IS BORIS SERIOUSLY FOCUSED ON DELIVERING BREXIT?

 

IS BORIS SERIOUSLY FOCUSED ON DELIVERING BREXIT?

For those of us that want to see Brexit delivered and, in particular, are hopeful of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Boris Johnson has made various remarks that his friend and campaign advisor, Sir Lynton Crosby would call ‘Dog Whistles’, that is remarks which call us back to heel like well-trained dogs! 

Of course these remarks might be genuine expressions of Boris’ personal determination and ideological commitment to Brexit “Do or die!” 

Alternatively these remarks might well be being said by Boris Johnson purely for reasons of expediency.  It would therefore be worth reminding ourselves of Boris’ history.

The first thing I should say is that I do personally like Boris’ style.  He is clearly an absolute star and a magnetic personality and performer with tremendous charisma.  He has genuine leadership ability which makes a fantastic change from the dispiriting lack of it of Theresa May and her inner circle.  That said let’s consider his position.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was born in the United States and when he attended Oxford University his former tutor at Balliol confirmed that he did so as an American citizen.

More recently as MP for Henley and Editor of the Spectator and then as Mayor of London, Boris had seemed enthusiastically Europhile. 

I remember in a TV programme which he did enthusing on the topic that the EU was the new Roman Empire.  He suggested that what we now needed was a new Caesar Augustus! 

He also at one stage enthusiastically endorsed the idea of Turkey, the land of his Great Grandfather, Ali Kamal (one of the last Sultan’s ministers), joining the EU. 

We then have the occasion when he decided to come out as supporting Leave once David Cameron had called the EU referendum in 2016.  During that campaign he made all sorts of remarks which pleased us Leave supporters. 

However it should be borne in mind that he had done two draft speeches.  One supporting Remain and David Cameron, the other coming out for Leave.  David Cameron has also apparently confirmed that he thought Boris did not believe in Brexit.

I would therefore say it is not clear that Boris coming out for Leave was about commitment and principle, rather than about career and opportunity.

There is also Boris’ family background which is very Europhile, globalist, multi-racial, multi-cultural and metropolitan elitist.  Perhaps not the typical seed bed of patriotism and nationalism!

Now we turn to what is going on at the moment.  Boris has obviously got the leadership of the Conservative Party, partly on the basis of his personality but also partly on the basis of promising to deliver Brexit “Do or die”.  Brexit has therefore been very useful to his career ambitions.

When Boris became Prime Minister, Stephen Barclay became the New Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.  The two of them still could have agreed by Consent that our case “Defend Brexit” would win and agreed that there be a Declaration that we were out on the 29^th.  

Indeed, we could have agreed some other date where we would be out if the Government thought there was any reason for having a different date. 

Instead of doing this, despite the fact that Boris, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Stephen Barclay and many Conservative MPs had been lobbied about it, the Government’s lawyers wrote to me and to the Court of Appeal saying that they had received instructions to reiterate the Government’s pleaded Defence.  Although I have asked for confirmation of who ordered it but I think it highly unlikely that that would have been written if the new Prime Minister and Secretary of State had not ordered it. 

A lot of the noise and froth which we read in the media or hear from Boris’ supporters is that he is being almost martyred for the issue of Brexit by the parliamentary Remainers, it is nevertheless worth pausing and considering that Boris had several opportunities to prevent the then Bill becoming law.  The Conservative Peers had lined up many amendments which would have filibustered the Bill so that it could not pass through the House of Lords before Parliament was prorogued and would therefore have been lost.  It has been reported that Boris personally stood the Conservative Peers down and enabled the Bill to pass without objection. 

He also could have refused or delayed Royal Assent to the Bill. There would then have been a further row about whether that was proper to do, but the time would have ticked away and we would have been closer to achieving Brexit with ‘No Deal’. 

He has now signalled that he would consider a ‘No Deal’ Brexit to be a failure. It is also  worth remembering that on the third occasion he did actually vote for Theresa May’s Withdrawal Deal, which, of course, is really more of an abject and almost unconditional surrender document.  From this we can draw the certain conclusion that Boris is not ideologically committed to opposing Theresa May’s deal.  The question of the deal is purely a matter of expediency for him.

