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

#63424
Kim Sanders-Fisher

The PM is touting his glorious Empire ambitions to compete with Singapore for ship registrations, but is he still just ‘Naval’ Gazing? British ship registry has declined over the past year in response to his disastrous and myopic focus on crash-out Brexit. A Canary Article entitled, “As Johnson threatens UK’s neighbours with gunboats, we revisit the lies underpinning the entire Brexit project. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has reverted to 19th century gunboat diplomacy, threatening UK’s nearest neighbours and allies over fishing rights. In doing so, he threatens the entire European Union. But we may not have arrived at this sorry state of affairs had it not been for the blatant lies that underpin the entire Brexit project. Let’s remind ourselves of some of those many falsehoods and where they began. Vote Leave, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was the official campaign group backing Brexit. Vote Leave was examined by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) as part of its inquiry into fake news.”

The public are justifiably cynical regarding the pronouncements of a pathological liar who betrayed our trust. The Canary point to fake ads, “Some of Vote Leave’s ads were blatant lies that aimed to instil fear, such as incorrectly claiming that Turkey was about to join the EU: Indeed, Turkey first applied to join the EU over 30 years ago and it would appear it is highly unlikely that it would be accepted anytime soon. It’s understood that 45% of Vote Leave’s Facebook ads exploited fears about immigration. Another infamous lie emanating from the Vote Leave campaign concerned the claim that the UK paid £350m to the EU each week. But Full Fact made it clear that claim was ‘wrong’ and the UK Statistics Authority confirmed it was a ‘clear misuse of official statistics’. As The Canary previously reported, the DCMS report also accused Leave.EU, fronted by Nigel Farage, of publishing fake news. Leave.EU produced the infamous ‘breaking point’ posters, which were reported to the police as a ‘blatant attempt to incite racial hatred’.”

The Canary try to “Debunking Brexit lies” as identified by, “Shout Out UK offers a list of “Brexit lies debunked”. For example:
• “Migrants are stealing Briton’s jobs and the UK would have control over its borders”.
• “UK Sovereignty is at stake.”
• “The EU is undemocratic and resembles Nazi Germany. Boris Johnson made the statement that Hitler and Napoleon both failed to unify Europe, and the EU has done the same.”
• “Poverty in the North has nothing to do with austerity, it’s the European bureaucrats’ fault.”
• “EU forbids the UK from forming trade deals with other countries. Leaving the EU would allow the UK to form trade deals with the rest of the world.”
• “The European Army creation”
• “Lisbon Treaty Conspiracy Theory. This involved many lies in one document that spread around on different social media channels. Many of the tweets started with, ‘I have been reading the Lisbon Treaty’. This misinformation campaign began in March 2019 when it looked like the UK may not leave the EU.”

But wait, there’s more… The Canary alert us to, “More false claims and media lies,” they say that, “GQ magazine offers an A-Z of Brexit lies. Brexit Lies also provides several hundred examples of media publishing fake news and downright lies about the EU. It prefaces the list, saying: brexit promised a lot of things: sovereignty, preserved -free- access to the single market, more prosperity and £350 millions extra to the NHS every week. We now know these were all lies, there is no prosperity ahead, no money for the NHS, no more EU money [sic] for farmers and no more freedom to go work, live and love in 27 other countries.”

The Canary uncovered even more fake news material to debunk, “EU myths; The European Commission in the UK, meanwhile, put together ten examples of myths about the European Union:
• “EU data protection rules do not ban Christmas wish lists – in Bavaria or elsewhere”.
• EU delays have not prevented “getting safe cancer drugs to children”.
• “Barmy EU chiefs” did not “say people should stop eating fish and chips”.
• The “EU is acting on scientific evidence to cut lead in toys, not stopping children colouring”.
• “EU moves to end impunity for dangerous drivers” equally across all states, with no “‘quirk of EU law” discriminating in some way against British drivers”.
• “Ceiling flaw in suggestion EU rules behind payments to big landowners”.
• “EU doctors in UK are not ‘a threat to patients’ as Daily Mail says. If they left, that WOULD put patients in danger”.
• “Sun’s imperial “up yours” to Brussels falls down on the facts”
• The Daily Express was “wrong to call green cars ‘waste’ and wrong to suggest EU is prioritising them above terrorism”
• “Medical devices: Daily Mail misrepresents EU system and fails to mention reforms”

