The Dogs in the Street Know 288

There are some very obvious facts in British politics which nobody seems to be saying.

Joanna Cherry stated in her successful court case that “the dogs in the street know” that the real reason that Boris Johnson had prorogued parliament was to prevent parliament from having an effective say on the outcome of Brexit. The documents that the government was forced to produce to the Scottish Courts proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that was indeed Johnson’s motive.

So why are we expected to believe that what you knew and I knew, what Joanna Cherry knew, what the very dogs in the street knew, was not known to the Queen? Do we really believe that the Queen was “misled” and that she and her courtiers were the only people in the entire country who actually believed that Johnson just wanted the longest prorogation for 89 years to prepare a really good Queen’s speech? Are we really expected to believe that the Queen had not noticed that Brexit was at a crucial stage and the effect that prorogation would have on parliament’s say in the process?

This is obviously complete and utter nonsense. The Queen has better sources of information than any of us and knew exactly what was happening. She was not “misled” by Boris Johnson, she was his ally in a common purpose. She absolutely understood both the context and the effect of the prorogation. All this utter nonsense about the Queen being “lied to” and “misled” is part of this strange myth of the ultimate goodness of authority which is a recurring theme in human societies. Peasants died under the knout while building the Trans-Siberian railway thinking “if only the good Tsar knew.” The Queen is not a naive figure of Christ like innocence taken in by Boris Johnson, she is an ultra wealthy woman of very conservative views embedded in a social circle dominated by very rich and reactionary people.

To repeat what I have repeatedly explained, it was unconstitutional for the Queen to appoint Boris Johnson in the first place when it was plain as a pikestaff that he could not command a parliamentary majority. That initial crime (and I use the word advisedly) was compounded by the decision to prorogue parliament to enable her no majority Prime Minister to govern. In a sane world we should be getting out the pitchforks. Instead people are tut-tutting about the poor Queen being misled.

The next fact that is plain as a pikestaff is that Tom Watson is seeking to throw the election. One of the few true things Boris Johnson said in his knockabout performance in Parliament’s last sitting was that there were some on the Labour benches who were worried that Labour might win the next election.

Make no mistake, the Tories are in trouble. They need to pile on millions of votes in Northern English Labour constituencies before they actually start to win any, and they have thrown away existing liberal Tory support in London and southern England in order to pursue that goal. First Past the Post is very capricious, and once the leading party falls to 35% results become fickle even where there is a decent plurality. Regional concentration is actually an advantage in FPTP and in effect the Tories are in danger of evening out their support across England too much. They will certainly be down to a maximum of two seats in Scotland. They will have large losses to Labour and Lib Dems in London and the South West. All that is before we get in to the campaigning period and Jeremy Corbyn’s ability to solidify the Labour vote.

So with the prorogation row, the parliamentary defeats, the lost court cases and the Yellowhammer documents, Boris Johnnson was looking on sticky ground. The Labour Party had finally arrived at an apparently workable stance on Brexit: a general election followed by a second EU referendum with options of a viable deal and remain. Jeremy Corbyn, who had succeeded in helping build an opposition consensus on parliamentary tactics, has been looking in his strongest position for some time.

At this crucial moment enter Tom Watson with an entirely uncalled for intervention before a luvvies conference on the creative industries, trailed for all it was worth by the Blairite publicity machine. It was boosted to all the media specifically as Tom Watson taking on Jeremy Corbyn, and given wall to wall media coverage, carried live on the major broadcast news channels. What Watson had to say was simply a reiteration of Tony Blair’s article in the Evening Standard three days earlier; that there should be an EU referendum before a General Election.

What was the point of this Watson intervention? The first thing to say is that the real point was not the apparent purpose stated in the speech. Tom Watson knows full well there is no chance whatsoever of a new EU referendum ahead of a general election. The current parliament will never agree it. The expelled Tory rebels were almost all supporters of May’s deal and have almost all specifically ruled out a second referendum. At least 30 Labour MPs, led by figures like Stephen Kinnock, John Mann and Caroline Flint, would not agree to it. The DUP would never agree. It is a complete non-starter.

Why then would Watson deliver it? And not just deliver it quietly as a think piece, but deliver it with all the media hullabaloo that could possibly be mustered? The answer is quite simple. At Blair’s behest, Watson did it quite simply to damage Corbyn. At a time when the government was in deep trouble, when Corbyn had just addressed the TUC conference to applause with a finally coherent Brexit position, Watson’s aim was simply to damage Corbyn.