We will see over the coming weeks whether he does take any decisions which advance the chances of a ‘No Deal’ Brexit, or whether he in fact prevents that from happening behind a cloak of ‘Dog Whistle’ remarks to Leavers. 

So you might ask me what I think Boris is actually trying to achieve if it is not a clean break Brexit? 

My answer would be that I think what he is trying to achieve is a General Election with him having a good chance of using the Brexit issue to enable him to destroy the Brexit Party and to get a large majority as a result of the election. 

If that election takes place before the 31^st October I wouldn’t then be at all surprised if Boris quickly signs us up to what to all intent and purposes is Theresa May’s deal. 

The amusing commentator Rod Liddall suggested that what Boris would sign us up to was “Theresa May’s pig of a deal which Boris had put lipstick and rouge on”!

What do you think?

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

Conservative political dishonesty over Brexit

As I made clear in a previous article I think that many members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are making the error of thinking that their dishonesty over Brexit is going to be quickly forgotten just like all their previous lies to the electorate.  I think that they are making an order of magnitude error in thinking that this is the case. Brexit is the first time that the public had really focussed on a political issue for many decades. 

It is perhaps worth recalling that David Cameron of the Conservative Government promised repeatedly to implement the outcome of the referendum.  This was not least in the booklet which Cameron used £9m of taxpayers money to print and distribute to every elector in the UK promising to implement the outcome of the referendum.  Instead almost immediately after the referendum he and Osborne resigned. 

The Conservative Parliamentary Party, after a period of unprecedented backstabbing and careerist manoeuvring managed to choose two candidates for leadership, Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May, both of whom it seems lacked any personal leadership qualities whatsoever. 

The forgettable Andrea Leadsom when subjected to some nasty criticism over her comments about having children giving her motivation to do the best for the country, apparently spent the weekend in tears before giving up her leadership challenge (and was ironically rewarded by being made the Minister in charge of waterworks and floods!).

Theresa May was then anointed as Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister on the back of promising to implement Brexit with her opaque slogan of “Brexit means Brexit”.  Since then we have been treated to a series of broken promises on top of her longstanding track record of claiming to support reducing immigration to the tens of thousands, when in fact allowing the largest influx of immigrants since Blair swamped us with millions of Eastern Europeans! 

Here are just some of Theresa’s whoppers (with acknowledgment to Guido Fawkes):-

“She broke her promises on calling an election and not triggering Article 50 until the UK had an agreed strategy – two decisions that the history books will not look upon kindly. She promised to put Dexeu in charge of the negotiation and make sure a Brexiteer was doing Brexit – that didn’t happen. She promised not to raise taxes – tax rises are coming in the autumn to fund her NHS splurge.

“There should be no general election until 2020.” General election: 8 May 2017.

“There should be no decision to invoke Article 50 until the British negotiating strategy is agreed and clear.” Article 50 triggered: 29 March 2017. Cabinet Brexit strategy agreed: 7 July 2018.

“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.” NHS spending increase, funded by “us as a country contributing a bit more [tax]” 17 June 2018.

In her 2017 party conference speech May made the promise again: “With our economic foundation strong – and economic confidence restored – the time has come to focus on Britain’s next big economic challenge: to foster growth that works for everyone, right across our country. That means keeping taxes low.”

“I will therefore create a new government department responsible for conducting Britain’s negotiation with the EU and for supporting the rest of Whitehall in its European work. That department will be led by a senior Secretary of State – and I will make sure that the position is taken by a Member of Parliament who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.” Theresa May takes personal charge of Brexit talks: 24th July 2018.

“Now is not the time for me to set out my full negotiating principles – that will come later.” Not sure people would have inferred two years later.

