Outlining the government’s position on Brexit (and how this relates to post-brexit intelligence arrangments)

This article is an update to a previous article which outlines the position of the government (by which I mean the civil service) with regards to brexit. It would be a waste of effort on the part of the European Union to make allowances for a hard brexit given that this is almost certainly not going to occur and was never indeed the intention.

I will also outline how this relates to the fact that the role of GCHQ as the premier signals intelligence within the European Union can no longer be seen as valid one.

Before I start I should perhaps outline for those who are perhaps unfamiliar, why the civil service run Britain and why democracy in the United Kingdom is a shame. It works as follows

  1. In order to get elected as an MP, one has to join one of the three main political parties as it is very rare for an independent to be elected.
  2. Someone interested in becoming an MP for one of the three main parties must go before a selection committee to be chosen as a prospective candidate. These committees have a tendency to weed out anyone who is particularly independent minded.
  3. Roughly two thirds of parliamentary seats are what are known as “safe seats”. That is to say, an MP from a particular party will be elected to a particular seat. It is thus only a third of the seats which generally matter and as a consequence, this is where the resources in elections are spent.
  4. When the prime minister of the governing party chooses his or her ministers, they generally have little or no experience of the particular department which they are running and on average remain in position for a period of 6 months to 1 year before changing from one ministry to another. Thus it cannot be said that they are ultimately in a position to effect any change something which is described very well in he television series “Yes Minister”. This is described very well in the television series “Yes Minister”

The short version is that the civil service and in particular, the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood do not wish Britain to leave the European Union and have made steps to ensure that this does not occur. It has surprisingly for the British press in fact been reported that his actions had some effect upon the outcome of a referendum. In September 2014, just before the Scottish independence referendum, the Queen made a carefully loaded public statement which bent the rules of royal impartiality to the advantage of the no campaign. “I hope people will think very carefully about the future”, she told a crowd near her Scottish residence at Balmoral. Heywood had co-written it with her private secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt.

It is no great claim to make that the civil service do in fact wield ultimate power something which in addition to previous reports by ministers and depictions on the small screen would appear to have been confirmed in an article which appeared in a not altogether reliable or indeed reputable source of news, known as mailonline.  If one believes the article, one senior minister confirmed the fact that the cabinet secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood does in fact wield immense power by stating ‘Be in no doubt Heywood runs the country,‘.

The attempt to suggest however that the cabinet secretary had no influence upon the governmental administration of Theresa May and was hemmed in by her two advisors is simply a not credible one. It is an attempt to deflect blame through a publication which has historic association with the intelligence services, services which are under the purview of the civil service and indeed the cabinet secretary. In fact the article contradicts itself by the fact that is states two contradictory things in the same sentence, namely that he both is and is not a shrinking violet.

‘Jeremy hasn’t got where he is by being a shrinking violet,’ said a senior Whitehall source. ‘As soon as Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were out the door, he took over.

Of particular note is the fact that this claim is not only contradictory but

  1. Originates from a source which can hardly be said to be impartial given it is a member of the very same civil service for which Sir Jeremy Heywood is ultimately responsible.
  2. Rather amusingly uses a very famous quote, “I didn’t get where I am today”, from the novel “The Rise and Fall of Reginald Perrin”  which is pertinent in that the some of the methods employed to prevent brexit as outlined in this article and the previous would appear to originate from this novel or indeed something similar.
  3. Contradicts previous reports which demonstrate how much power he could be said to wield..

With regards to the actual attempt to swing the election, much of the following repeats but updates what was written in he previous article. Some of the claims are mere theorizing on the basis of who is most likely responsible but the broad thrust of the argument would appear to be true in that there is a wish on the part of the civil service not to proceed with Brexit.

I had initially stated as a conspiracy theory back in December that people who were clearly ill suited to their positions had been appointed in order that decisions with respect to Brexit would be made behind the scenes by the civil service or perhaps the Queen. This is in fact true.

1234

After the referendum on exiting the European Union, it was decided by the powers that be, namely the civil service that a Brexit or at the very least a Hard Brexit would not occur. Indeed the cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood who took steps to block Brexit moves by ministers has now strangely been put in charge of Brexit.

Moves were made to ensure that Theresa May was installed as Prime Minister. One might recall the episode of Yes Prime Minister which is perhaps the most accurate depiction of government to hit the small screen to see how these things function in reality.

