“How great a man is he that he would lay down his country for his life?”
PROLOGUE: this is what the Financial Times reported on June 15th 2017:
‘Philip Hammond is likely to increase the fears of UK infrastructure providers that they face being cut off from access to valuable European Investment Bank financing after Brexit, threatening projects spanning from trains to university libraries….he will not guarantee to fund a domestic replacement or set out an ambition to negotiate continued access to the EIB after 2019 under a special agreement with the EU27. Facing an end to EIB finance will be a serious blow to many providers of British infrastructure, since the bank has outstanding loans in the UK worth more than £48bn and has helped finance trains, trams, energy projects, universities, housing and water projects.’
This was standard fearmongering stuff from the then Chancellor Philip Hammond…..naturally placed in the FT, which is a 24-carat globalist pro-EU organ. But it represented a double calumny, because Hammond was, behind the scenes, plotting with his Treasury officials to leave the UK with massive responsibilities to the EIB, but none of the advantages of being in it.
For the World View donkeys who see no problem with giant superstates, those with their eyes open have come to accept that such people no longer respect any concept of national, community or individual citizen Sovereignty. But in this particular instance, a sense of sheer evil in the betrayal involved is hard to ignore.
The information I present to you this morning is not exclusive: most recently, it appeared just over a week ago at the Daily Telegraph – one of the few media titles left prepared to give Brexit a fair crack of the whip – under contributor Robert Rowland MEP’s byline. Rowland is a member of The Brexit Party led by Nigel Farage.
Perhaps from fear of being sued, Rowland took the line in his piece that ‘toxic ineptitude’ lay behind the facts he put forward as to the behaviour of Hammond and his fellow Fifth Columnists at the Treasury following the Brexit referendum. Before that, however, the Telegraph’s Charles Moore had referred in general terms to Hammond’s “hypocrisy” in giving the European Investment Bank (EIB) a sweet deal as a hidden part of Theresa May’s multiple strings attached Withdrawal “Agreement”.
The former Chancellor was uniquely well-placed to give the EIB a deal hugely advantageous to the EU, and this he undoubtedly did. The deal wasn’t strictly “secret”, but (a) it was not highlighted in the original media handout (b) no other media title covered the content and (c) if our media pack wasn’t quite so self-censorious and bone idle, the appalling nature of the departure deal would surely have raised questions in the House.
Except, of course, that a good two thirds at least of Commons MPs have never wanted Brexit to happen….including his Majesty the Speakerette, the small and imperfectly formed John Bercow. So the matter was, um, neither raised nor allowed to be raised.
Partly because the Revoker media ignored it – and because the Rowland piece was paywalled – the column published on September 30th sank without trace.
I was sent a copy of the full article three days ago by a Slog reader, who pointed out that “ineptitude” was highly unlikely to have been the motive involved here. I have to say, such has not been my experience of dealing with this less than august shower, but since then I have made some enquiries, and it seems quite clear to me on the basis of them that the EIB arrangements are a scandal way beyond the scale of the €39bn we seem to be willing to pay Brussels because they asked for it. That too remains one of those unmentionables that nobody wants to debate any more, but it is time, I think, for it to be brought back front and centre.
In broad terms, this is what Team Hammond agreed with the EIB. As a 16.1% shareholder at the bank, the UK would be due on departure a repayment of €11 billion in capital.
But Hammond wrote off – gifted – €7.5bn of UK taxpayers’ money. For no reason that makes sense for Britain.
Further, the remaining €3.5bn will not be available in cash.
Hammond has agreed that the sum can be paid back interest free over the next 12 years. By which time the euro probably won’t exist.
If only it ended there.
Hammond has put Britain on the line for another €36 bn of capital help – with no preconditions – to help underwrite the EIB should the eurozone collapse.
Still not worried? During the Brexit transition period (currently standing at five years and counting) Britain would be liable as per its percentage of EIB ownership for a share of this bizarre bank’s loan note risk arrangements.
Hammond has given a guarantee that we will cough up this sum of €80 bn as and when required.