“I will dedicate my premiership to fixing this problem [housing]…

 as Prime Minister I am going to make it my mission to solve this problem. I will take personal charge of the government’s response, and make the British Dream a reality by reigniting home ownership in Britain once again.” We’re on our second Housing Secretary this year, a damp squib of a housing policy and silence from May…

“The Conservative Party can come together – and under my leadership it will.” (sic!)

You can see why Tory members might have quite liked her promises to stay true to Brexit and not raise taxes are disillusioned now! Who isn’t?

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://order-order.com/2018/07/26/theresa-mays-promises-to-tory-members-then-and-now/

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

“EVEL” PROVED NOT TO BE EVIL BUT MERELY USELESS!

Remember when David Cameron’s announced in Downing Street, after the Scottish Referendum, that he thought that we now needed to give a voice to England?  He proposed that the voting system in the House of Commons should be reformed to provide English votes for English laws ("EVEL").   

Labour howled that this would lead to disaster but our view was just that it wouldn’t prove to be an answer to the English Question.  In particular we thought then it wouldn’t even be an attempted answer to the question of how the Executive operates.  This is because there would be no English First Minister or English Government or even a Secretary of State for England!

Also it was always going to be unlikely that any such minor reforms to the House of Commons would change the fact that the people that get elected as Labour MPs or Conservative MPs are usually people who not only don’t care for England and do not identify themselves as being English.  In fact they often outright hate England!  For an example of this consider the infamous words of the former Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the late Charles Kennedy, who said that he supported the Regionalisation of England because Regionalisation “Was calling into question the very idea of England itself”! 

We thought how is it going to be possible for such people to ever give a proper voice to England?

Now there has been an academic study done by a Left-wing, Cambridge University Politics Department, academic.  Professor Michael Kelly is certainly no friend to English nationalism. However his report is worth reading and a link to it can be found here>>> https://academic.oup.com/pa/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pa/gsy003/4868636 

The extracts of the study that I particularly relished in their vindication of the English Democrats’ positions were as follows:-

“In the light of prime minister David Cameron’s assertion in September 2014 that EVEL would constitute a ‘decisive answer’ to the West Lothian Question that would enable the ‘voices of England [to] be heard’ (Cameron, 2014), and given the level of disagreement which these procedures have elicited at Westminster, the effectiveness and implications of this historic reform demand more careful assessment than they have hitherto received.”

“More significant objections to EVEL, however, concerned its potential constitutional implications. Some contended that this kind of reform would be inherently incompatible with the ethos of a body tasked with managing the legislative affairs of the UK as a whole, by creating different classes of MPs with different rights. As Bryant (2008, p. 674) noted, ‘[t]he standard objection to it is that it would create two classes of MPs … and in so doing it would run counter to the sovereignty of parliament exercised equally by all who are elected to it’.”

“For others, however, devolution to some parts of the UK, but not to England, has embedded an endemic unfairness and helped put the English Question back at the heart of British politics—a view that has been loudly championed by proponents of the idea of an English parliament.”

“With respect to the various practical obstacles that have been feared by sceptics, the evidence derived from the 2015–2017 parliament suggests that these pessimistic predictions have not thus far been realised.”

“We nevertheless found little evidence that the Commons authorities were unduly burdened in this period by the requirement to make adjudications. This is an important observation because it tends to undermine the common claim that it is not practical to identify England-only legislation.”

“The worry that EVEL might create ‘two classes’ of MPs was widely echoed in the debate about these procedures which took place in the House during 2015, and this became a standard complaint among some MPs—particularly on the question of the so-called ‘Barnett consequentials’ of legislation that appeared mainly to affect England. During these debates it was argued that the new procedures would establish ‘two classes of Members of Parliament’, ‘second-class MPs’, or even make some MPs ‘fourth-class’. This complaint also figured in a wider public debate about EVEL which took place in Scotland in 2015, and in a much more limited way in England.”

“The government possesses various mechanisms within the pre-existing procedures of the House of Commons to manage legislative business, including control over parliamentary time and the exclusive power to initiate taxation and spending provisions. Such tools mean that the possibility of an opposition party with a majority in England effectively displacing the UK government on England-only matters remains remote, at least as a direct consequence of these procedures.”

