In 2016, the subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar were asked by the Prime Minister
at that time -David Cameron, if they wished to remain in the European Union. Asking this question was one of the
Conservative Party's planks of their platform in a general election of May 2015.

Winning that election and having the referendum bill passed a month later, the question of staying or leaving with
the twenty-eight countries of the European continent could only be officially asked after Royal Assent on 17 December
2015.

And so the public referendum took place on 23 June 2016.
51.9% of the public votes to leave, 48.1% were in favour of remaining and the over-all turnout was 72%.

With such a volatile result, the British media -who had leading up to the referendum had merely offered preferred
reasons for remaining and half-hearted suggestions to leave, went into melt-down.
Britain exiting Europe became 'Brexit' and keyboards in the News Rooms began to attach the new catch-word with
information that had been strangely hidden before the referendum.

If one peruses the hundreds of headlines from the mainstream press, it seems that leaving the group of 28 countries
or 'States' as they've become known, was a stupid and ignorant idea made by stupid and ignorant people.

Regardless of the official outcome, everyone and anyone who could appear on a television debate or write a political
column in a newspaper, has and still are, reported that the British Isles and the outlying lands will suffer from going it
alone in the world's marketplace.

Doom and gloom, poverty and mayhem would reach the UK's shores and the 48% would nod knowingly.
Businesses would flee and any trade with European countries would involve complicated tariffs and the UK would fall
away in the markets of education and science.

No doubt, the 17.4 million voters that wanted out of the pact will learn that the big wide world outside of the European
market is a terrible place, a place they once controlled two-thirds of.

The media have maintained this 'Project Fear' complex and even when discussions on negotiations take place in the
Houses of Parliament, the television news outlets offered visuals whilst a Journalist spoke over the speaking MP and
offered the viewers an interpretation.

Here's a few headlines from the MSM on the day of this writing:
'Brexit: Date of departure could be delayed, says Blair' -BBC.
'Brexit fears putting 850,000 automotive jobs at risk, warns car industry' -Sky News.
'New bid to STOP BREXIT: Left wingers launch shock attempt to keep Britain inside EU' -The Express.
'Tony Blair: return to dark 1930s politics no longer far-fetched' -The Guardian.

After the referendum, there was outrage that the uninformed public had got it wrong. There's many convoluted parts
that effect trade and business between the UK and Europe, resurrecting borders and recreating a Customs system will
be no mean feat. News-feeds buzzed with comments from politicians and celebrities who cast doubt on the vote and
how the nation wouldn't be able to handle the so-called divorce. Any anti-Brexit reference was aired and usually with an
added confirmation by the reporting Journalist.

By December of 2017, the UK economy grew and unemployment was at its lowest since 1975.
In order to keep the pressure on those who were demanding a re-vote, Deutsche Bank said that in the event of Brexit
4,000 jobs would go from its London office. In actual fact the number was 350.

The Pound did suffer before the referendum and afterwards. However, the Financial Times reported that the Pound
had been losing it's potency against the dollar since 1967 because the UK’s trade performance has disappointed for
much of this period. In other words, we have imported more than we have exported.

Foreigners pay for UK goods and services in sterling and if they want fewer British goods, there will be less demand
for the pound and its value will fall.
 Conected to being a member of the European Union...? See, anyone can make vague references.

2018, the GDP is now 3.3 per cent higher than it was this time two years ago and the FTSE250 broke all records in
the months following the referendum to leave the EU. A sentence that might make the reader think that not all is dark
ahead for the small country with the poor weather, but there's one thing the media seemed reluctant to tackle.
The British public took part in a referendum and a result was acquired.

Then after politicians had finished shouting they wanted a hand in the negotiations, when the House of Lords had their
concerns aired and when Queen Elizabeth II gave the go-ahead, a small reference was made in some of the newspapers.
Considering the amount of rhetoric that had been flung about in debate programmes and commentary columns between
the outcome and the recent royal approval, one might have expected a larger fanfare.

But such ascension went against the established narrative and just like Trump's election, a decision from the masses that
had been considered under control was suddenly a reality. For anyone unaffected by the current fever of globalism versus
populism, it could be said that the last two years of mainstream editorials must have been hard-going!

Two determinations democratically reached by the public were the wrong ones... but wrong for who?
The United Kingdom existed before the formation of the Common Market -later known as the European Union, and had
held it's own on the world stage fairly well. The US, China and many other countries still trade with the EU and Britain,
what has really changed apart from the enigmatic act of 'free trade' in Europe?

Wouldn't you think that MSM would report nonpartisan information in order to show their fair-mindedness and entrap a
larger audience? It's a rational question considering the deterioration of the traditional news purveyance from the growth
of the internet.