Watson sought to damage Corbyn in two ways. To damage him by staking out a more extreme Remainer position that might put a wedge between Corbyn and the new expanded Labour Party membership. And to damage Corbyn by giving headlines about Labour splits, taking the heat off the Tories and cutting at Labour’s standing in the polls just as it looked set to improve.

Because the one thing the Blairites detest most of all is the prospect of a Labour victory and a Corbyn government, implementing comparatively left wing policies that might prove popular and cause a real change in political discourse in England and Wales. Because that would be the death knell for the Blairites and their corporate sponsors.

Just as we are supposed to believe that the Queen is a naive waif innocent of Johnson’s schemes, we are supposed not to notice that Tom Watson seeks to damage Labour and ensure Corbyn does not come to power. We live in times when the media and the political class inhabit a world of polite pretence; a world where outsiders like me have a duty to point to the actual glaring facts, whether people listen or no.


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



288 thoughts on “The Dogs in the Street Know

1 2 3
    • RandomComment

      I saw this earlier today – interesting analysis and definitely worth watching, even if just to tell you what the “enemy is up to”

  • Ian

    Nobody seems to be saying?? It is all over the media and comprehensively discussed that he is a serial, habitual liar. Nobody, apart from a handful of acolytes believes the feeble and obvious lie, and that includes a lot of Tories. As for Watson – storm in teacup time, and the characterisation of the Creative Industries as ‘luvvies’ is the worst sort of feeble rightwing sneering. Whatever the merits or not of his pointless speech, the creative industries in the UK are a huge contributor to the economy and will be damaged extensively by brexit. I am surprised you take such a disdainful tone to them, when it is entirely unnecessary and beside the point.
    Labour will continue to have internal disagreements about the exact policy towards brexit, but they are managing it reasonably well now, Whatever Watson says.

    • Alyson

      Labour has clear policy towards Brexit, much as the media might have you think otherwise. The policy, which is in the manifesto, consistently still is: get a deal approved by parliament and then give the facts to the British public, with a choice between the actual deal or Remain. If No Deal is the preferred choice, then the information released from Operation Yellowhammer ought to be clear enough

      • jake

        It’s clear not only to the dogs in street but the Court of Session that the prorogation was to stymie parliament. To save the monarchs blushes it’s boiler-plate that someone misled. Boris absolutely denies he lied. If Boris is to be believed and he didn’t, it follows that the monarch knew fine well.

        • N_

          Boris Johnson and those who are behind the No Deal project may be daring the Supreme Court judges to say that he lied to the queen, because rather than say such a naughty thing that “drags Her Splendid Majesty into politics”, they will probably choose to uphold the Government’s appeal. A problem with that line of thought, though, is that it assumes that the Supreme Court can’t just be told what to do without requiring any politicians to gob off to the newspapers. That said, a newspaper without a Brexit headline ain’t going to be looking so tasty to advertisers at the moment. Basically all of this is cack.

          A far more likely reason is that they want to distract from the fact that he lied to the House of Commons – a fact which I believe can be proven incontrovertibly by documents that the MPs have “humbly” requested that the queen instruct her ministers to hand over.

          Getting caught lying to the Commons means an MP has to resign as an MP straightaway. That’s a much bigger deal than getting caught lying to the queen. Without a tape, who’s to say he didn’t say “Ma’am, we need to prorogue so that we can bring about No Deal on 31 October AND have a queen’s speech too?”

          Lying to the queen doesn’t mean sh*t, really, other than, as Craig rightly says, it plays to the idea of “If only the Tsar knew”. It helps the monarchist brand.

          The question of whether a queen’s speech was in Johnson’s mind when he officially decided on a prorogation is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether he lied to the Commons earlier when he said he wasn’t even considering a prorogation. Am I making this clear? If communications show he was considering a prorogation at a time when he swore blind to the House of Commons that he wasn’t, then he lied to the Commons AND HE IS OUT.

          • AliB

            Sadly whilst in days of yore lying meant the resignation of an MP, more recently they have just carried on regardless. And as Johnson is most clearly not a man of honour I cannot imagine that he will resign.

          • Royd

            Whilst lying to the Commons was a resigning matter/requirement in days gone by, it is no longer the case. The Tories have made it commonplace and the media let it pass, with not a murmur let alone the outrage, which should rightly be expressed. Standards have slipped and liars are not held to account. They bear no consequences, they just carry on.

      • Lorna Campbell

        I agree. She will have her own advisers and will make no decision without consulting them, so, yes, I’d say she knew, but did it anyway. There is a kind of sickness in our society that defers always to power, and the more pomp and extravagance shown by that power, the more people are lulled into a false sense of security. It is definitely worse in the UK than elsewhere because it is real, not pretend or imagined, as in North Korea, for instance, or China, or anywhere else where dire consequences follow dissent. Here, in the UK, we are our own jailers; we revel in it; and we won’t believe the extent of our brainwashing until the tanks have rolled over us, by which time, of course, it will be too late.

