Friday 18th of January 2019

theresa may does the brexit withdrawing method...


UK Brexit Minister Dominic Raab will travel to Brussels on Tuesday in a bid to pick up the pace of Brexit talks with the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier, Reuters reported, citing UK Prime Minister Theresa Mays's office.

"On the agenda will be resolving the few remaining withdrawal issues related to the UK leaving the EU and pressing ahead with discussions on the future relationship," May's Downing Street office was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Raab will also reportedly give a speech emphasizing how the UK government plans to mitigate the potential risks of leaving the EU without a deal and ensure continuity and stability.

Moreover, according to the media outlet, London will also issue the first of a series of the so-called technical manuals, designed to help British people and businesses prepare for a no-deal scenario.


According to the recent poll conducted by the YouGov research and data company, nearly half of UK citizens support the idea of holding of a second Brexit referendum if the talks between London and Brussels break down. Britains also shows strong support for a second referendum in general, even in the event of London and Brussels reaching a deal, with 45 percent of the respondents advocating the revote.

However, UK Prime Minister Theresa May has denied the possibility of holding another referendum on Brexit on numerous occasions, saying that the ultimate decision was made during the 2016 vote.

Read more:


Picture at top from 1975 Don Martin Special Mad Magazine... Part of Gus Leonisky's Collection of useless things.

superdry versus brexit...

One of the co-founders of the fashion label Superdry has donated £1m to the campaign for another EU referendum.

Multi-millionaire Julian Dunkerton said he was backing the People's Vote campaign because "we have a genuine chance to turn this around". 

The People's Vote, a cross-party group including some Labour and Lib Dem MPs, want a vote on the final Brexit deal.

The government has ruled out another referendum after Britain voted to leave the EU in June 2016. 

The UK is on course to leave the EU on 29 March next year.

Mr Dunkerton said he believes his brand, which he left earlier this year, "would never have become the global success that it did" if Brexit had happened 20 years earlier.

His donation, the largest received by the People's Vote, will go towards funding opinion polls.

He added: "I will be paying for one of the most detailed polling exercises ever undertaken by a campaign so that more and more people have the confidence to demand the democratic right for their voice to be heard."

The People's Vote campaign is hoping to get enough MPs, including the Labour leadership, to back a referendum on the deal Prime Minister Theresa May strikes with Brussels, which is due to be put to a vote in Parliament in October.

They have organised a number of events over the summer to step up pressure on MPs.

Hundreds of people attended a rally in Edinburgh's Festival Square on Saturday in support of the campaign.

Read more:


The most likely result of a new vote would be in favour of a harsher Brexit... I could be wrong...

president of I can't remember research foundation...


see also:

hard brexit...


What happened to David Cameron?


In October 2016, Cameron became chairman of the National Citizen Service Patrons.[306] In January 2017, he was appointed president of Alzheimer's Research UK to address misconceptions surrounding dementia and campaign for medical research funding to tackle the condition...


Read more:

the birds and the bees of premature brexit...

Britain could wind up sterile in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. That’s because the country would have a much harder time importing sperm donations, which it primarily sources from the US and Denmark.

The UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016, but it's still having a bit of difficulty working out the kinks of that process. Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab said at a Thursday news conference that the prospect of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a negotiated deal is "unlikely," but the government nonetheless published technical notes on the consequences of barren negotiations.


Read more:


Some journalists seem to have a good sense of humour... Read from top.

crumbling brexit...

Substantial Brexit progress was never on the agenda for the EU’s Salzburg summit in Austria, so its absence comes as no surprise. More revealing is what the gathering says about the balance of power: European leaders can send Theresa May away humiliated and empty-handed, and still imagine they have done her a favour.

May was given 10 minutes to address her fellow heads of government over dinner last night, but no subsequent discussion was permitted because, formally, Brexit terms are negotiated with Michel Barnier and the European commission. Any British hopes that those lines might blur at Salzburg and more productive channels might then open up behind Barnier’s back were dashed. Concluding the summit, Donald Tusk, the European council president, re-affirmed member state solidarity behind the commission process. He also said bluntly that the economic aspect of May’s Chequers blueprint for Brexit “will not work.”

Read more:


Got to go back to the ballot box...


Read from top.

bollocks to Brexit or whatever this means...

An outspoken former Conservative party donor has said he is prepared to go to prison to keep a giant “Bollocks to Brexit” poster above his London office after he was told to remove it by his local council.

Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, accused Lambeth council of interfering with his freedom of speech and succumbing to people’s sensitivities over a word that was proven in a Sex Pistols case in 1977 not to be obscene.

The council said it had received complaints from commuters about the sign near Waterloo station and, as it was not related to his business, Mullins would have to remove it or apply for planning consent, which he would be unlikely to get.


Read more:

meanwhile in londonderrière...


Key industries will be destroyed by a hard Brexit, one of the country’s most powerful chief executives has predicted, amid warnings that Britain’s imminent EU exit has dented investment by four in five businesses.

Ralf Speth, the boss of Jaguar Land Rover, said that such an outcome would lead to the closure of plants and major job losses as he warned that some exposed industries would have “no way to survive a hard Brexit”.

His stark intervention comes as Downing Street desperately tries to reassure the business community over Brexit, despite senior Tories such as William Hague now putting the chances of a “no-deal” outcome at 50%. Theresa May conducted a conference call on Friday involving around 130 business figures after a chaotic week that veered perilously close to the collapse of Brexit talks. She told them an emergency summit could still be called in November to finalise a deal.

Speth stood by his claim that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost. “That’s correct,” he told the Your Money channel during a trip to Australia last week. “Everybody can do the maths. It is very open and very transparent. It is not only at Jaguar Land Rover, but it is also an element for the supplier industry and export industry in the UK.


Read more:


Read from top.


Please note that the MAJOR  problem with Brexit is that the CITY OF LONDON IS CONTROLLING A LOT OF CASH IN OFFSHORE tax HAVEN. It might also be a savior as it might offer ever more tax exeptions to other European enterprises... The CASH INDUSTRY might survive...

arrogance, the way Britain had, have, will have...

Brexit Negotiations

Watching a Country Make a Fool of Itself

No country in the world has cultivated arrogance the way Britain has. But the sad truth is: The former global power can't even find its way to the door without tripping over its feet.

In his book "We Germans," journalist Matthias Matussek writes about an evening spent at the German Embassy in London. The ambassador was hosting the writer Antonia S. Byatt as his guest of honor and Matussek was on hand to make a toast to the author. In response, she surprised him by asking what he thought of the idea of a European constitution. Matussek answered by saying it's probably not such a bad idea if the European community of nations agrees on a few foundational principles.

Lady Byatt then said: "You know, we British don't need a constitution. We are the oldest democracy in the world." She paused briefly before continuing: "For young countries like you Germans, constitutions could very well be useful." It would be almost impossible, writes Matussek, to overstate the haughtiness and contemptuousness that dripped from her voice. "Essentially, she was saying," he writes, "you are barbarians, you have only recently put down your cudgels. You need the leash."

Such are the British, and we love them for it. They are never short of an answer and constantly ready to put someone in their place. The problem, though, is that if you act like you are the center of the world, you should actually be the center, or something close to it. As things currently stand, though, the British soon won't even be within shouting distance of the center of Europe.

The United Kingdom is currently demonstrating how a country can make a fool of itself before the eyes of the entire world. What was once the most powerful empire on earth is now a country that can't even find its way to the door without tripping over its own feet. 

It has now been 28 months since the British voted to pull out of the European Union. Unfortunately, they haven't taken a single step further since then.

Nothing But Sympathy

When Theresa May shows up in Brussels with yet another Brexit-related proposal, you can be sure that just one day later, it will no longer be worth the paper it is printed on. She either presents ideas that Brussels has long since rejected or her plans have already been chucked in the round file by her own party. Or Boris Johnson has torn her apart in his column in the Telegraph.

Until recently, I felt nothing but sympathy when I would see the British prime minister wander in front of the camera at EU summits, with her crooked smile and kooky offers. Lately, though, I have been catching myself thinking: "Go with God. But go!"


Read more:


Read from top.

the solution...


It looks as if the UK government still wants to stay in Europe... But this alone, the Europeans should be weary. The EU should ask Britain to abandon the Pound and adopt the Euro, and to open the books of the City of London tax havens. This should scare the pants off a dancing May...

brexit roundup...

Food and environment campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just produced the report ‘Shockingly high levels of weedkiller found in popular breakfast cereals marketed for British children’. In this 68-page document, she draws from new research in the UK that mirrors findings from the US about the dangerous levels of glyphosate found in food, especially products aimed at children (glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s weedicide Roundup). Readers can access this report here (which contains all relevant references).

Mason begins by reporting on research that significant levels of weedkiller were found in 43 out of 45 popular breakfast cereals marketed to US children. Glyphosate was detected in an array of popular breakfast cereals, oats and snack bars.

Tests revealed glyphosate was present in all but two of the 45 oat-derived products that were sampled by the Environmental Working Group, a public health organisation. Nearly three in four of the products exceeded what the EWG classes safe for children to consume. Products with some of the highest levels of glyphosate include granola, oats and snack bars made by leading industry names Quaker, Kellogg’s and General Mills, which makes Cheerios.

Back in April, internal emails obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that scientists had found glyphosate on a wide range of commonly consumed food, to the point that they were finding it difficult to identify a food without the chemical on it. In response to these findings, however, The Guardian newspaper in the UK reported that there was no indication that the claims related to products sold outside the US.

In view of this statement by the Guardian, Mason was involved in sending samples of four oat-based breakfast cereals marketed for children in the UK to the Health Research Institute, Fairfield, Iowa, an accredited laboratory for glyphosate testing.

After testing the samples which were sent, Dr Fagan, the institute’s director, said:

The levels consumed in a single daily helping of any one of these cereals, even the one with the lowest level of contamination, is sufficient to put the person’s glyphosate levels above the levels that cause fatty liver disease in rats (and likely in people).” (Access the Certificate of Analysis here.)

Just as concerning were results for two ‘organic’ products from the US that were also tested at the time: granola had some glyphosate in and ‘organic’ rolled oats had even higher levels of the chemical.

Mason argues that the fact such high levels of glyphosate have been found in cereals in Britain should ring alarm bells across Europe, especially as the distribution of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in agricultural top soils of the European Union is widespread.


As in her previous documents, Mason describes how regulators in the EU and the UK relicensed Roundup for the benefit of the industry-backed Glyphosate Task Force. Even more alarming is that, on the back of Brexit, she notes that a US-UK trade deal could result in the introduction of Roundup ready GM crops in the UK. Indeed, high-level plans for cementing this deal are afoot.

Mason offers worrying data about the increasing use of biocides, especially glyphosate, as well as the subsequent destruction of the global environment due to their use. As usual, she produces a very data-rich report which draws on many sources, including official reports and peer-reviewed papers.

Of course, there is a strong focus on Monsanto. Aside from the use of glyphosate, she also documents the impact of the company’s presence in Wales, where she lives, with regard to the dumping of toxic chemicals (PCBs) from its manufacturing site there between 1949 and 1979, the effects of which persist and still plague the population and the environment.

Mason asks:

Monsanto has been bought up by Bayer, so the Monsanto name has disappeared but where are the Monsanto executives hiding?”

She is aware of course that such figures don’t have to hide anywhere. The company ‘got away with it’ in Wales. And its recent crop of executives received huge ‘golden handshakes’ after the Bayer deal despite them having perpetuated a degenerative model of industrial agriculture. A model that has only secured legitimacy by virtue of the power of the global agritech lobby to lock in a bogus narrative of success, as outlined in the report ‘From Uniformity to Diversity’ by The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.

As that report notes, locking farmers into corporate-dependent treadmills, state support of (export) commodity cropping via subsidies and the discounting of the massive health, environment and social costs of industrial agriculture ensures that model prevails and makes it appear successful. If you base your food regime on short-term thinking and a reductionist yield-output paradigm and define success within narrow confines, then the model is a sure-fire winner – for corporate growth (profit) if little else.

Without being able to externalise the health, social and environmental costs of its actions and products, this model would not be viable for the corporations involved. Widening the parameters to properly evaluate ‘success’ entails asking the industry questions that it finds very difficult to gloss over, not least what has been the cost of input-(biocide)dependent yields of commodities in terms of pollution, health, local food security and caloric production, nutrition per acre, water tables, soil quality and structure and new pests and disease pressures?

Why have African countries been turned from food exporters to food importers? Why is land in South America being used for Roundup Ready crops to feed the appetite for meat in rich countries, while peasant farmers who grew food for themselves and local communities have been displaced?

And what are the effects on once thriving rural communities; on birds, insects and biodiversity in general; on the climate as a result of chemical inputs and soil degradation; and what have been the effects of shifting towards globalised production chains, especially in terms of transportation and fossil fuel consumption?

The global food regime degrades public health and the environment, and it has narrowed the range of crops grown, resulting in increasingly monolithic, nutrient-deficient diets. Yet the powerful industry lobby calls for more deregulation and more techno-fixes like GMOs to ‘feed the world’. This is in spite of the fact that hunger and malnutrition are political: these phenomena are in large part the outcome of a global capitalist food regime that, with help from IMF/World Bank geopolitical lending strategies and WTO rules, has undermined food security for vast sections of the global population by creating a system that by its very nature drives inequality, injustice and creates food deficit areas.

Moving to a more sustainable model of agriculture based on localisation, food sovereignty and agroecology calls for a different world view. Proponents of industrial agriculture are resistant to this because it would harm what has become a highly profitable system based on the capture of political, research and media institutions.

And this is where we return to Rosemary Mason. If there is an overriding theme within her work over the years, it is corruption at high levels which facilitate much of the above. For instance, she notes the determination of the UK government, working hand in glove with global agribusiness, to ensure certain biocide products remain on the market and to help major corporations avoid any culpability for their health- and environment-damaging practices and chemicals.

Mason and various whistleblowers and writers have over the years described how these corporations have become institutionally embedded within high-profile public bodies and scientific research policy initiatives. Regulatory delinquency, institutionalised corruption and complete disregard for the health and well-being of the public is the order of the day.


If the UK is about to introduce GM crops into its fields on the back of a post-Brexit deal with the Trump administration, then it should take heed of what the ex-director of J.R. Simplot and team leader at Monsanto Dr Caius Rommens says in his new book:

The main problem about the current process for deregulation of GMO crops is that it is based on an evaluation of data provided by the developers of GMO crops. There is a conflict of interest. I propose that the safety of GMO crops is assessed by an independent group of scientists trained at identifying unintended effects.”

This former high-level Monsanto researcher of potatoes now acknowledges that genetic engineers had limited insight into the effects of their experiments. Genetic engineering passes off the inherent uncertainty, unintended consequences and imprecision of its endeavours as unquestionable certainty. And the USDA accepts industry information and reassurances.

After finding that most GMO varieties of potatoes that he was involved in developing were stunted, chlorotic, mutated or sterile, and many of them died quickly, Rommens renounced his genetic engineering career and wrote a book about his experiences, ‘Pandora’s Potatoes: The Worst GMOs’.

In an interview with GMWatch, Rommens is asked why regulators in the US, Canada and Japan, which have approved these potatoes, are ignoring these aspects.

Rommens responds:

The standard tests needed to ensure regulatory approval are not set up to identify unintended effects. They are meant to confirm the safety of a GM crop, not to question their safety. None of the issues I address in my book were considered by the regulatory agencies.”

A damning indictment of regulatory delinquency based on ‘don’t look, don’t find’. GMOs have nonetheless become the mainstay of US agriculture. Now the industry is rubbing its hands in anticipation of Brexit, which would pry the UK from the EU and its precautionary principle-based regulation of GMOs.

The push to open up Britain to globalisation in the 1980s ushered in a free-for-all for global capital to determine the future direction of a deregulated UK. Three decades down the line, the consequences are clear for food, agriculture, democracy and public health. The worrying thing is that thanks to Brexit, it could be the case that even worse is yet to come!


Read more:



Read from top.

brexit in britpain...

Most people in the UK do not know in fact what they are voting for; they vote for political parties the same way they support a soccer club, totally ignorant of policies or manifestos (with few exceptions) and on that fateful, sunny June day in 2016 the Brexiteers also had no idea what they were doing.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

Many were from the more elderly section of the population who leave behind a sour apple for their grandchildren to eat, and most of the grandchildren wanted to remain. A sufficient number of the former have now departed, and as many young people are now able to vote, which translates into an entirely different picture: according to opinion polls, the REMAIN vote today would win by 60% to 40% at the very least. So why is it not democratic to hold a second referendum?

As it stands today, the United Kingdom is about to play Russian roulette, taking a leap in the dark while standing on a cliff-edge. The Government itself admits that it has no idea what will happen, after two years of negotiations and after presenting part of a report to Parliament. But it is clear and common sense what will happen.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

Scotland will refuse to accept this dreadful  legacy imposed on it by its English cousins, not one single constituency in Scotland voted to leave the EU, so if Scotland is a country, which it is, why should it leave the EU when the vast majority of its population wishes to remain? Is this democracy?

Here where I write in London (I work in the City) not a single person I know thinks Brexit will bring anything but chaos. Those of us who work with the EU know very well what will happen.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

The financial institutions are already prepared to move to Germany, France and some of them to a second tier of countries including Portugal and Italy and Spain. This will cost the capital, the most prosperous region in the UK, a substantial part of its wealth involving terrible social knock-on effects. Along with the financial institutions, the headquarters of numerous countries are preparing to pull out and relocate inside the Union, creating a social tsunami as even more money pours out of this island.

As regards jobs, the UK universities, besides costing an arm and a leg for their students, do not provide enough raw material for the work market. Portuguese Universities provide doctors, nurses and many working here in the financial markets, and they are far better prepared than their British counterparts. English firms will be undermanned, understaffed and under-qualified.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

And now for the question of trade. The European Union, today, is the main trading partner of the United Kingdom. It accounts for 44 per cent of all UK exports and 53% of UK imports.

The largest percentage of these exported products came from Wales and the North-East of England, two regions which stupidly voted to leave without thinking of the consequences. With increased tariffs on these products (inevitable after Brexit) get ready for massive increases in unemployment in these areas, coupled with crippling social costs. Next, imports. Since the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to it, the cost of products will be even higher than it is today.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

Now, for those working in the services sector (engineering and technical services, legal, accounting, advertising, research and development services) prepare yourselves for a massive blow dealt to you by the idiots who voted LEAVE without knowing what they were doing. For those working in research projects involving the EU, these projects will be pulled out of the UK and relocated. This is not fantasy, it is clear, unadulterated, common-sense fact. So suppose those who voted LEAVE pick up the tab? Not so funny now is it?

With increased tariffs, how are our goods and services going to be competitive, especially when our Universities have fallen behind those of other EU nations in terms of producing the goods? With higher transportation costs involved in exporting to Australia for example, how are our goods going to be more competitive than those available from Indonesia, Vietnam and the PR China?

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

Brexit is like sitting in a hot bath on a freezing winter day, pulling out the plug and watching the water go down into the sewer, then finding out that the tap has jammed shut. True, Brussels' interference is annoying, true, the EU went too far and too fast. But also the UK was never a full member of all the EU institutions and of all the countries, it is already the one with one foot in and the other, out but, and crucially, with free access to the market which represents most of our trade and crucially, with a voice inside EU mechanisms.

Now thanks to the idiotic decision of those who do not understand what they have done, the people of England will be saddled with a mountain to climb without any equipment. We will have to pay for access to what we enjoy today for free, and more ridiculous, not have any say in any part of the proceedings because with Brexit we lost our voice. I say England, because Scotland, if it votes for Independence, which it should, will be far luckier.

The REMAIN campaigners will hold the LEAVE campaigners responsible for this decision, we will find out who they are (easy) and we will make them compensate us for the damage they have done.

REMAIN would today win by 60% to 40%. We demand a referendum

My thanks to Professor Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey and PRAVDA newspaper for printing this article.


John Whitehouse

London, England

See more at


See also:


See from top.

the old nasser trick......

The British Government has chosen its post Brexit strategy. On 30 December 2018, the Defence Minister, Gavin Williamson gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph, in which he denounced what has been the policy since 1956.

In 1956, a British-French military expedition supported by Israel, seized the Suez Canal. However the United States and Russia forced their allies to withdraw. This fiasco marks the end of European colonization and the beginning of the progressive withdrawal of European armies from the territories that they were occupying throughout the world.

According to Theresa May’s government, the United Kingdom then oriented itself to the European Union, something it had never dreamt of becoming a member of. The time is over.

“We have to be clear, it is a policy that has been torn up. Great Britain has become once again a world nation”, Mr. Williamson made clear. The Ministry has been trying for quite some time to negotiate the opening of new military bases abroad. Currently, the United Kingdom only has bases in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Diego Garcia and the Falkland Islands.

According to the Ministry of Defense, the world expects the United Kingdom to demonstrate moral, military and global leadership, because it defends tolerance, democracy and justice.

Anoosha Boralessa


Read more:



Read from top.