Acute Disorder

Law of unintended consequences

Archive for December, 2016

Article 61 in practice

without comments

Good morning rebels…..I am going to write a post that will make the lawful rebellion process very simple to understand and use.

It maybe a long blog as I will put Notices that we have used successfully within it, so that any layman can see how and why this remedy works.

The basic principle is that we all have lawful excuse to deny the crown any authority at this time, not only the crown but any individual not standing in open rebellion against the crown since article 61’s invocation.

It really is that simple we just need to act honourably with our processes to stay within British law.

The other most important fact that needs to be understood is that law is only law if it complies with the constitution. Since the constitution was usurped many moons ago there are only rules being used against us today and, even if laws were being used the crown has no authority to use them at this time.

The ‘crown’ also means the police, councillors or any agents of the crown. The law demands that we rebel in peace until the rule of law (constitution) has been properly reasserted.
EVERYONE of the entire realm has been commanded to rebel in order to protect our sovereign nation since 2001, and the common law that protects the people from injustices…..this command comes from the crown!! so anyone opposing your standing will be opposing the crown and constitution which is effectively treason to do so.

Lastly an Oath of allegiance does not need to be sent to a baron but by doing so it makes that Oath more credible. You can simply create one and get three witnesses to sign it, by doing so it becomes a legal instument. A declaration to someone in a position of alleged authority would also suffice. The lawful rebellion process will only work to remedy the treason when a small percentage of the people use it together…..our forfathers understood this back in the 13th century which is why article 61 is not optional.

The people are the power of any nation when they stand firm together, this has always been the case and is why we have a constitution that protects the people. If it weren’t for the people revolting in the past then we would have grown up in tyranny and would know no different. Peace.

Written by anubis

December 27th, 2016 at 2:59 pm

the fate of the world…

without comments

One of my favourite aphorisms is “A man’s character is his fate”. I think it was attributed to Heraclitus.

In the same vein, the fate of the world will be the result of the character of the beings who inhabit it….

I am sometimes quite gloomy.

I think we are on ther verge of exponential technological advance, but I think humanity will soon be split more clearly into those who understand and those who don’t and those who understand is probably less than 5% of the total.

This means that 95% of the population will continue to behave in unenlightened ways only with potentially more powerful technology at their disposal.

I think a societal collapse is inevitable, since governments are becoming more authoritarian, i.e. seeking to prevent people from thinking for themselves and thereby questioning their “authority” (monopoly of violence) and are peopled by members of the 95% on the whole… So they are in effect forcing people to adopt behaviours which are stupid and stupid people willingly follow.

I saw another quote, “Morality can’t be legislated”. People know right and wrong and yet “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws”, as everyone knows.

So anyway the link to the source of this piece is here

The description of how people behave generally was what struck the chord….

I was rigourously tested for 6 days once, and two days twice by forensic psychiatrists assigned by the court to determine if I had any mental defect. Turns out my I.Q. (at age 24) was 163.

How do I think?

I am a cook in a restaurant. Every day, I come in with a new hypothetical scenario for my workmates. One of my favourite questions yielded an answer applicable here. The question was “If you could have any superpower, what would it be?” The best answer was “The ability to stop time for everyone else, but not for me.” The worst was “To be the most brilliant genius of all time,” which I immediately countered…..

Everyone in the restaurant knows I’m a genius. Nobody cares. I don’t ever discuss the actual number involved, as it would only create problems. They just know that I can discuss Julius Caesar conquering Gaul, the Meiji restoration, the detailed intricacies of baseball, chromosomal abnormalities, Orthodox Saints, the refining process of oil, volcanic interaction with subduction zones, the chemical composition of 440 carbon steel, the manufacturing process of porcelain, etc. You get the idea. (I’m giving an honest answer here)

When I ask a question, I receive condescension from my peers, and literally watch them gloat over them “knowing something” I don’t. When I have an answer, it is weighed less than anyone else’s. When I have a suggestion, it is resisted always until or unless circumstances obviate its acquirement. When I need an item in stock, my asking creates resentment….even to people standing around when I’m working.

They discuss their personal lives, and don’t ask about mine. They make post-work plans and never include me…not once. They ask each other questions that they know I can fully answer just so they don’t have to hear me give another explanation. The owner has told me I shouldn’t work there. He asked me what else I could do for a job while on parole in which I may use my mind. Everyone else’s jokes are funny to him, mine are not.

I made the mistake when starting to work there of discussing subjects I found interesting when I pondered them. No one wants to discuss the ramifications of “Operation Zitadel” and the transmission difficulties of the Tiger tank versus the manufacturing simplicity of the Soviet tanks in 1943….during a dinner rush.