“It remains possible for England-only legislation not to be certified under EVEL. This is illustrated by government proposals to relax Sunday trading rules through the Enterprise Bill in 2016. Although this policy would only have applied in England and Wales, the Speaker’s provisional certificate confirmed that it did not meet the certification tests. This was because the relevant clause also contained material relating to employment rights in Scotland. 

Under EVEL, however, whole clauses are considered for certification, not components within them. This episode demonstrates rather well that, should ministers in future wish to circumvent the veto right provided by EVEL, there is every chance that this could be relatively easily achieved through the ‘tactical’ drafting of legislation.”

“Under EVEL, the backing of the UK-wide House remains necessary even if it is no longer sufficient for legislation to pass. This means that English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against the wishes of UK-wide MPs—a situation that in time may prove unacceptable to some MPs and wider English audiences.”

“This feature can be illuminated through reference to two different controversies that arose during the 2015–2017 parliament. In July 2015, the government laid before the Commons secondary legislation to relax the rules governing fox-hunting in England and Wales. But a scheduled vote to approve this change was abandoned after the Scottish National Party indicated that it would vote with Conservative backbenchers and others against the move, making a government defeat much more likely.”

“Subsequently, the provision to relax Sunday trading rules in England and Wales was deleted from the Enterprise Bill in a government defeat at Commons report stage. This policy achieved the backing of MPs in England and Wales, but it was MPs representing Scottish constituencies (where it would not directly have applied) who ultimately proved decisive”

“To clarify the extent to which EVEL does, and does not, answer the West Lothian anomaly on legislative voting, it is helpful to compare it to the devolved legislatures, and, specifically, to distinguish between two different ways in which these devolved bodies approve legislation in policy areas that are within their competence. The first, and most common, mechanism is for legislation to be introduced into the relevant devolved legislature, where it is scrutinised and voted on by representatives elected from that part of the UK. But an alternative mechanism that has been developed is for the legislation to be passed by the UK-level Westminster parliament, but with the expressed consent of the appropriate devolved legislature under the operation of the ‘Sewel convention’. EVEL has been designed to be, in some ways, analogous to the second of these mechanisms, but not the first. Consequently, English MPs remain unable to force through legislation against objections from non-English representatives and are thus in a ‘weaker’ position than their devolved counterparts."

“Moreover, legislative voting is only one component of parliamentary activity, and Dalyell’s query is also potentially relevant to these other functions. In the Westminster parliament, these include the opportunity to hold debates, question ministers and conduct formal inquiries—functions which are also mirrored within the devolved legislatures. These can be understood as mechanisms enabling the expression of ‘voice’, rather than simply the right to ‘veto’ proposed legislation. While these tools clearly can be, and are, used by English MPs at Westminster on policy matters that in practice relate only to England, they are not badged, or even acknowledged, as being territorially bounded in this way.

David Cameron, as quoted in the introduction above, argued that EVEL would enable England’s voice to be better heard within the UK legislature. Subsequently, his party’s 2015 English manifesto claimed that the reform would enable ‘English MPs to express their voice on matters affecting England only’ (Conservative Party, 2015, p. 8). Yet it is far from clear that EVEL offers any notable enhancement of the expressive and deliberative power of English MPs, or gives more voice to England in any meaningful sense. 

More generally, there is a palpable sense that the newly established legislative grand committees have failed to provide a discernible English dimension to the legislative process or promote a clearer English voice.”

“During EVEL’s first year in operation, most of the legislative grand committees were entirely perfunctory, with few or no substantive contributions being made.”

“The failure of EVEL to facilitate any meaningful English voice also illustrates the dangers that can arise when different arguments for reform are conflated. There is a risk that ministers have ‘over-claimed’ in talking up what this kind of reform can achieve, and this could well lead to problems of expectation management in the future. As one MP opposed to the procedures told us, ‘any political advantage the government have got by doing this will be dissipated pretty quickly once people realise just how insignificant a measure it actually is. It just tackles one tiny part of the English Question.’”