The EIB is a bank with a long and thoroughly deserved reputation for risky, incontinent lending. Philip Hammond’s goodbye present to this organisation isn’t exactly going to make the Bull pull in its horns. Is it?
BRITAIN IS HANDING OVER €123.5 billion IN GIFTS & LIABILITIES WE ARE UNDER NO COMPUNCTION TO OFFER. THROW IN THE INSANE €39bn “DIVORCE FEE”, AND THE TOTAL CREEPS UP TO €162.5 billion.
Just to put that into some kind of perspective, it’s bigger than where the Greek debt started, it’s the entire NHS budget, and its enough to provide 100% restitution for all female SPA “reform” victims in the United Kingdom right now until they die.
Philip Hammond, along with Theresa May, was fond of observing that “there is no money tree”. Yet this dissembling, two-faced Chancellor was prepared to give away an entire orchard.
Robert Rowland writes, in the original column, ‘In a final twist to this toxic tale of Remainer scheming, the Brexit Party calls for a Royal Commission to investigate how the UK Government and civil service managed the process of exiting the EU with such ineptitude.’
He’s right to do so – but the piece is light on the “Why?” thing.
“It’s pretty clear I think,” one prominent Tory backbencher alleges, “Philip was ensuring his own long-term survival as a ‘good European’. If by some miracle, clean Brexit were to occur, then the immediate crisis faced by the European Union would be dramatically softened. Also, he was ensuring that if Brexit quietly died, the revoking of Article 50 would be in some way rendered more smooth. In fact, I rather suspect we would’ve been left shut out of the EIB, but liable for the monies anyway. It’s what these monkeys do.”
A former Treasury official now retired had this to say:
“Ollie Robbins is merely the tip of the iceberg. He represents a technocratic tendency in Whitehall that has long assumed the creation of a federal Europe, and understands perfectly that this is where future power will lie. These mandarins live in terror of a eurozone collapse, because they know it would be the end of their ambitions to skip through the revolving doors and onto banking boards, into Commissioner roles in a future Europe, and of course possibly one of the several EU presidencies available. They would do anything to save the EU’s neck. Look where Ollie wound up….at Goldman Sachs. Really quite amazing.”
If I were Mr Rowland, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a Royal Commission to be set up – let alone one likely to find and prosecute the guilty. The Rule of Law may not be dead in the UK, but it is certainly suffering from incurable brain damage in its current form.
What this astonishing case history demonstrates yet again is that the issue the British People face is not – whatever TBP says – a simple symptomatic issue called Brexit: it is the steady progress of an attempt to gradually starve the citizenry of my homeland of the media information, benefits, pensions, equality of legal protection, optimism and freedoms it requires in order to influence the most important decision we have faced since 1702.
The decision is this: do you want personal destiny control (PDC), or everything you do, say and spend monitored by distant functionary and artificial intelligence?
That’s the choice, and it is a stark one, the importance of which is completely lost on the vast majority of UK citizens who are tired, busy, distracted, and schooled in conformist attitudes donated to us by neoliberal claptrap and pc wishful thinking.
NHS doctors, nurses, Waspi/Backto60 women, the disabled and the young have already been deemed necessary collatoral damage in the achievement of geopolitical ideologies espoused by the Parties at Westminster – be they blue, red, yellow or green.
I have already blogged in recent days for a strong and clear alliance between TBP and those who support One Voice for our retired women who can’t retire….thanks to a Ruling Class that would rather shower gifts on Brussels than protect its own People.
Wake somebody up today. Send this post to ten people. Please.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: John Ward is a columnist, blogger and communications expert with a degree in History & Politics, and a long experience of studying both quantitative research data and conducting focus groups. He does not support any Party in the Westminster Parliament, and is a longstanding opponent of ideological fascism in governance at every level.
His fundamental starting point is the maximum fulfilment of every citizen, and the rejection of systemic theories that put forward visions of Utopia. He has campaigned for many years in support of 1950s-born women cheated by the politico-bureaucratic class. Since the 2016 Brexit referendum he has consistently argued that military, banking and multinational interests are dedicated to ignoring the constitutionally expressed desire of British citizens to recapture their self-determination. He lives in South West France, where his best friend is a ring-necked dove.