I see solutions everywhere. I also see people highly resistant to change even when they agree with the solution.

I see fraudulence everywhere. I see people who are deeply, deeply in love with a façade they project which brings them power in some aspect.

I see mind numbing ignorance everywhere. I see people who don’t even know enough to know that they don’t know enough about a subject, yet hold firm on opinions and ideas even well after it has been established that they don’t know enough to have a substantiated opinion.

I see deception everywhere. I see people using statistics and obscure scientific articles to bolster the opinion which brings them power in a conversation…regardless of contrary data.

I see hopelessness everywhere. I see people clinging so violently to a hope (either an opinion or an idea) which brings their life into relevance, that even broaching another possibility is perceived as an attempt to invalidate their entire worth as a human being.

I see totalitarianism everywhere. I see people so wildly bent upon demanding others accept and even celebrate whatever they do in the name of tolerance, that even only tolerating it is seen as bigoted hatred worthy of being intolerant towards.

I see feelings attaining primacy of consideration. I see that the individual’s emotional construct within his or her psyche regarding the significance of their own emotional response to any given stimulus being of such import as to render truth or untruth to the subject matter irrelevant.

I see the purposeful invention of conflict. I see people individually and en masse actually seeking aspects of others with which to choose to take offence, then creating a massive smear campaign to besmirch the very character of a person based upon a perceived slight.

I see lunacy taking over. Aspects of social behaviour which would have been roundly mocked and wholly rejected by all of our ancestors for all time have now not only a place at the table, but are dictating the course of requisites for social behaviour for all others.

To this woman who said she wanted supernatural intelligence, I said one thing…..”Do you remember second grade?” She affirmed she did. I finished, “Imagine that you, as you are now, return to second grade. The conversations you hear, the behaviour you see, the lessons you are taught, the ideas expressed are all that of second graders. The next year, you go through it again. Then again. Then again. Over and over and over. With the same students who will not or cannot advance any further. That would be your life.”

So, how do I think?

More quickly, more accurately, connecting more dots, with more understanding, seeing more and being seen less than anyone around me.

And with great, great patience.

By the way, an I.Q. of 163 is worthless, even detrimental to the person who doesn’t have the wisdom to use it correctly, the discipline to use it aptly, or the morals to use it gently. Personality, discipline and wisdom beat the crap out of an I.Q. of 163…..or haven’t you wondered why I was being so thoroughly tested by a State court?

Socially….exceedingly lonely and have been my entire life. Virtually always misunderstood, virtually always see through the façade I’m presented with from someone else….and virtually always borne out as correct over time.

Intellectually…..nothing I’ve ever tried has ever been too difficult to learn.

Practically…..I see solutions where other people only see things that don’t need to be changed.

Everyday interactions…..well, I could best sum it up by saying that I see the façades, I know what they are suffering from to make themselves feel important, and what they actually are as a result. Very, very depressing. No kidding.

Written by anubis

December 25th, 2016 at 3:49 am

Posted in Epochal Collapse

Exhalation of Carbon Dioxide

without comments

Exhalation at 40,000 parts per million!
Anthony Bright-Paul

I looked it up – I was curious. How many times does a normal healthy human being breathe in and breathe out in just one minute? Well, Google tells me that we exhale (that means breathe out for the scientifically illiterate friends of mine on Facebook) some fifteen to twenty times in one minute.

Let us take the lower number. What is 15 x 60? It equals 900 exhalations in every hour! Let us now multiply 900 by 24 to get the number of breaths in 24 hours. That comes to 21,600 exhalations of Carbon Dioxide at 40,000 parts per million in one single day by one average person.

The total world population is presently reckoned to be 7.4 billion. And rising! You do the maths for that!

Now, all the animal kingdom and all the bacteria also inhale Oxygen and exhale Carbon Dioxide. And all the green plants and plankton just love this Carbon Dioxide and provide Oxygen for us humans to breathe. I love my Carbon Dioxide since plants love my Carbon Dioxide – the question is ‘Do you?’

Am I a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, I am not. Question: Is Al Gore a Climate Scientist? Answer: No, he is a politician. Is there such an animal as a ‘climate scientist?’ That is a moot question. The three principal sciences are Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Professor Tim Ball has a degree in Geography but is also known as a Climatologist – that is to say, someone who attempts to garner and preserve data about past climates. This is unlike those who will neither reveal their metadata nor how, by all accounts, they unintentionally lose it. For full details please read by John O’Sullivan. But we can say is that there are Meteorologists, Marine Geologists and Astrophysicists, but it is only ignoramuses who talk about climate scientists. It does not exist as a discrete field of science!

The Global Warmers, or I should say the man-made Global Warmers, froth and foam about Carbon Dioxide. There is a lot that can be done with Carbon Dioxide. It can be made into dry ice that is colder than water ice. It can be liquefied for ease of transport. It can be used in any number of carbonated drinks like coca-cola or tonic water that goes so well with gin! In common with all molecules it will warm up with infrared and likewise cool by radiation.

If anyone dare suggest that what is said about ‘climate sensitivity’ is just poor science, they get called a ‘denier’. I tell you what – count me in! I deny absolutely that Carbon Dioxide has any warming properties whatsoever. A molecule may be warmed for a nano-second, but it cannot generate heat and it cannot capture or trap heat – that is an impossibility. Even highly intelligent people get caught on that one. One may capture a substance, but it is impossible to trap a transfer of kinetic energy. In fact these transfers of kinetic energy are ongoing, everywhere without cessation. Just everything is seeking an equilibrium that is never attained.

There is only one entity that can warm the Globe with its radiation and that is the Sun. So who are the real deniers? Who are the deceivers? Who are the tricksters and mountebanks who deny the absolute supreme power of the Sun? None other than the Warmists, the Anthropogenic Global Warmers, who imagine that they can control the already fraudulent global temperature, by making laws regulating the amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

We already know that the total amount of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, agreed by both sides of the argument. We also know that the figure for the human contribution from the IPCC is but 2.9%. If we round this up to 3%, then the total human contribution from the burning of fossil fuels amounts to 0.0012%, an amount that is so derisory that it is laughable. Well it would be laughable were it not for the fact that in conference after conference, as COP22, the Warmists attempt to impose upon the nations of the world draconian measures, designed specifically to torpedo Western civilisation and incidentally to impoverish the citizens of the Third World.

How long have we had to put up with their gormless drivel? Not any more – their day of reckoning has come. Even James Hansen admits that the attempts to reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide are an exercise in futility. Yet he persists. The President-elect of the United States has chosen a team of well known so called Contrarians and Deniers, who regard the doctrine of man-made Global warming as a false science. Or so it appears. I am holding my breath until January 20th. 2017 should be an interesting year!

Anthony Bright-Paul
Friday, 16 December 2016

Postscript: –

Our current scientific understanding of global warming and climate change impacts are not the domain of one, quirky field called ‘climate science’. In fact, it doesn’t even exist as a discrete field of science.

Written by anubis

December 24th, 2016 at 8:19 am

Posted in Climate,Politics


without comments

(Sent before the carnage in Berlin’s Christmas market)

posted here

Dear Minister-President Seehofer,

I would like to commend you on your opposition to mass uncontrolled immigration into Europe. One would think that it would be trivial to praise politicians – who are elected to uphold law and order, meaning our culture and values – for doing so, but these are the times we are living in.

In 1973 French author Jean Raspail asked a prophetic question in his best-selling novel, The Camp of Saints. What if France had at its borders millions of people ready to move in, not carrying weapons but complete destitution instead? If you refuse entry they will face a very uncertain future; but if you let them in millions more will follow and your culture and national identity will die. What should be done?

Today we have the answer: an unprecedented population replacement across much of Western Europe, largely funded by those being replaced. Based on current demographic and immigration trends, Austria will become a majority Muslim country by the end of this century, likely followed by France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and even the UK.

Somehow I don’t believe that the millions who died defending Europe over centuries had this outcome in mind. But then again neither did the mighty Byzantines and their Persian archrivals, both of which after reaching the pinnacle of Human civilization at the time ended up being irrevocably absorbed by the Islamic demographic and military onslaughts.

As an immigrant myself (who lived in Munich at one point) I have great empathy for anyone leaving their homelands in search of a better life. I certainly have no ill feelings towards my Muslim brothers and sisters, whose aspirations are as worthy as anyone’s. If you build a nice house, then throw away the “quaint” tools like your values and religion used in its construction, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as the front door is left wide open others will come in and set up their own values and religion in that empty space. Why shouldn’t they? I would too if I had the chance.

Unfortunately, as you well know change at this scale is seldom easy… and peaceful. We only need to look at the Balkans, a beautiful region with wonderful people, to get a glimpse of how fractured our own multicultural societies might become. Actually, we are already feeling its effects, with national armies having to patrol European cities to prevent further atrocities – and no resolution in sight. And it can get much worse, not least in terms of personal freedoms, to the detriment of both natives and immigrants. Even a breakup of Germany at some point is not unthinkable.

Large economic crises have reliably sparked social revolutions over generations. We may not have to wait long for another one to hit Europe, now with the novelty of an imported multiethnic component. It is in times of strife that we can truly judge the resilience of our societies, not the relative prosperity we’ve had until now. And frankly I’m very worried about this particular point.