Yet with this recent announcement, there's been hardly a stir.
.......................................

Quote:THREE CHEERS FOR BREXIT Watch as MPs celebrate in Parliament the ‘historic moment for Britain’
as the Brexit bill becomes law.

Brexiteer Tories loudly welcomed the news from Speaker John Bercow that after hundreds of hours of debate
and multiple attempts by Remainers and meddling peers to alter it –it had now passed onto the statute books.

'Theresa May declared it a “historic moment for Britain” and MPs celebrated in the House of Commons as the
Brexit bill finally became law.

Brexiteer Tories loudly welcomed the news from Speaker John Bercow that the Prime Minister’s flagship EU
legislation had been given Royal Assent.

After hundreds of hours of debate and multiple attempts by Remainers and meddling peers to alter it in the Hous
 of Lords –it has now passed onto the statute books and can form the basis of the Government’s negotiations with
Brussels. As cheers rang out in Parliament Mrs May told senior colleagues at Cabinet it was “a significant step
towards delivering on the will of the British people".

She also thanked Brexit Secretary David Davis, chief whip Julian Smith and the Government's Leader in the Lords
Baroness Evans for their hard work delivering legislation which she said would be "a major building block for the
UK's bright future outside the EU".

The PM's official spokesman said that all Cabinet ministers around the table indicated their satisfaction at the
achievement of it completing its parliamentary journey.

Mr Davis said: “This is a landmark moment in our preparations for leaving the European Union.”
In a statement he said it is “a vital piece of legislation that will ensure we have a functioning statute book for exit”.

And the Cabinet minister added: “Since the Bill was introduced in Parliament last year, MPs and peers have spent
more than 250 hours debating its contents and more than 1,400 amendments have been tabled.

“We will now begin the work of preparing our statute book, using the provisions in this Act, to ensure we are ready
for any scenario, giving people and businesses the certainty they need.”

The legislation was first introduced in July 2017, and caused Mrs May to suffer her first major Commons defeat,
with enough Tory MPs rebelling over giving Parliament a "meaningful vote" on the final Brexit deal.
The House of Lords, where the Government does not have a majority, also made 15 key changes, which were later
overturned by MPs.

Mrs May last week risked a further Commons defeat over the "meaningful vote" issue before leading Remainer rebel
Dominic Grieve, with the Tory former attorney general backing down allowing the legislation to pass...'

The Sun:

Will the dividing rhetoric subside now or will the Anti-Brexit protests around the Houses of Parliament continue until
the sunny weather slips away? Only the mainstream media know.

Excellent coverage of this @"BIAD".   BRAVO!    

I do so much want to see my fellow patriots across the pond be freed from the grip of the Cabal.

What We've been Hoping For,,,,,,, MBGA
Make Britain Great Again!   

*BIAD curtsies and thanks his fellow members*
.........................................................

The thing that sticks in my craw is the realities of life we live in every day and the imagined one we're subjected
to by the mainstream media's interpretation of the world around us. Laws are important of course, and ensure a
type of control that betters our over-all survival.

Due to the past twenty years of social 'dumbing-down', I hope you can forgive me for explaining what many of the
Rogue Nation members already realise. It's obvious, but it needs telling.

Borders are important, they determine a country for agreed laws to abide within and anyone not consenting to
the regulations are free to leave that land and seek a better place. Seek via legal means -of course, to not do
so is called 'invasion'.

Goods and services from other countries can be asked for and through the correct conduits of control, be used to
advance the country requiring such furnishings. A truck of cargo isn't sent from the manufacturer of those goods
to another country on 'the off-chance' of selling the product, there's agreements, legal permissions, and an accord
with a buyer of those products.
A paperwork trail of accountability.

Again, forgive the 101 lesson. Deemed-illegal activity decided by a country is not allowed and work is aimed at
stifling it within that country and rejected at it's borders.

Assigned perimeters create a solid social structure, a confidence in a community that promotes a oneness to
follow a particular set of principles that might differ from other countries. Secured populations can thrive with
the knowledge of knowing one's space and again, adds to the likelihood of survival.

In such a diverse set of domains we label 'countries', beneficial exchanges and knowledge from each other can
transmit easier and advocates peace and prosperity, whilst ensuring individual groups of people and their selected
ideals persevere. Remember, a wall across the country next to you, can stop your enemy reaching you too.
The old saying is: It's what our fathers taught us.

If a population lives on an island, then the coastline can make a fine boundary, but it must be manned to make
sure no undesirables arrive with the possibilities to inculcate different or harmful demands. Considering the current
controversy regarding the US/Mexico border, this might seem a good time for our American members to contemplate
grabbing a coffee, but you'd be mistaken.

