’s permission to do so.

      The Queen’s power is projected through Orders in Council and have a force in law as does Orders of Council, a perfect allegory for the elite to steer the administration without her Majesty’s approval.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    Just read on social media a suggested EU response to Johnson’s demand to drop the NI backstop. Tell Johnson to put a Customs border at Belfast and Larne to the people of NI in a referendum. Remember, polls put that option as a clear favourite, it’s only the DUP that objects. Quite clever thinks I.

    • Laguerre

      The customs border in the sea was what the EU originally proposed, of course, and rejected by May’s negotiators. Fat chance of getting the Tories to agree to a referendum, though. They could lose.

    • Geoffrey

      Why would Johnson put a customs border anywhere in Ireland ? I think he has said that they would not, as I understand it, it is the E.U. that would have to put a customs border up, which of course they would have the right to do if they so wished. There would be nothing for the people of NI to vote on.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        The Yellowhammer report states that the UK opting not to set up Customs posts was not sustainable. If the UK opted to place zero tariffs on goods traveling South to North while the Republic imposed tariffs (as they are required to do), then businesses in the North are put at a disadvantage.

        • michael norton

          But is is being said Boris has instructed his chancellor to drop petrol and diesel prices by five pence per litre, that will have the Free Irish streaming over the border to buy their vehicle fuel in the North.
          This will be a boon the the fuel sellers of the North and put the nearby Free South petrol stations at a severe disadvantage.
          Almost everything will be cheaper in the North of Ireland.The economy of the South will take a big hit.
          Ulster will be booming.

          • Vivian O'Blivion

            The trip North for the big, pre-Christmas shop is a long established tradition (even during the “Troubles”). Some of my sister’s neighbors in Co. Kildare make the trip and that burns some fuel (at least it’s motorway all the way to the border now). Retail may very well flourish but manufacturing is pretty much fecked.

      • Dungroanin

        The NI ports presumably already have a customs border for international imports, yes?

        As does the rest of Ireland, yes?

        They currently work in unity and have the same regulations on all things Custom?

        That is the ACTUAL current joint border in the Irish Sea and it is best kept as it is because it works.

        Do you really expect 250 border posts at the six counties? The whole of the EU down its land borders are well under that figure. I mean how else do you expect that these teeming EU migrants aren’t going to sneak in from Europe via Eire and into the UK through the open door of the land border?

        • michael norton

          If the European Union want Hard Border Controls, they will have to pay for a very long wall to be constructed because Boris has said we do not want it. It will cost billions of Euros.
          At the same time they will not be getting thirty nine billion Euros from the United Kingdom.
          Lose Lose Lose.

          Lose 39 billion
          pay billions for a hard border
          meanwhile, before it is built,
          lose billions in revenue as the Southern Irish stream over into Ulster for all their shopping.

          • Dungroanin

            The EU doesn’t want a hard border.
            It wants a guarantee that the gfa guarantee of no border will be maintained.
            That is the legal guarantee that May offered to put in the WA.
            That is the excuse that the ERG use to oppose the WA.
            Which guarantees a hard brexit.
            Which was always the intent of the brexiteers.

        • Vivian O'Blivion

          There’s no logic to the workings of the DUP. During the Mad cow outbreak, as there were no REPORTED cases in Ulster, Papa Doc actually pronounced “Our people are British but our cows are Irish.” Hygiene checks and a place of origin audit trail were put in place at the ports. The DUP, ever the consistent hypocrites.
          From memory the outbreak was attributed to cattle cake manufactured in the Netherlands and sold across Europe. Needless to say the British were the only country stupid enough to admit we had a problem.

  • OnlyHalfALooney

    Andrews fingers look quite “chubby” in the photo. The question is who was behind the camera with the flash. It might have been Epstein himself, which would be a pity because he has been mysteriously strangled in prison cell and the video from the camera in the corridor is “unusable” for some strange reason…

    There’s no obvious photoshopping as far as I can see. The photo has been around for a while. I’m sure there are lots of others. Apparently Epstein’s residences were full of photos of underage girls.

    I wonder why Peter Mandelson was in Epstein’s “little black book”? The others are mostly very wealthy and celebrities. Possibly Epstein didn’t even really know them well. (He liked to boast about his special access to lots of celebrities.) But Peter Mandelson? Who cares about Peter Mandelson in the US? (Please note that I’m not suggesting any wrongdoing by Mandelson. He may be a despicable politician but being in someone’s address book is hardly evidence of anything untoward or illegal.)

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      Whoops what happened? I was trying to respond to a post about the original photo of Andrew and Virginia Roberts having been seized by the FBI…

      Apparently Andrew’s supports claim it is a fake because he “has much chubbier fingers in real life:.

    • Vivian O'Blivion

      “Who cares about Peter Mandelson in the US?” The State Department quite obviously. Mandelson was amongst the first intake of the British American Project.

      If there’s a right wing coup taking place in the here and now, it’s origins can be traced back to the early 1980’s. The State Department set up the British American Project to specifically target the Labour Party and the BBC so as to turn the UK away from an increasingly integrated Europe and back toward an Atlanticist leaning.

  • Jones

    The media especially the BBC repeatedly state the monarchy is neutral and the queen does not involve herself in politics, only a sycophantic fool would believe that, every wednesday the queen has a meeting with the prime minister are we supposed to believe they talk only about the weather and trivia, utter nonsense. Nicholas Witchell went as far as to say ”her (queen) governments would accord her the respect of not involving her in controversial decisions”, well what could more controversial than Brexit, and then he said ”she had no choice other than to accede to the request (prorogue parliament)”, well if she has no choice other than to do what she is told then we might as well replace her with a mannequin and save us a whole lot of money, or better still and my preferred option just get rid of the whole monarchy. What gets me is how the royals rant on about wanting privacy and wanting to live a normal life like the rest of us, i suggest to them that would be simple to achieve all they have to do is give up an extremely privileged and wealthy life at the public’s expense and live a normal life like the rest of us, i hear there’s some jobs going at Tescos if they care to apply, but oh no what they really mean is they want to keep the privilege without the scrutiny. Of course Corbyn will be hated by them for his republican views, can you see the monarchy appointing someone who’d like to end their rule. It cannot be right that accident of birth determines the head of state with it’s enormous privilage in a democracy, the sooner it’s gone the better for me but what a monumental task that is.

  • Maxstein

    What is a noticeable difference between Ghislaine Maxwell’s response to her accusers and ‘prince’ Andrew is this;

    – Maxwell called her accuser a liar. Opening up the door to libel, a court case, unsealed documents and where we are today.

    – ‘prince’ Andrew Windsor/Gotha and mother have only denied the allegations. Not accused the alleged victim of being a liar which would open them up to libel too.

    Maybe an actual journalist, if they can get close enough, can ask the Gotha clan directly if the alleged victim is a liar?

    Another 2 observation; all those Ghislaine Maxwell photo’s standing a foot or 2 behind andrew, musk et al reminds me of the trophy hunters on safari. After the kill obviously. And 6 of the 8 members of Genie Energy oil company have been connected to Epsteins black book. Rupert and another are still outstanding afaik. The position his media empire has taken on the scandal is interesting though…

    @ciabaudo is an interesting twitter account linking Epsteins black book to Britain for anyone interested.

  • remember kronstadt

    I am surprised at the anti-monarchy conversation that has been dragged out of it’s grave and the skeleton waved as an agent of reaction. The royal family is a middle class exemplar whose role is comfortable and aspirational ceremonianialism. If being infected by bloodline germanism through two world wars wasn’t enough to induce modesty, playboy prince excepted, nothing would. This is not a ‘proper’ monarchy that is a major contributor to the arts, music, architecture and national projects. They decorate the corporate class and comfort the aged. If there is fault in brexit it lies with the electorate – which can both approve, amend and reject. For me, what brexit has revealed is the astonishing degree of MP’s self interest and inability to deal with both the present dilemma but also the inevitable economic and social consequences that will follow. The synthesis will please neither side.

1 2 3 4 5 7

Comments are closed.