Future subjection Declared

The EU Council took no time at all yesterday to endorse the texts bureaucrats had prepared for the UK’s Withdrawal agreement and Future relationship Declaration.

Rubber stamping might reasonably sum it up.

But The Deal proposed by May’s EUphile bureaucrats and the EU’s own ideologists is in serious trouble in the UK Parliament and has caused resignations by ministers most concerned.

It has also begun to affect the government’s ability to pass the most important laws of all, the annual Budget. The DUP which alone enables the Conservatives to remain in power, has been withholding its support in protest at May’s dangerous and unacceptable proposal.

So what is plain sailing for the EU has been,  and remains, a major source of contention in the UK.

That says a great deal. It says that this is a deal which suits the EU and its agenda, but which seriously undermines the democratic will of the UK electorate expressed in the ballot of June 2016,  and again in the 2017 General Election when 82% of people voted Labour or Conservative, both standing on manifestos clearly declaring the UK’s exit from the Single Market and Customs Union.

We now have a 585 page Withdrawal Agreement which seriously jeopardises that, and the final text of the Declaration on the Future relationship.

The nonsense of that Withdrawal agreement being drafted without first defining the Future relationship categorically I discuss  elsewhere. But the Declaration on the Future relationship finally agreed by the EU side yesterday is revealing.

It confirms the view taken at the above link and on the previous post on this site, titled: This is Remain, Not Leave

The 147 paragraph Declaration was beefed up in just a week from the feeble 6+ pages of bullet points which originally went with the Withdrawal Agreement.

This after thought effort to make something of the Future relationship Declaration, and the fact that the EU says that the Withdrawal Agreement is binding and the Declaration merely an expression of intent, speak volumes about the way all this has been handled.

The Withdrawal without full reference to an established and agreed statement on the new relationship is complete nonsense, and reflect the twisted interpretation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

This was done because to determine the new relationship first meant starting with the Leave referendum result. That places the UK outside the EU as equivalent [in EU parlance] to a “third country”. It means the terms of reference for withdrawal must start with being fully outside. How do we go from being a member to being a non member ?

That’s the logical position, and indeed the position a common sense reading places on Article 50. It’s the only practical position. But it does not suit the EU nor the Remainiac civil servants and politicians in the UK.

Therefore, they assumed the future relationship to be in line with being inside the ambit of the EU, and the Withdrawal ‘negotiated’ accordingly.

Analysis of the Withdrawal Agreement has revealed that to be so,   as does analysis of the Declaration on the Future Relationship.

You only have to read the first 5 paragraphs to appreciate the EUcentric assumptions, terms of reference and the perspective at work here.

It is as if the Referendum decision to Leave the EU was simply ignored: the stupid masses don’t know what is best for them so we will have to put it right on their behalf.

The scope is not limited to a future trade agreement, but comprehensive – just like now, as members of the integration project. Para 3 states: “this declaration establishes the parameters of an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation, law enforcement and criminal justice, foreign policy, security and defence and wider areas of cooperation”.

Paragraph 5 has: “the United Kingdom’s membership of the Union has resulted in a high level of integration between the Union’s and the United Kingdom’s economies, and an interwoven past and future of the Union’s and the United Kingdom’s people and priorities. The future relationship will inevitably need to take account of this unique context. While it cannot amount to the rights or obligations of membership, the Parties are agreed that the future relationship should be approached with high ambition with regard to its scope and depth”.

Leaks have already revealed secret negotiations to harmonise Tax as well as Defence policy and practice since the June 2016 vote – both areas not previously submitted to the EU.

Part III of the Declaration concerns Foreign policy, Security and Defence [paras 92 to 109].

Para 101 has the UK in “close cooperation in Union-led crisis management missions and operations, both civilian and military.” Para 104 has this: “research and industrial cooperation between the Parties’ entities in specific European collaborative projects to facilitate interoperability and to promote joint effectiveness of Armed Forces.”

104 goes on to spell out that all this means UK participation in the EU’s Defence Agency, the EU’s Defence Fund, and the EU’s innocuously named Defence Procurement mechanism, PESCO.

Why is an Independent United Kingdom, the 5th largest economy in the world with an unparalleled history, including the foundations of freedom in the English speaking world today, acting like a component in a continental Super Power’s imperial ambitions ?

I did not vote for this, and I don’t want it. I voted for my country’s independence from all such falsehood and posturing. And military independence is the essential underpinning and guarantee of a State’s independence. 