The coastline and this Brexit thread is relevant. It's where reality can wiggle its toes in the water and avoid the crooked
headlines from the MSM. I can understand some readers getting the yawns around now at the glaring obviousness of
my writing, but the annoying-buzzing of those in the media block out what we know in our hearts and forget in our heads.

So back to Great Britain leaving the European Union.
One of the sticking-points of recent discussions -a situation that never raised its head during the frenzied
jostling for votes on the lead-up to the Brexit referendum, is the Irish Border problem.

The Republic of Ireland -or 'Southern Ireland' is a separate territory from Northern Ireland and was partitioned
under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Northern Ireland adheres to many of the United Kingdom's policies
and laws, the 26 counties that comprises the Republic of Ireland does not.

Southern Ireland joined the European Union in 1973, two years before the United Kingdom and of course, the
concerns of border control between the north and south dissipated. The roads that crossed the border were no
longer patrolled -mainly because of the reality of the fall of Catholic-Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland and
of course, goods needed no Customs checks.
Or at least, that's what the mainstream public are given

So how much does The Republic of Ireland export to Northern Ireland and visa-versa?
Here's some information:
The Republic of Ireland sent just over 1% of its exports in goods to Northern Ireland in 2016.
Another 11% of its exports in goods went to Britain (the UK excluding Northern Ireland).

Northern Ireland exported about £4 billion worth of goods and services to the Republic of Ireland in 2016.
The Republic of Ireland exported roughly £1.3 billion of goods to Northern Ireland in the same year, according
to their own figures.

Now here's the pickle.
If a secured border goes up between Northern and Southern Ireland -remembering that the northern province is
leaving the European Union and it's southern neighbour staying in the EU, then all the power-brokers of the EU
pact are condoning barriers... borders and even Trump's wall.

The winding 310 mile line is linked with 200 border crossing points and every month -on average, around 177,000
lorries, 208,000 vans, and 1,850,000 cars cross the border. Around 30,000 people cross the border daily to travel
to work.
So in other words, there are still identified border crossing points, the MSM omit that from their negative distortions.

It seems that nobody on either side of this 'border' want what the same media call 'a hard border' due to past worries
and British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, stated that the UK government would not
be seeking a return to a "hard border" between the UK and Republic of Ireland.

This means internally-generated goods can still be monitored by their paperwork and those crossing to work
can still freely get home after their toil. But -I hear you ask, what about the 'invaders' using the north and south
of Ireland respectively to get to their destination?

Now... that coastline comment, that is where the Customs and Ports of Entry will exist. In fact, that's where they
already exist!

If you can recall, members of the European Union can still trade with other countries outside of their gang, so how do
you think monitoring visitors and products are conducted when arriving from the USA, China, South Africa and soon
-to-be North Korea?!!
That paperwork trail of accountability I mentioned earlier.

It's merely another obstacle beefed-up by dumbed-down 'Remainers' without forethought that Donald Trump might be
right and realities don't always involve tears.

For anyone interested in this subject, check-out how the Channel Isles and the Island Gibralter -shared with Spain, are
dealing with this alleged problem. They aren't being crowed about by the hacks in London.

And best of all -in my opinion, look at the gorgeous Isle of Man in the Irish Sea. It NEVER joined the EU and still has it's
own historical Parliament. The British Queen is it's Head of State, but It's not by law, even part of the United Kingdom!

And the mainstream media...? Not a word.

Oh, but don't despair if you think the mainstream media can't find a negative angle on
an incident or a report regarding the President of the United States.

One of a country's requirements is to welcome a dignitary from another nation and it
could be debated that Great Britain's traditional sense of Royal greeting -with all it's
pomp and ceremony, stands alongside the best in the world.

Sadly, the Libtards in their ivory news-desks have to see it differently when it comes to
Trump.

Quote:Trump trip could cost Police Scotland £5m.

'A possible one-day visit by US President Donald Trump to Scotland in July could cost Police Scotland £5m.
Mr Trump is scheduled to have talks with Prime Minister Theresa May at Downing Street on 13 July.



It has been suggested the president may then visit at least one of his golf courses in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire.
The prime minister's office has indicated that the UK government may consider providing financial assistance to
cover policing costs.

Interim Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has told the Scottish Police Authority that the visit would require at least
5,000 officers. He said that contingency planning was under way, with rest days cancelled and shifts changed for
many officers.

Protests against the controversial US president have already been organised for Glasgow and Edinburgh to
coincide with the visit.

Protected person
Mr Livingstone told members of the authority: "I do have to stress that we do not have final confirmation that the
president of the United States will actually include any specific engagements in Scotland, however we do have
to prepare for such an eventuality and I consider it's my duty in my current role to ensure that we prepare
contingencies."