The Canary is really on a roll here as it goes on, “An editorial in the Guardian on 10 December, brings us up to date: Boris Johnson got where he is today by telling lies about Europe. He made stories up as a journalist. He told fibs on an industrial scale in the referendum campaign. Now he is telling whoppers as prime minister too. There was an ‘oven-ready’ EU trade deal. Not true. The chances of no deal were ‘absolutely zero’. Same again. Britain was prepared for any outcome after 31 December. Utterly false. The prospect of EU tariffs on British goods was ‘totally and utterly absurd’. Another porkie.” What really is outrageous is that the PM and all MPs are not punished for lying in the Houses of Parliament or deliberately misleading the British people, but MPs are forbidden the right to call out a lie or suggest that another MP has lied in the Chamber. This archaic Gentlemen’s agreement is no longer workable when MPs fail to honour their duty of honesty as ‘Gentlemen’ and women as a legal obligation of public service,

The Canary report, that, “As for the so-called Australian-style deal Johnson’s so fond of quoting, as yet there is no EU-Australia free trade agreement in place, as explained by former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull: ‘Be careful what you wish for. Australia’s relationship with the EU is not one, from a trade point of view, that Britain would want.’ Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull warns the UK against relying on WTO rules for business with Europe.” He Tweeted:“Be careful what you wish for. Australia’s relationship with the EU is not one, from a trade point of view, that Britain would want.” They say, “If there’s no EU trade agreement, the UK would automatically fall back on the rules of the WTO. The government refers to this as an ‘Australia-style deal’. But if a deal between the EU and Australia does go ahead, a UK equivalent will simply mean trading on World Trade Organisation terms. That would mean tariffs and likely price rises passed on to consumers.”

The Canary sum up by including a video, “Finally, as previously reported by The Canary, this Video narrated by Stephen Fry sums up many of the lies.” They point out the rewards of Cronyism, “In the end the Brexit lies paid off, with the guilty suitably rewarded. Johnson became prime minister and many of his Brexit colleagues were awarded ministerial positions in his government. Johnson also appointed Dominic Cummings, former head of Vote Leave, as Downing Street senior adviser (though he now ‘works from home’). It’s understood that several Downing Street jobs have gone to those who organised the Vote Leave campaign.” He has not gone…

This Canary article includes mention of another major contributor to the Vote Leave con, now benefiting greatly with the Brexiteers in Government. They say, “Then there’s Faculty AI, previously known as Advanced Skills Initiative (ASI) and a supplier to Vote Leave. As reported by The Canary, in recent months Faculty was awarded at least 13 government contracts, worth £3m. In short, Tory Brexit, like Johnson &Co, can be described as a mammoth fraud that arguably serves only those politicians who hark back to empire, or the financial interests of a few businesses. Indeed Rachel Johnson warned in 2019 that her brother could be facing pressure from ‘people who have invested billions in shorting the pound or shorting the country in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit’. But deal or no-deal, the British public has been well and truly conned.” They conclude that, “Johnson is an out and out liar of the highest order;” I would call him a criminal who has used public office to betray the country: I say he is guilty of treason!

Then, as if there are not enough tax dodging schemes to make the wealthy elite salivate over the new post Brexit deregulated UK, already considered the money laundering capitol of thre world, there is mega rich Rishi’s favorite project ‘Freeports.’ In a Tax Research UK Article entitled, “Freeports: the new tax havens that the government wants to create in the UK,” Richard Murphy injects a modicum of caution. He says, “One of Rishi Sunak’s big plans for the UK is the introduction of so-called ‘freeports’. He has been promoting them for a long time, and long before entering government. The government has said of their plans: The government is working to boost economic activity across the UK, ensuring that towns, cities and regions across the country can begin to benefit from the opportunities of leaving the EU. As part of this work, the government aims to create up to 10 freeports in locations across the UK.”

Murphy reports that, “The government wants to establish freeports, which have different customs rules than the rest of the country, that are innovative hubs, boost global trade, attract inward investment and increase productivity. In doing so, the government wants freeports to generate employment opportunities to the benefit of some of our most deprived communities around the UK.
The government has the following objectives for UK freeports:
• establish freeports as national hubs for global trade and investment across the UK
• promote regeneration and job creation
• create hotbeds for innovation”

He says that, “The government has drawn on evidence from successful freeports around the world to develop a UK freeport model. The proposed model includes tariff flexibility, customs facilitations and tax measures. We are also considering planning reforms, additional targeted funding for infrastructure improvements and measures to incentivise innovation.”

Murphy explains his intervention in evaluating the scheme saying, “I was asked by the Fair Tax Mark to look at this issue and draft a response for then, which has now gone in. But I also wrote a much longer version, which is available here. The summary of my submission says: This submission details considerable concerns relating to the freeports that the UK government is proposing to create. These concerns relate in particular to,” and he goes on to list his principal concerns that should worry us all given this Tory Government’s propensity with feathering the nests of the ultra wealthy at the expense of the working poor. In other documents exposing the blight of Freeports they are described as totally deregulated areas where worker exploitation is completely uncontrolled among other major abuses within an ostensibly democratic society. But Murphy focuses on the tax I plications in his list outlined below,

• “The significant money-laundering risks that they will create that are unavoidable without a comprehensive reform of the enforcement processes relating to UK company law;
• The extensive risk of tax avoidance activity because of the uncertainties that freeports will create with regard to a range of taxes including corporation tax, value added tax, income tax and social security;
• The inability of the freeport proposal to address the government’s concerns with regard to stamp duty land tax, business rates, research and development credits and other related issues;
• The absence of any apparent economic need for freeports;
• The risk to UK tax morale that they will create;
• The threat to the UK’s international tax relationships that they will pose;
• The challenge to the international consensus on ending the harmful race to the bottom in tax matters that they represent.”

Murphy concludes that, “In our opinion none of these issues can be addressed by modification to the proposal made and as such we suggest that the proposal to create freeports should not be preceded with. The submission is of thirty pages and highlights a great many issues, because as became apparent in discussions I had with the Treasury and others during the submission process, it is deliberately scant as to the proposals to provide the government with maximum opportunity to introduce ideas without prior notice having claimed a consultation has already been done.” He warns that, “My fear, to be blunt, is that the aim is to introduce tax havens in the UK. It’s an issue I will come back to, but for now I offer these paragraphs from the submission on which this proposal is not needed.” His cautions are especially valid given this Tory Governments appalling track record for corruption and greed.

Murphy questions the “Economic need” saying that, “We understand that the Government’s intention in promoting freeports is to encourage increased economic activity in the UK. It intends to do so by providing incentives through the tax system and by relaxing other regulations. There is little evidence that freeports have ever achieved this goal for a government. There is quite strong evidence that, at best, freeports relocate activity at cost to a government. In addition, there is no evidence at all at present within the UK that there is a shortage of capital available for investment purposes. There is, for example, regular and informed comment on the pages of the Financial Times and The Economist on the existence of a savings glut, which savings are not put to use by investors.”

Murphy further explains, “What is more, that capital is available at incredibly low cost, meaning that the hurdles to be overcome before investment can take place have little, if anything, to do with the cost of finance, which is all that can be influenced by reduced taxation and a reduction in the cost of regulation within freeports. In that case there is very little economic evidence to suggest that freeport creation will address any known economic problem: it would seem that all desired economic activity in the UK is currently being funded at very little capital cost without the assistance of freeport arrangements. The economic rationale for such arrangement is, then, very hard to discern. The government has not stated what they are in the current economic environment. We would very strongly suggest that this be done before any legislation is presented to Parliament so that proper appraisal of the proposal can be made.”

Murphy then focuses on the potential “Regulatory need” or rather the lack thereof. He says that, “We have one final observation to make. The logic of freeports is that there must be regulatory failings in the UK that requires that they exist. The consultation document does not specify these failings, but if they exist it is logical that the whole country enjoy the benefit of reform rather than just some selected areas. We would therefore suggest the government address this broader issue rather than introduce freeports if they think there are regulatory issues requiring attention. We do not need ten new tax havens in the UK. So why is the government intent on creating them?” There’s one simple answer: greed! It is the desire of this Tory Government, with its obsessive dedication to meeting the demands of only the richest one percent of our population, that these greedy scroungers are facilitated in hoarding their wealth away from the grasp of the tax man so that they never pay their share of the burden they heap on the working poor.

Those in privileged positions close to the PM and helping to keep him propped up in power despite his repeated blunders are richly rewarded. The Canary Article entitled, “Special advisers earn almost £10m, with Cummings paid six figures,” reveals the excessive salaries paid to the people we call ‘Spads.’ They say, “Government special advisers were paid almost £10m last year, new figures have revealed, with Dominic Cummings among Downing Street staff on six-figure salaries.” There’s big money to be made advising Government. The Canary examines the massive bill to see who gets what, “A Cabinet Office report detailed the £9.6m pay bill for the 102 special advisers, known as Spads, from April 2019 to March 2020. Former chief adviser Cummings, who is in the process of leaving his government post, was paid the equivalent of £140,000-£144,999 – up from £95,000-£99,999 last year.” Obviously the public sector pay freeze does not cast its icy chill in the direction of Number 10 as the ultra privileged cozy up to the PM.

We need to question whether such a huge wage bill is warranted during a time of national crisis when the Government wanted to deny providing school meals to hungry children? They say that, “Lee Cain was paid the equivalent of £140,000-£144,999 last year (Victoria Jones/PA) Ex-communications chief Lee Cain, who also left Downing Street last month, was paid between £140,000 and £144,999 – the same as the previous year.” Newly-appointed press secretary Allegra Stratton, who is set to front televised briefings from Downing Street in the new year, earns between £125,000 and £129,999. Number 10 photographer Andrew Parsons works part-time but earns the full-time equivalent of £100,000-£104,999, the figures show. Advisers Edward Lister and Munira Mirza both earn between £140,000 and £144,999, while the prime minister’s top spin doctor Jack Doyle earns between £110,000 and £114,999. The UK’s chief Brexit negotiator, Lord Frost, earns between £125,000 and £129,999, according to the data.”

This was the point made by the enabling Leader of the Opposition in one of the only questions Starmer didn’t manage to squander at this, the last, Prime Minister’s Questions of the year. It was duly sidelined and drowned out by the PMs standard weekly Tory Party Political Broadcast that has been allowed to substitute for scrutiny in the House of Commons. Will the public finely take note and voice their outrage after hearing that Dominic Cummings aberrant conduct in breaching lockdown restrictions was rewarded with a staggering 40% pay rise while loyal public sector workers were punished with a pay freeze? The obscene outrages of this corrupt Tory Government are becoming more and more outrageous as the media fail in their task of providing public scrutiny due to right-wing bias by certainly aided and abetted by Starmer, the Trojan horse destroying the Labour Party from within. ASAP we must demand real scrutiny, exposing the corruption of the Covert 2019 Rigged Election: delegitimizing Johnson and ousting Starmer!

Just like a Christmas Panto villain the Dom is lurking in the background; we should all be shouting, “he’s behind you,” but Johnson knows that, because he left Dominic Cummings in place where he can still pull the most essential strings. I wasn’t fooled by that dramatic exit through the front door of Number 10 carrying a feather-light cardboard box to incite intrigue: it was just a stunt for the UK media, and they lapped it up. No way was Cummings turfed out in disgrace, because if that were true a severe act of ruthless vengeance would have ensued. I still claim “Cummings is the grenade; oust him and you pull the pin!” No explosive facts have been mysteriously leaked to the media, no embarrassing revelations have made Johnon’s premiership untenable, but believe me there is serious Kompromat within Cummings grasp. I firmly believe that Cummings holds the key to exactly how the Covert 2019 Rigged Election was so precisely calculated to win the unfathomable Tory ‘landslide victory;’ enough to precipitate a full Investigation? Yes!

Despite the PM fantasy of restored naval prowess as unstoppable global power as he insists we are on course for a brilliant future beyond the EU, in reality our horizons are narrowing by the day as we draw closer to the crash-out Brexit Johnson once envisaged as being such a “Titanic success.’ Boris is to blame for this entirely preventable, rapidly looming disaster as he consciously chose to desert his moral compass and steer towards that Brexit iceberg. The only resemblance to ‘Titanic’ will not signal success, but SOS, apparent when, scuttled by the Brexiteers, the project inevitably sinks like that ill-fated ship. Although they had once bragged that the Titanic was ‘unsinkable,’ their glowing accolades did not save the vessel from her watery demise, just as over-promising on Brexit will not save the UK from plunging ever deeper into an economic abyss. Uncompromising arrogance will lead to exclusionary desolation leaving us stranded without sufficient liferafts; will the EU try to rescue us from this catastrophic self-imposed peril? DO NOT MOVE ON!