They know this is unpopular: that is why it’s all done behind closed doors, and kept from us until it is too late. The hypocrisy of talk about democracy and law and order in this Declaration and generally demonstrates that the EU is a cynical and imperial project trading on our idealism.

Why does the guarantor of peace in Europe [as the EU claims to be] need a fully fledged military operation to be effective, especially  after all these years of apparent success ?

This dominance of the EU project is everywhere in this Declaration, where “the Union” is always mentioned before the United Kingdom, and where the talk is of UK participation in EU projects, not the other way round; and where the UK is required to conform to EU requirements. Never the EU to meet UK requirements.

Para 9 on Data Protection provides just one example. The UK must be assessed by the superior EU institution, despite already being in conformity and a member. It says:

“the European Commission will start the assessments with respect to the United Kingdom as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal”.

Para 15 foresees the UK’s  participation in the European Investment Bank.

Para 22 on Goods has “a free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation

Para 25 says “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas”.

Para 34 on Regulation of Services has ” the Parties should agree disciplines on domestic regulation” ie UK law must fall in line with the EU’s because they sure as hell don’t mean conforming to UK law …

Paragraphs 50 to 59 concern Mobility and that really does beg the question. Just what have they been doing the past two and half years regarding the basic concerns of people moving about between UK and EU countries ?

Paras 60 to 65 concern basic transport questions, and 66 to 72 concern Energy co-operation.

All these are basic questions which needed sorting before Withdrawal, not as some dim and distant possibility when so much depends on Transport and Energy in the modern economy.

If Czechoslovakia could split into two countries in just 6 months in 1992, just what has been going on in these negotiations ? Answer: dogmatic and propagandic posturing regardless of the actual economic or social consequences, because disruption will be blamed on Brexit, not on dogmatic bureaucrats where the blame actually lies.

And para 79 simply states a situation no different from the current position as members of the EU’s single market we are supposed to be leaving. Under the heading a Level Playing field, we have:

“The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.”

In other words, every area of domestic life in the UK is to fall within the ambit of EU determined parameters and ideology.

And as for Mrs May’s continued assertion that we will take back control of our laws, para 83 under law enforcement and judicial co-operation has:

“The Parties agree that the scale and scope of future arrangements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations – the closer and deeper the partnership the stronger the accompanying obligations. It should reflect the commitments the United Kingdom is willing to make that respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order, such as with regard to alignment of rules and the mechanisms for disputes and enforcement including the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the interpretation of Union law.”

This is not the United Kingdom becoming an independent sovereign nation determining its laws etc unilaterally.

The key test here is to ask: Will the UK be negotiating such a future relationship with the USA or with Brazil or with China or with India or with Russia or with Australia ?

I very much doubt that that possibility has occurred to our civil servants or politicians.

Why ?

Because this is not about a relationship based on mutual respect and independence. This is about making the UK dependent on the Franco German hegemony project dressed up in the  EUtopian guise of Love and Harmony.

Ray Catlin

Copyright © 2018 Ray Catlin. All rights reserved.

This is Remain, NOT Leave !

It is becoming apparent that the UK withdrawal negotiations with the EU were an opportunity for the Remain minded establishment to take forward the EU agenda for superstate integration.

If you read nothing further in this blog post, please read an initial review of the Withdrawal Agreement the UK government wants the UK parliament to approve at


The almost 600 page technical agreement was only given to the Cabinet the morning of the day they met to approve or reject the Deal.

A deal of such momentous significance for the UK’s future was to be rubber stamped by the UK government.

The Brexit Secretary himself had no idea of the actual 7 page proposal for the Declaration on the Future Relationship which will be announced alongside the finalised Deal Agreement.

This Deal was manifestly the work of Theresa May as advised and ‘aided’ by the principal civil servant concerned, Oliver Robbins.

As an undergraduate at Oxford, Robbins was President of the Oxford Reform Club which promoted a federal European Union according to his entry on Wikipedia. His entry informs us that he read PPE at Oxford and went into the civil service where he has been ever since.

A career bureaucrat with the mindset of total European integration was in charge of UK exit negotiations…

The evidence for his decisive influence is in the Deal bounced on the UK Cabinet last Wednesday and in the resignation of two Brexit Secretaries of State in just 5 months. Both had manifestly been sidelined.