He said that, even without a confirmed visit or itinerary, the force would need to consider "a wide variety of
policing factors". These included "the deployment-appropriate security measures that would be required for
the president of the United States as a protected person".

Mr Livingstone said it was Police Scotland's duty to "ensure and enable" any public demonstrations and protests
"should people wish to do so". He added: "We estimate at this time -and very much dependent on the specific
nature of the potential visit -that we will have to utilise over 5,000 conventional officers, along with public order
officers, specialised search and firearms resources."

Government funding
Mr Livingstone said he had concerns about how the additional spend would be financed.
He explained that even if the Scottish part of the UK visit does not go ahead "there is still potential for a number
of events in Scotland to have implications for us given his ties to Scotland and some of his legacy business interests".

The Scottish Police Federation has called on the UK government to release funds to cover the cost of the visit.

General secretary Calum Steele said: "It is simply iniquitous to expect (Police Scotland) to pick up the costs for
this at the same time as additional central government funding is being made available to cover the exceptional
costs the police forces in England and Wales will incur for their part in policing the visit.

"The argument that policing in Scotland is devolved and must therefore meet its own costs is disingenuous.
"President Trump is not visiting to meet the Prime Minister of England. His visit is in an official capacity to the United
Kingdom."

Downing Street said it regularly considers requests for additional financial support from police forces for major events.
A spokeswoman for the prime minister said details of any visit by President Trump had not been confirmed and would
not comment on the specific concerns raised by Scottish police.

But she added: "More generally, for major events, we work very closely with the police and we consider requests for
support including financial support on a case-by-case basis."...'

SOURCE:

Reply to the post above:  Sigh...   Of course they have to have a negative spin, since it's Trump.

Reply to the post above that one: I really wish all the public over there (and here too) would read your wise words. 

Bravo, just bravo!!  

(06-28-2018, 06:36 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Reply to the post above that one: I really wish all the public over there (and here too) would read your wise words. 

Bravo, just bravo!!  

I'm merely relaying what many think over here, many who aren't 'influencers' on television
pretending their nonchalantly discussing a news-worthy subject whilst attempting to convince
the viewer of a certain narrative!

I'd like to know why the Prime Minister -David Cameron, who volunteered the referendum request
was out of a job only a day or so after the result. And I mean the real reason.
That seems very strange.

(06-28-2018, 06:58 PM)BIAD Wrote:

(06-28-2018, 06:36 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Reply to the post above that one: I really wish all the public over there (and here too) would read your wise words. 

Bravo, just bravo!!  

I'm merely relaying what many think over here, many who aren't 'influencers' on television
pretending their nonchalantly discussing a news-worthy subject whilst attempting to convince
the viewer of a certain narrative!

I'd like to know why the Prime Minister -David Cameron, who volunteered the referendum request
was out of a job only a day or so after the result. And I mean the real reason.
That seems very strange.

I can barely keep up with the political news over here, so I'm not up to speed on all that's going on over there, but something sounds fishy to me too.

Verhofstadt is demanding a decisive decision from the political class of the UK regarding Brexit
and suggests Farage is merely stirring-up trouble for selfish financial reasons.

Farage explains that the same political class is moving to usurp the referendum 2016 and keep the UK
in the European Union.

Did the public in the countries of Europe actually vote for any of these people?!

I don't live in Scotland and have no real opinion on the country's independence. I say this with all respect to
Gordi -who I agree with, that Scotland has been used for centuries and still are being screwed over by the
country south of the border.

My only connection (apart from my ancestors supposedly being one of the four clans of North Tyneside and
stem from Vikings) with Scotland is that Gordi's gang and where I live are treated basically the same.

Whether it has anything to do with distance from England's capital or the idea that anyone living north of
the Watford-Gap is a smelly working-class ignoramus, I can't say. But I can say a vast majority of Scotland
know in their hearts that they're seen as second-class citizens and most of those living outside of London are
aware why such a feeling exists.

Quote:Secret indyref poll in 2014 'put Yes 4% ahead'.



'A secret opinion poll just days before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum caused "panic" among
No campaigners, a new documentary claims.
It said the internal poll carried out for the UK government put the Yes campaign four percentage points ahead.

Also in the documentary, veteran BBC broadcaster Allan Little criticises the attitudes of some of his London-based
colleagues towards independence. BBC boss Ken MacQuarrie said the corporation did its job professionally...'

Anyone here ever heard of a person responsible for a broadcasting company respond to a question that they
deliberately did a job unprofessionally?!! Of course the Scottish referendum was skewed in the manner it was
portrayed by the media, Buckingham Palace and Westminster demanded it so!

Quote:'Something was shifting'
The third part of the documentary series Yes/No: Inside the Indyref, to be shown on the BBC Scotland channel on
Tuesday, looks at the last days of the 2014 campaign. The No campaign eventually won the referendum by 55% to
45%.

