Brexiteer David Davis wants Theresa May to chuck Chequers and negotiate a Canada-style free trade deal

DAVID DAVS HAS CALLED UPON THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER THERESA MAY TO “RETHINK” AND  “RESET” THE BREXIT PLAN, CLAIMING  “THERE IS STILL ENOUGH TIME” to RE-NEGOTIATE A CANADA-STYLE FREE TRADE DEAL. 

 

 

Davis wrote in the Telegraphhe called Chequers an “unsustainable zombie plan” which “fails to deliver the Brexit that 17.4 million people voted for.” He attacked the plan yet further, citing it “threatens the UK’s constitutional integrity” And the deal procured by Mrs. May is  “far beyond the pale.”

 

 

David Davis the former Conservative Party leadership candidate spoke to the Telegraph, and said he is “convinced a Canada+++ deal can be negotiated.” But if not the British government should get ready to  “to exit without a deal”.

 

 

The former British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union tweeted on Friday, he said: “the Government’s current proposals are “a travesty of Brexit” and represent a huge democratic deficit.” He finished by claiming: “a 2nd referendum is not the way forward and is not supported by the public.”

 

 

 

 

Theresa May does not seem to have any support for her current Brexit agenda from those that voted to leave the EU or those that voted to stay in the EU. May attempted make everyone happy, but she ended up gaining very little support for all her appeasement. 

 

 

Reportedly her Brexiteer cabinet ministers should opt for a No Deal if the EU remains on the offensive, the PM should listen to their advice and leave the EU.  The ex-Brexit Secretary concluded by blasting: It is time to talk up the opportunities Brexit presents and to be positive about the bright future that exists outside the EU.”

 

 

Theresa May must immediately negotiate a favourable deal, exit without a deal or give the job to someone else. The British people grow tired of waiting. 

 

 

 

TO HELP US ACHIEVE OUR AIMS AND OBJECTIVES YOU CAN DONATE TO BNN NEWS VIA OUR PAYPAL PAGE; PAYPAL.ME/PPPM

 

 

 

 © 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

The EU has revealed its true nature: a federalist monster that will not stop until nations are abolished

It was always the aim of the European project, from its very inception in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris, signed on 18th April 1951 between Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France, Italy and West Germany to established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (which is traditionally regarded as the foundation of the EU because it led to political and economic integration to a certain degree in western Europe as well as providing the basis for the modern EU) and the March 25th 1957 signing of the Treaty of Rome to establish a fully integrated federal superstate called the United States of Europe in which the concept of individual national sovereignty for each member state is complexly destroyed and Europe becomes a single , centralised political entity ruled from Brussels. Ted Heath knew this full well when he conned the UK public into voting for entry into the then European Economic Community, supposedly just a free trading bloc and nothing else. He had been briefed by the Civil Service that membership would entail the eventual complete loss of the UK’s sovereignty and our eventual absorption into a European superstate. We were sold the European project on a tissue of lies (note well please, Anna Soubry.)

This deception continued in subsequent decades with politicians of all parties and political shades signing the UK up to various stages of integration into the EU.

The Premiership of Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990) was, perhaps, the one notable exception. She negotiated a rebate for the UK on its financial contributions to the EEC (as it still was at that time) and generally resisted moves by European politicians to centralise power in Brussels. In 1988 there came the ‘Bruges speech’, often known by the alternative epithet of the ‘No, No, No’ speech after a line taken from it. In this speech she asserted:

‘We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.’

It pleased the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party but dismayed the Europhiles.

However, even she was guilty of aiding European integration. She signed the Single European Act (1986). a treaty that was signed between 12 members of the EEC snd which revised the Treaty of Rome and provided the basis for foundation of the single market. It also formalised the European Political Cooperation Agreement, the precursor of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.

This came against a backdrop of a government split over whether to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which harmonised the exchange rate between the currencies of Europe and was supposed to be a precursor to the establishment of the single currency, the Euro, which Thatcher eventually agreed to do in October 1990.

Whilst nominally a Eurosceptic, Thatcher’s successor John Major (Prime Minister 1990-1997) displayed an increasing pro-European tendency as his Premiership progressed. He signed the UK up to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, after which the EEC (often abbreviated to just EC, the European Community) officially became the European Union.

The New Labour period of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown (1997-2010) witnessed a massive transfer of various powers from the EU to Brussels as the cravenly pro-EU Labour elite sought to aid the creation of a European superstate. They signed over great swathes of the UK’s sovereignty to Brussels in treaties such as those of Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2007). They were extremely enthusiastic about the single currency, the Euro, but didn’t get round to completing that before losing power to David Cameron in 2010.

Cameron’s (and Theresa May’s from 2016) Premiership (2010-present) saw the continuation of New Labour’s very Europhile approach to relations with the EU (and indeed a continuation of New Labour’s left-liberal policies generally.) Cameron continued to keep the UK tied closely to the EU, and he handed over substantial chunks of the UK’s sovereignty to Brussels, before agreeing to a referendum on our membership of the EU after having failed to re-negotiate the terms of our membership with the bloc. He backed Remain, but the country backed Leave, and he resigned as PM, to be succeeded by Theresa May. May was just as much an arch Remainer as Cameron and indeed was probably parachuted into the Premiership by the Remainers in the Conservative Party in order to attempt to sabotage Brexit (she’s been doing a good job of doing that so far.)

The UK public, which has expressed its desire to remain a sovereign nation on several occasions, most notably in the 2016 referendum , has been lied to and covertly forced into the EU superstate by the political and intellectual elite of all political persuasions for a very long time now. The time for complacency is over. If we let the politicians and their allies in the intelligentsia handle matters, we will be betrayed and effectively kept in the EU. The democratic majority must make their voice heard and stand up for what they want-a fully sovereign UK completely free of the EU superstate.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/the-eu-has-revealed-its-true-nature-a-federalist-monster-that-wi/

© 2018 British News Network.

The UK’s ‘special relationship’ with the US hasn’t really existed for thirty years now

The ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US went South a long time ago. It was George Bush Senior, back in 1990, that first reviewed it and decided to downgrade it in favour of one with the European Union, which the US felt was the wave of the future and so had to be got on good terms with (though Bush had been vice President during the intense Reagan-Thatcher years in the 1980’s in which the relationship between the UK and US was very special indeed, which had influenced his outlook a lot and he was an Anglophile who was in no way antagonistic towards the UK. He just felt that the best interests of the US lay in pursuing a good relationship with the EU). The practice of the UK being given any priority or preferential treatment or consideration over other countries was quietly dropped. This policy (of downplaying the special relationship with the UK and seeking the favour of the EU) was continued and extended under the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton (1992-2000), who made several attempts to garner favour with the EU and was not overly enthusiastic or bothered about nurturing the special relationship with the UK. George W. Bush, a Republican (and son of George Bush Senior), president 2000-2008, was more enthusiastic about the special relationship than Clinton, but still felt that the EU was the primary place where the US’ best interests lay. Consequently, whilst in no way unfriendly towards the UK, he too didn’t particularly emphasise the special relationship, though it must be pointed out again that he was in no way anti-UK. Obama (president 2008-16) a Democrat with African connections, inherited anti-UK feelings from what he believed to be the UK’s colonial actions against his ancestors in Africa. Thus, under his presidency, once again, the special relationship was not at all emphasised. President Trump appears to be a little more positive towards the UK, but the days of the UK-US intense special relationship of the 1980’s are long gone, unfortunately.

 

© 2018 BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE ARTICLES PRINTED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE EDITORS OR OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK. NO PART OF THE BRITISH NEWS NETWORK OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS MAY BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR MODIFIED, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF BRITISH NEWS NETWORK.

Is it time to re-assess our loyalty to the Monarchy?

The UK Monarchy’s constitutional role is to act as a politically impartial head of state. It is this function that has given the UK its political stability over the years whilst continental Europe (and many other parts of the world) abandoned this device and suffered from recurring bouts of instability and tumult (look at France, for example, with its revolutions, political violence, extremism and dictators-Napoleon and Petain to offer two examples).

The younger generation of Royals ate ignoring this convention and getting involved in politics. William is being clearly pro-Palestinian by stating that the people of the UK ‘stand with Palestine’. Such political intervention risks the future of the Monarchy by making it unpopular with sections of the community that may feel that it is against them. The Monarchy must be completely politically impartial. It must stop interfering in politics. The young Royals are destroying the institution they belong to.

This trend of the politicisation of the Monarchy is also a general trend within The Firm. The Queen has, since the Blair years, engaged upon a course of increasingly appeasing the UK’s vociferous left-liberal lobby by increasingly adopting their outlook. This became apparent a few years back when, during a broadcast to the nation, she stated that ‘Diversity can be a source of strength’.

This trend is vastly greater amongst the younger Royals, all of which regularly break the impartiality rule to back politically correct causes. By far the worse is Harry and Meghan. Harry himself is quite politically correct.(after all, he did marry Meghan for PC reasons). However Meghan is off the. charts when it comes to political correctness and getting involved in politics. She has been very vocally left-wing in the past, supporting a number of left-liberal causes, feminism, for example. This augurs extremely badly for the future as it seems unlikely that she will be able to contain her zeal for such matters.

All the above also bodes poorly for the future of the Monarchy, which is trying to transform itself into a politically correct institution in order to ensure its future with the left-liberal youth of the UK.

Should we re-assess our loyalty to such a changed institution after the present Queen dies?

See the following article:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/980667/prince-william-palestine-visit-peace-with-israel

© British News Network 2018.

London Knife Attack Chaos As 4 Murdered In 24 Hours

London’s knife crime chaos has tragically seen the death of more young men, they were killed in the streets of the capital city.

The Police in London (MET Police) are looking for information in connection to the four young men brutally stabbed to death.

The first knife attack took place at 11.30 on New Year’s Eve inside Enfield, London an 18-year old young-man was stabbed to his tragic death.

19:35 in West Ham, London a 20-year old man was stabbed to his unfortunate death.

22:40 on the very same day, a 17-year old boy was murdered at knife-point in Tulse Hill.

2:35 on New Year’s Day, a 20 year-old man was murdered with a knife on Old Street, a second man in his 20s suffering critical stab wounds as well.

It becomes abundantly clear that a unprecedented scale of knife-crime and violence ins going on in London. I believe it’s time for stop & search to be stepped up and the Police Service shouldn’t need to worry about racially profiling people as people’s lives are more important than people’s misguided feelings also we need to increase the numbers of Police officers in this country. It’s time to get serious with horrific crimes like this!