The Liberal Democrats, if they were honest, ought to rebrand themselves The Liberal Hypocrites. After 30 years screeching in sheer horror about the way civilised societies treat women, homosexuals, criminals, and the absolute refusal of some immigrant groups to even tolerate let alone integrate with the laws and customs of liberal democracies. In short The Liberal Hypocrites have joied those political factions that, in an orgy of virtue signalling, have placed Islam beyond honest criticism. All the things the Liberal Hypocrites claim to hate in European and American societies are OK, or even to be celebrated when followers of Islam do them.
However Dániel Tóth-Nagy doesn’t get it. The leaders of the Liberal Democrats, however, do get it: Islam is now supreme in Britain. The human rights abuses that are committed in accord with Sharia directives are never to be questioned. To question them is to render oneself “Islamophobic” and beyond the realm of acceptable discourse. Dániel Tóth-Nagy is claiming that he was simply exercising his “freedom of expression.” How quaint! There is no “freedom of expression” in Britain anymore. There is only Sharia-compliant refraining from all criticism of Islam, or else ostracism and vilification. Laggers such as Dániel Tóth-Nagy will learn the new rules before too long.
Is The Brexit Fiasco A Deep State Stitch Up?
I think of “deep state” as being about the behind the scenes machinery of government; the inner workings of the civil service and secret negotiations of politicians.
In this piece, I argue that yes, the deep state has played its part, but the main issue is the weakness and susceptibility of our Prime Minister, to manipulation. In short, May has been soft and pliable with the EU, who know her as “Mrs No until she says Yes”, while being infuriatingly stubborn with her own party and country.
To start with, let’s consider what we know. For me, these are the relevant facts:
Leave won the 2016 referendum, Cameron resigned, the Tories appointed Theresa May as leader and Theresa May said she would deliver Brexit
Theresa May lost her majority in the 2017 General Election, meaning she would have to depend on the votes of all her own MPs plus those of the DUP to get legislation through
Theresa May sacked her advisers Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, effectively replacing them with Olly Robbins, a civil servant. Shortly afterwards, she dropped DExEU from having a lead role in the exit negotiations, putting Olly Robbins in charge
Theresa May’s first notable move in the negotiations proper, was to accept without a fight, the EU’s sequencing demands. This was a major surprise. Notes of the meeting showed the EU delegation acting both surprised and delighted. Minutes show EU officials asking for reconfirmation that this was really the UK’s position
In late 2017, Theresa May allowed talk of remaining in the customs union to resurface, doing nothing to clarify the government’s policy, which was to leave the customs union
In December 2017, Theresa May signed a political agreement giving away £39 billion and signed us up to a “backstop” that would commit the UK to remaining under EU control until it had found a way of managing the customs border in Ireland, in a way that satisfied the EU
When the political declaration was converted into legal text, Theresa May said “no British PM could sign this”. This was the only thing of note, that Theresa May said about Brexit in the first half of 2018. She later did sign it
In mid-2018, Theresa May faced a backbench rebellion attempting to force legislation to keep us in the customs union. Theresa May invited the ringleader Dominic Grieve to Downing Street to persuade him to drop his rebellion. It is understood that she made him privy to a plan that was at this stage, not widely known. Dominic Grieve promptly dropped his rebellion
In July 2018, Theresa May held the Chequers summit where she unveiled the Brexit whitepaper. She told her government, the meeting would not end until everyone had agreed to it and if anyone resigned, ministerial transport would not be available for the trip home
The whitepaper horrified some ministers, who believed it amounted to a customs union in all but name. Boris Johnson resigned. David Davis resigned
In his resignation speech, Davis criticised May for sidelining his department, which had been set up to prepare the UK for its departure from the EU, while instead favouring her own civil service adviser Olly Robbins
In replying, Theresa May said Davis’s department had not come up with a workable plan
In an article in the Telegraph, Davis replied that this was deeply disingenuous. His department had a detailed and carefully worked out plan. It was she, the PM who had chosen to ignore it while developing her own alternative plan without telling anyone
Johnson wrote in the Telegraph, that Theresa May had allowed the Ireland border to become prominent in the negotiations because she had unquestioningly accepted the EU’s framing of the issue and had not even tried to find a solution
Come December 2018, the EU published their Withdrawal Agreement (WA). It was very similar to the Chequers whitepaper, except that it lacked the May/Robbins scheme for the UK collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU. The WA’s political declaration sought a future relationship that would build upon “the single customs territory”
Minutes of the meeting where Theresa May signed the WA showed that the EU had said “The customs union will be the basis for the future relationship. The EU will retain all control”. Theresa May had signed a document that she knew the EU interpreted as implying a permanent customs union, and in which the EU would retain full control
The WA was voted down three times by Parliament. Most notably, it was voted down by Brexit-supporting MPs who believed it was “not Brexit” and by the DUP who believed it had sold out their territory
The Brady amendment gave Theresa May a mandate to renegotiate the Ireland backstop, which keeps the UK in a customs union with the EU until the EU approves the UK’s plans for managing the border
May largely ignored this mandate, saying she would not attempt a renegotiation but instead, half-heartedly said she would “seek changes”
On the basis of the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the main reason Brexit (in this incarnation) has failed, is that Theresa May changed course. While her general stance was initially to the liking of Brexit supporting MPs, her final deal, was not.
Having lost her majority in parliament, she inevitably had to work harder to reconcile the interests of her MPs, who had different opinions. However, it is clear from the above that at each node of the decision tree, she leaned towards her remainer MPs. She didn’t tell anyone this was what she was doing or why, she just did it.
Her eventual WA was a death by a thousand cuts, non-Brexit Brexit. But what happened to make her change course? That’s the key question.
By any standard, her behaviour in office has been extraordinary. Consider where the Tories were at the start. Dominic Lawson wrote about this in the Sunday Times, this morning in Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it. 
Only two years ago the Tories were united under the firm but fair leadership of the headmistressy Theresa May, Farage had been rendered irrelevant and Labour was still riven by the shock of a referendum outcome that pitted it against the very people (the industrial working class) it was formed to represent.
Thus, in February 2017, this column was headlined “Cheer Up, Mr Cameron, you won your party the greatest prize imaginable”. The former PM was being ridiculed almost daily, and yet, I argued, while the referendum result had trashed his reputation as a political winner, he was actually the accidental author of a miraculous transformation in his party’s fortunes: “Unintentionally, Cameron has achieved for the Conservatives something a string of earlier leaders signally failed to do. He has made them the party that is united over the vexed question of the UK’s relationship with the European Union and — a completely unexpected bonus — turned Labour into a house divided on this issue.”
That aged well, didn’t it? In fact the second half of that analysis still holds true and explains Labour’s continuing inability to come up with a Brexit policy that could be communicated coherently (or at all) on an election leaflet. But that column was written at the moment of the party’s greatest discomfiture, the week after parliament passed the bill to invoke article 50 — giving us just two years (ha!) to negotiate our departure from the EU. Corbyn’s three-line whip ordering his MPs to back the government’s policy led to resignations from the shadow cabinet and thousands of party members quitting in protest.
The reason Theresa May’s behaviour has been so extraordinary is that she did not need to lean towards Remain in her implementation of Brexit. The Tories were united around a clean Brexit. That was the referendum result. That was what the manifesto said. It could not have been clearer. Even those who did not agree with the result of the referendum, accepted both it and the government’s interpretation of it.
When murmurings about a “softening” of Brexit started to emerge, May could have acted to silence them, reminding her MPs of their manifesto commitments, but she did not. From a parliamentary arithmetic point of view, it was far easier for her to lean towards her Brexiteer contingent than her Remain contingent. Leaning towards her Brexiteers would not have angered her Remainers as much as leaning towards her Remainers have angered her Brexiteers. All she needed to do was to maintain existing party policy, to which all her MPs had explicitly agreed by standing for election upon its manifesto.
What happened? Theresa May is well known as someone who can be “captured” by her advisers. Who were her advisers? Before the 2017 election, her advisers were Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill — both clean Brexit advocates. After the election, her advisers were Olly Robbins and — as far as one can tell — the EU. In the past 2 years, May has spent many hours in the offices of her fellow European leaders.
Now, there’s an element of deep state at work here. An anonymous civil servant wrote an article in the Telegraph titled “Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside” He or she writes:
A quick scroll though the social media accounts of my colleagues and you will find images of them proudly waving ‘Remain’ placards, campaigning for a ‘People’s Vote’, boasting ‘Jez we can’ and of course the usual apocalyptic messages of doom since the Brexit vote. The double-standards are astonishing. If I so much as followed the activities of Nigel Farage, I have no doubt that I would be called in for questioning. I re-call one conversation with a senior member of staff at the Foreign Office who told me she was ashamed when Boris Johnson was appointed Foreign Secretary as he is so “typically British”.
This department is particularly notorious for its anti-Brexit bias. My experience tells me that there is a genuine hatred of those who voted for Brexit. I recall my first day in the Civil Service as a graduate, being invited to a meeting of senior members of staff who spent the good part of two hours in agreement that the public made a “stupid” decision in the EU referendum.
Unfortunately, this bias doesn’t end with snide insults and childish quips. It goes to the root of their day-to-day work and has truly negative impacts on the way we conduct the important tasks ahead of us. I have in fact come across senior staff working on our post-Brexit relationships who openly talk down the prospect of a UK-US FTA and encourage anti-Trump hysteria. Many of them even joined the protests against the President’s visit last year. During his visit it was common to hear jokes about Trump’s assassination from the very people meant to be working with our closest ally. The only thing worse than being pro-Brexit in the Civil Service is being pro-Trump.
But it doesn’t stop there. There is a strong presence of Anglophobia, combined with cultural Marxism that runs through the civil service. It has meant that many Civil Servants, including myself, have been actively discouraged from co-operating with Think Tanks which are seen as being “too right wing” despite sharing our goal of promoting free trade. This attitude also prevails in our work with our closest allies, particularly in the Commonwealth, where we are afraid to be seen as overly keen to work with countries that are run by “rich white men”.
Contrary to popular belief, Civil Servants often shape the views of Ministers. This makes the prevalent leftist culture within the Civil Service all the more concerning. These ardent remainer and left wing civil servants are the ones who provide the briefings, select the invites and choose the priorities for Ministers. How did we get to this point? The Civil Service is one of the biggest graduate employers, whilst universities have allowed a leftist culture of political correctness to flourish in recent decades.
Brexit is the greatest opportunity this country has faced in years, yet our Government machine is currently working from within to frustrate it. This must not go on. In the next phase of the Brexit negotiations it is vital our civil service ceases to allow the massive remain voting bias that has so far helped scupper our post-Brexit future.
Add to that the misuse of Treasury resources for giving misleading information about the economic consequences of Brexit — resources that were refused to other departments requesting them for no-deal preparations — and it’s clear there’s an element of deep state at work. However, it is the weakness and stubbornness of our Prime Minister, that is the most important part of the explanation.
It’s like a disease. If you’re unhealthy and have a weakened immune system, you are more susceptible to diseases. For most healthy people, flu can be an unpleasant few days in bed. For weakened people, it can be a killer.
That the civil service has worked to frustrate Brexit is both credible and predictable. However, it is the Prime Minister’s susceptibility to it, that has led to the failure of her attempt to deliver Brexit.
 Brexit on a plate — and the Tories blew it
 Believe me, the Civil Service is trying to sink Brexit. I have seen it from the inside
Brexit Is Now About More Than Leaving The EUUntil now we have not posted anything in the past few days on Brexit. Our position is well know to our readers, let's face it, the saturation coverage left nothing new to be said. The whole thing is a craptangle, but it was obvious from when the Conservative Party engineered a situation in which Theresa May was left as the only candidate for the leadership that there could be no other outcome.
EU "Sounds Alarm" Over New US Sanctions On Russia; Germany Threatens Retaliation
Late on Friday (21/07/17), Congressional negotiators agreed to advance a cross - party bill that would punish Russia for its (alleged) interference in the 2016 election according to the Wall Street Journal. And while it seems improbable that President Trump would sign the bill if it reaches his desk, the loudest complaint about the bill to date has emerged not from the Oval Office, but from US allies in NATO and the European Union ...
Nigel Farage Swipes Back At Irrational, Screeching, Crazy Clinton
US Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton launched a hysterical, irrational attack, filled with half truths and blatant lies, against the most prominent figure in the campaign to get Britain out of the EU (Brexit), UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, during a speech at a rally today. Mrs Clinton, responding to Farage's address to a large and enthusiastic audience at a Donald Trump rally, may have been rattled at the prospect of having such a hihly effective campaigner in the rival camp ...
Rebellion Against EU Authoritarianism Escalates As 8th Member Nation Threatens Referendum
Brussels went too far, they crossed the line in moving from an economic union to a political pan - European political empire. In the end it was a race as to which member state would quit first, Britain, Natherlands, Denmark or Italy. In the event it is Britain.
Is Brexit A Harbinger Of Doom For The 'Experts'
The Brexit vote, the decision by a democratic majority in Britain to leave the European Union has sent shockwaves around the world. Not only does the EU now face a tsunami of departures, the usurpation of democracy by 'experts' ( technocrats ) has been challenged and exposed as a sham.
BREXIT vs. GREXIT – The Truth About The European Union And How It Treats Members
Unless the testicularly deficient politicians stand up for their nations he only thing that will halt the European Union's push beyond Europe's geographical borders to incorporate Asian, middle eastern and north African nations is war. Power is addictive and the bean counters of Brussels have ambitions far beyond Europe.
The Hypocrisy and Snobbery Of The Remain Campaign And The Antidote
When I had to defriend a Facebook contact because she was arguing in favour of the EU, it was not simply because I support Brexit that I had become pissed of with her, it was the snobbish and condescending way she dismissed supporters of LEAVE and their case. People are entitled to their opinion on the European Union, but they should check the 'facts' they post in support of their arguments.
The Labour Case For Brexit by Kate Hoey M.P.
After my short intro is a savage indictment by Brexit supporting Labour MP Kate Hoey of the way the Labour Party has abandoned the working class and is now trying to betray the party's proud heritage and its roots in the industrial areas by taking Britain into an undemocratic, corporate controlled, capitalist friendly, elite dominated globalist control freak project.
Dutch Referendum This Week Shows why We Should Leave The EU.
Few of you were aware probably that there is an EU referendum vote in The Netherlands this week. As usual with anything negative about the EU barely a word has been printed in the topic in mainstream media and the silence from our notionally unbiased national broadcaster The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has been deafening.
French, Belgians, Dutch, Italians Follow Britain in Euroskepticism
Europeans want us British to lead them out of Europe. Don't be fooled by project fear, the European Union (aka the Euronazi Federal Superstate) is falling apart. There will not be chaos if we leave, there will be chaos if we stay.
Head Of European Institute: Brexit â€˜Betterâ€™ For Everyone
Brexit would be the best result of Britainâ€™s in / out referendum for both Britain and the EU i a Belgian professor who heads up the European Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE) has said.
Johnsonâ€™s article lines up his reasons why Britain must exit on June 23rd. Itâ€™s time to be brave
OK, I know a lot of you think Boris is most accurately described by a word many people find offensive, but heâ€™s put together a very good argument here on why we must leave the EU. Published in part here under â€˜fair useâ€™ terms and conditions, in the public interest ...
Cameronâ€™s EU Package: Not A Deal But A Few Turns In The Spin Machine
As we and almost everybody else predicted, David Cameron's deal to improve Britain's relationship with the EU is worthless. It changes nmothing, and can be vetoed once we have voted to stay in.
Cameron Plays Deal Or No Deal In Europe
David Cameron, who was apparently up all night trying to make other European leaders understand why his country needs a better deal in order to poersuade the prople it is a good idea stay in the EU. Unless Cameron gets what will enable him to sell the idea of surrendering national sovereignty to a Federal European Superstate ruled by a committee of unelected bureaucrats in to the British public he will not campaign for the UK to remain in the bloc
EU Refuses to Block Eurozone Integration to Reach Agreement With UK
Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said at the E?U summit on British membership terms that the European Union wants to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, but it is not prepared to compromise the banking union (financial integration) or the further integration of monetary union (UK being forced to abandon the pound join the Euro?) to achieve this goal.
Hijab wearing, Jihad supporting U.S. Congresswoman refuses to condemn stoning of gays.
Ilhan Omar (with Bernie Sanders behind thinking "I wouldn't mind giving her a taste of my pork sausage) - picture credit www.thenation.com
It had to happen, and it was always going to be great comedy value when it did. U.S Liberals were always going to face the moment when their love of Gays, Lesbians and Trannies clashed head to head with their love of terrorists and the Islamic Jihad.
When hijab wearing, Jihad supporting Muslim woman Ilhan Omar was elected to the US Congress in spite of her strongly anti - American opinions, Liberals were creaming their pants and hailing a great victory in the struggle for equality, diversity and multicultruralism. Poor fools are terminally hypocritical in their virtue signalling, how else could they simultaneously claim to support gay rights clauses and the fanatical supporters of a religious sect that imposes a death sentence on gays. Anyone with more brain cells than testicles or tits as the case may be, would have to be aware that support for the LGBT community and support for fundamentalist Islam are incompatible.
The new intake of elected represenatatives were sworn in and took office in late January, so it has not taken long for the truth of Islam top bite the minority loving liberals on the arse.
Condemned many times by Democratic colleagues for her anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, repeating arguments used by Nazi Germany to jusify anti - Semitism and using anti-Semitic tropes. Omar has compared Israel to the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism in media interviews where she also suggested that Israel should not be allowed to exist as a Jewish state.
Conservative news site The Daily Wire contacted Omar’s office on Friday to give them a chance to respond to allegations that she had expressed support for the stoning and flogging of homosexuals in compliance with Sharia law, and notified them that a non-response would be considered a ‘refusal to condemn’ these acts. Omar’s office again did not respond to the inquiries.”
Omar’s obviously realizes that she is widely regarded as anti-Semitic, and if she isn’t, should have responded to the allegations and made that clear. Her non-response is in keeping with the Leftist and Islamic supremacist practice of never according opponents even basic human respect and courtesy, a Leninist/Alinskyite practice that has echoes in Muhammad’s behavior toward Infidels, and is intended to dehumanize and marginalize them.
But Omar does not just imply her guilt by silence, she also actively expresses her support for the vile, inhumane treatment of certain minorities under Islamic Sharia Law:
“Omar Refuses To Condemn Gays Being Stoned To Death Under Sharia Law, Violence Against Israel From Hamas,” by Ryan Saavedra, Daily Wire, March 29, 2019:
“This is abhorrent and inhumane,” Omar tweeted of the conditions in which a group of detained migrants was being kept. “It’s without a doubt a reflection of what white nationalism is doing to our country. As a country, we have to acknowledge that this is how people are being treated here and decide that we are better and we must do better.”
Following Omar’s remarks, The Daily Wire reached out to her office via phone and email to get her thoughts on two recent news items.
The first story comes from Brunei, where Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah has said that new Sharia laws that are going into effect are a form of “special guidance” from God, according to Sky News.
The nation is going to introduce death by stoning as a punishment for gay sex and “amputation for those guilty of theft under sharia law, with both penalties to also apply to children once implemented.”
The second story comes out of the Middle East, where the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas recently fired 20 rockets into Israel and destroyed the homes of innocent civilians.
The Daily Wire asked Omar if she could provide comment on either story and if she found either of these acts to be “abhorrent and inhumane.”
The Daily Wire also asked Omar if she would say that these acts are due to radical Islam.
Omar and her office refused to respond to multiple requests for comment.
So which way do American liberals (and certain university brainwashed idiots in Britain (yes Owen fucking Jones I mean you and the negative - IQ morons who follow you, which way do you jump. Is killing people for being gay OK with you, or do you finally agree with the wiser voices you have spent so long condemning and accept there is no room for a religion that advocates barbaric treatment of women and sexual minorities in civilised society.
The Left Do Not Tolerate Diversity
How Can The ‘Left’ Talk Of Equality When They Don’t Tolerate Diversity Of Opinion
Bestselling Author Fired for Mocking Publisher’s Diversity Policy
Media Silence Surrounds Muslim Massacre of Christians