        • IrishU

          Had the Queen ignored the advice of her Prime Minister then Craig and other left-wing republicans would be claiming that it was a democratic outrage that a hereditary monarch ignored the advice of their Prime Minister. It was a lose-lose situation for the Monarch and either way Craig gets to spout off with faux outrage, which for him is a win-win.

      • fedup

        Not in the brigade 77 vernacular mate.
        Just read the rubbish that is pasted on the comments for this article, pitiful “white helmet” poop is an all too familiar theme.

      • N_

        If “creative” “industries” can include acting and other areas of show business, and this doubly stupid term doesn’t only denote the advertising sector, I still thought “luvvies” meant only the former. I wouldn’t call advertisers “luvvies”. A better word would be “scum”.

    • Sharp Ears

      The board of the Creative Industries Federation is BBC heavy. Amongst the luvvies, Lord Hall and John Kampfner are on it.

      If you read the Wikipedia record, you see that they hold a strong brief for Remain.

      ‘After the Federation’s survey prior to the 2016 EU Referendum revealed that 96% of its members backed remaining in the EU, the Federation continued to canvas its members and produce a series of events and reports to help inform UK government policy with regards to Brexit and its potential impact on the creative industries. In February 2017, Creative Industries Federation former CEO, John Kampfner, was invited to present evidence on this issue to a DCMS Select Committee, alongside Sir Peter Bazalgette, then chair of Arts Council England, and Nicola Mendelsohn, Vice President EMEA, Facebook.’

      PS Check Nicola Mendelsohn’s husband. Big cheese in Blairite Labour.

      It was set up fairly recently with the involvement of the BBC’s Tim Davie.

  • Shatnersrug

    Tom Watson is in a mess. And on the way out. He just Fiddled his first trigger ballot vote in his home ward. But he has another 5 to go if he loses 3 he’s out, him popping up was a last ditch attempt egged on by Campbell. Don’t forget Watson and Blair hated each other when labour were in power, he’s now doing the devils work. Also remember he has always supported leave as his constituency was a heavy leave area. Suddenly shifting 180 degrees, this is a desperate man. Even if he managed to get reselected. George Galloway is looking to take his constituency. Now Watson has abandoned Brexit there’s a fair chance he could knock him out.

    • Squeeth

      I hope so; I voted “Outez!” because I thought it was the best way to fcuk up the boss class and I’ve been laughing ever since.

      • Shatnersrug

        Hahaha yes I’m enjoying watching these idiots squirm. But I do feel that a much worse coup is coming down the line. I think Johnson is just a stepping stone.

        It’s funny everything is as lefties predicted when osbourne announced his reformation of the state has come to pass


  • Alyson

    Although the Queen hasn’t told me, I still think she could have signed the Order to prorogue Parliament, if she had agreed to it. It was signed by an Adviser. And it was made clear that she had no choice in the matter. She had to accept the Advice. I will be surprised if the Queen’s speech actually happens. It has also been mooted that the Queen ought to be removed to a place of safety. This is a coup that goes to the very heart of our democratic institutions.

  • asha

    Yes. Just as here in the US Pelosi, Biden and the rest of the monstrous corporate old guard are determined to sabotage any and all challenges from more progressive and more electable folks like Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard.

  • Northern

    I’m intrigued why Corbyn’s taken so much of Watson’s shit on the chin for so long? He’s been openly attacking his party leader for nearly the last 2 years, why hasn’t he been unceremoniously pushed yet?

    I really want to like Jezza as the only person offering something vaguely different but I don’t feel like I can vote for him while he leads a party of unprincipled backstabbers in waiting. Between the parties Brexit position shambles, the anti semitism smears and the refusal to endorse Boris’ recent calls for an election, I think he’s been well and truly tarnished in the eyes of many of the people on the omnibus.

    • SA

      “Between the parties Brexit position shambles, the anti semitism smears and the refusal to endorse Boris’ recent calls for an election, I think he’s been well and truly tarnished in the eyes of many of the people on the omnibus.”
      I would say only superficially and for those who do not understand the position of Corbyn and the party as a whole. Your list is a reiteration of how the MSM want to set the agenda.

      • Northern

        You can complain as much as you want but the media sets the agenda for the vast majority of people in this country so simply deriding me as someone ‘who does not understand the position of Corbyn and the party as a whole’ doesn’t negate what I’m saying, unfortunately. All it does is illustrate your willingness to throw the ‘non believers’ under the bus at the first opportunity.

        If I’m sat here as a life long Labour voter posting on one of the UK’s most prominent political blogs saying that the position of the Labour party is ambivalent and unclear, how do you think it’s coming across to those people who paid attention to 5 minutes of ITN last night whilst doing something else? Like I said before, I want to like Jezza, and as such I’ve had a lot more patience for him than I would other politicians but if a vote for Corbyn means a government with people like Tom Watson and Keir Stamner at the helm, then absolutely no dice. Watch the working class abandon Labour like the party has abandoned them (next time we’re deigned to be given the opportunity, that is).

    • SA

      The people may have voted to leave but the people have no idea how to leave without damaging themselves. Those who represent them have seen the difficulty of implementing this and the many different ways of how this could be implemented and therefore are seeking a way to do it without harming this country irrevocably.

      • Martin

        They may have voted but……sums it up really.
        Do it again until you get it right.
        You’ll keep on doing it until you realise that leaving isn’t really an option at all.

      • RandomComment

        It’s either that, or the elites hated the result – which they never expected – and have done everything in their power to thwart it. It’s not like the EU has an interest in making it easy.

    • fedup

      Yeah! The landslide vote of whole of one effin one/two percent that is really a ground shaker, ain’t it!

      • Yr Hen Gof

        3.78% if we’re dealing in facts, or five or six percent if I was coming from the opposition’s corner.
        In the case of the Welsh Assembly Referendum, point six of one percent was thought enough, despite the previous vote being 60/40 against.
        They needed to keep on voting until the politicians got the result they wanted.
        The Welsh Assembly has been an incompetent, financial sink hole since its inception, with regions in Wales remaining some of the poorest in Europe.

        • fedup

          Clearly there are odd interpretations of democracy at work here; 3.78 percent with an error margin of what percentage? Representing what percentage of the total demography of the UK?

          There is mob rule and football rules ie counting goals/votes, then there is democracy that is concerned with the rights of the minority in this case millions of people who voted remain.

          Politicians only reflect the average IQ of the “informed” citizenry. The fact that for years the “higher authority clause” was used to whitewash the incompetence of the local politicians: ala Euro Sausage saga of one Jim Hacker. That was followed by the asking from the “voters” who do they like question is a theatre of absurd.

          Why do you think there was a devolution of power for Welsh? Precisely because the costs of keeping the place going would have been far too much to stomach for the austerity/small government merchants in power (more profits for the multinationals advocates). Hence, the effort in the way of finding some partners in crime and finding some local charge hands and handing over.sharing a small amount of the dosh/loot/hush money all is well and good and presto there is a new lot to be blamed for all the ills that befall the Welsh is set in place and the government is no longer the sole bad dude. Why do you think there is a bum’s rush for election of local mayors?

          So far as the index of poor goes, you best re visit your stats, most of UK passed the Watford gap is in the poorest parts of Europe map.

    • AliB

      Quite- 3 1/2 years ago means there has been plenty of time for some reflection and to change minds. Maybe we should check out if that 171/2 million still want to leave. It was not a majority of the potential voters, only 37%. and quite a few were denied their vote by the delay in sending voting papers out to people who were abroad. That along with illegal funding and illegal use of data should have meant the vote had to be re-run anyway. The Leave campaign told a great number of lies and at no point argued for a NO Deal Brexit. Even if we accept your view of democracy as a once in a lifetime vote never to change your mind.
      And could you please explain to me why I should accept being made immeasurably poorer for no obvious benefits. Clearly it is not to allow our Parliament to “regain” sovereignty as we have now morphed into a dictatorship.

  • nevermind

    When Nrwsnight interviewed Len Mcluskey in an argumentative interview, it was preceded by a long shot of the burned out remains of Brighton pier.
    John Mann’s leaving his seat to support the Tories as their anti semitism Zsar by having a parting shot at his party and JC, followed by a fawning Juliana
    making the same point, means that we are on an election footing already.

    Im expecting that others will carry on with this Blairite/israeli concern and that the hate campaign against Corbyn will not stop until he is elected.
    I for one am not happy that the Iraq war supporters will be able to get re selected to carry on their campaign under Watsons smearing guidance.
    He should be sacked for bringing the party into disrepute, as should John Mann.

    • Sharp Ears

      Watson (Fatberg Slim) is a member of Trade Union Friends of Israel.

      He also collected vast sums from the unions, (+£170k iirc) categorized as ‘donations to his campaign for deputy leadership’, etc. Also largish sums from Sir Trevor Chinn and Sir David Garrard for the same. Look them up.

    • Deb O'Nair

      Moseley is an extreme right-winger, a proven racist and was an active (as in violent) and enthusiastic campaigner for his antisemitic father, Sir Oswald Moseley, the leader of The British Union of Fascists who modeled themselves on the German Nazi party and were notorious for their “Blackshirts”, which were the British equivalent of Hitlers “Brownshirts”.

  • Julian Evans

    Those who call themselves ‘centrists’ are as great an enemy of the people as the right wing are.
    The likes of Watson exist only to thwart an even faintly left-of-centre government (which is all Corbyn’s offering).

  • RandomComment

    Do you believe that Corbyn would deliver SI?His line has not exactly been consistent over the years. There already seems a large number of Northern voters completely disaffected with him – they voted Leave.

    Perhaps that would be irrelevant in a fully-integrated EU (essentially making “Independent Scotland” a region in its empire)

    As for Watson, yes think it is another Blairite intervention. Yet, ofc, Corbyn was being attacked for being anti-EU for long periods by this wing of the party…more pressure on him to abandon the ideals?

  • Petri Krohn

    On dogs and common knowledge:

    Harvey Weinstein and the Common Knowledge Game

    The reason this dynamic — the transformation of private knowledge into common knowledge — is so important is that the social behavior of individuals does not change on the basis of private knowledge, no matter how pervasive it might be. Even if everyone in the world believes a certain piece of private information, no one will alter their behavior. Behavior changes ONLY when we believe that everyone else believes the information. THAT’S what changes behavior. And when that transition to common knowledge happens, behavior changes fast.

    • Michael Droy

      That is a really important point.
      So every journalist and his dog knows that the US backed ISIS right up to October 2015 and that ISIS was selling oil to Turkey – they even showed the pictures for 24 hours, but if we pretend it is a secret it stops impacting the debate.
      Deny intelgate, the starvation policy for Iran & Venezuela, and everyone carries on as if we are all being reasonable.
      Disturbing, but explains a lot.

      • Laguerre

        I doubt that “every journalist and his dog” knows that the US backed ISIS right up to October 2015, mainly because it’s unlikely to be true. It was Saudi that supported Da’ish (or rather more precisely Saudi princes, much the same thing), and the US could not gainsay their allies. Da’ish selling Syrian oil through Turkey is perfectly normal, Erdogan and his electoral base were complicit with Da’ish. That has nothing to do with the US, with whom the Turks have poor relations. The US is doing much the same today as Da’ish was, exploiting the Syrian oil in their own political interests.

        • michael norton

          France’s Lafarge paid Islamic State to operate in Syria

          French cement maker Lafarge paid money and made deals with the Islamic State (IS) and other armed groups to protect its business interests in Syria, according to French newspaper Le Monde. The company operated a factory from 2011 to 2013, despite the war and while IS took control of towns and roads around it.

          At the heart of the “worrying deals”, Le Monde says, is the Jalabiya cement works some 150 kilometres north-east of Aleppo that Lafarge bought in 2007.

          It went into operation in 2011 and kept up production until 2013, despite growing instability in the region due to the civil war.

          In 2013 IS began taking control of towns and roads around the factory.

          Le Monde claims to have seen letters sent by Lafarge managers in Syria revealing arrangements that Lafarge made with the jihadist group to continue production until 19 September 2014.

          Lafarge bought licences from and paid “taxes” to Islamic State middlemen and oil traders, it alleges, adding that the letters show that Lafarge’s Paris headquarters was aware of the arrangements.

          In one case Lafarge sent a man named Ahmad Jaloudi on a mission “to get permission from IS to let employees past checkpoints” so as to gain access to its factory for workers and supplies.

          In another case a “pass stamped with an IS stamp and endorsed by the [IS] finance chief in the Aleppo region” proves the company had struck a deal with IS to allow for free circulation of its goods, the newspaper reports.

          Lafarge, which merged with Swiss company Holcim in 2015, has not commented on the allegations, apart from to say that its absolute priority is ensuring the safety and security of its staff.

          “When fighting came closer to the factory, Lafarge’s absolute priority was ensuring the safety and security of its staff while the closure of the factory was being studied,” the company said.

    • RandomComment

      Interesting article, and one with which I largely agree. It lacks discussion about how this is achieved, the impetus and blocks for dissemination of the idea(s)

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    Joanna Cherry was at the Court of Session today to apply for a “nobile officium” order. This would allow the Court to legally sign an extension request on behalf of Johnson. Think that one through. It would be really helpful FOR JOHNSON. It removes a serious headache for him. In the subsequent GE he can say “I didn’t ask for an extension, it was the hated elite that sent the letter”.
    Some really smart people can be really dumb at times.

  • Pardeep Singh

    And dogs in the street know that Remoaners don’t give 2 hoots for democracy and just want to stop Brexit (with or without a deal) and care more about that than getting rid of the Tories, hence them refusing to support a general election m

  • Brian Powell

    Corbyn won’t do any of those things. His popularity with voters is on the rocks. Labour is still not putting forward a clear position.

    • Royd

      The Labour Party’s position is very clear but perhaps you’re not paying attention? Or paying too much attention to how the Party’s position is being portrayed in the media?

    • Sharp Ears

      Yes. I agree. Jonathan Cook’s work is excellent. No wonder he got out of the Guardian.
      ‘Until 2007 he wrote columns for The Guardian, a publication he argued in 2011 limits the expression of dissent via its attacks on Gilad Atzmon, Julian Assange, Noam Chomsky and others.’

    • Royd

      Thanks for the link 🙂 I read Jonathon Cook often but had missed this one. He usually, through careful analysis, arrives at a sound conclusion and I think he’s done it again here. Great article and is the kind of stuff we should be contemplating. It’s why I like Jeremy Corbyn’s handling of the Brexit situation. He’s always said we need to be focusing on the ‘bigger issues’ and has been working like crazy to get people on some shared platform for moving things forward out of the impasse we’re in. I only hope he gets the chance to do it but he has many powerful enemies.

  • DiggerUK

    Watson was always known as a blairite boot boy in the party. His reign came to an end when Corbyn became leader. Along with other blairites he simply can’t accept its over for new labour. What The Oaf is doing is exactly what the blairites would be doing if they had not been squashed.

    I repeat my message to comrades in the Labour Party yet again. Our policies will win an election, but if we use a second referendum as an excuse to overturn brexit we can kiss the keys to No.10 goodbye. I want to say goodbye to the blairites…_

  • Republicofscotland

    Yeah Old Queen (Golden Piano) Lizzie is complicit alright, never trust a royal, who has bleed the state dry for decades, and pontificates every Christmas day, about how we need to keep calm and carry on, whilst never having to worry where her next meal was coming from.

    As for Joanna Cherry (whom I like), I wish she’d put as much time, effort and gusto into obtaining a S30, and pursuing Scottish independence (through the courts if need be) as she has over Brexit.

    I thought it was common knowledge that Watson would stab Corbyn in the back if Corbyn ever came close to becoming PM.

    • kathy

      It has to be said however that even if we achieve our goal of independence, Brexit will still be a catastrophe for Scotland. We have been too closely associated with England for too long to avoid the disastrous effects it would have on our economy and well-being so anything that can stop it can only be a good thing. Save England from its’ own stupidity and desire to destroy itself.

  • Alec

    It really is incredible. Remainers screaming and crying about the lack of democracy when it is they who are utterly unconcerned about democracy. Just to recap we had a referendum which decided that we should leave, an election where the politicians were elected on the promise to honour the result and leave, we had a parliamentary vote to send notice to Brussels that we were leaving, we had a European election where the Leave parties won massively. Now the low life, lying backstabbing Remainer gang in Westminster are desperate to stop Brexit and Boris has done his best to prevent them doing so, and you have the ludicrous audacity to claim he isn’t democratic.
    Black is white, up is down, and pro-Brussels traitors think they’re patriotic. Give me strength.

  • michael norton

    A judge at the High Court in Belfast has dismissed a legal challenge against No-Deal Brexit.

    One of the three cases brought was by the victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord who plans to appeal the decision.

    The court heard arguments that a No-Deal would have a negative effect on the peace process and endanger the Good Friday Agreement.

    But the judge said the main aspects of the case were “inherently and unmistakeably political”.

    well that seems quite firm.

    • michael norton

      I find it virtually impossible to understand how anyone could imagine this is the business of the courts, it is plainly political.
      Three years ago the largest exercise in Democracy, ever undertaken in the United Kingdom came to the conclusion that many more voters wanted Brexit, than wanted to Remain.
      The people are for Brexit, the Queen is for Brexit and the present government and Prime minister are for Brexit.

        • michael norton

          I think Kathy that the main party in Northern Ireland are for Brexit, that’s why they offer help and support the U.K. government.

          • michael norton

            Lagurre, that is a bizare statement.
            ten DUP m.p.s
            the opposition is S.F.
            they have 8 m.p.s
            so how do you think DUP are not the main party in Northern Ireland
            answers on a postcard, please

          • kathy

            ” that’s why they offer help and support the U.K. government.”

            I thought it was because they received a massive bribe.

  • Skye Mull

    Tom Watson is the idiot who publicised and supported that lying individual, now in prison, who wrongly alleged that many high profile individuals were pedophiles, or even murderers of children. How many lives or reputations were ruined by this man who will apparently do anything to help ruin anyone of another party, or within his own party if named Jeremy Corbyn?

    • Deb O'Nair

      His transgressions are many but one of the most despicable was the attack he launched on Twitter against Jenny Formby, whilst she was undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, when he was trying to hijack the Labour Party Complaints process. Watson supporter Jess Phillips, who is frequently very vocal on matters of sexism and male bullying in Parliament, remained totally silent on the issue. I believe Watson’s conduct is now a matter of an official investigation.

  • N_

    The head of the European Research Group said in public in January this year that prorogation would be a jolly good way to ensure No Deal. He said Theresa May should prorogue rather than allow the Commons to block it. That was in Bruges. Then in August, having brought down Theresa May and installed Boris Johnson, he went to Balmoral and gave the queen the go-ahead. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he has been in league with the queen and her deranged eldest son for quite a long time.

    The whole “Did Boris lie to the queen?” question sounds very much like damage limitation. It uses strong language but is meant to misdirect. The monarch and her family are always interested in the matter of who leads their party, the Tory party. Same in 1963 as in 2005 and in 2019 too.

    • N_

      This was Jacob Rees-Mogg suggesting prorogation as a good way to stop the Commons from blocking No Deal. The date: 23 January 2019.

      If someone knows of an earlier date when this suggestion was made, please can they say when and by whom.

      As things stand, I believe this idea was first expressed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the current Lord President of the monarch’s Privy Council, and who was also the head of the organisation that deposed Theresa May rather than allow a withdrawal deal that would have had support from a sufficient number of MPs to be accepted by the Commons. That, my friends, was the coup. I called it that at the time. I compared it to the occasion in Italy when Aldo Moro, Christian Democrat prime minister, was removed from the scene at gunpoint before he could announce the “Historic Compromise” between (a faction of) his party and the “Communist” Party.

      Jeremy Corbyn would be well advised not to allow the largely Tory media to define the types of questions that are allowed to be raised involving the monarch and the Tory prime minister and Brexit. Just kill off the idea that the queen is above the law. Do it now.

    • michael norton

      I think you will find J.R.M. is the brains of the outfit.
      He was too young/right wing to put his name in the hat, this time round
      but he was always going to be integral to the project.
      The Project,

      is Hard Brexit and a realignment away from Europe towards The Americas/Australasia.
      or to put it another way

  • Susan Batchelor

    Well said Craig. People fool themselves into thinking that the Queen is some sort of benevolent person who really has the best interests of her ‘subjects’ close to her heart but she is thwarted by those pesky politicians.

    She is up to her neck in it with them.

  • eddie-g

    TBF I think the bigger problem with the Queen is that she assumed Boris could do something without screwing it up completely.

  • Skye Mull

    If the courts overturn the prorogation because of this national Brexit crisis, can we expect every political party to cancel its annual seaside bash and return to the debate in Parliament? No, I didn’t think so either.

    • N_

      If the Supreme Court annuls the prorogation, then of course MPs will return to the Commons from their sandcastles and ice creams on the beach. Not because they love us, mind, but cecause it looks good.

      A bigger issue is whether there is documentation that proves that Boris Johnson lied to the Commons.

      Do you know what happens when an MP is incontrovertibly shown to have lied to the Commons?

    • RandomComment

      It’s a little ironic, in that the arguments for our system – as, say the US written constitution, is that the courts will not arbitrate the will of the people.

      As we know, prorogation added a few days onto the conference season. It is being spun as an outrage of epic proportions. It is all cheap, flimsy propaganda. Let’s face it, if it was that important, why take all your holidays in August. The mind boggles that anyone would fall for this. But they do, and boggle I do.

      But there is no doubt prorogation is a political tactic, and no-one, not even Brexit-loving folks, really believe it was for the reasons stated.

      • N_

        What reason do you believe the prorogation was for, @RandomComment?

        The more volatility that is created, the more money goes into the pockets of those who control the timing of certain events. It goes like this:

        * establish control over certain switches
        * increase the value of control over those switches

        • RandomComment

          Actually N_, I don’t know. It would be nice if I did. There are more twists and turns, more cards to be played.

          I’ve seen the “Hedge Fund” argument. No doubt some people will make money out of it. I don’t particularly care if it results in a overall benefit. Will it? I don’t know. If people actually have some power, rather than the sham we appear to live in, then this can be changed. 95% of people are not greedy psychopaths.

          • RandomComment

            The irony being, implementing the result of the 2016 referendum – whether you agree with it or not – would be the surest sign that the people do have some power.

          • kathy

            “The irony being, implementing the result of the 2016 referendum – whether you agree with it or not – would be the surest sign that the people do have some power.”

            It would actually be the surest sign that people are easy to manipulate since the damage it will cause makes them look like turkeys voting for Christmas.

          • kathy

            “The People are Sovereign.”

            Since when? The story used to be that parliament was sovereign. The liars just make up the rules to suit themselves since there is no constitution. Utterly disgusting.

  • Los

    Are we living in a modern Democratic state or are we at the whims of a Despot PM who is able to arbitarily wield a Royal Prerogative, so that we remain feudal Subjects under a Norman Yoke?

    Perhaps HM will have a quiet word in the ears of HM’s Judges to help clarify this.

    We’ll find out the answer after the Supreme Court delivers its verdict next week.

    Otherwise, we could just hold our own Folkmoot.

  • Orri

    Worth remembering that the Queen is a family that refused refuge to it’s Russian cousins. Practical and ruthless. No doubt she could have allowed herself to be fooled to give her an out of it came to it.

    Also remember all the talk about a Queens Speech when Gordon Brown lost his election. The consequences of it would be he’d step aside to allow another government to be formed. No vote of no confidence and no setting an election date to suit you. No reward for failure.

    If you want to paint the Queen as an arch manipulator then consider the implications of the noose Johnson has put around his own neck and that of his party.

    Also think about what it being an annual event implies.

    What should happen every time there’s a change in PMs, but especially when they lead a minority government, is that parliament is prorogued for the minimum period possible and reopens to a Queens Speech. Almost certainly it’ll pass if he leads a majority. Otherwise there’s no question of refusing to recommend a successor. They step aside and allow another government to form just as though a GE had taken place.

    Which is also why it should also take place annually at a minimum.

    • Deb O'Nair

      “Worth remembering that the Queen is a family that refused refuge to it’s Russian cousins.”

      You are entering the Twilight Zone; it was important for the Czar and his family to be exterminated in order that the white Russians had no one to rally around. The Bolshevik counter revolution was the result of some twisted games played in London, Berlin and Washington. The short story is that once the US came into WW1 the allies knew that Germany would not be able to fight on much longer, so a plan was concocted where a British intelligence asset (Alexander Parvus) with links to Berlin suggested to the Germans that Russia could be withdrawn from the Eastern Front if they backed the Bolsheviks with gold, which they duly did. Lenin was then dispatched from London to collect the gold and Trotsky was dispatched from New York to team up with Lenin in Moscow. The aim of the Bolshevik counter-revolution was primarily to ensure that Russia and Germany would not enter into any form of alliance after the war’s end (because that was the original fear that precipitated WW1) when a Czarist Russia realised they had been deceived into war against Germany by the British with empty promises of an expanded Russian empire controlling Turkey and the Black Sea.

      • J Galt

        I think you’ll find that Lenin travelled from Zurich to Petrograd via Stockholm – where he met up with the “Gold” – or more probably the keeper/s of the “Gold”.

        Going via London had been mooted but was dismissed as too dangerous due to U-boat activity – they couldn’t risk the lynchpin.

        Read your Solzhenitsyn.

    • kathy

      “Worth remembering that the Queen is a family that refused refuge to it’s Russian cousins. Practical and ruthless. ”

      Yes and don’t forget how she happily signs the death warrant for all the prisoners on death row in her Caribbean colonies. She is not very cuddly at all although she does seem to go to church every Sunday.

  • Loony

    How very strange for such a committed fan of the EU and globalism to be so entranced by whether or not Boris Johnson lied, and what kind of internecine squabbling is taking place in the Labour Party. All this and yet silence and complete disinterest in the fact that Mario Draghi lied.

    In typical democratic fashion Draghi observed that “There was no need to take a vote. There was such a clear majority”

    Just imagine the manufactured outrage and the widespread apoplexy if Boris Johnson had uttered such words or Tom Watson uttered such words.

    Surely those in favor of the EU should be rushing to explain how having a liar as the President of the ECB (soon to be replaced with a convicted criminal) is beneficial to the average person

    • Sharp Ears

      Lagarde certainly has a hold on them (as the song goes). She moved seamlessly from the IMF to the ECB regardless of her dealings with Tapie.

      ‘ On 17 December 2015, the CJR (Court of Justice of the Republic) ordered Lagarde to stand trial before it for alleged negligence in handling the Tapie arbitration approval. In December 2016, the court found Lagarde guilty of negligence, but declined to impose a penalty.’

      The deal in favour of Tapie amounted to €403 million.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.