Both those Secretaries of State were Leave voters. Their role assigned by Theresa May was evidently to provide an acceptable front for a negotiation designed to keep the UK in the EU ambit.

Buried in the report, for example,  is the following revealed by Dr Lee Rotherham in his article cited above. Dr Rotherham says:

“Now, a lot of eurosceptics could buy into this deal on the assumption, despite the flaws, that landfall is near. But this is predicated upon the assumption that a transition agreement does what it says on the label – it transits.

That approach works for a time. Until you hit that most remarkable of paragraphs. It’s what you might call the Odysseus Clause. It’s Article 132 – where the drafters can barely commit to finally fully leaving the EU this century. Here’s what it says:

“Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period up to [31 December 20XX].”

………. But this variable is a massive trap. The drafters have not even bothered to put in 202X to make a point that they expect transition to take a decade or so at most. So all the problems with the transitional deal, accepted because they are seen as transitional, could quite plausibly turn out to be permanent – or at least, long lasting enough to cause serious damage to our economy, to our democracy, and to our national credibility.”

[end of quote].

All this is about transitional arrangements and backstops. When presenting this, Theresa May is continually at pains to emphasise that neither the UK nor the EU see the backstop as anything more than an insurance policy against failure to get an agreement.

But failure to get a proper Leave agreement is the hallmark of the last 2 years. There is absolutely no chance of getting an agreement in the future when they have failed to sort it in the last two years. And they have failed to sort it because the Remain mindset is at work on both sides. Our civil servants don’t want to leave, and the EU and its member governments regard the Brexit vote with disbelief and refuse to acknowledge the democratic decision of the UK electorate. 

It is a patent lie, no less. And for evidence see this link on Brexit Central, the wording of the link says it all – If Czechoslovakia could be split up in 6 months in 1992 why should Brexit take 6 years ?


The answer is simple and self evident.


The underhand, secretive, ideological, insistent, uncompromising and fundamentally anti democratic nature and spirit of the EU has dictated the agenda and terms of this negotiation; dictated the terms of the perception and debate around the negotiations; dictated the continued campaigning and propaganda stance of so much of the media and political establishment in the UK; dictated a contrivance of a Withdrawal Deal as a document to bind the UK into a process and position determined by an EU integration timetable.

Theresa May has used FEAR to push this proposal on her Cabinet and on parliament. Fear of a Corbyn Government and fear of No Brexit at all if those with the the power to stop this travesty dare to oppose her compliance with the EU integration project.

Pure propagandizing.

There is no danger of a “No Brexit” scenario if her proposal is voted down because the Withdrawal Act has been passed – we leave on March 29th 2019.

If her government is brought down because she cannot command a majority in the House of Commons, and therefore a General Election becomes necessary – so be it.

It will be for the people of the UK to elect a new government.

the most critical fact in play now needs to be faced without this project fear from No 10.

As the DUP’s leader in the Commons, Nigel Dodds said in response to Theresa May’s statement in the House last Thursday, the choice before parliament now is simply this.

Vote down the Deal the UK and EU propose – leaving a “NO Deal” prospect which terrifies so many.   Or vote the Deal and get subservicence to the emerging EU superstate and the breakup of the United Kingdom.

A loaded choice.

May was elected on a manifesto to implement the Referendum result. However, she has repeatedly said what  Leave voters want to hear while secretly preparing a likely position of  subservience to the EU super state – a position she calls “a deep and special partnership” !

She has betrayed our Trust !

Ray Catlin

Copyright © 2018 Ray Catlin All rights reserved


Macron politicizes Armistice Centenary

The weekend of the 11th November 2018 was the centenary of the Armistice ending the First World War. The manner of its commemoration here in France demonstrated  the politicisation of the past by a President with an EU agenda.

France has every reason to feel the loss. France was invaded and its northern territory horribly disfigured. France lost 1.3 million soldiers killed and 4.26 million wounded. Tragedy is too feeble a word for it. It’s not surprising then that the annual November 11th  commemoration in Paris has a very French focus.

It is surprising, however, that the President of France, Emmanuel Macron shamelessly used the occasion to promote his vision of Europe. That he should invite  the Presidents of the USA and Russia among many others to watch a traditionally French  commemoration.

Every nation is blind to its own faults, and France is no exception. France sees itself as the Civiliser of the World. France promulgated the Declaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen in 1789. It was Napoleon who advanced the cause and imposed their vision on the rest of Europe, by violent force.