We can debate whether the SYKES-PICOT agreement in the 1920s is really what led to the current turmoil across much of the Middle East; but it is beyond question that the MERKEL-SARKOZY-BLAIR mass immigration policies have led to this bubbling instability in our societies – very likely for decades. Whether this was incidental or not, our children will probably hate us for it.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Prof. Vaclav Smil, considered to be one of the leading global thinkers alive today, listed the emergence of “Eurabia” as one of the potential catastrophes of the 21st century in his seminal book on the matter. I would very much encourage reading it. It seems even the Dalai Lama agrees.

Yes, low birth rates across Europe are a concern, but as we stand on the verge of a massive automation wave which risks displacing millions more jobs I’m not convinced it is that problematic; it might even help manage serious global environmental problems. What is deeply worrying –and irreversible at some point – is the progressive debasement of our culture (“so not to offend the newcomers”), one which has contributed so much to Human progress over centuries. To be clear it is really *culture* that’s at stake here, much more than race or anything else which have remained fluid across Europe throughout the ages.

There was once a time when we in the West stood proud of the civilization we created – with great cost and sacrifice, and not always with perfect results or intentions – to the point where we exported it all over the world. And despite the prevailing cultural Marxist narrative in today’s mainstream media and academia the recipients are broadly better off as a result (notwithstanding some very notable errors).

Take Germany. Just one of your inventions, the Haber process that allows the industrial production of ammonia (critical for modern agriculture), has enabled the sustenance of innumerable lives all over the world – dare I say far, far more than the unfortunate and unjustifiable deaths caused by the darker days of your recent History. I could name several other German inventions that have greatly helped Humanity. Even your emigrants have made immeasurable contributions to countries like Brazil and especially the US. As such, I am one of many who believe you should feel proud of your German heritage, instead of being beaten down through indoctrination for what happened over seventy years ago.

And now you are on the receiving end of that cultural flow:

Instead of exporting much needed water treatment, cars and farming equipment you export weapons and homegrown jihadists to the Middle East;
Instead of promoting Western education standards and unequivocally standing up for the rights of women across the Middle East you are lost in endless debates of how many burqas and child marriages should be allowed in Germany;
Instead of enforcing international refugee protection laws, especially regarding the first country of safety, you now have to ponder how to accommodate sharia law in your society;
Instead of creating safe zones in the region that will allow people affected by the tragedies of war to live with dignity (at a fraction of the cost of doing so in Europe) and eventually return to rebuild their homes, you completely open your borders creating chaos and resentment – while supporting foreign policies and regimes that, to put it mildly, greatly contribute to destabilizing the Middle East.

Unfortunately, much of the current European political establishment is committed to the dilution of our nation states and cultures so we can all merge into a single, glorious entity. And they figured out that mass immigration is the way to do it. Clearly they learned the wrong lessons from History and there’s just no amount of imported crime, rape, violence, murder and animal torture that will stop them from blindly pursuing their EU-topia. The multicultural car crash known as Sweden is a great example of this. I’m sorry for these harsh words but this is the world we live in.

The fate of EU-topia will be the same as that of all utopias. It is already unraveling, unable to create decent jobs for millions of people – especially young Europeans, with no vigor nor any international aspirations (what exactly does it stand for?), incapable of adequately safeguarding the protection of its citizens (especially women and Jews), greatly susceptible to political interference from all sorts of foreign regimes and standing on the verge of a financial collapse so great that risks destabilizing the entire world economy for years to come.

Freedom of thought and speech is what really has made us Europeans so unique and successful in Modern History. Regrettably, we are increasingly not allowed to criticize or report on any of these unfolding tragedies this time around.

I am told that in the incident of the woman who was viciously thrown down the stairs in Berlin your Police is now looking to punish the source of that video leak. Yet another sad episode on the back of the cover up of the New Year Eve’s events in Cologne, where to add insult to injury women were told to dress up properly to “avoid problems”.

If only that much effort had been put into defending our way of life. Instead, the emperor must keep on walking with no clothes – and no criticism: “since we lost control of reality let’s control the perception of that reality”… “it’s all fake news”… “the Russians did it”… etc. Fin de civilization indeed.

But persevere we must. We rely on brave politicians like yourself to stand up for the rest of us. For that we thank you Sir. And please rest assured that an increasing number of voters all over Europe will respond to it. There is much to hope for, even as the lights are dimming all over our beloved Continent.

May I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas and a Happy – and Safe – 2017


Europe Always & Forever

Written by anubis

December 21st, 2016 at 10:51 am

Article 61

without comments

Originally posted here

Good evening rebels…

This is a very (not so) brief explanation of why the remedy we use works.

Thanks to the committee of the barons for invoking article 61 of Magna Carta 1215, we have a lawful, peaceful remedy to tackle the injustices of the state in a peaceful manner, we don’t take to the streets.

We Only deal with evidential facts and nothing more and, ONLY use British constitutional tenets in our arguments.

This is because anyone who opposing our standing will also be opposing the British Constitution which is tantamount to TREASON AT COMMON LAW. By the way…Blair did NOT legally repeal the 1795 treasonable and seditious practices Act when he brought in the Crime and disorder Act in 1998 like the (imposter) government says.

Of course, naturally you will need to check that constitutional law (common law) is a higher jurisdiction in the realm than the corporate rules being flung about by imposters and crooks within the to be confident with the law.

Please don’t just believe what we state, check it all out for yourselves but remember, the internet is awash with disinformation, just search for British constitution and see how many posts say that Britain doesn’t have one.

The argument they use is almost laughable, they say that we don’t have a written,codified constitution like the USA (who incidentally took their constitution from ours). When evidently we DO have a written constitution that is not codified because it was created by the people over hundreds of years through revolutions and tyrannical regimes before this one.

The law IS OF THE PEOPLE…which is why we are policed by consent in Britain. We all surely consent to the constitution as it protects the people and ensures justice is seen to be done. Unlike today in their corporate arenas, where deception and unaware peoples is a profitable practice indeed..

So…to the point. The regime works on presumption, they presume that you consent (and indeed you do if you comply with a summons of your own free will, or ignore their notices and letters). They presume that you are the corporate body and that you understand legalese and stand under their presumed (illegal) authority.

We remove all presumptions and provide evidence of article 61’s invocation (Daily Telegraph report) plus other evidence (which can be seen in some of the processes we have succeeded with, in the files). We state that we do not consent as the law FORBIDS us to do so at this time. We conditionally accept all demands on proof that they have the authority to make those demands since article 61’s invocation. The crown has NO authority whatsoever so neither do the so called courts, policy enforcers, councils etc.

Article 61 is a royal command, it is commanded that we distress the crown and the illegal regime by seizing castles, land etc, we all have LAWFUL: EXCUSE to do this and distress the regime in any way we see fit peacefully though, whilst also enjoying the freedom that ‘duress of circumstances’ provides us. Under duress you can comply with the regime if you rely on a car or whatever for example do not de-register the car or tax on it….you are also entitled to all your entitlements, it would be theft and coercion to aid and abet a treasonous regime to deny you them.

So…we go after every individual as a man/woman who makes any demands on us. We must compel them to stand under article 61 too by law…everyone has the duty to do that whilst in lawful rebellion….this is apart of its strategy…..only a united people can defeat treason from within. Unify under the common law which is common sense and just, is all we need to do.

Honour is very important in law so we must always provide an opportunity to cure (to make good, if they ignore the conditional acceptance notice)..

By putting someone on Notice of an evidentai fact (treason – article 61) whilst serving the notice by recorded post and retaining a copy and postal receipt, once delivered and signed for it is deemed to have been accepted under the law, therefore if they ignore it they will have tacitly agreed to it. If they reply and do not refer to your claims, then they agree by lack of substance (documented evidence of article 61 not being in effect today) or, they may denounce the constitution which is the crime of sedition if done publicly.

So..we are creating a case file for our defence and educating the unawares also. We conditionally accept a hearing if summonsed but ONLY in a ‘properly convened court de jure’…(court with a jury standing under common law) – (constitutional law). There are NO courts of law in Britain today as they all derive their presumed authority from the crown, which is not in any position of authority since article 61 was invoked, and are all corporate which is not a SERVICE. Britain is supposed to be a system of service to the sovereign people, we are all sovereign because we are all equal. Even the monarch is in service to the people by Oath and contract (Coronation Oath)…

This is a check mate move as we find that nobody will commit high treason against us. Once we serve the misprision of treason Notice on them they cannot deny knowing of the crime, which we all have a duty to report to a justice of the peace. If they do not report the crime of treason then they are guilty of misprision of treason (to know of an act of treason being planned ot committed and not to report the crime then you are also guilty of the crime). I attempted to report treason back in 2010 in Devizes Wiltshire.

TREASON….to hand over the authority of a nation without the expressed consent of the people, or without first being beaten in open battle.

The reason why article 61 was invoked was because QE2 ratified the treasonous treaty of Nice (France)…and NO we are not out of the EU and we cannot escape it by using article 50 of the treasonous Lisbon treaty. That would be granting the illegal imposters in Westminster authority and the EU legislation too, which has no authority over the British nor commonwealth nations.

Finally….the entire English speaking commonwealth nations ALL have a duty to stand under article 61. When we unite we will not only change Britain and the commonwealth back to a just system of service but you can be sure it would go global also. We will be able to bring the untouchable (like BLAIR) to justice as well as the banksters etc and have a constitutional convention of the people to bring the constitution up to scratch.

I hope this provides a little more comprehension to this remedy we use.


Written by anubis

December 15th, 2016 at 11:42 pm

Clean Brexit

without comments

Clean Brexit is the practical and democratic way forward

Liam Halligan

10 December 2016 • 7:55pm

There’s a strong case for the Government to make a very clear statement – and then to stick to its political guns.

Theresa May has long refused to give a running commentary on her negotiations with the European Union.

Last week, though, in a moment of high parliamentary drama, the Prime Minister conceded her government will now publish a “Brexit plan” before triggering Article 50 by March next year.

Having backed Brexit, I’ve always recognised it may be unwise for the Government to disclose its desired negotiating outcome.

These two statements aren’t linked. However you voted in June, everyone should acknowledge the potential downsides of the UK showing its hand ahead of what could be some extremely hard bargaining. That hasn’t stopped numerous Remainers from insisting ministers “have no plan” and “are clueless”, as they demand full disclosure.

Many are doing so, of course, to spread Brexit-related alarm – trying to whip up a panic and somehow stymie or even reverse the clear referendum result.

The complexity of any negotiation involving 27 countries, each with their own commercial lobbies and electorates, means any detailed Brexit roadmap would be obsolete before it was written. So the Government, having just secured a Commons majority to invoke Article 50 in return for “a plan”, could justifiably produce something vague.

I’d argue, though, there’s now a strong case for the Government, quite soon, to make a very clear statement with regard to the outcome it wants – and then to stick to its political guns. So long as that desired outcome is “Clean Brexit”.

I’d identify three basic Brexit models. The first is joining the European Economic Area – the “Norwegian option” – involving continued multi-billion pound annual payments to Brussels, while accepting numerous EU rules and regulations – including “freedom of movement”.

This isn’t Brexit and, in my view, would be a betrayal of the referendum result.

The second, and most widely envisaged option, is a bespoke UK deal. We’d invoke Article 50 as the Government has indicated, using the subsequent two-year negotiating period to bend EU rules to our will – trying, in particular, to maximise control over our borders while minimising the constraints placed on our EU trade. This might be possible.

As the world’s fifth-largest economy, with a £60bn trade deficit with the EU, the UK can surely get a better deal than Norway.

A “bespoke UK” option, though, would involve a drawn-out and acrimonious negotiation. The outcome of any deal, almost by definition, wouldn’t be known until the moment before the two-year deal-making window expired – prolonging business uncertainty and hindering both domestic and foreign investment.

It must also be recognised, given the UK would be going head-to-head with the EU, attempting to weaken links between the various “pillars” which hold the entire European project together, that a very real possibility is an extremely bad-tempered “no deal”.

With the UK seeking to dismantle EU rules, and Franco-German EU lifers fighting back, a multi-year UK-EU negotiation could easily end in stalemate. Uncertainty would then become semi-permanent, seriously harming all of Western Europe as a place to do business.

Voters on both sides of the Channel would despair at the rank incompetence of their leaders. The UK, in particular, would be in a terrible state. We’d have torn incurable fissures across the British electorate and wrecked our relationship with the EU, making future cooperation all but impossible – and for what?

So I strongly favour the third option – “Clean Brexit”. Parliament passes the “Great Repeal” Bill that May has already outlined, carrying over relevant EU statute into domestic law. We then send our Article 50 letter and leave – quitting both the single market and the customs union.

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which are in no way a disaster for Britain. Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA Wire

Under Clean Brexit, the UK trades with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules. That won’t be denied – as we’d take the EU to WTO arbitration and win. WTO rules are in no way a disaster for Britain. They currently govern our trade with countries including the US and China that make up the 85pc of the world economy that’s outside the EU.

The non-EU accounts for almost 60pc of our trade and rising. While we have a huge EU deficit, with the non-EU we run a £30bn surplus – under WTO rules, outside the single market. The non-EU, then, generates the bulk of our trade, the part that is growing and where we register a surplus.

The single market – despite its appealing name – is a deeply imperfect set of rules that discriminate against the services in which Britain excels. The maximum EU tariffs we’d face are well within single digits. On manufactured goods, the average is 2.4pc – far less than the recent fall in sterling. And that’s a worse-case scenario.

The importance of the UK to German carmakers, French food producers and the rest of them means we can expect to negotiate tariffs down much further. There’s lots of alarm about preserving the “passporting” of financial services. Such concerns, trumpeted by big City companies that don’t like change, are massively overdone.

Yes, the UK’s financial services industry is important. But the EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year, while the country which took most was America – where we have no free trade deal. Passporting would be good, but we can live without it. Many non-EU members anyway trade financial services using EU “equivalence” rules – which would apply to a Brexited UK.

“Leaving the customs union” is also often presented as a mortal sin. Once out, though, many imports – including food – would be cheaper, as shoppers would avoid the related tariff on non-EU goods. And, free of the customs union, we could finally strike trade deals with the populous, fast-growing emerging markets, beyond the EU, which will soon be the most important economies in the world.

The EU accounted for just 33pc of our financial services exports last year – passporting would be good, but we can live without it.

Clean Brexit is democratic. The Great Repeal means that, in the short term, nothing changes. Then, in our own time, over several electoral cycles, UK ministers and our Parliament decide which EU laws and regulations we retain and which we alter. That’s how it should be. Our annual contribution ends and, leaving the single market and customs union, we strike UK trade deals and take control of our borders.

The Government should state all this in March, on invoking Article 50. That’s ahead of upcoming French and German elections, next spring and late-summer respectively – which is vital. We tell the EU we want to trade under WTO rules, we don’t want any kind of drawn-out negotiation over borders or the single market, but we’re happy to consider UK-EU sector-specific trade deals of mutual benefit.

During the upcoming continental elections, then, the French and German carmaking, pharmaceutical and food-processing giants will know the EU needs to cut a deal with Britain to retain tariff-free access to the UK market.

These powerful industrial lobbies will try to extract pro-UK concessions from the various candidates, doing our lobbying for us. Remote politicians, perhaps looking to bash Britain on the election stump, will be reminded by their own people that the EU’s free trade with Britain underpins millions of jobs and billions of euros of profit.

I reject the term “hard Brexit”. It’s often used by those who lost the referendum and want to make leaving the EU seem extreme.

Quitting the single market and customs union voluntarily, avoiding a tortured “single market-free movement” negotiation and using WTO rules isn’t ideological. It’s a practical, transparent position that limits uncertainty while minimising damage to the UK, the EU and our ongoing relationship.

Clean Brexit is the way to go. Forced to disclose her plans, Theresa May should go the whole hog.

Written by anubis

December 12th, 2016 at 6:19 am

Climate Hoax

without comments

The Science is Settled
Anthony Bright-Paul

The Warmists are very fond of saying ‘The Science is settled’ and in point of fact they are largely right. Between the Warmists and the Skeptics there is a great deal of agreement on the science. The disagreements mostly come over the use or abuse of the English language. Just as one small example, many of the Warmists are unable apparently to distinguish between ‘causation’ and ‘correlation’. That is a matter of linguistics and not of science per se.

In the comments on an article of mine in ‘American Thinker’ a certain gnome has taken me to task for not being a scientist. Believe me, I have never pretended to be one. But I am interested in the use of words, and try to use words that connect clearly with meaning. So as a layman I wrote about climate not as a scientist, but as a layman for laymen.

Anyone who has read my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ will see that I have relied for the science heavily on my mentors – Professor Tim Ball, Professor Bob Carter (now deceased), and now for some long time Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist. These are supported by articles and excerpts from Professor John Christy; Stephen Wilde, Meteorology; Dr David Evans; John Droz Jr, Physicist; Astrophysicist James Peden; Piers Corbyn, Physicist; Johnny Ball, Mathematician; Rev. Philip Foster, both scientist and Biblical scholar; Norman Kalmanovich and Professor Les Woodcock. Anybody can look these personages up on Google to see their full qualifications. These are just a few of the scientists who have contributed to my book, which more correctly should be called their book, but which I put together, or collated together with some of my own articles.

However, some of these scientists have been kind enough to say that I have expressed some scientific ideas in a layman language sufficiently well to grace such sites as Principia Scientific and others.

Let us return to the theme ‘The Science is settled’ and see if we can trace out just where both the Warmists and the Skeptics agree, and having first done that we can perhaps then see clearly where they disagree, and we can then see if it is over science or over language, that is to say a matter of semantics.

  • We all agree now that the globe is rotating on its own axis as it travels round the Sun at some 66,000 miles an hour. Since I am not a scientist I have to take it as read, that these suppositions are true, though it is well to remember that it was only a short time ago that you could be put upon the rack and tortured for even believing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
  • All scientists now agree that the Sun is between 91 and 95 million miles away, according to Earth’s elliptical swing. They also agree that the corona of the Sun is circa 6,500ºC and that the Sun is some 3,600 times larger than the Planet Earth.
  • Warmists and Skeptics also agree that Outer Space is a vacuum, through which radiation (not heat) from the Sun travels.
  • All scientists also agree that there are 4 levels of atmosphere, – in descending order, the Thermosphere, the Mesosphere, the Stratosphere and finally the Troposphere, where our weather occurs. All are agreed that the distance from the surface of the Earth to Outer Space is approximately 100kms or 66 miles.
  • The composition of the atmosphere is also a matter of agreement. Both sides agree that the composition is roughly divided between Oxygen O2 and Nitrogen N2 together at 99% and the Greenhouse Gases at only 1%. It is important to note that Carbon Dioxide is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Both sides in general agree these figures.
  • Both sides agree that Nitrogen and Oxygen are transparent to radiation, both incoming and outgoing. That means that radiation passes through them until it (radiation) collides with mass. Now this last bit is where I, as a layman, first got lost. The concept of Physics that radiation has to collide with mass to produce heat is a difficult one not just for a layman, but also for many well-educated humans. It took Hans Schreuder to explain to me that the Sun does not send heat through space but radiation. Believe me I could not grasp this concept at first, believing that infrared was the ‘hot’ part of radiation. Physicists will smile at my naiveté. Infrared is not hot, just as electricity is not hot, but both will produce heat when encountering a resistance.
  • Unlike O2 and N2, the Greenhouse Gases are di-polar in structure, which allows them to absorb and radiate. This means that unlike Oxygen and Nitrogen, they absorb infrared and so warm up. That includes Water Vapour, Carbon Dioxide and Methane. All molecules above absolute zero absorb infrared and likewise radiate away, thus cooling. As far as I knows nobody on either side disputes any of this science.
  • So now we can see that there are huge areas where scientists on both sides are in full agreement. However when we come to questions like the Greenhouse Effect we encounter great differences.

    Let us look at what the BBC website says: –
    The greenhouse effect is the natural process by which the atmosphere traps some of the Sun’s energy, warming the Earth enough to support life. Most mainstream scientists believe a human-driven increase in “greenhouse gases” is increasing the effect artificially

    Let us look at this a bit critically – traps some of the earth’s energy. Really? How does it do this ‘trapping’? Immediately we can see that this is not scientific – it is political. Warming the Earth enough to support life? No, this is not science. It is a sort of wishy-washy opinion. Then it goes on ‘Most mainstream scientists believe …
    Of course, belief is not science – this statement is just political poppycock. Sure, all scientists accept that the ill-named Greenhouse Gases absorb and emit infrared – that is one thing, it is quite another to suggest that this results in further warming of the Earth below. Even a layman can see the frailty of this proposition, since we also know that hot air rises, just as hot water rises. Therefore, if these molecules say at 500ft are warmed – no, no that is wrong – if as a result of a photon of infrared from the Earth’s surface some warmth is produced, then what is warmed will rise up by Convection and cool.

    The idea that a molecule of Carbon Dioxide could trap heat is also completely unacceptable, since heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy. A substance may be trapped, but a transfer cannot.

    The wizards at the BBC may be able to trap a ‘transfer’, but such an idea is ludicrous and infantile. In any case, such a proposition would defy the 2nd law of Thermodynamics – all heat by itself flows from hot to cold. Whoever thought of ‘trapping’ heat? The concept is too silly for words – remembering also that every molecule above absolute zero will radiate and in so doing cool.

    There is even a ludicrous illustration purporting to show how the Greenhouse Effect works, with a barrier hovering halfway up in the sky. Dear oh dear! This is just such manifest nonsense that it is difficult to believe that this was put out seriously and illustrated.
    So we can see that where the laws of science are followed there is complete agreement between scientists. But where politics intervene, where corrupt scientists have as their brief to prove that certain gases cause the Earth below to warm, their arguments just do not add up. In fact they are pitiful. Yet because these lies have been repeated again and again, thousands, nay millions, of people are deceived and believe them.

    The science is settled and the laws of science cannot be gainsaid. But the political shenanigans are just sick making. Man-made Global Warming is not just a hoax, it is a political scam that has affected all mankind and made many of them mad. Praise be, that there are one or two who have not been deceived.
    So the science is settled all right, but the idea that there is some sort of barrier in the Troposphere forming the Greenhouse Effect is utter, unmitigated rubbish. See picture below, on the BBC website.
    Anthony Bright-Paul
    Wednesday, 07 December 2016

    Written by anubis

    December 9th, 2016 at 3:03 am

    Posted in Climate