Britain Europe Politics

The Great Deception 14 -No! No! No! The Fall of Thatcher

Brexit Update:

Is Brexit not getting boring?  I think we all just wish they would get on with it…But I suspect after all the huffing and puffing we do not have politicians who have either the Screenshot 2019-02-14 at 11.11.25nerve, desire or courage to actually go through with it. (unlike the politician featured in todays chapter – see below).   If we did then we would end up with a reasonable deal, but I suspect that the EU are relying on our politicians being weak – and I fear they are right.   Although the EU are getting a wee bit nervous – which explains why Guy Verhofstadt warned about Brexiteers ending up on the guillotine (this after Donald Tusk said there was a special place in Hell reserved for them!).

Meanwhile the doom and gloom merchants were besides themselves with delight when figures were released which showed that the UK growth in the economy had slowed from 1.7% to 1.4%.   “It’s all the fault of Brexit’ they cried, whilst being strangely silent about Germany just avoiding a recession with 0% growth.

There are two observations which I have yet to hear any pro-EU politician actually argue – perhaps those of you who share their point of view could provide the answers?

Firstly if Britain is committed (as most UK politicians seem to want) to an absolute of never having a ‘no-deal’ and if that is our only red line) then why should the EU ever offer us anything but a bad deal?  If we state that ultimately we will accept whatever they offer us, why should they offer us anything good?

Secondly has anyone noticed the contradictory position of the EU as regards the Northern Irish backstop.  They say it is in order to prevent a hard border and in order to maintain peace.  But if there is a no deal then that guarantees a hard border.  So why won’t they make the small compromise required to get a deal (a simple agreement stating that the backstop was not eternal and could be reviewed after five years would suffice)?  Could it be that peace is not their primary consideration, but rather control.  They want to use Northern Ireland as leverage to ensure that the UK will forever remain under EU rules.  This is typical of the callous cynicism of the EU elites.  But it will work – because in that respect our own political elites are no better.

The Great Deception Ch. 13 – No! No! No! – 1988-1990

This is a fascinating chapter which gave me a lot of information I did not know – not least that the EU planned Thatchers fall – and the Tory ‘men in grey suits’ were quite happy to do their bidding.

I wanted to change the policies, not the leader.  But if that meant the leader had to go, then so it had to be.” Geoffrey Howe.

After her Bruges speech Prime Minister Thatcher had become the great obstacle to the European project and so she came under sustained attack – not least from the Euphiles in her own party.

Delors was desperate to get the Euro set up and a European bank.  For that to happen he had to get the Germans on board and especially the Bundesbank.   Much to most people’s surprise they did not block monetary union but merely insisted on certain conditions.  This was because Delors had rigged the committee and skillfully used flattery and persuasion.  He made them this incredible promise – which is directly relevant to today’s situation.

“There will be a new, Super- Bundesbank at European level, totally independent of governments and consequently able to exercise a degree of power beyond the wildest dreams of many heads of government.”

This week as Big Business and the Big Banks are stepping up the pressure on Brexit (and gleefully being cited as support by so called left-wingers, liberals and greens), remember that the current EU was set up by them and for them.

Nigel Lawson, the British Chancellor, tried to promote the ERM and ERU as an agreement between sovereign nations.  He failed to realise (until too late) that the EU’s central purpose was not co-operation but subordination.  This is a failing that most pro-EU UK politicians today refuse to acknowledge.

British Conservative politicans argued that we should go along with the first stage because we did not ‘want to miss the bus’ and we could ‘change from within’.  Sound familiar?!    Thatcher was the only one who really saw the danger and she stood firm.   Even when Lawson and Howe threatened to resign she stood firm.   And yet in Madrid she said that the UK would join the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) but did not specify a date.

Meanwhile Lawson decided to shadow the Deutschmark, so interests rates in Britain soared to 16%.  He resigned.   The French Prime Minister Rocard warned “Britain is like a slow ship in a naval convoy.  Sometimes, for the good of all, the last vessel must be abandoned to its tragic destiny” 

Meanwhile in November 1989 the Berlin wall fell.  Delors saw this as a great opportunity to promote a federal Europe – rather than a Europe of  independent nation states.   A single currency, a single economic policy and a single government.