“On the larger question of whether these procedures provide a meaningful form of English representation at Westminster, our research leads us to a more sceptical response. EVEL has not eliminated the basic territorial anomaly associated with legislative voting in the House of Commons, which has been exacerbated by devolution. Nor has this new system managed to provide a more visible kind of symbolic representation for the English. In this sense, despite the considerable energy expended on these changes and the inconvenience they have caused for parliament and government alike, it is not clear that they have fundamentally changed the rules of the legislative game along the lines anticipated by their supporters.”

What about UKIP?

What about UKIP?


I can’t start answering this question, which relates to the political future of UKIP, without mentioning the legal Latin expression “Functus Officio”.


Functus Officio means a duty completely finished, or to quote from Black’s Legal Dictionary:-

 “Latin: Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore of no further force or authority. Applied to an officer whose term has expired, and who has consequently no further official authority; and also to an instrument, power, agency, etc. which has fulfilled the purpose of its creation, and is therefore of no further virtue or effect.”


The words of the second verse of that great Victorian funeral hymn “Abide with Me” also seems very suitable too. Here they are:-

“Swift to its close, ebbs out life’s little day;

Earth’s joys grow dim; its glories pass away;

Change and decay in all around I see;

O Thou who changest not, abide with me.”

It is however fair that I also mention Nigel Farage’s and UKIP’s highly significant role in getting David Cameron to make what for Dave was the greatest political mistake of his life. That role was in bluffing him into calling a referendum on our continued membership of the EU.


Andrew Marr writing in the New Statesman on 1st July reported that:- 

“According to one of those involved, this all started at a pizza restaurant at Chicago O’Hare Airport at the time of a Nato conference in 2012, when David Cameron and his closest political allies decided that the only way of scuppering Ukip and the Euro-hostile Right of the Conservative Party was to give the British people a referendum.”


We English People, and our Nation, will always owe a debt of gratitude to UKIP and its role in getting us the opportunity to democratically vote to Leave the EU.


But perhaps, rather like an effective catalyst in causing a chemical reaction, in doing all this UKIP may have caused its own destruction.


Of course at this stage it is not clear for sure what the outcome of UKIP’s leadership election is going to be, nor what will be left of their Party once they have finished fighting over its constitutional structure at the emergency EGM which Arron Banks is organising.

Quentin Letts calls for us all to send letters to the Conservative Freepost address

Quentin Letts calls for us all to send letters to the Conservative Freepost address. Here is Quentin Lett’s article:-

QUENTIN LETTS: Cameron's £9million pro-EU mailshot stinks. So I'm sending mine straight back!

By QUENTIN LETTS FOR THE DAILY MAIL


Received your pro-EU propaganda leaflet in the post yet? As you may have heard, the Government is blowing millions of pounds on a public mailshot.

All British households are to receive a copy of this 16-page, glossy leaflet which instructs us — cue a fanfare of trumpets and shouts of acclamation from an obedient populus — in the glories of the European Union.

You lucky, lucky people.

As we speak, valiant employees of Royal Mail are working to bring us this vital document.

It is emblazoned with the crest of Her Majesty’s Government and brims with snapshots, statistics and claims about the positive effect of the EU on Britain.

A message from our rulers, my, my! Across the kingdom, children press their noses to smudged front windows, waiting for sight of their postie to see if this will be their lucky day.

The project is so vast, it almost demands the poetic treatment W. H. Auden gave to the Night Mail in that celebrated 1936 documentary film (‘This is the Night Mail, crossing the border, bringing the cheque and the postal order. . . ’).

Steam trains may no longer be around, but articulated lorries are being loaded with pallets of these Cameroon EU leaflets at remote depots late of night.

Scandal

Sorting office machines chatter and click like crazy as the nation sleeps. Soon after dawn, postmen and women trudge the staircases of residential tower blocks or amble down provincial garden paths — no doubt whistling a cheery air as they step — to bring the uplifting news about Brussels.

‘Economic security, peace and stability,’ it declares. You can almost hear Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony pumping away in the background.

