YOUR DAILY BREXIT BETRAYAL – Friday 12th July 2019

YOUR DAILY BREXIT BETRAYAL – Friday 12th July 2019

Where Mandarins work …

 

Another day gifting us with evidence of our Civil Service undermining Brexit. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they’re ‘out of control’, but ‘chaotic’ certainly hits the mark. It’s again about the resignation of the UK ambassador to the USA, and the leaked memos where he was, let’s say, less than complimentary about President Trump.

What does this have to do with Brexit, you may well ask. This: it throws a light on the europhile, Remain swamp, the cosy relationship between Mandarins in the top Offices of State (Treasury, Foreign Office, Home Office) and the government MPs – Tories, in case you forgot.

We’ve been told by Whitehall whitewashers (see this article) that Mandarins and indeed the Civil Service should be impartial, carrying out the wishes of the government regardless if it’s Tory or Labour. That is indeed what we were taught to expect. 

However, given that those top Offices of State have been riddled with Remainers, given that the Brexit mess we’re in is not least due to their ‘we know best’ and ‘the EU wouldn’t like it’ attitude, especially as the head of government, the PM, was a Remainer, we must question this understanding.

That Sir Kim Darroch is a europhile is therefore not surprising. That is not the issue. The issue is, for one, his leaked memos about President Trump and secondly that interested parties – supporters of Hunt – have used this affair to attack Johnson. There was a debate about this in the HoC yesterday. The DT’s sketch writer Michael Deacon reports:

“In the Commons earlier in the day, a Conservative MP, David Morris, had said Mr Johnson should come to the House and apologise for his failure to defend Sir Kim from Donald Trump’s attack.” (paywalled link)

Can we please stop with these virtue-signalling demands for apologies? And if not – can the HoC collectively apologise to us voters for disregarding our instruction to get us ‘Out’? 

In this uproar Hunt supporters have lost sight of two other points. One is that the current Foreign Secretary – who just happens to be a certain Mr Jeremy Hunt – must have seen those Darroch ‘memos’. Shouldn’t he have reproached him for this lack of diplomatic language? 

The other is that nobody seems to be interested in finding out if Hunt would have kept Sir Kim Darroch in his post after President Trump declared he’d no longer work with him. Surely we ought to have an answer to that question? And surely we should hear from Hunt why his department is leaking so badly? 

Meanwhile, there’s another little climb-down in regard to the Darroch affair:

“Theresa May appeared to back down on Thursday in her fight to choose Britain’s next ambassador to the US after her foreign minister hinted that an early appointment was unlikely”.(paywalled link)

Leaving aside the ponderous remarks by Sir Alan Duncan – a Hunt supporter – about appointing a new Ambassador, the following points are more important:

“The climbdown came as Sir Alan suggested there was no evidence the leaked memos – in which Sir Kim also described the US President as “in debt to dodgy Russians” – had been obtained through computer hacking. Speaking in the House of Commons on Thursday, Sir Alan said the internal investigation was focused on whether “someone within the system was responsible for the leak”, as the Foreign Office braced itself for further revelations this weekend.” (paywalled link)

This is where it becomes interesting indeed, and we have to congratulate the DT for having ‘sources’ not afraid to speak out – although we ordinary folk have of course no means by which to gauge the truth of what was told to the DT:

“The government has held “initial discussions” with police over the investigation into the leak, and will formally refer the matter to Scotland Yard if there is evidence of criminal activity. On Thursday a well-placed source told the Telegraph the leaker “has access to pretty much everything,” hinting that other UK diplomats could be dragged into the furore and suggesting Sir Kim was targeted because of his pro-remain views. “This leak is a warning to all those other ambassadors who might be remoaners that whatever your personal views with Brexit don’t deliberately put a spanner in the works or you will get the chip as well,” said the insider. “The leaker has access to pretty much everything. This guy is clever and well pissed off with the remainers in the civil service. That was his motivation. If he has the Washington cables which are the most sensitive then he has everything”. (paywalled link)

Well, we’ll have to wait for that bombshell so publicly advertised. Let’s see if it’s not a dud. Going back to what has actually happened – those Whitehall leaks  of which the Darroch one is only the latest – here’s a comment by Stewart Jackson, also in the (paywalled) DT:

“Jeremy Hunt would be wise to consider that if you want to try to weaponise the issue to damage your opponent, then it’s probably imprudent to deploy perennial Boris-hater Sir Alan Duncan, whose career trajectory resembles that of a kamikaze pilot […]. The conservative public has a sense of fair play and they can smell an operation to blame Boris for something for which he’s not responsible.” (paywalled link)

Just so. His next remarks and questions however go straight to the core, especially as so many of the Remain MSM seem to rely on leaks painting Brexit in as catastrophic light as possible:

“For too long and especially since the EU Referendum in 2016, the culture of leaking has seemed to flourish in the civil service and it appears to have done so with impunity. The senior Conservative MP Mark Pritchard this week called for an overhaul of the Official Secrets Act with a new Espionage Act to review the threshold for legal action and the possible sanctions available for transgressors and posed the question: What else is being leaked and to whom? (paywalled link)

Good point, and the answer is obvious: Remain Mandarins allow leaks provided they’re going to Remain MSM and help to stop Brexit, or, in the Huawei case, to get rid of an inconvenient minister. That was easy!

Rounding off this ‘Tale from the State Swamp’, all we needed was the shining example of Ms Amber Rudd, ardent Remainer, ardent supporter of Ms May, ardent supporter of Hunt, and more than ardent supporter of rejecting the No Deal Brexit. Yesterday, she suddenly declared that

“she now accepted that a no deal Brexit had to be “part of the armoury” as the new leader tried to renegotiate a deal with the EU.” (paywalled link).

The prospect of losing her cushy job as minister with a seat at the Cabinet table obviously made her reconsider her attitude. Principles count for nothing:

“Ms Rudd, who is supporting Mr Hunt’s campaign to be leader, had hoped to become the country’s first female Chancellor, but has now readjusted her sights and would be happy simply to keep her current job. […] A source close to Ms Rudd said: “Things have changed in recent months. […] But this isn’t just about Boris. Jeremy Hunt has also questioned whether she could stay in the Cabinet if she doesn’t accept the mere possibility of no deal.” (paywalled link)

These are the people who believe they are entitled to rule over us because of their ‘principles’, because they ‘know better’ and therefore are ‘better’. These are the people who are happy to sell our country for a pottage of lentils, provided they retain their privileged positions. These are the people who hold us in contempt.

They haven’t noticed yet that our contempt for them is now unsurpassed. There will be a reckoning, as there will be for those who believe that all will be well as long as BoJo is PM so we can all go back to sleep. A possible sell-out to the EU under BoJo’s premiership won’t hurt so much, right?

 

KBO!

 

The post YOUR DAILY BREXIT BETRAYAL – Friday 12th July 2019 appeared first on Independence Daily.

Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: index backlink | Thanks to insanity workout, car insurance and cyber security