Personally, I have not the slightest doubt that Emmanuel Macron sees himself in this light: a leader of the world’s greatest nation which will export the values and ideals of the French Revolution around the world. He said as much at the commemoration.

November 11th 2018 should above all be a commemoration of the men who lost their lives in 1914 to 1918. Germany’s Chancellor, Angela Merkel was there right beside President Macron: Germany saw the highest mortality figures of any one nation, at 1.77 million, closely followed by the Russian dead at 1.7 million. President Putin was there too, but not right beside Mr Macron.

Of course,  we all know from the history books that the British Empire stood literally right beside the French on the French and Belgian fields of battle. Without them, the French line would undoubtedly have broken and the history of Europe would have been a very different story.

In the war as a whole, the British Empire lost a million soldiers dead, and over 2 million wounded. The British Army took the worst casualties of any army in a single day when 57,470  were killed on the Somme, on July 1st, 1916. The British army had as many as 5 million men under arms during the First World War.

You would not have known this from the Centenary commemorations in Paris, however.

The British were not there. Not a single representative.

I am accustomed to the French air brushing the role of the United Kingdom out of history and out of the contemporary world scene in their political debates and media reporting.

I am accustomed to the view handed down by De Gaulle that the British inhabit an insignificant little island off the coast of Europe.

I  witnessed the French editing of the British role in the D Day landings, commemorated in June 2014. The Americans were feted in a joint commemoration at an American cemetery in Normandy – the British were left to the themselves elsewhere, mentioned as a footnote in the day’s news.

Whatever the reason for Theresa May’s absence, it speaks volumes about today’s British French relations, and it makes a very telling comment on all the contemporary talk of peace and how we should all get along. It speaks volumes too about the paper thin idealism of the European Union…

Whether the British were there or not, however, it didn’t stop President Macron playing  politics with the occasion.  He repeated the standard line he has been making  as he prepares to fight the Euro Elections next Spring, and promotes himself as heir apparent to lead the European Project as Angela Merkel begins to fade away…

The entire event was  a stage managed piece of propaganda. Regardless of May’s absence, they could have honoured the massive British contribution when they wrote the script for this event.

They didn’t.

The setting was the Arc de Triomphe – a memorial of the battles the French have fought.

Compare that to the Cenotaph in London …

The world’s leaders were present to hear the wise words of the new great European leader as he sought to export the French Revolution worldwide – 21st century style of course.

Macron the actor was in his element, centre stage, delivering his lecture to the assembled leaders, himself of course primus inter pares.

The final word was given to the European Union Youth Orchestra –  all in uniform dress, albeit different from the black jackets, black  trousers, black boots and yellow neck scarves of the youth contingent who’d spoken the memorial snippets from individual soldiers experiences of the War.

If ever I needed a reminder of why the United Kingdom should not be in the EU, this was it.

Behind the much vaunted idealism, the EU is a Franco German power bid to control Europe. And the millions upon millions of dead and damaged merely served that end this weekend.

It’s as crude as that.

The November 10th Franco-German commemoration of the signing of the Armistice in north eastern France was yet further evidence of that.

The Franco German military force were on parade.

Merkel and Macron were there, of course, but that was it. No other nation invited, including the UK which was represented at the original 1918 signing, and which had provided millions of men on French soil to protect France…

That is because the entire weekend was devoted to the French conception of the future of Europe. Their was no room for any other vision.

That conception started with France and Germany in 1950, and was sealed as a Franco German bid for European hegemony in January 1963 by the Elysee Palace Treaty.

Mr Macron is well qualified to take the role of continental Leader. Having failed to solve the record 3.5 million unemployed in France and the no-go areas where armed drugs gangs rule in the suburbs of major cities, he is the classic candidate for dictator.

A Failure at home, he grand stands on the international stage.

God help us all !

post script

On Tuesday 13th November 2018 Angela Merkel announced before the European ‘Parliament’ the intention to create a full blown European Army. Emmanuel Macron had trailed the idea in the run up to the Armistice Weekend commemorations, upsetting US President Trump in the process. Secret negotiations on security co-operation by UK and EU civil servants have pursued the integration of the UK’s entire Defence capability in this EU project since the historic and ostensibly definitive vote for British Exit from the EU – Brexit – in June 2016. This latter betrayal was highlighted in a post on this site on 8th September 2018 titled Brexit Betrayal – May must go !

Ray Catlin

Copyright © Ray Catlin. All rights reserved.