I have every sympathy with the democratic, patriotic audience of the Tory Party and the Daily Mail but both have been betrayed by corporate functionaries today just as they were when those institutions appeased Nazism in the 1930s. Today Tories have been manipulated by a party organisation devoted to staying in the EU and the Daily Mail, having trumpeted democratic sovereignty for so long now has an editor who appeases those who wish to keep the UK under the control of the European Union. As in the 1930s both the Tory Party and the Mail might well learn their lesson and return to democracy. But just as the anti fascists fought them in the 1930s so the battle must be joined today.
THE TORY PARTY:
In 1938 the arch Tory appeaser of Nazism Rab Butler – later Home Secretary – started a dirty tricks campaign against anti appeasers among Tory MPs. He had Churchill’s phone tapped and tried to have him deselected.
Butler had become PPS to the notorious Samuel Hoare who was not only an appeaser of Fascism but when forced out of the Government in 1940 he went to Fascist Spain and began attempts to negotiate peace with Hitler and have Churchill removed from office.
Today the Tory party apparatchiks have returned to the manipulations of the 1930s. There has been a surge of No confidence motions against sitting pro-Remain MPs in Conservative constituencies and the party functionaries have fought back against such expressions of democratic protest.
Many long standing members, known for their opposition to the disgraceful surrender document known as Mrs May’s “Withdrawal Agreement” have found that they were suddenly – without any due process – no longer members of the Conservative Party. This meant they could not vote at AGMs nor of course in any Party leadership election. Although all members are normally notified of the date for renewal of their membership a targeted number of “trouble makers” (ie those who oppose May’s Agreement to effectively remain in the EU) were deliberately NOT sent renewal notices.
In Dominic Grieve’s Beaconsfield seat, John Strafford, chairman of the national grassroots Campaign for Conservative Democracy, had his AGM motion of no confidence rejected on the grounds his membership had lapsed. Mr Strafford had not been sent a renewal notice in January as he has for each of the past 56 years! My wife and I found the same situation in the Hexham constituency.
The Tory Party Director General has drafted suspicious new guidance, issued to association chairman trying to find a way of invalidating no-confidence motions.
The new rules have given collaborating local party chairmen all the excuse they need to reject letters sent in over the past two weeks. Any motion tabled later than 21 days before the annual meeting will now not make it onto the agenda. But since the Party constitution states that notice of annual general meetings must also be given at least 21 days prior to the meeting, by the time members find out the date it could be too late to submit a motion.
The Tory Party has over recent decades gathered more and more power centrally in the matter of selection of candidates and now even collects membership subscriptions centrally and distributes to the constituencies. Doubtless this could be a means of future threat.
All the above show that great efforts have been made to end any real democratic control by members of the Conservative party. Two of the last three Tory Prime Ministers (May and Major) were NEVER ELECTED by their party members. No wonder they alienated so many and brought the party to its knees at general elections.
THE DAILY MAIL
For long one of the staunchest defenders of national sovereignty in the face of European Union rule, the Daily Mail now has a Remainer editor Geordie Greig. He replaced Paul Dacre the irrepressible eurosceptic. Dacre was so effective that the hideous David Cameron actually demanded that Dacre be removed from the editorship! Lord Rothermere the proprietor refused.
The paper now supports the May surrender document – as of course do many Remainers – for Remaining in the EU is what it does! But the British people are not fooled and 44% now want to leave “without a deal” (there is in fact no deal on offer, just an exit fine and permanent servitude!) and only 30% disagree.
1930s MORE THAN JUST APPEASEMENT
The Daily Mail in the 1930s actually went well beyond appeasement and praised Hitler and his actions and supported – for some years up to 1934 – Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. A new book by Will Wainewright called Reporting on Hitler describes the unsavoury politics of the Daily Mail in the 1930s.
Following the 1930 German federal election, in which the Nazis won 107 out of 577 seats, Rothermere wrote in the Mail that Hitler’s party “represents the birth of Germany as a nation”. This was at a time when Hitler had made clear his hatred of Jews and belief in racial supremacy in his book Mein Kampf. The Mail was rewarded with exclusive access to the nazi regime, publishing several interviews with Hitler throughout the 1930s.
In March 1933, Hitler came to power with 44 per cent of the vote. The Daily Mail wrote that if Hitler used his majority “prudently and peacefully, no one here will shed any tears for the disappearance of German democracy”. In December 1934 Rothermere and his son Esmond were the guests of honour at a dinner party hosted by Hitler.
The Mail even welcomed Hitler’s 1936 remilitarisation of the Rhineland, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. This was after the passing of the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws which cast the Jews as the enemies of Germany and confiscated their property.
In the early 1930s, Rothermere was so close to Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists that a Daily Mail article was headlined: “Hurrah for the blackshirts” which concluded with a direct call for young men to join Mosley’s party.
THE MAIL EVENTUALLY CHANGED
The Daily Mail’s support for Mosley ceased in 1934 and the paper campaigned for rearmament – unlike many papers on the Left (and the Labour Party).
Today the Mail has again opted for appeasement. Will it repent? Will it eventually understand what the British people have understood? That the UK must leave the EU without May’s so called “Deal” and go out into the world of free trade with a Parliament that can once again be elected to govern Britain in the name of the British people.
MAY’S LIES EXPOSED
WAVING THREE PIECES OF PAPER
Theresa May has just returned from Strassbourg with “legal guarantees” – of nothing in particular – and no change to the Withdrawal Agreement even though Parliament instructed her to find “alternative arrangements” to the Irish backstop (which makes us entirely captive of the EU but which is by no means the only horrendous problem with that disgraceful surrender document)
Fortunately her own Attorney General Geoffrey Cox QC has completely contradicted her claim that she had achieved any change to the Withdrawal Agreement previously defeated by 230 votes in parliament. He wrote:
“However, the legal risk remains unchanged that if through no such demonstrable failure of either party, but simply because of intractable differences, that situation does arise, the United Kingdom would have, at least while the fundamental circumstances remained the same, no internationally lawful means of exiting the Protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement.”
There are three documents.
- THE INSTRUMENT RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
Both sides are “determined” to replace the Irish backstop. But for what? The EU sees a customs union as the replacement. The UK knows that would stop us trading freely with the rest of the world. And as we negotiate interminably we are trapped in the Eu and cannot make trade deals.
There is provision in the WA to refer to the Vienna Convention but the UK will have signed an International Treaty with the EU whose terms are so restrictive of UK freedom that any court would say the UK must stand by its Agreement which does no more than say the EU must use its “best endeavours” to find an Irish border solution. It does not require that it succeeds!
The EU and the UK must “take into consideration adverse proposals or interests”. Which is of no real significance legally.
No negotiating structures or logistical arrangements for the negotiation of a future trade deal are yet in place! as the text makes clear. What a waste of 2 and a half years!
The weakest and most pathetic clause is what happens if the EU just keeps delaying (all the while naturally passing laws against the UK in which we have no say).
Under the dispute settlement mechanism, a ruling by the arbitration panel that a party acts with the objective of applying the Protocol indefinitely would be binding on the Union and the United Kingdom. Persistent failure by a party to comply with a ruling, and thus persistent failure by that party to return to compliance with its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, may result in temporary remedies. Ultimately, the aggrieved party would have the right to enact a unilateral, proportionate suspension of its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement (other than Part Two), including the Protocol.
Oh dear! What a threat. No withdrawal. No action. No grasping of freedom form the EU’s clutches – just “suspension of our obligations”
2. The second agreement refers to the Political Declaration on the future relationship – i.e. principally a trade agreement.
The original Political Declaration is a very dangerous document and looks very bad as regards prospects for a future trade deal, the EU assuming a customs union which would prevent uk free trade and claiming that we need to “negotiate” our fishing grounds access, follow EU state aid rules (Corbyn beware!) and environmental and social standards – among other aggressive claims. All these of course will be areas where the EU without our input will make new laws favouring their own industry and commerce and disadvantaging ours!
The new May document is all embarrassing waffle about good intentions. No real change.
3. The Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom.
The UK states that if it is clear no progress is being made then the backstop would have proven permanent and therefore:
If under these circumstances it proves not to be possible to negotiate a subsequent agreement as envisaged in Article 2 of the Protocol, the United Kingdom records its understanding that nothing in the Withdrawal Agreement would prevent it from instigating measures that could ultimately lead to disapplication of obligations under the Protocol,
In other words UK unilateral withdrawal from the Northern Ireland protocol.
But this is a unilateral declaration because the EU does not agree. In other words it is useless.
The whole charade was an elaborate waste of time. There is no reason for parliament to vote differently from last time when the majority was 230 against the Government.