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait.  And in October of the same year Thatcher reluctantly announced that Britain would after all join the ERM.    Delors by then did not want the UK to join – he just wanted rid of Thatcher.  Britain however joined (much to the delight of Labour, the Lib Dems, the trade Unions and the CBI) – only to be forced to a humiliating exit in 1992.

Screenshot 2019-02-14 at 16.02.33
The two main protagonists

Delors saw an opportunity at the GATT talks (world trade) with 125 countries.  Britain which was still the worlds second largest trader at that point, did not have a seat at these talks.  We were represented by the EU.    The USA wanted a cut in agricultural subsidies.  The EU was totally against.    The EU Council then set a trap for Thatcher.  It refused to discuss GATT and instead focused on monetary union.  “Mrs Thatcher would be forced into the open; either she would agree, conceding game, set and match…..or, more likely, she would have to refuse, leaving the door open for a strike by her British opponents”

Thatcher then made this famous remark:

“The president of the Commission, Mr Delors, said at a press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community. He wanted the Commission to be the executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the senate.  No. No. No.”

Whilst there were many things about Mrs Thatcher which I disliked and disagreed with when I watch this clip I realise that she was streets ahead in terms of leadership and courage than any of today’s leaders.  There is not a chance that Mrs T would have been pushed around as much as Mrs May or the ‘we must surrender all’ politicians have been.

Thatcher recognised – too late – that the EU was not about an open market and free trade – but was and is in fact a protectionist bloc.  The Sun summed up the whole situation with their “Up Yours Delors” headline.  And Howe resigned.   Heseltine stood against Thatcher in the leadership election and although he lost it was only by 204 votes to 185.  Thatcher resigned.   Heath rang his office shouting “rejoice, rejoice’ and bought his staff champagne.   But Heseltine did not become leader.  Thatcher was replaced by John Major who wanted the UK to be at the heart of Europe.  Given that the EU was about to move towards political and monetary union it was a forlorn hope.

This whole chapter serves to show the stark contrast with todays politicians and the leadership of Mrs Thatcher.  She was prepared to say ‘No, No, No’ to the EU and act upon it.  Our leaders would never say no the EU and instead are prepared to say No, No, No to the British people and to once again hand over sovereignty to the EU.

The Great Deception 13 – In A Minority of One








  1. That was probably our last best chance to come out – politically.

    But events are lining up fast with prophecy that the EU has to shrink to 10 nations to fulfil its end-times role.

    We can pray that the Evil Union’s collapse will happen soon. Then we will leave by default.

    With sufficient delay we could see the European Union elections return sufficient Eurosceptics from many of the 28 countries to cause this upheaval.

    But nothing will ultimately stop the juggernaut taking us to the last days false religion which took a mighty step forward this week with Pope Frances’s visit to Abu Dhabi and his plans to visit Morocco the day after our supposed Brexit…

    If for a moment we can look at the wider end-times picture it would put our domestic matters into better focus:

    See for updates.

    1. What evidence do you have that the ten horns in revelation refers to the EU?

      I think the most likely target are the Roman Caesars because the tenth, Vespasian, presided over the destruction of the temple.

      The trouble with this sort of “prophecy” is it is entirely unaccountable and open to abuse. How do you tell that this prophecy is from God and not from a hatred of the EU?

  2. “Firstly if Britain is committed (as most UK politicians seem to want) to an absolute of never having a ‘no-deal’ and if that is our only red line) then why should the EU ever offer us anything but a bad deal? If we state that ultimately we will accept whatever they offer us, why should they offer us anything good?”

    That is probably why you are not a negotiator of treaties or trade. What constitutes a bad deal? The EU has some fairly well established and understood rules. If you dont want to sign up to them as part of an agreement then lets move to a stage where agreement can be reached. Early in the process the PM set out her red lines. These meant that being in a customs union, single market, FOM, under ECJ decision making etc all had to go. That was the UKs opening stance. And from that we got the deal we have. There was more give and take than reported in the UK press. The benefits of being in the EU cant work if you are not in it. Surely you understand that? Its like expecting to get the benefits of heaven without believing in Jesus. The withdrawal agreement is actually fairly broad and covers a lot of ground and gives a lot of what the UK wanted. It is not a bad deal. If we said we dont want a no deal situation but wanted a deal, the deal is already on the table. The EU doesnt want a no-deal situation but needs a deal that is clear and protects the remaining members and the interests of the remaining members. This is what happens when you leave a membership group – that group is no longer bound to your desires and beliefs. Thus the Church of Scotland has women ministers and the Free Church of Scotland doesnt.

    “Secondly has anyone noticed the contradictory position of the EU as regards the Northern Irish backstop. They say it is in order to prevent a hard border and in order to maintain peace. But if there is a no deal then that guarantees a hard border. So why won’t they make the small compromise required to get a deal (a simple agreement stating that the backstop was not eternal and could be reviewed after five years would suffice)?”

    Because the backstop is the UKs idea. It was the EU that changed its position to agree the backstop (the original EU position was if there was no trade agreement, the backstop would kick in over the entire UK to maintain the customs union and friction-less trade). The EU changed, at the request of the UK, to only cover NI. And now the UK is basically saying, actually no, we want more….the UK isnt creating an environment of trust here.

    There is a time limit – it is a while before the backstop even kicks in. Of course, this would require the UK to look like it might actually be capable of both agreeing and then sticking to a trade deal. And given its performance so far, the rest of the EU is skeptical.

    “Could it be that peace is not their primary consideration, but rather control. They want to use Northern Ireland as leverage to ensure that the UK will forever remain under EU rules.”

    Which is total rubbish of course. All the UK needs to do is agree a trade deal with the EU and there will be no backstop to even kick in. And the back stop doesnt even apply elsewhere in the UK. Peace is an important element here but so is cross border trade, working arrangements, families etc. The backstop protects the social and economic environment that protects the peace. Those rules matter. Its just a shame Brexiters dont care about them really.

    “This is typical of the callous cynicism of the EU elites. But it will work – because in that respect our own political elites are no better.”

    Like the elites who are moving their companies and business to maintain EU membership – like Ress-Mogg? But then I think the use of the word callous there is emotive and misplaced. The way the UK is treating EU citizens seeking to stay is callous. The way the UK views immigration is callous. The way that immigrants from outside the EU were lied to and told that immigration will increase due to fewer EU immigrants was callous. But appeasing the DUP isnt callous at all.

    1. You miss the point about the backstop – if someone is holding a gun to your head then you are going to have to give them whatever they want in a ‘trade deal’.

      You will find that Rees- Mogg has not moved his business….but why should facts get in the way of your faith in the EU which seems remarkably blind. Your whole post could have been shortened to the EU is always good, the UK bad! Have you no criticism of how the EU is using UK citizens in the EU as a bargaining chip? Or do you just consider that to be good negotiation?

  3. Your first question

    As a remainer I would argue that “no deal” would hurt us more than the EU and therefore cannot be used as a negotiating tactic, but the uncertainty due to the governments continual threat of it is harming UK business and families.

    I don’t think the EU is capable of giving us a better deal than we had as members, which is one of the primary reasons I want to remain.

    1. Thats not the answer to the question. Why would the EU give anything in negotiations if they knew that just by saying no they could get whatever they wanted. The ‘deal’ we had as members meant that we gave up our democracy, sovereignty, agriculture, fishing, laws…etc….Not a great deal…unless you think that economics is everything.

      1. Well I would totally agree that the EU holds all the cards. We are the weaker partner and pretending that they need us more than we need them has contributed to the mess we are in.

        I just don’t agree that threatening no deal is going to scare the EU into better terms. All it does is worry British business and families

      2. It doesn’t scare them…but it is also the case that if you enter a negotiation and say that your only absolute is that you won’t walk away you have no real negotiating position – your opponents just have to sit tight…

      3. I agree that we have no negotiating position. I don’t agree that threatening something that hurts us more than them is a sensible negotiating tactic!

        I’d say that actually being able to articulate what we want from the negotiations would be a start!

  4. Your second question is harder for me to answer as I’m not the EU, but I would guess that removing or limiting the backstop would risk peace in Northern Ireland *and* would endanger the single market across the entire EU.

    I would suggest that the EU see it as the UKs decision to leave and therefore its down to the UK to deal with the negative consequences of leaving, not those who are choosing to remain

    1. Its a hard border that apparently threatens the peace – so why ensure it happens? But you are right that the EU is mostly concerned about its protected market.

      1. The backstop would ensure that the hard border does not happen. This is the EUs preferred outcome, but I would think that they would prefer to keep the single market intact than allow the UK to destroy the single market. Northern Ireland will not be part of the EU. Its not rocket science that their primary concern is the welfare of their members

      2. Not having a deal ensures that a hard border would happen. If the EU’s primary concern was about that then they would seek a compromise….but the EU does not compromise and does not need to…

      3. As I have said, I don’t think the EUs primary concern is about a region of a country that won’t be a member.

        Given a choice between no negative impacts to the NI peace process or maintaining the single market they will choose maintaining the single market because that effects their members.

        As I have said before I would love a compromise deal. I think it would rid us of all the problems and better represent the referendum result. Unfortunately the PM seems unwilling to compromise.

      4. Don’t you think it is the EU are unwilling to compromise? What you really mean is we have to take their deal or its no deal…not much of a compromise.

      5. The EU may be concerned about having an effective border to control access to their market – even in its most basic and original form, a “common market” means a market where members get preferential access, as any study of the mediaeval City of London and its Corporation and guilds will soon prove.
        But who has been banging on loudest about “controlling our borders”, and for a far less honourable reason?
        Our home-grown hypocrites are making it all about “them” demanding a hard border: but five minutes after the first brown person gets off an unchecked lorry it’ll be “Rebuild the Guard Posts” faster than you can say “vote”.

      6. I’m not talking about a compromise deal between the UK and the EU.

        I’m talking about a compromise deal between what leave voters want and what remain voters want.

      7. There are lots of areas open for compromise.

        The one that seems most obviously popular is to compromise on freedom of movement.

        They could compromise this by essentially retaining freedom of movement but putting things in place to restrict EU27 citizens from finding work in the UK

      1. Yet you don’t mention it at all, in the context of Mrs Thatcher’s defenestration – which in this country, and London at least, was a major factor. People who had seen the experiment up North most definitely didn’t want it brought down here, to the extent of rioting in protest. And her Ministers saw their jobs at risk, as well as the usual hope of replacing her.
        Not saying you’re wrong in citing all that stuff about Europe, but it comes across as less than impartial if a major element is sidelined to make your argument.
        I was sorry to see her go, and I think she would be disappointed to see what has become of her “property-owning democracy” where Joe Ordinary could own his own house and a few shares. I can’t at the moment find out how she voted in 1972, but this doesn’t sound like the voice of someone who voted against joining the Community – and I think she would be disgusted by some of what’s been going on to get us out of it.

  5. We should always be careful when using GDP numbers to support our arguments and compare like with like. The 0% German growth figure is for Q4 2018. For the whole of 2018, the growth figure for Germany was 1.4%, the same as for the UK

  6. So Brexit is more important than alerting people to the biblical significance of the Pope’s major reinforcement of the Inter-faith agenda? I can’t believe you mean that David! Maybe some of your one and a half million followers might have some eschatological observations to make? They do seem strangely silent on recent posts here (of any kind) and, forgive me if I am wrong, but the recent emphasis seems to be on politics more than Watchmen alerts of sinister developments that, in plain sight, are bringing the world sleep-walking to the brink of the Great Tribulation.

    So much that is taking place today brings us closer to Jesus’s return – ‘the blessed hope of the church’. Whatever issues are pre-occupying us, let’s take every opportunity we are being given to point to the only solution to the world’s many woes and every personal woe – the Gospel.

    The EU and Catholicism, if they are Babylon the Great, are indeed part of the bigger picture, as will be the collapse of the EU in its current form, predicted even by non-believers to be imminent and maybe the eclipsing of all the hand-wringing speculation on Brexit? An EU of ten not twenty eight is what is indicated for the last days revived Roman Empire in Daniel 3.

    Am I wrong in appealing for us to not be distracted from the bigger picture? A picture that is put into eternal perspective before our very eyes in fast-fulfilling Bible prophecy?

    I post not just as a concerned Christian but a Solas member who sees this forum as a vital and timely response to our Lord’s exhortation to Watch and Pray…

  7. I was brought up in a theological tradition (the Brethren) where Revelation was treated as largely futurist, and the orientation was premillennial and indeed dispensational. From the age of 20 or so I began to suspect the biblical bona fides of this teaching, and there are aspects of dispensationalism in particular that seem to undermine the integrity and universality of the gospel offer. In general terms, if (perhaps) there is a tendency in Reformed theology to over-emphasise the continuity between the covenants old and new, there is a tendency in the fundamentalist wing to over-emphasise the discontinuity. But I still have this feeling in my bones that in certain respects the Hal Lindsey view of the impending world crisis may not be all that far off the mark. The Beast and the False Prophet: hmmmm……..better not say too much about the latter in these days we’re living in. Suffice to say that he has made large inroads into Europe. As for the Beast, we have a power-hungry unelected nomenklatura in Europe intent on enforcing its commercial, cultural and religious norms upon us. Many in our own country seem to owe the so-called European ideal their deepest loyalty. Any lie will do to try to defame and sneer at the lumpenproletariat who still have some vestigial attachment to national independence and self-government. Those principled politicians who dare to stand with the majority on Brexit are constantly vilified, not least by the BBC, which has become little more than the state propaganda broadcaster. As time goes on, if we don’t escape the net, it will tighten around us. It’s not prosperity or democracy that the EU commission sets its sights on, but raw power. The dissidents will first be marginalised and then in due course punished. The cultural revolution is proceeding apace, and submission to the EU machine is one of the essential components. The religion of anthropomorphic climate change is another. If we don’t escape, and even if we do, I’m worried that there will be frightening times ahead. We can see the tactic that is being used. The electoral and social unrest that has sprung up in many parts of Europe is deemed “populism”. For the EU the popular will is the enemy.

    1. Hal Lindsay called it too early and has had to endure slights from the world and much of the church since.

      He didn’t give up however and is still holding out for the need for us to be watchmen on the walls. There is so much evidence of the nearness of Revelation. We witness it almost every day. Just because the interpretations differ is no reason to ignore what is going on before our very eyes.

      A good website that does not sensationalise is by Tony Pearce, a former leftist school-teacher and British!

      1. I prefer Luke 17 myself – people have been crying “Here it is!” or “There it is!” and wasting time on vain, and even vaguely occult, speculation since Paul was alive.
        And anyone who actively supports, or worse still deliberately attempts to engineer, a scenario s/he genuinely believes is going to lead to the rise of Antichrist, is taking a terrible risk – there are those who think Judas fell into Satan’s hand trying to force our Lord to “act now!” in precisely that way. One hears of people hoping for religious war in Israel, and others trying to manipulate the number of members of the EU, to “help” the Almighty – as if He needed us to fix His tardy appearance!
        The call is to be ready, no matter what – as another blog I love repeatedly points out, our *own* Last Judgement is most certainly coming (and sooner than we’d probably like!) whatever time the universal one does, and we should be equally ready for, and serving, our Lord either way. “Do now what you would want to be found doing then”, and let God direct the rest.

  8. I made a bit of a bloomer. I was on automatic pilot and typed anthropomorphic for anthropogenic. Hopefully nobody noticed. I wonder what anthropomorphic climate change would be like? A sort of hairy monster.
    I agree totally about Hal Lindsey. A lot of his material betrayed the US obsession with the Soviet menace. But I do sense a sort of end times confluence of things, and indeed Israel is mixed up in that too.
    Thanks for the link: I’ll look that up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: