Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

Home Forums Discussion Forum Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019 Reply To: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019

Kim Sanders-Fisher

Just nine months on from the Covert 2019 Rigged Election and the media have started to ditch the pretence that Boris Johnson is actually in charge as PM; repeatedly the unelected manipulator, who helped steal an 80 seat fake ‘landslide victory,’ hits the headlines in obvious control of every single radical Tory policy shift, most of them damaging. In the Guardian Article entitled, “Dominic Cummings’ data law shake-up a danger to trade, says EU” they warn of how, “proposed rewriting of data protection rules said to put vital cooperation in doubt.” They say that, “A radical ‘pro-tech’ plan championed by Dominic Cummings to rewrite Britain’s data protection laws is endangering future cooperation with the EU worth billions to the British economy, Brussels has warned. The government’s newly published national data strategy, promising a ‘transformation’ long sought by Boris Johnson’s chief adviser and the former Vote Leave director, has sparked concern at a sensitive time with the continued flow of data between the UK and EU member states in question.”

The Guardian report that, “The European commission is currently examining whether the UK’s data laws will be in line with the EU’s general data protection regulation (GDPR) and law enforcement directive after 1 January 2021, allowing the movement of data vital to the law enforcement agencies but also the banking, health, entertainment, insurance and tech sectors. Downing Street hopes that positive ‘adequacy’ decisions can be made by Brussels before the end of the year when the transition period ends. The government estimates that EU exports to the UK of data-enabled services were worth approximately £31bn in 2017 while UK exports of data-enabled services to the EU were worth around £80bn in 2017. But EU sources said the government’s consultation paper published on the same day as the controversial internal market bill had exacerbated existing concerns over the UK’s approach at the end of the transition period.” This is not the time to spook the EU if they want a deal, but the Brexiteers need a harmful crash-out Brexit disruption to complete their coup!

The Guardian say that, “Amid the uncertainty, on Friday British officials were due to explain the intentions behind the government’s stated pledge in its strategy paper to remove ‘legal barriers (real and perceived)’ to data use, encourage international sharing and deliver a ‘radical transformation of how the government understands and unlocks the value of its own data’. EU officials said the two key issues standing in the way of a positive decision were the use of data by the UK intelligence services and the potential ‘onward flow’ to countries such as the US. ‘While the UK applies EU data protection rules during the transition period, certain aspects of its system may change in the future or be implemented in a manner that differs from the approach of the EU such as rules on international transfers,’ an EU official said. ‘These aspects therefore raise questions that need to be addressed’.” It seems obvious to me that the Brits have no intention of negotiating anything; all they want is to blame the EU for crash-out Brexit.

The Guardian report that, “The official added that there was particular concern over the future rules ‘governing access to data by UK national security authorities’ in the light of a recent ruling by the European court of justice.” In addition to leaving the EU the Tories have pledged to exit the European Court of Justice ASAP. They said, “In July, the Luxembourg court made the transfer of personal data to the US from the EU almost legally impossible due to the intrusive nature of surveillance programmes undertaken by the US intelligence agencies and the lack of redress for EU citizens. Brussels is expected to seek assurances that the UK will recognise the implications of the ruling on its own treatment of European citizens’ personal information. Legal challenges to an adequacy decision would be expected in Brussels should the British government fail to offer failsafe safeguards, EU sources said.”

According to the Guardian, “Ross McKenzie, a partner at the Addleshaw Goddard law firm, said the government was ‘walking a tightrope’ by indicating the desire to make a major move away from the EU’s ‘gold standard’ GDPR while also seeking to illustrate that it was in line with its regulatory intentions. He said: ‘It is a surprise to me that the government has been so bold in the strategy paper. The European commission will be thinking: ‘What on earth do you want to change?’ But the UK cannot be a world-beating data economy unless we have ‘adequacy’.” With all of the Media articles I read, I get the distinct impression that very few of their Journalists have woken up to the fact that the Brexiteers are deliberately trying to spook the EU and they fully intend to crash-out without a deal, which will be spun to the UK public as an ‘Australian deal’ like Hobson’s choice of no choice at all!

The Guardian report that, “Two years ago, Cummings, who championed vast data collection by the Vote Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum campaign, described the EU’s GDPR as ‘horrific’. ‘One of the many advantages of Brexit is we will soon be able to bin such idiotic laws,’ Cummings wrote. ‘We will be able to navigate between America’s poor protection of privacy and the EU’s hostility to technology and entrepreneurs’.” Cummings’s own track record on respect for the privacy of peoples data is abysmal; he used the stolen Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data to target persuadables with weapons grade PsyOps fearful messages to get them to support Brexit. We should be extremely concerned about this new Track and Trace App and other schemes capitalizing on Covid 10 to get us to relinquish our data to dubious private companies, who will be able to sell it on without our consent. After outsourcing all of these services the Government can back away from any liability when our data goes astray.

According to the Guardian, “‘Those comments haven’t gone unnoticed,’ said one diplomatic source. Without a GDPR adequacy decision, businesses will be forced to organise individual agreements, known as standard contractual clauses. Industry insiders say the extra costs will be crippling for many small and medium-sized enterprises. A government spokesman said: ‘We are a global leader, committed to high data protection standards. Protecting the privacy of individuals will continue to be a UK priority. The EU’s adequacy assessment ascertains whether UK data protection standards are ‘essentially equivalent’ to the EU’s’.” But Cummings doesn’t care about sacrificing SME’s, causing unnecessary additional job losses as he drags them under with his warped ideology. His greed for unfettered access to our data prevails as traditional standards of decent practice do not matter to a man who has no conscience regarding his own destructive powers. So another Cummings wrecking ball swings towards us due to his total selfish failure to see beyond his own personal priorities.

In the Independent Article entitled, “Dominic Cummings and his technology push does not hark back to a past era, it’s a delusional mess. For now, we must conclude that they are no replay of the 1970s, but something even less appealing, writes Tom Kelsey, Dominic Cummings believes that Britain could lead in the fourth industrial revolution like it led in the first. The only thing in our way, so we are told, are the EU’s state-aid rules.” Apparently he thinks that, “If only Britain was free of them, Britain could soon foster the ‘trillion-dollar tech companies’ that the nation has otherwise missed out on. Unfortunately, the details of such a strategy – if they exist – are being aired because of the general desire to build national tech giants having emerged as a key explanation for why it would be impossible to strike a trade deal with the EU.”

What the Independent are presenting as Cummings strategy will undoubtedly channel more public funding into the hands of private benefactors and Tory supporting Corporations in a particularly high-stakes round of “public risk for private profit!” Cummings, a firm supporter of the pseudoscience of eugenics, has a really unhealthy fascination with AI, data harvesting and controlling the masses through the use of weapons grade PsyOps: the surveillance state on steroids! Kelsey reports that, “we can, however, piece together something of the Cummings view of where state-funded science should be heading. He wants to use the state to take long-term risks that private investors would shy away from, with civil servants spotting the new technological breakthroughs yet to come. Earlier in the year, the government announced the establishment of a new ‘blue skies’ science research agency, modelled on the American Advanced Research Projects Agency. This was Cummings’s brainchild.”

Kelsey says, “It has been rightly criticised. The US relationship with high technology stems from very distinct historical advantages. The Advanced Research Projects Agency enjoyed huge budgets, partly rooted in the spectacular spending of the military industrial complex at the height of the Cold War. The US also had a vast internal market for its technologies. None of this, particularly not the cash, are going to be magicked into existence by leaving the European Union.” According to Kelsey, “Where the criticism has gone wrong is in saying that if Cummings gets his way, there will be a return to the bad old days of the 1970s, of trying to ‘pick winners’, but producing ‘lame ducks’.” He feels, “This is unfair on the politics of that much maligned decade. The 1970s was in fact defined by greater realism about British technological strength and witnessed a backing away from its more spectacular investments. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the British state took long-term, high-tech risks as trying to leapfrog the United States.”

As an example Kelsey cites, “Concorde and British-designed nuclear reactors, the central technocratic efforts of the age, were promoted as world beating, but resulted in economic disaster. And crucially, they were effectively cancelled during the 1970s. Concorde’s economics were so hopeless that even its manufacturers wanted to develop a new one, but these plans were rejected, so too the calls for a long production run. Beyond the prototypes, only fourteen were built, rather short of the hundreds that were originally envisioned. The ministerial supporters of British-designed nuclear reactors advocated them precisely on the grounds that it was better to have a slower build-up of atomic energy in favour of coal. Few now believed that they would challenge American dominance in the field. The nationalisations of the 1970s, Rolls-Royce and British Leyland, in particular, were less about technological development and more desperate defensive moves in the face of crisis, especially rising unemployment.”

Kelsey points out that, “For many within Whitehall, two key lessons had been learnt: it was hard to take on the United States, the scientific and industrial powerhouse of the day, and win; and that the state should stay clear of funding ambitious schemes on the edges of technical possibility.” That sounds like an apt description of the latest ‘world-beating’ announcement from Number 10, touting the impressive potential of ‘Operation Moonshot’ if they can just invent the technology at warp speed to make it happen for a cool 600bn! I groaned in disbelief. Kelsey says, “What Cummings is proposing, or at least what we know of it, is stranger than the productive disillusion of the 1970s, or the radical techno-nationalism of the post-war decades. After all, Britain emerged from the Second World War with plausible claims to world leadership in aviation and civil nuclear power. Britain today is not in the same position of comparative technological strength. Moreover, it now not only competes against the US, but China and the EU too.”

Kelsey reports, “Cummings is also not talking about the rebuilding of the manufacturing base, but investment in very select high-tech fields that take his fancy. This is something new; a fascination with glamorous tech, but without a broader commitment to a national economy. A desire for a state-backed ‘British Google’ alongside an indifference to damage to the manufacturing industry that leaving the customs union would bring. A decision to put $500m (£388m) into the unlikely to be profitable satellite company OneWeb, while allowing the semiconductor firm ARM – one of Britain’s few national champions – to be sold to the United States. Yes, it was already in Japanese hands, but a government serious about industrial strategy might have looked for a way to bring it into UK ownership. Perhaps if Cummings were to spell out his plans, they might make more sense, but for now, we must conclude that they are no replay of the 1970s, but a new, more incoherent political-economic mess.”

So who did we allegedly vote for as PM in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, Johnson or Cummings, his warped eugenicist side kick? It seems there is no area of policy making that the Herd Nerd doesn’t consider urgently requires him to cause destructive mayhem reinventing the wheel! The New European report on, “’Dominic Cummings pictured arriving at Downing Street with letter on missile and space programmes,’ he was pictured with an archive letter from one of the leading figures of the US missile and space programmes as he entered Downing Street. The document, from former US air force general Bernard Schriever, appears to rail against the ‘blizzard of legislation’ around defence procurement and accused the system of ‘inhibiting technological innovation’. Cummings is known to have a keen interest in defence spending and has previously hailed General Schriever, who died in 2005, as a ‘phenomenally successful’ manager for his work on rapidly deploying intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

According to the New European the vintage, “letter carried by Cummings was written in 1986 to David Packard, who carried out a review of defence spending for President Ronald Reagan. ‘I strongly believe that the wise and timely application of technology to provide qualitatively superior weapons, second only to people, is the most important ingredient to our national security,’ General Schriever said. Cummings was pictured with the document ahead of a cabinet meeting and while a major defence review is taking place in the UK. Defence secretary Ben Wallace has said Britain’s armed forces will be reshaped to be ‘fit for tomorrow’s battles, not fighting yesterday’s’. The minister warned that the UK’s enemies had ‘studied our vulnerabilities’ and adapted more quickly, meaning a ‘step change’ is needed to adapt to the threat.” It would seem no one has briefed the almighty malicious one regarding a slightly more pressing crisis than the type of weaponry we might need to fight the next totally unnecessary overseas intervention!

Cummings is like a belligerent spoilt child throwing regular “I want” tantrums to demand immediate attention for his niche priorities or indulge his vindictive fantasies to remove those who do not grovel to his overinflated ego. He is a horrendously dangerous loose cannon dismantling key structures and dispatching seasoned Civil Servants to make way for his whack job sycophants. Johnson has allowed the Cummings wrecking ball to precipitate failure after failure, until we barely have a functioning Government; the wanton plundering of public funds squandered has reached epidemic proportions while not tackling or controlling the Covid 19 Pandemic! Cummings must go ASAP; this is an urgent priority. If he could no longer dictate to the PM he might blow the whistle in revenge, exposing crucial evidence that would overturn the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, force an Investigation of the vote, drive the Tories out of office and hopefully see the PM and key politicians behind bars on corruption charges. Cummings is the grenade; oust him and you pull the pin! DO NOT MOVE ON!