Such co-ordination of proletarian toil is enough, my dears, to bring tears to your eyes. Or perhaps not. For this £9 million junk mailshot is, to put it mildly, controversial.

There are some of us, and I would happily include myself in their number, who would call it a sorry and scurvy little scandal, one that could ultimately limit David Cameron’s premiership, damage the Conservative Party and dent our already battered trust in Whitehall.

The whole thing stinks — stinks like a Belgian wrestler’s jockstrap — and we should demand explanations from those who have authorised it.

It is hard to think of a more blatant stitch-up in public affairs since, well, the last time our country was given a vote on Europe back in 1975, when the Establishment presented the electorate an entirely false prospectus on what was then described as the European Economic Community.

Later, without any public vote on the matter, that segued into the European Community. And then the European Union. And these ruddy Europhiles expect us to trust them again!

The simple fact that such a mailing is happening at all reflects the intense ill-feeling — and, perhaps, of panic in Whitehall — that the public is refusing to be so gullible this time round.

The leaflet certainly appears to break promises made in Parliament by ministers less than a year ago.

The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, and Europe minister, David Lidington, as good as stated in the Commons last June that no such mailshot would be undertaken by the Government.

I say ‘as good as’ because Mr Lidington’s exact words were ‘we have no intention of legislating to allow the Government to do things such as mailshots, paid advertising or leafleting’. The italics are mine.

I suppose Mr Lidington could claim that the Government did not, indeed, legislate for this mailshot. It just went ahead with it anyway. But if he did try to argue that, he would be guilty of the most disingenuous shading of the spirit of what he said.

As for that unconvincing figure Hammond (how can such an uninspiring little man have been given one of our great offices of state?), he noted that the Remain and Leave campaigns would do their own mailshots.

He added: ‘The Government has no intention of undermining those campaigns.’

Ladies and gentlemen, it has just done precisely that, undermining the Leave campaign with a nakedly pro-EU leaflet that has been funded by taxpayers.

If the Commons had any self-respect, it would accuse Messrs Hammond and Lidington of misleading the House last summer. Ministers who mislead the House were once obliged to resign. Alas, we now live in a Britain where ministers who lie on behalf of the EU get off scot-free. So much for the principle, or lack of principle, behind this leaflet.

Next is the cost: £9 million, says the Government airily, wafting aside objections as if to say that £9 million is a piffling sum.

Is it? The cost may well be higher when you consider production and distribution costs to 27 million homes from Land’s End to John o’Groats.

Schmaltzy

Since when has George Osborne’s Treasury become so careless of the pounds, shillings and pence? And would the public not prefer £9 million to be spent on, say, healthcare or schools or even on repairs to Buckingham Palace?

Instead, it’s being spent on millions of swanky leaflets telling us how to vote in the referendum.

Eurosceptic Liam Fox has called it ‘Juncker Mail’, punning on the name of the European Commission’s notoriously thirsty president Jean-Claude Juncker. With normal junk mail, of course, you can opt out of unwanted advertising (or try to — not that preferential mail schemes always work).

With Government communications, there is no such opt-out. The beggars send you the stuff even if you do not want it.

The timing of this public misinformation service has been highly questionable.

Some people believe it was announced last week in an attempt by spin doctors to obscure the row over David Cameron’s tax affairs.

Others claim, I suspect with rather more cause, that it has been issued sneakily just before spending limits are introduced on the two sides in the referendum campaign.

At this point you may ask: ‘Who is the top civil servant who would have authorised this leaflet?’

To which the answer, surprise, surprise, is Cabinet Secretary ‘Sir Cover-Up’ Jeremy Heywood. A sneaky, last-minute ambush of the Brexiters is a classic Sir Cover-Up tactic.

Then there is the content. It is a depressing (yet somehow simultaneously comical) mixture of dumbed-down rot and schmaltzy cynicism.

One photograph, in the manner of the children’s TV show Play School, shows a June calendar with a red circle round the 23rd, referendum day. Don’t forget to vote, children.

