Sir,
Everyday we are told by the mainstream media that global warming is happening. However records of global temperature seem to be unavailable to the MSM. The MSM never tell us what the global temperatures were fifty or a hundred years ago. Climate temperatures have been recorded on a systematic basis for almost two centuries. So why do the MSM rarely if ever expose those records to public view? Surely it cannot be that those temperature records refute belief in global warming?
During the last Ice Age the sea level was sometimes fifty yards lower than now. That was because more rainwater was frozen in ice sheets on land, unable to reach the sea, than now. In the Medieval Warm Period from 950 AD to 1300 AD there were vineyards in Yorkshire (as listed in the Domesday Book). The average temperature was 2 to 4 degrees Centigrade higher then than now. Consequently, the Wash reached deeper inland from the North Sea, due to the higher sea level. Less rainwater was frozen on land and more of it got to the sea than now.
Sea level is like a global thermometer, the higher it is then the warmer the global climate, and vice versa. We are told that because of global warming, sea levels are rising nowadays. Which leads to consideration of the Maldives, tropical islands in the Indian Ocean, whose average height above sea level is only 4 feet, and whose highest point is 9 feet above sea level.
Since mass travel by air, the Maldives have become a popular and expensive tourist destination. As the Maldives are so close to sea level, it would be very noticeable if sea level was rising there. Tourists would not return, if the Maldives were drowning beneath the waves. But tourists flock back there year after year. From which we can conclude that sea level is not rising, and that belief in global warming is mistaken. And that the mainstream media are leading players in the Great Global Warming Swindle.
Respectfully, Ralph Prothero
~~~ OOO ~~~
Sir,
another poem for your readers:
In the 1950s the West Indies cricket team fielded two of the greatest spin bowlers ever to have played the game. Of course, a calypso was composed in their honour, each verse ending with their names Ramadhin and Valentine. So why not a philosophical calypso?
A Philosophical Calypso
When cricket approaches the time for tea
It’s time to think philosophically,
I set aside my worst delusions
To escape from all innate confusions
With thanks to those two pals of mine
Collingwood and Wittgenstein
I didn’t feel well so I went to the doc’s
Who diagnosed Zeno’s paradox
He offered me without prescriptions
Russell’s Theory of Descriptions
I said, “No thanks!” gave him some wine,
Prescribed Collingwood and Wittgenstein
Once when I was alone in my room
I suffered an attack of David Hume
“Nothing in the mind not first in the sense”
But how could anyone be so dense?
I put him right with a critical line
From Collingwood and Wittgenstein.
Fools abound and there’s no worse bleeder
Than that charlatan Jacques Derrida
Who claimed that a word is just “a pointless sign”
What can be done with this philistine?
Make him read Collingwood and Wittgenstein
Thank you,
Respectfully, Peter Mullen
~~~ OOO ~~~
Sir,
Just supposing BoJo by some miracle gets us out of the nascent Fourth Reich by 31 October, will that be the end of the matter? Not on your life!
The dark forces of Remain are already making their contingency plans. We are all already well aware of the activities of the traitors within the Tory party to prevent us from leaving. Few of us are fooled by the “No to No Dealers” who are actually Fourth Column Remainers, desperately trying to have their cake and eat it with their constituents. We also have the Sour Grapes Mob, (failures in the Tory leadership battle). Then we have the so called Liberal Democrats, about as democratic as the Nazi Party. Plus the Greens, the lowest of hypocrites, completely ignoring their official policy of decentralisation of decision making in their mad haste to get their snouts in the EU (ever closer union) expenses trough. Last but not least, total betrayal of the blue collar worker by Corbyn’s gang of rogues and liars who are working towards a European USSR. All of these people are now actively planning how to rejoin if we do in fact leave.
The main thrust is to make sure that Brexit is as chaotic and hurtful as possible, ie., make their dolorous predictions come true. Then of course we could have yet another referendum on rejoining Nirvana. That is if it still exists (or looks to be in an even worse position than ourselves).
The people best placed to do all this are the ones in government right now, especially those in ministerial positions. We have already seen “No Deal” preparations cancelled, we can be sure that the only meaningful talks with Brussels right now are at the phase of “How Soon can we Rejoin?” We can be sure that if we did, it would be on the worst imaginable terms (including adopting the Euro, the European Army, European Police Force and European Fiscal Union ie., handing over even more cash.)
We know all this is true by the fact that they are hanging on to their positions until the very last minute before resigning, in order to hinder No Deal leave preparations. Was there ever a worse gang of traitors in Parliament?
Respectfully, Harold Armitage
~~~ OOO ~~~
Sir,
Whilst congratulating Boris, I do hope that on 1st Nov. it won’t be a case of “Dude, where’s my Brexit”?
Respectfully, Rob McWhirter
The EU has been working on that for some time Jack.
Sadly the U.K. will continue to carry financial obligations to keep the E.U. Budget in balance, while it remains an E.U. member – or if it signs up to the toxic clauses in TMay’s WAB trap.
WHY did Carney (and Cameron’s slanted £9m booklet) fail to identify the risk of staying alongside the flawed Eurozone?
https://brexitcentral.com/why-the-eurozones-fate-makes-an-immediate-brexit-vital/
Staying and helping with bail outs, will not stop the Eurozone Titanic from going down. You might delay it a bit, but it is already too badly holed below the waterline.
I have just sent this to JRM, copied to JR. Dear Jacob
Thank you for your tremendous efforts to deliver a clean Brexit.
The PM has told the EU that the NI Backstop must be removed, if they want a deal.
But the risk is that, at the eleventh hour, the EU says OK and that he then tells the ERG MPs, you either vote for this WAB (with all of its other toxic clauses) or we will not win the next GE.
If the ERG MPs buckle, then we could be left with the clauses identified by John Redwood, in the letter below to Geoffrey Cox published on JR’s website. What is your view on that?
Best wishes
Roger
————–
Dear Geoffrey
Let me have another go at getting a reply from you concerning the way the Withdrawal Agreement stops us leaving the EU. Would you kindly confirm:
1. If we sign this Treaty we will be locked into the EU and have to obey all its rules and pay all the bills it sends us for a period of at least 21 months, and probably for 45 months if we have not surrendered further to reach an exit agreement at the 21 month stage.
This would mean remaining in the EU for at least 5 years from the decision to leave and probably for 7 years. The EU would be able to legislate and spend against UK interests during this period, whilst we would have no vote or voice in the matter.
2. In order to “leave” in your terms at the 5 to 7 year stage the UK will need to stay in the customs union and accept all single market rules and laws, unless the EU relented over the alleged Irish border issue.
Three years on and the EU has given no ground on the made up border issue, so why would they over the next two years? Isn’t the most likely outcome we would remain in the single market and customs union contrary to the government promise leaving meant leaving them in its referendum literature ?
3. After the 45 month period fully in the EU, the UK still would face financial obligations under the Withdrawal Treaty. The bills will be decided by the EU and we will have to pay them.
Any attempt to query them would be adjudicated by the EU’s own court! The longer we stay in the more the future bills are likely to be. The £39 bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate.
4 The Treaty creates a category of super citizen in the UK. EU nationals living in the UK when we “leave” the EU will have their access to benefits guaranteed in a way the rest of us do not for their entire lifetimes. So we will not be taking back control of our benefit system.
I am also concerned about a number of Articles in the draft Treaty that expressly extend EU powers and jurisdiction for a further 4 to 8 years beyond our departure date after the 21 to 45 month delay.
Article 3 asserts EU legal jurisdiction over Gibraltar and British overseas territories in general terms, where disputes about the extent of EU control would fall via the Agreement under the European Court of justice.
Article 5 reintroduces the powers of the European Court and enforces “sincere co-operation ” on us as they do not want us impeding their plans for economic, monetary and political union.
Article 31 imposes social security co-ordination on us.
Article 39 gives special protection to EU citizens currently living in the UK from changes to social security for the whole of their lives, protection which the rest of us do not enjoy.
Article 51 applies parts of the VAT regime for an additional 5 years after the long transition envisaged in the Treaty
Articles 92-3 imposes the EU state aids regime on the UK for 4 years beyond transition.
Article 95 imposes binding decisions by EU quangos and bodies for 4 years beyond transition
Article 99 requires us to pay for access to records to handle issues over indirect tax where the EU keeps powers for 4 years beyond transition
Article 127 applies the whole panoply of EU law throughout transition, including the right to legislate any way they wish against our interests and enforce it on us via the ECJ
Article 130 prevents us taking back control of our fish any time soon. Doubtless more of our fishing rights would be given away trying to get an exit deal.
Article 135 allows them to send extra bills up to the end of 2028
Article 140 imposes on us financial liabilities up to December 2020 and carry over into 2021
Articles 144 and 150 prevent us getting back accumulated reserves and profits from our European Investment Fund and EIB shareholdings
Article 143 imposes adverse conditions on us over pension and loan liabilities of the Union
Article 155 requires to make continuing payments to Turkey under an EU programme after we have left
Article 158 gives the European Court continuing power for 8 years after transition
Article 164 makes a Joint Committee an effective legislator and government over us
Article 168, the exclusivity clause , denies us access to normal international law remedies in the event of disputes. Presumably this closes off use of the Vienna Convention to renounce an onerous Treaty where there has been a material change of circumstances.
Article 174 requires any arbitration to be governed by ECJ judgements on the application of law in disputes
The Protocol on Northern Ireland will require us to stay in the Customs Union with regulatory and legal alignment with the single market, or split off a separate place called UK (NI) which will be governed differently to the rest of the UK on an island of Ireland basis.
There is much more I could object to. This is no Treaty to take back control, no Treaty for a newly independent nation. It does not quantify the financial liabilities, which are open ended and could be much larger than the low field £39bn Treasury estimate.
We have little power to abate the bills and no power to abort the bills. It would probably result even in failure to take back control of our fishing grounds.
Mrs May needs to go back to the EU and explain why the UK people and Parliament have opposed this Treaty, and ask them to think again if they want an agreement before we leave.
She needs to make it clear we now intend to leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement prior to the European Parliamentary elections.
Yours
John Redwood
What does BJ think of those toxic clauses?
Good point that about the Greens supporting the EU while claiming to want decentralisation. Reminds me of the one that told me UK had no chance of surviving outside the wonderful EU, then in the next breath saying it was breaking up! Perhaps knowing it wont last much longer is why they are rushing to get their heads in the trough! Colin Hussey’s experience of the Greens is a real eye opener. They have done similar electoral tactics here in local elections and unfortunately it worked against Tory candidates who were very pro brexit.
There is a Green Party member who lives opposite me and who stood for that party in the last local council elections in May this year, who has two cars, one of which is a Diesel 4 wheel drive in additional to a motorcycle. Very much a case of ‘don’t do as I do but do as I say’. The Greens are by and large total hypocrites. Now their ploy seems to be forging local coalitions as they have done twice round my way in recent years (Green Party, Liberal Democrats and Labour Party) to keep out Conservative, UKIP and probably Brexit Party candidates.
Harold,
Very good points that we should all take note of. I believe that the only sure defence against that happening is the destruction of the EU. We must work with our like-minded friends in Europe to bring it about.