 

One might ask why Theresa May was in fact chosen

  1. There was a need to look for examples of prime ministers who were regarded by the public as particularly unsuccessful and no doubt looking back, they would have first called to mind the previous prime minister, Gordon Brown who was known as the “son of the manse”. This will no doubt have focused minds upon Theresa May who was a “daughter of a manse”.
  2. She might be said to temperamentally unsuited to the position of prime minister and easily controlled. Given her role as Home Secretary, someone who is formerly in charge of agencies GCHQ and MI5 and the fact that such agencies have files on the very people who are meant to be overseeing them, Sir Jeremy Heywood or someone else within the civil service will have had access to her file to be able to deduce her psychological flaws.
  3. Unlike Boris Johnson or David Davis, she had not been in favour of leaving the European Union and could not be said to be the most enthusiastic person to lead the implementation of the result of the referendum given her apparent set of instincts previous to the referendum
  4. She would be for the most part hemmed in by two advisors who would act as the go between with other members of the cabinet and would ensure that appointments and decisions were made which would prevent any successful execution of Brexit.

To this end much of her approach to brexit and the antagonistic nature of her person, something which is probably inherent according to one of her former underlings, Norman Baker led to a decision to bad advice to use that characteristic as part of her approach towards EU ministers. This advice was given in order to reduce the prospect of a successful outcome for Brexit.

Furthermore, the decision for example to state “no deal is better than a bad deal” defies logic given the outcome and one might also like to consider the effect that the decision to opt for a “hard brexit” would have upon the higher education, pharmaceutical sectors and defence cooperation.,  In short when it would appear that this decision was not working, there would have to be a reversal in position at least to some degree

In addition, rather like the scene in the television series the rise and fall of Reginald Perrin when he wants to destroy his grot empire,

people who were entirely unsuited to particular positions were appointed on the basis of advice given by the civil service. Most notable in this respect are

  1. Sir Michael Fallon, one of the worst defence secretaries ever to have held the post.
  2. Boris Johnson, who whilst he might have made an excellent higher education secretary is clearly unsuited to the post of foreign secretary, particularly given his racial comments and his general manner which might be seen as amusing as a game show panelist but not is not best suited to the role of  foreign secretary.

Certain members of the European Union may have been aware of this plan and one might ask why there is not the degree of outrage as one might have expected from individuals such as Guy Verhofstadt.

Further evidence of the fact that they did not wish to proceed with Brexit can be seen through the fact that a Briton, Sir Julian King was appointed as security commissioner after Brexit.. It is a strange decision given the fact that

  1. The United Kingdom is apparently leaving and the decision to appoint a Briton appears to indicate an intent not to leave.
  2. The resignation of another commissioner, Sir John Hill in response to the decision to leave the European Union.

Overall given all this, it cannot be regarded that there was a serious intent to proceed with brexit, especially given the fact that the fact that the civil service which is meant to be impartial did not prepare for such an outcome before the referendum

After hardening of positions in the European Union along with a certain amount of unpopularity due to knowledge of the effects of Brexit, not forgetting of course the policies of the government with regard to austerity, the powers that be decided or had decided in advance that it would be an appropriate moment to engineer a situation where she would be deposed or weakened.

They commissioned a poll which stated that she would win with a landslide and advised her that she needed a strong government in order to deliver Brexit in the difficult times ahead and should call an election. Again one might like to look at the following Yes Minister clip about opinion polls to see how they can provide an answer one wants.

As part of this George Osborne would, regardless of his knowledge of this arrangement, be expected to “piss in the brexit tent” as it were, by becoming an editor of a newspaper which would brief against the interests of the government. This may be expected given his sacking by Theresa May which was no doubt engineered by the powers that be through advice given to the prime minister to sack him. You can see how impartial he is in this regards in the following clip.

The powers that be in the form of her two advisors chose to provide her with bad advice, primarily her mantra “Strong and Stable”. This mantra is particularly significant in that it was originally used in Adolf Hitler’s autobiography, as well as in the following Doctor Who clip from the first episode of the Mutants.

Since publishing this article, this clip has been removed which might just perhaps may have something to do with this being a statement of the truth, given that as far as I can tell, all other clips of that story have not been removed. The full episode is however available in the here on another site and the speech begins at 20 minutes in.

It thus is doubly devastating as a mantra especially given the fact that (as some are in fact aware) I myself used a similar tactic against MI6 by tampering with the header of an email from the FBI and altering it so it would state THISISAFAKE@state.gov at several places as well as by changing the contents of the email to state that there was going to be an FBI investigation against St Catharaine’s College which was a recruitment center for GCHQ.

They did not however notice upon the header and much panic ensued believing that there was going to be an FBI investigation.

Given the decision to insert a policy, namely the death tax, which was so obviously bound to turn out to be subject to public outrage something which was no doubt manufactured by the powers that be and the consequent commissioning of another poll which shows a huge drop in the gap between Labour and Conservative which itself led to a U-turn with regards to the policy, this destroyed the believability of her mantra “Strong and Stable” and thus her credibility. It was downhill from there.

Then the decision was made to ensure that Jeremy Corbyn appeared to be narrowing the polls versus Theresa and that he would gain either a small majority (unlikely), a hung parliament or small majority for Theresa May (highly improbable). This in turn would lead to a situation where, through more behind the scenes management by the powers that be, most of the socialist policies would not be implemented but a hard Brexit would not be. In particular it would not be possible to renationalise as far as I understand under the rules of the EEA, an organisation to which the United Kingdom would belong if a hard brexit does not occur.

Strangely, I published the apparent plan and originally wrote the full outline (the previous outline was very short and written the same day) on June the 1st in my electronic diary. Here is a screenshot which isn’t very detailed but I would imagine you could verify the fact that the polls widened again:

votingintention

Because that diary is and was being read by being read by the intelligence services and hence the Cabinet Secretary, the plan could not be executed as originally intended because it would have led to accusations that the United Kingdom is not a democracy. Indeed from the moment I pointed it out the gap between labour and conservative appeared to widen again.

As such, because of the result of the election whereby the conservative party was in a minority and to  further descredit any attempt at a Hard Brexit,

  1. An arrangement was made between the conservative party and the DUP, which like Sinn Fein had an association with terrorist organisations. This had the effect of discrediting Theresa May in that she had stated as a result of the terrorist attacks during the election, that enough was enough and that she was going to crack down on extremists.
  2. Boris Johnson and Michael Fallon both kept their positions.

 

One can expect a situation whereby there will continue to be behind the scenes movements by Sir Jeremy Heywood and the rest of the civil service to scupper a hard brexit. It is difficult to see therefore why the European Union should make any allowances for this option given the fact that despite public appearances, there has been no serious intent on the part of the civil service for that to occur and indeed  moves have been made to scupper this.

My own view is that the most likely outcome is that the UK will be part of the EEA, subject to European Union regulations and is thus an unofficial member without influence.  It could be argued that people will state that it would be better to be an official member with influence and there will be a movement in favour of rejoining the European Union or at least not leaving.

With regards to intelligence arrangments after Brexit, I would like to highlight three options with regards to the role of this signals intelligence agency within Europe, depending on the eventual outcome for the United Kingdom with regards to Brexit.

  • If it is decided that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, it is difficult to envisage a political unit which is to an increasing degree likely to become a fully fledged federation and would which wish like to be described as such, outsourcing its intelligence to a third country. There has never been an example of a truly sovereign country or a would be superpower outsourcing its defence or intelligence functions to a third country. To give an analogy, the European Union deciding to outsource its intelligence to the United Kingdom would be not unlike China deciding to outsource its intelligence to Peru. Furthermore, given the latest series of terrorist attacks as well as the terrorist attacks which are going to take place and given the deficiencies which have been highlighted with regards to the current intelligence arrangements, it is entirely sensible of Guy Verhofstadt to suggest that the European Union needs it’s own intelligence service rather than rely upon external parties.
  • If it is decided that the United Kingdom is going to stay in the European Union then having caused so much trouble, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in order to reverse article 50, the UK will have to make some sacrifices which, as it would appear the EU wants to be a fully fledged federation, should involve the abandonment of British Intelligence as an independent set of agencies and their subordination to European Intelligence.
  • If Europe does not become a fully fledged Union, through the tactics of divide and conquer on the part of the United Kingdom, a situation not unfamiliar to the people of India, Cyprus, Ireland, the Middle East (ref: Sykes-Picot) and Africa, then it is difficult to envisage a) Europe not becoming weaker in the face of international competitors such as China, Russia, India and indeed the United States. b) the promotion of GCHQ as the head organization within that Union being a rather futile effort given that it would not have a comparable degree of influence as might have been the case with a European Intelligence agency, c) Potentially wars breaking out in Europe. One might perhaps wonder however why the United States would allow such a situation to occur given that it was their idea for Europe to be formed into a political union in the first place as a result of the world wars with which they become embroiled. One might furthermore wonder what they would envisage as the role of GCHQ given that it would be external to the European Union.

In short, as a consequence of the vote to leave the European Union, it is difficult to envisage a central role for GCHQ and it sister agencies within the European Union.

The current arrangements with GCHQ being to a large extent a head office for European Intelligence and the lack of central coordination in terms of European intelligence bodies which has occured as a result of not having a central European intelligence agency, provide some explanation as to why Europe has been able to prevent so many terrorist attacks. It is proving to be an unhealthy and unworkable arrangement which must as part of the brexit negotiations be revisited.

I should wish to state that t is difficult to see how European Intelligence or indeed the European Union for that matter can be taken seriously with individuals such as Amber Rudd and Boris Johnson in charge of agencies which are the lead agencies within European Intelligence, particularly given the fact that those individuals, as per the Maxwell-Fyfe convention, have no authority to oversee the departments they are meant to be running.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s