Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.



Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Obvious obscurantism; overtly obsequious...

---

Opaque or obtuse? [edited] Lots of 'o's describing the government attempts at professional behaviour; they are woefully poor. That and:  'The Government has ignored the basic principles of successful negotiation in its dealings with Brussels', IMHO they have ignored the basic principles of standing up for themselves and those they purport to represent. But David Heathcoat-Amory - once a near neighbour - writing at Brexit Central hits the nail/s on the head; hopefully the nails of the 'Chequers' coffin. Firstly, and most importantly:

"The EU referendum decision was categorical and final. Both sides of the argument agreed this in advance. The Leave decision is not a radical constitutional experiment: Britain will be joining the rest of the world, which is founded on the principle of national self-government, which includes unconditional control over citizenship, borders, laws and trade policy."

Only those with open or hidden invested personal (monetary) interests that are jeopardised would seriously believe anything different. And they are most probably wrong about the 'jeopardised' bit too.

Heathcoat-Armory makes one mistake, he says "At root there is a failure to understand the true nature of the EU", IMHO this is simply not true: May and Hammond, the treacherous senior civil servants in their dealings, plus Soubry, Clarke, Clegg, Blair, Major, Mandelson, Campbell, Adonis et al in their vociferous and increasingly shrieky cries for a 2nd referendum (or cancelling of the 2016 vote) understand all too well the true nature of the EU. That is precisely the problem: the blithering ramblings, the convoluted speeches, the twisting of words and the seeming incompetence at all and every step is all intentional: they know the true nature of the EU and want it!

"The EU is not an association of nation states coming together for certain common purposes. It is a highly self-interested bureaucracy which has one response to any problem: more Europe. Its entire legal order is founded on the principle of ever closer union."

This has always been the case and to be honest, most EU founders, formers and followers have never denied it!

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.



Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.



The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."



Yep. Soon as possible please.

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.

Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.

The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."

Yep. Soon as possible please.

Oxley opines...

---

Image: 18.06.16, The Spectator: Out and into the World. 

On Brexit Central Alan Oxley opines that the UK Government doesn’t really get what is at stake...the Brexit White Paper based on 'Chequers' is "unintelligible, incoherent and includes matters which do not warrant attention", something we can all agree based on the waffle and piffle emanating from complicit MPs and tame MSM; "most importantly [the Brexit White Paper] lays out no platform which any government could use in undertaking something as significant as withdrawal from the EU." Nuff said.




Now, Oxley may be an Aussie with his own interests but as ex Chairman of GATT he knows what he is saying when, in typical clear and blunt Aussie style he says:

"Clearly those who oversaw preparation of the paper had no basic understanding of the fundamental issues or how to address them."

Hear hear! "Why is at least one third of the paper related to vague discussions of issues instead of concrete propositions... [?]", smoke an mirrors to fool dim-witted politicians Alan!

"What is the sense in surrendering future control over any changes to an organisation from which the British people have decided to separate?"

Exactly! ...and an organisation heading only one way...and it ain't 'up'.

Oxley opines...

---

Image: 18.06.16, The Spectator: Out and into the World. 

On Brexit Central Alan Oxley opines that the UK Government doesn’t really get what is at stake...the Brexit White Paper based on 'Chequers' is "unintelligible, incoherent and includes matters which do not warrant attention", something we can all agree based on the waffle and piffle emanating from complicit MPs and tame MSM; "most importantly [the Brexit White Paper] lays out no platform which any government could use in undertaking something as significant as withdrawal from the EU." Nuff said.

Now, Oxley may be an Aussie with his own interests but as ex Chairman of GATT he knows what he is saying when, in typical clear and blunt Aussie style he says:

"Clearly those who oversaw preparation of the paper had no basic understanding of the fundamental issues or how to address them."

Hear hear! "Why is at least one third of the paper related to vague discussions of issues instead of concrete propositions... [?]", smoke an mirrors to fool dim-witted politicians Alan!

"What is the sense in surrendering future control over any changes to an organisation from which the British people have decided to separate?"

Exactly! ...and an organisation heading only one way...and it ain't 'up'.

Offence offensive II...

---

Battle of Britain Hurricanes

...or 'defence offence offensive' given that The Battle of Britain was a great defensive effort. How to ruin a good day and a memorial day at that: I hate to whinge (ahem...OK, I love it) but Niall McCarthy, Data Journalist at Statista has really pissed me off: first the email: "Bloody Foreigners
2,424 British pilots flew against the Luftwaffe during that summer in 1940 and 452 were killed. Many foreign pilots also fought in the battle... ...Britain owes its immigrants a debt of gratitude and amid an air of anger and uncertainty post-Brexit, their decisive intervention at the nation's darkest hour in 1940 seems to be long forgotten by some." FFS, making things worse the article and graph have the title "How Britain owes its immigrants a debt of gratitude" (and btw his graph is wrong anyway missing out at least three nationalities that took part).

Niall clearly hasn't noticed the myriad museums and memorials, especially the Polish War Memorial - that I used to pass every week - nor the commemorative services and wreath laying every year. Has he heard the phrase "The Few", or "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"? He probably doesn't know that many of the pilots were encouraged to stay as their homes no longer existed. Worse, he insinuates they are forgotten by xenophobes and ties it all to 'anger and uncertainty post-Brexit'; he can fuck right off. 

Offence offensive II...

---

Battle of Britain Hurricanes

...or 'defence offence offensive' given that The Battle of Britain was a great defensive effort. How to ruin a good day and a memorial day at that: I hate to whinge (ahem...OK, I love it) but Niall McCarthy, Data Journalist at Statista has really pissed me off: first the email: "Bloody Foreigners2,424 British pilots flew against the Luftwaffe during that summer in 1940 and 452 were killed. Many foreign pilots also fought in the battle... ...Britain owes its immigrants a debt of gratitude and amid an air of anger and uncertainty post-Brexit, their decisive intervention at the nation's darkest hour in 1940 seems to be long forgotten by some." FFS, making things worse the article and graph have the title "How Britain owes its immigrants a debt of gratitude" (and btw his graph is wrong anyway missing out at least three nationalities that took part). Niall clearly hasn't noticed the myriad museums and memorials, especially the Polish War Memorial - that I used to pass every week - nor the commemorative services and wreath laying every year. Has he heard the phrase "The Few", or "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"? He probably doesn't know that many of the pilots were encouraged to stay as their homes no longer existed. Worse, he insinuates they are forgotten by xenophobes and ties it all to 'anger and uncertainty post-Brexit'; he can fuck right off.