Better Together, which was fighting for Scotland to remain part of the UK, had started the two-and-half year campaign
as much as 20 points ahead in opinion polls. But as the 18 September polling day drew closer, the result was too close
to call.

Douglas Alexander, who was a Labour MP and senior Better Together figure, tells the programme "something was shifting".
According to Andrew Dunlop, special adviser to Prime Minster David Cameron, the government was so concerned it
conducted its own daily tracking poll.

On Friday 5 September, less than two weeks before polling day, its secret results showed the lead for the Yes campaign
was four points. It came the same day as a YouGov poll was received by the Sunday Times showing Yes were leading the
polls for the first time by 51%-49%.

There was "overwhelming panic" from everyone involved with Better Together, according to Ruth Davidson, leader of the
Scottish Conservatives...'

Aye and in the halls of Westminster too...! But you won't read that in the MSM!

Quote:'...Despite Ms Davidson advising everyone to "hold your effing nerve", plans were made at the highest levels to completely
change the approach of the campaign.

George Osborne, who was chancellor at the time, went on Andrew Marr's Sunday morning TV programme to announce a plan
of action to give more powers to Scotland over tax, spending and welfare. The documentary also talks to Nick Robinson, who
was the BBC's political editor at the time.

He had a high-profile dispute with Alex Salmond, who was Scotland's first minister and leader of the SNP at the time, over his
reporting of a plan by the Royal Bank of Scotland to move its headquarters to England in the event of a Yes vote.
The pair engaged in a lengthy exchange during a press conference and Robinson claimed in his news story that Mr Salmond
"didn't answer" the question.

Robinson told the Yes/No programme: "In the end it was a subjective view as to whether he did or didn't properly answer the
question. "It wasn't a clever script line. In truth, given the chance, I would have rewritten it."

BBC broadcaster Allan Little, who grew up in south-west Scotland and had worked for the corporation for more than 30 years
at the time of the referendum, told the programme he was surprised how little some people in London knew about what had
brought Scotland to that moment.

Little, who was the BBC's Referendum Correspondent, said: "I know how hard my colleagues in London work at trying to get it right.
"It's in the DNA when you are a BBC journalist...'

From a man who has supposedly grown up in Scotland! His affiliation was to the BBC -it seems.

Quote:'..."I'm not cynical about that but I was quite surprised by some of my colleagues failing to understand their own assumption that
the Yes side was wrong." He added that some colleagues thought "that our responsibility was to produce a series of pieces to
demonstrate how foolish it would be to vote Yes".

Ken MacQuarrie, who was the director of BBC Scotland, told the programme BBC journalists "left behind" their own opinions
when reporting...'

F*ck off! Ah, that's a laugh!

Quote:'...He said: "People were doing a professional job as far as was possible in every situation that they came across."...'

BBC:

The BBC programme is aired on Tuesday evening at 10.00.pm (19th March 2019)
................................................................................

Yer've gotta love 'em for their fake devotion.

Political Editor for Sky News -Adam Boulton, commented in one of his afternoon 'Brexit' reports that Harold Wilson -the Prime
Minister during the UK's first-ever referendum about staying in the European Community, 'kicked the can down the road' due to
an internal argument of counting the British votes and it was only until David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010 was such
an easier referendum was attempted in 2016.

Boulton went on to say that holding the referendum, Cameron got it wrong and lost. Lost...? Who 'wins' and who 'loses' in
a democratic choice?! One can choose a preferred decision, but it's not a competition against someone who picks another.
It's not something you 'lose' unless you lose something that benefits from the current status and it is changed.
But whether this is how David Cameron or the Sky Editor felt, wasn't expounded upon!
............................................................................

By the way, the question regarding the 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum was:

"Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?"

And the Political Parties desires were:

For a "Yes" vote
Conservative Party
Liberal Party
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Alliance Party
Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party
...........................................
No official party position
Labour Party
..........................................
For a "No" vote
Scottish National Party
Plaid Cymru
Ulster Unionist Party
National Front
Communist Party of Great Britain
Democratic Unionist Party
..........................................

What the nation said back then:

Constituent country Electorate ..........Turnout (%) ...............Yes........................No

England                 33,356,208                  64.6%                     14,918,009           6,812,052
Wales                     2,011,136                   66.7%                     869,135                   472,071
Scotland                 3,688,799                   61.7%                     1,332,186                 948,039 
Northrn Ireland      1,030,534                   47.4%                     259,251                    237,911

The MSM continue their 'for-and-against' rhetoric regarding Great Britain leaving the European Union and now it's
been discovered that...(Don't say bribes, BIAD) that 'donations' were paid to certain groups in order for a Leave
-voting agenda.

The article below later explains that no laws were broken and the Constitutional Research Council (CRC) -a group
of anti-remain politicians and wealthy business people, were fined for not reporting a donation, although the donation
was deemed permissible.

CRC favours Unionism, the political ideology favouring the continued unity of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern
Ireland as one sovereign state. In other words, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the land
where Gordi resides, this is an age-old bone of contention and part of the system regarding the past troubles in
Northern Ireland.

There's always this continuing demand to be on one side or the other and inferred accusations via certain wordage
will continue until we arrive at an agreed end of the 'Brexit' situation. If it's illegal to donate for votes, then it's illegal.
But the MSM should say so and not imply.

Quote:Brexit donation: DUP received further £13,000 from CRC.

'The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) accepted a further £13,000 donation from a pro-Brexit group in the months
after the EU referendum, documents have confirmed.

The Constitutional Research Council (CRC) had previously donated £435,000 to the DUP during the 2016 Brexit
referendum campaign. The bulk of the £435,000 was spent by the DUP on pro-Brexit advertising.
The DUP said it has complied with electoral law at all times.

The party did not comment on how it spent the £13,000 donation but said it used donations to "further the cause of
unionism at home and abroad". The details on the latest CRC donation are contained in internal Electoral Commission
documents published by the campaign group the Good Law Project.

The CRC is thought to be a group of pro-union business people chaired by Richard Cook.
Mr Cook is a former vice chairman of the Scottish Conservatives.
BBC News NI contacted Mr Cook about the £13,000 donation to the DUP but he was unavailable for comment.


The DUP took out a wraparound ad in the Metro urging voters to "Take Back Control".
(Right) Richard Cook is a former vice-chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

The names of those who donated the money to the CRC have never been released.
Donor laws in Northern Ireland state that the Electoral Commission cannot publish any donations made before July 2017.

'Correctly declared'
In February 2017, the DUP confirmed it received a £435,000 donation from the CRC as part of the EU referendum
campaign. Most of that money was spent on the Brexit campaign, including a four-page "Vote To Leave" advertisement in
the Metro newspaper, which is available in London and other cities but not in Northern Ireland.

The DUP reported the donation to the Electoral Commission but BBC News NI previously revealed that the CRC was fined
£6,000 by the commission for failing to report the donation.
Following an investigation, the CRC declared the donation and the commission found the source of the money was permissible.

However, the latest batch of Electoral Commission documents confirm that the CRC gave the DUP a further £13,000 after the
EU referendum. A donation of £6,000 was made in October 2016 and a further £7,000 was given in March 2017.
Both donations were correctly declared to the Electoral Commission.

'Extraordinary'
The details of the £13,000 donation were contained in an assessment by the Electoral Commission of allegations made in a
BBC NI Spotlight programme. It examined whether there was a common plan between the DUP and the referendum campaign
group Vote Leave.

Last August, the Electoral Commission announced it would not investigate the allegations contained in the programme, having
made what it said was "a thorough review of the programme". Speaking to the Open Democracy website, some MPs have called
on the Electoral Commission to re-open its investigation into the connections between Vote Leave and the DUP.

Jolyon Maugham, from the Good Law Project, said it was "inevitable" that the Electoral Commission would need to re-examine
donations to the DUP during the referendum campaign. He added: "It's extraordinary that -almost three years on -real questions
remain."

A DUP spokesperson said donations received by the party were reported to the Electoral Commission "in accordance with our
legal obligations"...'

BBC:

By the way, if we wish to stay in the world of selective media commentary, Nelson McCausland wrote in Belfast Telegraph back in
2017:

Quote:'...Edward Heath, the Conservative prime minister, had signed the Treaty of Rome in January 1973 and, at that point,
the UK joined what was then usually called the Common Market. That was done on the basis of a commitment that we
would retain our national sovereignty.

Indeed, in June 1971, a White Paper had been sent to every home in the UK, promising that, “there is no question of Britain
losing essential sovereignty”.

Then, in a television broadcast in January 1973 to mark the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Edward Heath went even further.
He said: “There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence
and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”...'

Quote:'...The loss of national sovereignty was confirmed by Judge Bruce Morgan on April 9, 2001.
He said that, when the UK joined the Common Market in the 1970s, parliament and the British people “quite voluntarily surrendered
the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom”.

Two years later, there was a referendum, on June 5, 1975, and the majority of voters supported the UK’s continued membership of
the Common Market, now the European Union...'

Belfast Telegraph:

And there were no demands for a second referendum! I can only hope that somewhere out there, buried deep in the soil of the
UK, honesty is waiting to be found.

I took some time to read up about the DUP, now im not saying they will be whipping "queers" in the high street and other things that god fearing people seem to do.
They are not a group of people I would want any where near any sort of power

(04-10-2019, 02:45 PM)Wallfire Wrote: I took some time to read up about the DUP, now im not saying they will be whipping "queers" in the high street and other things that god fearing people seem to do.
They are not a group of people I would want any where near any sort of power

With thanks to Mystic for the suggestion.

Another example of how the public are slowly becoming aware of the sh*t-show they've been
living in. It's true that the MSM are gate-keeping for the Establishment and it's also true that
the same corrupt medias are dying.

Hence, the information this gentleman is showing, is coming to light.

All of Europe needs leaders that care about Europe and its people. We need brave powerful leaders not the hedonistic leaders we have now.

It's been a while since anything about 'Brexit' as been discussed and before anyone rolls their eyes, I'm not going
project any type of for-or-against rhetoric here. This is about the way that many of us have been indoctrinated to
subconsciously gaining information that creates our view on the world.

What aerates my anal-hair is the manner that many of us accept the way the mainstream media present information
and the actual logistics of it. To some, it is boring, but it needs to be spoken of because it can help to get a reader
back to some form of true reality.

Here is a quote from an article written in on the BBC website dated 1st September 2019.
It's supposedly in regards of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without the famously enigmatic creature
called 'a deal'.

Michel Barnier is the EU's Chief Negotiator in the proceedings of the UK's exit and enjoys a history of political sway in
home of France and the European Union. Barnier's comments or stance in this particular situation aren't the focus here,
it's the logistics that I hope intrigues the reader.

Quote:"...However, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Barnier said: "On the EU side, we had intense discussions with EU member
states on the need to guarantee the integrity of the EU's single market, while keeping that border fully open..."

How did he do that...? How did he write a newspaper-friendly article and get it printed in a major periodical?
Did he just send it -via email or letter, and hope that someone in the mail-room delivered it to the appropriate reporter's desk
or was there prior communication between Mr. Barnier's represenatives and The Sunday Telegraph?

Of course it was pre-arranged and of course there are well-oiled conduits between political figures and news outlets, that's how
the whole thing works... we're being conned from both ends of the spectrum by the same people that are supposed to deliver
unbiased news!

In days gone by when I worked for a one-horse-town newspaper, you wouldn't believe the amount of 'stuff' that's sent in from
Borough Councils, private businesses, music companies and the Government. All just repackaged and sent out in article-form
when the time was appropriate.
It's all a con, I tell thee!

Last week, I dumped all TV access to my home and I feel ten-times better for it! F*ck the media and f*ck the stupid
arguments of not being some weird-type of 'Club'!!

(Coming up next, BIAD begins to store his own urine in mason jars!)

By utilising the streaming Sky channel on YouTube, I saw that ministers in the UK Parliament have
just come to terms with a vague agreed deal between Great Britain and the European Union.

The c*ck-sucking media of that Government report it like this:

Quote:Brexit: EU and UK reach deal but DUP refuses support.

'A Brexit deal has been agreed between the UK and EU before a meeting of European leaders in Brussels.
Boris Johnson and Jean-Claude Juncker called it a "fair" outcome - and the EU Commission President said
there was no need to extend the Brexit deadline.



He said: "We have a deal so why should we have a prolongation."
This will be a boost for the PM, but he still faces a battle to get the deal through Parliament with ex-allies the DUP
opposing it.

Mr Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the EU on 31 October and he urged MPs to "come together to get Brexit
done and get this excellent deal over the line". He added: "Now is the moment for us to get Brexit done and then
together to work on building our future partnership, which I think can be incredibly positive both for the UK and for
the EU."

Brexit should happen "without any more delay", he added, so that the government could turn its attentions to domestic
priorities. The two sides worked round-the-clock on the legal text of the deal, but it will still need the approval of both
the UK and European parliaments.

In a statement, the Democratic Unionist Party, which the government relies on for support in key votes, said: "These
proposals are not, in our view, beneficial to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and they undermine the
integrity of the Union."

They added: "Saturday's vote in Parliament on the proposals will only be the start of a long process to get any
Withdrawal Agreement Bill through the House of Commons." Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the deal sounded
"even worse" than what was negotiated by the PM's predecessor, Theresa May, and "should be rejected" by MPs.

MPs have voted to hold an extra sitting in the Commons on Saturday to discuss the next steps.
Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the government would hold a vote on the deal.
He said he was "not contemplating defeat", but if the plan did not get the backing of MPs, the alternative was leaving
without a deal.

The DUP has been in an agreement with the Conservative Party since the 2017 election, which, in the past, gave the
government a working majority. But after resignations and the removal of the party whip from more than 20 Tory MPs
in recent weeks, Mr Johnson now could face a tough battle to get his deal through Parliament.

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier said he and Mr Juncker had been told by the PM "he has faith in his ability to convince
the majority he needs in the House of Commons". MPs passed a law in September that requires the PM to request an
extension on 19 October if Parliament has not agreed a deal or backed leaving without a deal by that date...'

BBC:

So we'll see how this goes, but the main problem -as far as the lame-stream media are concerned, is what will
they do after Brexit...? I mean, only reporting on incidents in Londinistan is not going to cut it with the rest of
the UK.

Using that same stream last night, I watched a Journalist -I'm using that word loosely, sat at a desk in Brussels
and basically gave his version of yesterday's private negotiations of Boris Johnson and the EU's people.

I will always smile when I think of how 28 countries have to wait for a non-elected group of bureaucrats to make
decisions of trade and commerce that can directly effect their respective countries and then their only requirement
is for confirmation.

Anyway, sitting there at his desk, he glanced down at his phone and comments that one the major negotiators had
just reported that the talks were looking positive. The comment wasn't on Twitter or Facebook, so what the hell was
this Journalist reading from?
A special App?!

The media has done everything to excite, annoy and gate-keep their dwindling audiences and have been in collusion
with the Establishment, -in this case, the European Union. I can only hope that one day, these smear merchants will
be cleared out and the real world can be revealed.

But who'd have thought three-year's of arguing, violence and loss of friendship would be caused by answering
such a simple question. A question that all political parties agreed to adhere to.

(10-17-2019, 03:11 PM)BIAD Wrote: By utilising the streaming Sky channel on YouTube, I saw that ministers in the UK Parliament have
just come to terms with a vague agreed deal between Great Britain and the European Union.


So we'll see how this goes, but the main problem -as far as the lame-stream media are concerned, is what will
they do after Brexit...? I mean, only reporting on incidents in Londinistan is not going to cut it with the rest of
the UK.

Using that same stream last night, I watched a Journalist -I'm using that word loosely, sat at a desk in Brussels
and basically gave his version of yesterday's private negotiations of Boris Johnson and the EU's people.

I will always smile when I think of how 28 countries have to wait for a non-elected group of bureaucrats to make
decisions of trade and commerce that can directly effect their respective countries and then their only requirement
is for confirmation.

Anyway, sitting there at his desk, he glanced down at his phone and comments that one the major negotiators had
just reported that the talks were looking positive. The comment wasn't on Twitter or Facebook, so what the hell was
this Journalist reading from?
A special App?!

The media has done everything to excite, annoy and gate-keep their dwindling audiences and have been in collusion
with the Establishment, -in this case, the European Union. I can only hope that one day, these smear merchants will
be cleared out and the real world can be revealed.

But who'd have thought three-year's of arguing, violence and loss of friendship would be caused by answering
such a simple question. A question that all political parties agreed to adhere to.

Well, that's a good first step, right? 

Let's get this party started and get rid of the swamp creatures across the pond too.  

(10-17-2019, 03:49 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Well, that's a good first step, right? 

Let's get this party started and get rid of the swamp creatures across the pond too.  

It is, even though many have warned that the sky will fall in... although with Angela Merckel recently warning
the EU that Britain will become a formidable competitor now, that anti-leave narrative will hopefully fade away.

The real problem now is Parliament, the majority of the members want to remain in the EU and with a thing
called 'The Benn Act' -legislation that stipulates the prime minister must ask the EU for a delay if Parliament
does not agree a deal by Saturday, it could be a swampy situation.

The main sticking-point was the border between southern and northern Ireland, past problems of sectarian
conflict has caused the thin line and country lane to be of great political, security and diplomatic sensitivity
in Northern Ireland.

The EU wanted to have no checkpoints or custom scrutiny there because of this sensitive situation, but
since Northern Ireland would be a gateway into the rest of the UK, somehow the idea of a real border
became a concern for the UK's overall security system.

In the real world, checks are and have been made with goods coming across the border from both countries.
Border-crossing bus passengers are occasionally scanned by Police and warehouses that store imported products
are checked.
Of course, the media won't tell you that because it ruins a good exciting soap-opera!

Anyway, fingers crossed.

Here's a sample of the chaos-plan that the legacy UK media enjoy during this time.

Quote:Jeremy Corbyn backs second referendum after ‘even worse deal than Theresa May’s’.

'Jeremy Corbyn announced that Labour will officially back a second referendum as he dismissed
Boris Johnson’s new Brexit deal with the EU...'

Metro:

Quote:Remain MPs hold off on forcing vote on second EU referendum.

'People’s Vote backers unsure of sufficient support, with Jeremy Corbyn not enthusiastic...'

The Guardian: