Take this for an example. The USA is being prevented from rolling out a $1.8 trillion COVID bailout package by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. This happened today. It is big news in America, even CNN is taking this story seriously, I just watched Wolf Blitzer giving Nancy Pelosi a good going over on the subject (imagine the Guardian were demanding answers from Corbyn for using the system to block a bailout in this country...that's what this is).
...that last page is hilariously one sided. If you want a laugh scroll down and check out the BBC's spin on what Biden said in the video under 'Did Joe Biden really say he was running for the Senate?'.
These people aren't journalists. They are not reporting the news. They have an agenda and are trying to confuse people with lies (see Biden video). ...and they are all paid very well indeed, paid by us.
David Lammy received violent racist abuse on twitter and rightly took it to the police. The police try to investigate but Twitter refuses to cooperate. Usually it is the the police being accused of institutional racism, but is it really Twitter that has the problem?
Fox criticised Sainsburys for supporting 'Black History Month', he stated that it was divisive. Up jumps the professionally outraged and a couple call him a racist. Fox replies that they are peadophiles. Cue outrage and a lawsuit....a point perfectly well made.
Steven Barrett, a Commercial Chancery barrister, reveals how Germany also recently broke international law but did not face any consequences.
Earlier this month, the German Constitutional Court ruled that the European Central Bank (ECB) public assets purchases programme ultra vires, meaning it was acting beyond its legal power.
This has been the cornerstone of the “whatever it takes” approach to preserve the euro set by the bank’s former president, Mario Draghi.
Before that, the German court took another extraordinary step.
It disregarded the judgment of the ECJ that validated the ECB decisions by labelling such a decision as ultra vires too. In its view, the ECJ manifestly went beyond the acceptable standards of legal interpretation.
In a single decision, two blows had been struck at the heart of European integration: its common currency and the primacy of EU law.
Mr Barrett wrote in a column for the Spectator: "What matters for our purposes now is that the EU have taken no steps to sanction or reprimand Germany.
"Certainly, no steps in law have been taken against them at all.
"Germany has not modified its constitution as a result, it has maintained its position in law.
"That makes it important as a matter of law; not merely as a matter of politics."
The barrister explained that the case was that Germany, with its unimpugnable commitment to international law, found as a matter of principle that it can overturn international law (break it), if an international law obligation asked Germany to do something which was a fundamental breach of its constitution.
He noted: "Now, this is not the same as the other arguments and is not politics.
"This is going back to our practice of law.
"For 800 years when faced with a novel legal problem we have looked to previous cases to find the legal solution.
"When we look for previous cases to copy, it is normal to look to other countries – in my area involving complicated issues around money/trusts/equity we often look to Australia.
"It is true to say we do not look to civil law jurisdictions, which is what Germany is, quite so often. But I see nothing in principle wrong with looking to Germany for guidance on how the UK should both best honour international law and protect our constitution.
"These issues you see are about constitutional law. They are about how the UK treats our own constitution – about how we behave regarding international law. We have not looked at these questions for some time."
Mr Barrett concluded saying that if Britain is to find a legal solution, then looking at an established western democracy who has "put more time and effort into its constitution" could be the best solution.
In practice, he added, that would mean that just like Germany, the UK will uphold international law in principle, but break international law if it conflicts fundamentally with its constitution.
Read what Boris has to say and answer me this... If you are opposed to the UK doing what it needs to do to circumnavigate Barnier's threat to use the withdrawal agreement against the citizens of this country WHY do you support Barnier and the EU in this endeavour to break up our country and threaten our citizens?
Boris Johnson: EU a threat to integrity of the UK
'Boris Johnson has accused the European Union of threatening to impose a food "blockade" in the Irish Sea that would destroy the "economic and territorial integrity of the UK".
Writing in The Telegraph (you can read the article in full below), the Prime Minister made a passionate defence of his decision to alter the Brexit divorce deal, saying he has to protect Britain from the "disaster" of handing Brussels the "power to carve up our country".
He also issued a direct plea to Tory MPs threatening to rebel over his plans, telling them that, if they stand in his way, they will reduce the chance of getting a trade deal with the EU.
Mr Johnson insisted a Canada-style trade deal with the bloc is still possible and remains his goal, but that Brussels must "take their threats off the table" and rebel MPs must get into line. He also believes the UK will still "prosper mightily" under a narrower, Australia-style trade deal.
The Prime Minister claimed the EU could effectively impose a food blockade across the Irish Sea by refusing to grant the UK approved "third party" status for food exports, which officials say Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, has "explicitly" threatened.
The Withdrawal Agreement gives the EU oversight over goods of animal origin being transported from the mainland to Northern Ireland for four years, meaning Brussels could use an "extreme interpretation" to impose tariffs or declare such trade illegal.
On Friday, Mr Johnson addressed Tory MPs in a video conference, telling them he wanted to "clear up a serious anomaly" in the agreement.
The Government is trying to rush through legislation that would amend the Withdrawal Agreement and in particular its Northern Ireland protocol.
Mr Johnson argues that he has been forced to act because of a "serious misunderstanding" in Brussels about the terms of the agreement, and must unilaterally make changes to it because it has become a "danger to the very fabric of the United Kingdom".
The EU has told Mr Johnson that, unless he backtracks by the end of the month, the trade talks are over.
Some senior Conservatives have expressed outrage after ministers admitted the move would break international law (see video below), and MEPs said on Friday they would refuse to ratify any trade deal if Mr Johnson's Internal Market Bill passed.
But the Prime Minister has come out fighting, using his article to warn off the EU and the rebels within his party.
He wrote: "Unless we agree to the EU's terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea. We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
"I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK."
The Prime Minister said any such barrier would be "completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement" because undermining the Union "would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland".
He added: "This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down."
Mr Johnson said he hoped the UK-EU Joint Committee – led on the UK side by Michael Gove (watch Mr Gove updating MPs on Brexit in the video below) and set up to thrash out technical details of the Withdrawal Agreement, which is separate from any trade deal – will be able to agree on a solution.
But he said "we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country – to divide it – in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies."
Downing Street argues that the EU's interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement would give it the power to interfere in the UK state aid regime and to decide which goods crossing the Irish Sea should be subject to checks.
Mr Johnson told MPs his Bill would ensure that goods crossing the Irish Sea are not subject to unnecessary checks or tariffs.
On Friday a group of more than a dozen MPs, among them former ministers, signalled that they would press ahead with attempts to bar the Government from overriding the Withdrawal Agreement without the support of Parliament.
They intend to defy the whip and back an amendment tabled by Sir Bob Neill, the chairman of the Commons justice committee, who has already secured the backing of Damian Green, Theresa May's former deputy, and ex-solicitor general Sir Oliver Heald.
Mel Stride, a former Treasury minister, said he would be surprised if the legislation survived without "very significant amendment", adding: "When we have a minister standing up at the despatch box saying we will be prepared to break an international treaty, that is a moment when you hold your breath a bit."
The scale of the backbench criticism is believed to have alarmed Number 10 and forced the Government's Whips' Office to begin reaching out to MPs deemed "at risk" of rebelling.
One MP contacted by their whip told The Telegraph Downing Street was "clearly worried" by the number of MPs speaking out. Another said: "I made it very clear [to my whip] that there hasn't been a sensible explanation of why we're pulling this stunt, given the damage it will do."
Mr Johnson will hope his article, and the explanation he gave to MPs in a Zoom meeting on Friday, will have answered their questions.
He wrote: "We must get this Bill through. So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year – the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators. If we fail to pass this Bill, or if we weaken its protections, then we will in fact reduce the chances of getting that Canada-style deal."
Senior Government sources on Friday accused Mr Barnier, Brussels' chief negotiator, of issuing an "explicit threat" to deny the UK approved third-party status for food exports in the event of no trade deal.
Failure to issue the status, which is granted to non-EU countries and acknowledges that their agricultural systems meet basic standards, could also cause major complications for sending live animals or meat products to Northern Ireland after the transition period ends.
Meanwhile, European Parliament leaders representing the majority of MEPs on Friday threatened to veto any future UK-EU trade deal unless Mr Johnson withdrew legislation seeking to alter parts of the Withdrawal Agreement (see Q&A below).
In a statement, the pro-EU groups said that if the UK pressed ahead with the Internal Market Bill "in its current form" they would "under no circumstances ratify any agreement between the EU and the UK".
However, British officials on Friday dismissed threats by Brussels to walk away from trade talks, with a senior figure close to the negotiations saying there had been "more productive" discussions this week than in previous sessions.
They also suggested that the legislation – which ministers admitted breaks international law in a "specific and limited way" – may have salvaged a trade deal rather than increasing the chances of no deal.
UK officials are now confident that they have got EU leaders' attention at an earlier stage of the talks than they would otherwise have done.
With the two sides due to meet again in Brussels this week, they added that the basis for a deal by mid-October remained.'
Let's make the EU take their threats off the table and pass this Bill By Boris Johnson
It is now more than seven months since this country left the EU on January 31, and since then we have been working hard to build what I am sure will be a great new future relationship.
We want a thoroughgoing free trade deal. We want a deal like the one between the EU and Canada; and since we currently conform with every jot and tittle of EU regulation, and since we have been loyal and paid-up members for more than four decades, it strikes me that if the EU is willing to offer these terms to Canada then it makes sense to offer the same to us.
Our partners know that, whatever happens, the UK is their friend, their biggest single export market and committed forever to the peace and security of the European continent. They know that there are ways in which we want to continue and even deepen our relations, not just in trade.
As I have never tired of saying, we have left the EU, but we have not left Europe. But they also know – or at least they know now – that leaving the EU means the UK is serious about its new-found sovereignty.
In forging our new relationships, we can't have our lives or our economy regulated by the European Court; we must have the right to devise our own laws and regulations. And we must have sole control of our spectacular marine wealth – our fisheries.
Those are some of our conditions, and in the last few months I believe we have made considerable progress. If both sides want it, there is a great free trade deal there to be done.
So I have become anxious in the last few weeks to discover that there is an obstacle. Our negotiators believe that there may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement that we reached last October.
You may remember those days. They were torrid. We were negotiating with one hand tied behind our back, since Parliament had voted to deprive the UK side of the right to walk away. We had a deadline of October 31 – which Parliament decided to flout. MPs were in a state of constant turmoil and recrimination. And yet, provided it was applied in good faith, the Withdrawal Agreement we reached was extremely good.
We excised the baleful presence of the Northern Ireland "backstop", which effectively kept this country locked in the EU's legal orbit, forced to accept EU laws, unable to do free trade deals. We made sure that Northern Ireland was explicitly recognised as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, and able to take part fully in new free trade agreements (such as the one Liz Truss has just done with Japan). And we also took steps to protect free movement at the all-important border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
We agreed that, in some limited ways, Northern Ireland would continue to conform with EU law for four years. We agreed that this limited alignment would end, unless the Northern Irish assembly voted to continue it. We agreed to do some light-touch checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, in case they should go on to Ireland, in order to avoid checks at the North-South border.
And on the basis of that excellent deal we left the EU – and so it is deeply regrettable that what seemed so simple and clear to us is seen very differently by our EU friends.
We decided in the Withdrawal Agreement to create a Joint Committee, in which we would thrash out the details of these new arrangements. It is here that things risk coming unstuck. We are now hearing that, unless we agree to the EU's terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.
We want an agreement in the Joint Committee on how we can implement the protocol. We have consistently shown that we are willing to help our friends – to the extent that is possible and reasonable – to protect the integrity of their Single Market and to keep a fluid North-South border.
But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country – to divide it – in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies.
This Bill protects jobs and growth across the UK by preventing barriers to trade between the nations and regions. It means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa.
The Bill gives freedoms and certainties for businesses and citizens that were previously set out in EU law. That is why, as we now come out of the EU, it is absolutely vital. It is now also clear that we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK, and to make sense of that commitment in the EU withdrawal agreement – that NI is part of the UK customs territory. It is therefore crucial for peace, and for the Union itself. We must get this Bill through.
So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year – the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators. If we fail to pass this Bill, or if we weaken its protections, then we will in fact reduce the chances of getting that Canada-style deal.
As it happens, I believe that this country will prosper mightily in either event. We could do very well indeed if we left on Australian terms. But there is no doubt that, in the short term at least, the Canada deal would be better and smoother – and that is what we are pitching for.
So let's end any potential for misunderstanding. Let's remove this danger to the very fabric of the United Kingdom. Let's make the EU take their threats off the table. And let's get this Bill through, back up our negotiators and protect our country.
Who the f*ck does Nancy Pelosi think she is. Britain will do what's right for Britain, the people of Northern Ireland are British last time I checked. The UK has left the EU, if the EU want to play hard ball and not negotiate....then the Republic of Ireland being inside the EU and the UK being outside will require that the Good Friday Agreement is amended. Out of necessity, because of the EU's intransigence.
Now can anyone explain why there is no push back from our government when a US politician makes a statement like this? The correct response would have been for our government to publically chastise her for not understanding the situation and publically advising her to concentrate on getting a grip of the regions of the United States where the Democrats are allowing anarchy to prevail. Perhaps an add on that should the geriatric Marxists win at the next election the US can no longer rely on our military support every time they want to build an international coalition. Grow some f*cking balls Boris.
It has come to my attention that somebody I know who believes himself to be a socialist, anti-capitalist and extinction rebellion member (and is politically active) has been stealing our tax money during the lockdown.
This individual is fortunate enough to be in receipt of thousands of pounds a month having taken early retirement in his 40s, he rents out a barn conversion to holidaymakers on the side (although he barely has any customers). He has taken a £10,000 grant from the government to "compensate" him for "lost business" during COVID lockdown. The man was rubbing his hands together at this, "We wouldn't have made £1000 nevermind £10,000!".
A mutual acquaintance talked about this with me separately and expressed anger at the government for making it so easy for people to rip the taxpayer off. Yet for me, it is the individual abusing the system (the system that was set up to assist UK business and employers and employees through this crisis) that is deserving of the anger, not the government.
So what do you think? Who is in the wrong, the government? Or the individuals who have abused the system and robbed our money?
J.K. Rowling has returned a 'Human Rights Award' she received from the 'Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Organisation' (She only received it in December 2019, for "being dedicated to advancing social change"). Since giving Rowling the award the RFKHRO have publically condemned her for her "Transphobic tweets". Rowling says she had no choice but to return the award;
"No award or honour, no matter my admiration for the person for who it was named, means so much to me that I would forfeit the right to follow the dictates of my own conscience." - J.K. Rowling
...for those who switch parties, potentially, if Conservative MP Anthony Mangall's bill is passed this week. Mangall says; "“My bill is about restoring faith in politics, encouraging transparency and making people feel that their vote matters,”
The bill proposes extending recall petitions which are currently only used when an MP is jailed. 1 in 10 of the constituency would have to sign a petition to force the by-election.
This is Adele in her back garden in Beverley Hills...
...she posted the image on her instagram account along with; "Happy what would be Notting Hill Carnival my beloved London GBJM." ...these are some of the comments in response;
- "If 2020 couldn't get any more bizarre, Adele is giving us Bantu knots and cultural appropriation that nobody asked for. "This officially marks all of the top white women in pop as problematic. Hate to see it."
- "If you haven't quite understood cultural appropriation, look at @Adele's last Instagram post. She should go to jail no parole for this."
- "Bantu knots are NOT to be worn by white people in any context, period."
Nearly every single Jamaican who has commented on it has come out in support of Adele.