Political correctness has been observed, too. For example, there is a photo of someone who looks like a man doing a supermarket shop and carrying a taupe handbag.

A snapshot of a ‘UK Border’ sign, by the way, has the caption: ‘We control our own borders.’ Ha! I like it! If you think we exert any proper control of our borders, you really must be a politician.

So, what can we do with this darn leaflet, this flimsy wad of piffle, this stapled spiel of Cameroonish baloney?

Reading it is a fruitless enterprise, for you will not learn anything reliable and it may simply cause your pulse to race with irritation.

Can we scrunch it up and use it as litter for the hamster cage? But the paper is non-absorbent. How about paper darts? Wrong shape. Use it for wall cavities? As draught excluders? We could burn it, I suppose, but that might contravene EU carbon emissions targets.

Some have suggested sticking these ridiculous propaganda sheets into an envelope saying ‘return to sender’ and addressing them to Mr Cameron at 10 Downing Street, London.

But that will simply mean that we taxpayers pick up the postal bill — and anyway, the Royal Mail would probably cotton on and refuse.

Ingenious

There is, my friends, a better answer, and it comes from my friend Anthony, a vigorous and ingenious Brexiter. He suggests putting your EU leaflets in an envelope and addressing them to a Freepost address used by Conservative Party fundraisers for their fat-cat donors.

This will mean that the Royal Mail is paid by the recipient.

You might say that this is a little hard on the poor old Tory Party. Well, it is their ruddy leader who has sent out this leaflet. Let them have it out with him.

PS: And that address? It is Joanna George, Freepost RSBB-XRZT-ZTXE, The Conservative Party Foundation, 30 Millbank, London SW1P 4DP.

You can even enclose a little message, telling them precisely what you think of Mr Cameron and Sir Cover-Up’s leaflet.

I am sure they will be grateful for the feedback. After all, isn’t this a listening government?

Here is the link to the original>>> David Cameron's £9million pro-EU mailshot stinks writes Quentin Letts | Daily Mail Online



Here is my letter:-



Dear Madam

Re: EU Referendum

I reject the propaganda leaflet for which your Leader, Dave Donald Cameron, misappropriated public funds to send to every elector in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It was a gross Breach of Trust and I look forward to the day when he can be personally surcharged for doing it.

Yours faithfully



R C W Tilbrook

BRITISH GOVERNMENT MIS-USING ENGLISH & WELSH POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION FUNDS for EU PROPAGANDA?

GOVT MIS-USING POLICE COMMISSIONER ELECTION FUNDS for EU PROPAGANDA

The Cabinet Office refused to spend what they claimed was £9 million on an information booklet for the Police Commissioner Elections which was recommended by the Electoral Commission, but instead it is set to waste £9 million on a booklet of propaganda for the European Union about which the Electoral Commission has stated as:- "We don't think the government should have done it, but it's not illegal," and that:- “Electoral Commission recommended that the Government should conduct no taxpayer funded advertising”.

Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said that:- “In September 2015 I wrote to ask the Government to do a Mayoral style booklet for the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections and wrote that:-

“the Government has neglected to properly consider and apply the Electoral Commission’s conclusions in their report dated March 2013 that there must be a Mayoral style booklet delivered to each elector. Please could you let me know what you are proposing to do to sort out this mess?”

On the 29th February 2016 David O’Gorman of the Cabinet Office’s Elections Division replied to me stating that despite:-

“the Electoral Commission’s recommendation to provide printed booklets of candidate election addresses … there are no plans to provide the booklets to all eligible households in May 2016, given it is estimated that to do so would cost up to £9m.”

Robin Tilbrook continued:- “So it is now crystal clear that this is a government which refused to spend £9 million on a Mayoral style booklet which was recommended by the Electoral Commission to enable the Police Commissioner elections to be conducted fairly. Instead it is determined misuse that £9 million to try to unfairly skew the results of the EU referendum. This is directly against the Electoral Commission’s advice. This is a striking illustration of the rottenness at the heart of the British Government and, as the old saying goes:- “A fish rots from its head”!”

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats