Colleagues are asking me for my response to the news that a small group of Privy councillors including Rees-Mogg, the arch brexiteer and ante-diluvian right-wing conservative financial profiteer from Brexit, have been with the soo called “Prime Minister” to Balmoral to demand that the Queen prorogue parliament and that the Queen has apparently given way and signed this into effect without blinking an eyelid. She has also apparently ignored a request from the Leader of the Opposition to hold a meeting. So what do I think ? What is my response, both legally and philosophically? Ok let me put you into the picture. Last year, in 2018, after campaigning against Brexit strongly for 2 years, I wrote to the Queen, finally, in frustration and told her that in my view, Brexit was an immoral, unethical and constitutionally unsound project which would lead to the break up of the UK. I expressed my view that the referendum of 2016 result ha been misinterpreted for reasons that are inexplicable and by interests who do not have the well being of the Uk at heart, in such a way that it will lead to the inevitable break up of the UK. I appealed to her as sovereign to resist the rush to brexit as her constitutional duty was to defend the realm, which meant that to ensure its continuation as a state came foremost before all else. She kindly had a correspondence secretary write back and tell me, that although she appreciated hearing my views, and had taken careful note of them, “as a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of Her Ministers and remains strongly non-political at all times”. I mulled over this response and watched events. Then when I saw that the Conservatives were continuing to act as if their interpretation of the outcome of the 2016 advisory referendum was the only permissible one, and as the BBC continued to give no air time to any effective opposition, and as parliament continued to be shackled, I then wrote again a long letter in which I made several points to her Majesty, even more specifically. Now I am putting into the public view this letter in full for the first time, on this same day August 28. St Augustines Day, 2019,  as a result of her actions, which I regard as mistaken and unsound constitutionally. Here is the letter in full:


Director,  Dr. Thomas Daffern  B.A. (Hons) D.Sc. (Hon) Ph.D.

French office: European Peace Museum, 13 Grande Rue, Betete, Limousin, 20270, France

UK office: 213 Ham Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2QB

Email:  iipsgp@educationaid.net  websites:   www.educationaid.net   www.lulu.com/iipsgp    https://thomascloughdaffern.wordpress.com/    http://musespress.wordpress.com/    http://daffernfamily.wordpress.com/    https://trcme.wordpress.com/ http://www.globalgreenuniversity.com/ https://ceppr.wordpress.com      https://goldengateproject.wordpress.com https://interfaithpeacetreaty.wordpress.com  https://multimediationservice.weebly.com https://europeanpeacemusaeon.weebly.com https://transpersonaltherapy.weebly.com/ Private email: thomasdaffern@gmail.com  Facebook: International Institute of Peace Studies  YouTube: IIPSGP1

October 2018

Dear Queen Elizabeth 2nd,

Further to my previous letter of 28 June 2018, in which I warned of the likely consequences of Brexit and the break up of the UK  with the secession of Scotland and the reunification of Ireland as an independent Republic, as well as the impoverishment and the people of the remaining England and Wales. You kindly replied in August and thanked me for expressing my views. I stated as follows:

“It is my understanding that you have a constitutional duty as Monarch to defend the integrity of your realm.  Your Privy Councillors have a sworn duty to protect Your Majesty from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I am writing to you not as a Privy Councillor but as a loyal subject, to warn you of the impending danger which I foresee for your kingdom.”

I am forced to write again however because the Prime Minister shows no sign of listening to the facts of reality, she is ignoring the will of the House of Commons and the House of Lords (which is against either the Brexit deal she negotiated or a hard Brexit) and is doing her best to implement a falsely held and illegal engineered referendum which took place back in 2016 against the will of the vast majority of the people of the UK, and against the expressly declared will of the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland.

You have told me in your letter that there is nothing you can do, and in effect that as a constitutional monarch you are duty bound to follow the instructions of the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, who has the right to simply do whatever they want, and over-ride any views you may have yourself.

With all due respect I am myself duty bound to point out this is not strictly true.

We are all duty bound by our own consciousness, and by our loyalty to the cosmic codes of honour, duty and, truth and divine law, as have been all previous generations of human beings who have ever walked on earth.

All monarchs who have ever ruled are also duty bound to uphold the spiritual law in the light of which they themselves were anointed and rule, in your case, the spiritual laws of Christianity, which are based on love, as you so eloquently make the point year after year in your Christmas addresses to the Commonwealth.

To allow or permit your Prime Minister to wilfully implement a policy which is causing massive suffering to the people of the UK, including those many UK citizens who now live in Europe, as well as EU citizens who live in the UK – and to implement an ill thought out policy which will result in massive destabilisation to our nation, which will lead to the withdrawal of Scotland from the UK, which will lead to the people of Northern Ireland to leave the UK (although this will probably be accompanied by a resumption of violence) – is with all due respect going entirely contrary to your actual duties as a Queen. There is always an unwritten covenant between a monarch and his or her subjects, overseen by the Divine.

I am writing to you as a loyal Anglican Christian layman, but also as an Archdruid, indeed the Archdruid of both the Uk and Europe when it comes to peace matters. My concern is that Theresa May’s actions are going to precipitate untold future violence on the UK, and that is what we must share a common commitment to preventing.

You can say to me, I have no authority to write to you, I am simply a citizen with no political power, and you must do what your prime minister tells you. But I would say that your right to rule as Monarch stems from the divine realms, and that whereas the British Isles have been a Christian land for nearly 2000 years, for approximately 10,000 years of settled habitation before that time, they were a pagan and Druid land, and thus I am writing with the authority of those accumulated 12,000 years of history, custom and law behind my words. I would beg you therefore to listen carefully.

In the ancient law of Britain, if a monarch acted against cosmic law, the Druid council had the duty to request them to resign and abdicate and to replace them with another monarch who could actually discern the cosmic law more properly.

I had always thought you were a good and true monarch to your people, but in not standing up to this wilful, morally blind and future-ignorant Prime Minister (forgive my frankness, but I am duty bound to speak the truth) and the hard right wing of the Conservative party, you are dangerously close to colluding in an act of national vandalism that is frankly toxic to the future wellbeing of all your people and your own descendents. Do you not care about the impact this will have on the poor, the homeless, the less fortunate, the disabled, the unemployed ? Do you have no compassion, as monarch, for the horrendous backward step that leaving the EU will have for the rights of workers and all the less well off people in society ?

In ancient times, the greatest monarchs of all lands have always made it a habit to walk incognito amongst their subjects and to find out how they actually live, and what kinds of problems they were facing. I think it is time this custom was brought back into play. You of course would have to be in disguise since you are so well known !

I am pleading with you whilst there is still time, to use your influence to try to persuade Theresa May to hold a second referendum, which is the only democratic fair and just way out of this constitutional crisis. It is not against your duty as monarch to ask her to do this, but on the contrary, it is directly and properly in your direct right and line of duty to ask her to do this. Your subjects would love you forever if this were to happen and breathe a huge sigh of relief. All the polls show that the UK would then not leave the EU after all, the economy would gradually restore itself and the lives of countless millions of people would be restored to their own sovereignty and happiness. A very small number of Brexit fanatics would be disappointed, but frankly they are not the sort of people one would want round for tea. And one should certainly not be afraid of such extremist types. That is why we have police and intelligence services and laws: to protect us from such people.

There is however another possibility here: it is just possible that you have yourself been persuaded, by advisers, friends, family, etc. that then Uk should indeed leave the EU as soon as possible, and that once we leave everything can then settle down and go back to normal – and that the people of Scotland will simply accept this, and the people of Northern Ireland can be made to accept it, if necessary by troops once more on the streets of Belfast. It is possible that it is your intention to force Brexit on the people of the UK and turn it into a personal loyalty conundrum – “if you are loyal to me as Queen then you must accept brexit, if not you are a traitor” etc. Is this possibly the case ? If so, then with all due respect I can only  repeat that you have been catastrophically badly advised. The people of Scotland only very narrowly voted to remain in the UK, and largely only because they were told they would automatically be thrown out of the EU if they left the UK. Now this is reversed entirely. Likewise with the people of Northern Ireland.

I would put it to you therefore that for your own good, as well as or your heirs and successors, you would be advised to do all you can to immediately prevent brexit happening, by advising your prime minister to hold a second referendum and to enact the necessary legislation at once to make this possible (including suspending article 50)..

Finally, if you are convinced finally by the veracity of my word (and I swear on the throne of all the Gods and Goddesses that I am speaking 100% truthfully to you), then you have one last constitutional procedure open to you. You can threaten to the Prime Minister to abdicate rather than signing the final legislation to enable the Uk to leave the EU. You can say that in all conscience you cannot and will not tolerate this act to take place under your reign and therefore, you will abdicate unless she calls a second referendum. Finally, if she refuses to back down in private, then you can go public with this threat, and I believe that the vast mass of the British people will be supporting you in this brave and defiant act of common sense. Millions of ff people would surround Buckingham Palace to support you. We love you as our Queen, we love the Uk and we also love Europe and its European Union. We do not want to be tortured any more by the Brexit nightmare.

Yours truthfully, loyally and advisedly,

Dr Thomas Clough Daffern

So that was the letter I sent about a year ago. And her reply ? Nothing, zero. Not even a polite response, like I got to the last letter. And now this. It its beginning to look therefore to me that she has indeed decided to collude as much as possible in Brexit and to enable the hard-right coup to succeed. As she has ignored, blatantly and without even the courtesy of a reply. my moral and philosophical and constitutional advice. of course, I have no “power” in any formal political sense, but I do have the power of a clear conscience before God (Ulitmate Truth) and the power of having thought this through at the deepest possible level of analysis as a moral philosopher.

I also believe that the Queen has been terribly badly advised that it is her duty to just do whatever Boris Johnson wants, and to sign into effect anything he deems appropriate. This is simply not the case. She has a duty as head of state to allow the commons to debate this matter in detail and see if a hard brexit, or any brexit, really is the will of parliament. To have intervened as she has done on the side of the hard brexiteers is a total usurpation of the rights of parliament, in my considered option, and to say otherwise is to distort the facts.

How have we got to this place, how has it been possible? think we cannot ignore the role of the media in this, including al the mass media of the Uk, such as the BBC, and al the television and print and on line media. Nearly all of them have since 2016 been driving home a relentless message that the “will of the people” is to leave the Eu adn this must be respected and implemented. This is a travesty. It was not the will of Scotland and not the will of Northern Ireland, and it was not the will of many other  UK citizens. in fact the figures are as follows:

 The majority of registered voters in fact, did not vote for this outcome in the Referendum in 2016: of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, meaning that 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU). Of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters registered to vote in your kingdom did not vote to leave the EU. In addition, the majority of voters of Northern Ireland voted to remain  in the European Union. The majority of voters of Scotland chose to remain in the European Union.  The great majority of British citizens now want a second referendum of this most vital of political questions. 

This accurate depiction of the 2016 referendum result is never given by the Uk media. Instead, it is endlessly repeated that the figures were 48% and 51% =- but this is a distortion of the facts as explained above,. The figures should be given as 35% voting to remain, and 36% voting to leave. but people have been literally brainwashed into thinking that 48% and 51% is factual. it is not, it is a distortion, that has been repeated so often, it has become “true”.  the British people are known for their fairness and sense of justice, or at least they used to be, yet the way the 2016 was hijacked and misinterpreted by the Tory Party is so scandalous that it has forever brought that into question. The events of today just confirm this even further.

Am I shocked at today’s events? Yes, of course. Am I suprised? I am not surprised that the Tory hard right coup leaders have gone to the Queen to ask them to prevent parliament from discussing Brexit properly. I am surprised that the Queen has so casually acquiesced to this request, and this has confirmed in me a growing sense of unease that she has now come down on the side of the Tory Brexit extremists, and has accepted their narrative of events, based on totally fake history. Why would she do this, a woman we assumed to be intelligent and morally sound? Each of us must draw our own conclusions about this. Perhaps the queen is not as morally intelligent as we thought, which is a bit of a shock to the Anglicans among us who assumed she was, or perhaps she has been blackmailed and leaned on by some nasty (offshore ?) intelligence agents who have compromising pictures of some of her relatives in strange sexual postures (perhaps her son Prince Andrew for instance, in connection with the Epstein case) and for her own domestic peace of mind, she is willing to do whatever is requested of her. This raises a profound constitutional question – if a monarch can indeed be blackmailed into committing acts of treason against her own subjects, at what point is it necessary to blow the whistle. What do honest patriots do at such a time ? in John Locke’s political philosophy, if a monarchy commits acts of treason against the well being of the peoples of a given country, then those people have the right to rebellion and to disavow loyalty to such a treasonous monarch. Why ? Because obedience to the laws of morality superseded all other mere legalisms, according to the philosophical tradition that John Locke represented, which was the very foundation of modern notions of human rights. His ideas were taken up by all subsequent revolutionary attempts, including the Americain revolution, and its premise that giovernemnt6 is instituted in order to preserve the freedom, liberties and happiness of the people in general. Leaving the EU is so grossly undercutting this compact, this unwritten law of our basic constitution as a country, that the entire edifice of the constitutional monarchy on which we thought our country was based, has now to be called into question. So if John Locke was right and we have a right to rebel and withdrawn obedience from a corrupt and compromised feudal hierarchical system, that has today declared war against the well being of its own people, in what form should that rebellion manifest? In my opinion it should take the form first and foremost of intellectual dissent, and truth seeking. Gandhi called active nonviolence resistance to oppression, the force of satyagraha. The people of the UK, all of us, the millions who voted to remain and the millions who have now decided remain is indeed in the best interests of the happiness of the vast majority of UK citizens, all have a duty to hold onto truth, and not allow the poisonous discourse of the extreme right, led by Johnson, Cummings, Farage, Bannon, Rees-Mogg, and yes, in her own way Queen Eliaebrth, it now seems – to disallow our right to our own knowledge, our own mind and our own conscience. Ultimately, as I have said in many of my philosophical works, especially my epic Being and Knowledge, the most important right of all, the one that underlies all others, is the right to wisdom. It isn’t a given and it is isn’t easy, like the right to enlightenment – we have to claim it.   Kant said that we have to dare to be wise.. This is the foundation of the entire liberal democratic and social  democratic and indeed Christian democratic tradition that underlies modern political thought. This has now been kicked in the teeth by an outdated feudal extreme right-wing idea of royal prerogative which is more outdated than Heath Robinson’s idea of a pop-up toaster made with rubber bands and balsa wood.

Sorry ma’am, but you’ve got this one wrong, and it might have incalculable consequences.

Please do write back and reply to my letter of last year,  and let’s have a philosophical dialogue about ultimate truth, and its political implications, before its too late…







IMG_0010 outside house of lords

(The photo shows the author going to a meeting he was co-chairing in the House of Lords on ethics and peace policy, in 1993)

Many of us are perplexed, angry and hurt about the antics of the UK House of Commons and its apparent inability to do the right thing, which all right thinking rational and ethically good people realise has to be done about brexit – namely hold a second referendum to consult again the will of the British people over the entire brexit fiasco.

We now know that the Brexit 2016 referendum was a con from beginning to end. Cameron did not set a proper limit to the number of votes needed to change the status quo, which is unheard of in referenda of this kind. Was he not intelligent enough to think it through ?

Secondly, the vote leave and Leave EU parties running the leave campaign both broke the law and cheated considerably, yet apart from being fined, nothing has happened. The courts ruled that since the referendum was advisory only, it was not something that could be annulled. This is false legal reasoning if ever there was. It opens the way to prosecuting Theresa May and her cronies for then interpreting the result as if it was legally binding, when in fact it wasn’t, and someone is now doing just that.

Thirdly, this fiasco is all resulting from Theresa May’s triggering of Article 50 when the referendum had been only advisory, and being helped in this process by a whole bunch of supine MP’s who didn’t know what they were doing. Labour and Corbyn are as guilty as anyone else here. Only the SNP and the Liberal Democrats adn greens and a few others opposed this move, and have been consistent in their opposition throughout.

The Labour  Party is also complicit in this entire fiasco, since under Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to have problems with integrity and intellectual clarity, he has been a secret closet Brexiteer all along, as witnessed in his disastrous refusal, to let his MP’s vote in favour of a second referendum last week. He seems to think it is more important to spend time on his allotment or to defend himself yet again for the millionth time against the charge against being “anti semitic”, than actually acting as the leader of the opposition and bringing the brexit process crashing down. A Labour leader of the calibre of the late John Smith, would long ago have brought brexit crashing to its knees, by getting together with all sensible opposition to it, all the SNP, all of the Liberal Democrats, moderate and right-thinking conservatives, and even Sinn Fein across the water (who could have come to parliament for a one off vote at his request to bring the Brexit project down in the interests of all the people of Ireland and the UK) and yet – instead, he has been colluding within the Tory led Brexit machine like Marshall Petain in the Nazi occupation of France.

Finally, he is rumoured to be thinking of stepping down, but it is too little too late.  If he can swop places with Sir Keir Starmer immediately – and Keir becomes Labour leader and Jeremy deputy leader, we might finally get some actual opposition to brexit in the Labour ranks. This should happen today !!! but I suspect it wont. They will have to drag Jeremy off in a white coat. He is going against labour Party policy which is now to call for a second referendum – and is in complete defiance of the entire Labour Party except a few hard line Brexiteers.

But the Tory Brexit machinery led by the ERG and the hard right, now annoyed that their plan to steam roller brexit through on a third vote has been blocked by the speaker, are determined to just have a short extension and then crash out with a hard brexit anyway. Or to try to bring some kind of amended Theresa May deal before the house, after trying no doubt to get rid of the speaker and overruling or replacing him. They will no doubt try a “vote of no-confidence in the speaker” which will fail, and then might try to find some arcane legislation to accuse him of “blocking government policy” and having him unseated. They might try having him declared insane and dragged from his chair by medics. They might, if all else fails, have him assassinated. Or they might do something very clever. Maybe they can activate their long term CIA asset namely Donald Tusk, and demand he make such a ridiculous and unreasonable demand of the UK for an extension (to pass the Theresa May deal) even thought the Speaker has ruled it out, that it will miraculous galvanise the nation against eh EU and lead to a happy hard brexit after all. Brilliant move.. Its a serious point – are EU officials vetted for members of foreign intelligence agencies ? Are UK officials ? I thought I could trust Mr Tusk, and then he goes and does something that stupid which is bound to annoy every right thinking UK citizen who had hitherto been trying to get the UK to remain in teh EU. I mean, that has to be a set up, right ? Or it could be fake news ?

These are dangerous times. Bring back the inquisition anyone ?

I want to observe something about the very nature of parliament and ask, as a transpersonal historian, if this is one of the reasons we are seeing that Westminster seems to be incapable of doing the right thing. Why is it descending into a nest of vipers, factions jockeying for power, where the voices of the good are being drowned out by the wicked and the evil.

Make no mistake about my position, I am, as Labour MP from East Lothian, Rt Hon,. Pat Macfadden said recently in debate, a “Hard Remainer” – I know the damage Brexit has already done to our country, and will do far worse once implemented.

I am appalled that our so called government cannot see this, and continue to go along into the abyss without a care in the world. But then it is run by disaster capitalists for disaster capitalist, and has been aided and abetted by a disaster socialist who has left his brain down on the allotment.

Theresa May is to me the very embodiment of ignorance and folly embodied in a form that you would not expect it from. When I met her and we chatted I thought she was rather intelligent and rather nice, so my fury at her brexit policies is also matched and amplified by personal disappointment. I feel it personally, as if one of my old friends has been found out lying about me behind my back, and doing the complete opposite of what she said she would. You know the type ? It leaves and deeply unpleasant taste in one’s mouth and a feeling of nausea in the pit of once stomach. This woman makes mendacity into a professional craft.

She has one way of redeeming this situation. She should immediately sack all the hard brexiteers in her cabinet. Announce a total U turn. Replace them with soft remainers. And announce a second referendum, to be accompanied by, on the same day, a general elections, three months from today. She should ask for an extension from the EU for one year to allow that result to be followed up and whoever wins the General election can them implement the result of the second referendum. That’s fair. That’s honourable. She should announce that tonight and see off her hard Brexiteer tormenters. If they refuse to shut up then they can leave the Tory party and join UKIP. She should bring Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve into her cabinet instead of Andrea Leadsom and her hard cronies.

Sadly however she doesn’t have the intelligence to see this is the right thing to do. She continues to bleat on about implementing the will of the 2016 referendum as if it were some kind of divine mandate. She ignores, totally, wilfully, ignorantly, the fact that the 2016 referendum was illegally run and gerrymandered. She says it will cause a lack of belief in democracy if the referendum is rerun, without realising that it is the total opposite of the truth. Not to have a second referendum is itself to destroy any trust in democracy. The voters have the right to change their minds. And the majority of UK citizens never voted for brexit at all, and the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland didn’t at all. So her narrative is entirely mendacious, selective and deceitful. We need to march on March 23 in our millions to insist on a second referendum. We have to take to the streets now to shake the arrogance of this disdainful and anti democratic and anti-intellectual figure.

To help this process,  I want to offer here some historical reflections, as a historian, (of joint UK and Canadian dual citizenship), living in France and directing the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy which was founded at the University of London back in 1991. My opposition to Brexit is based on a profound study of peace options for  Europe and the UK, and an intensive study of European, British and world history for the last 500 years, and a conviction that the formation and development of the European Union is a vital peace project that the UK would be very unwise to abandon at this point in history.

I think the majority of UK voters have also now come to a similar conclusion, having seen what brexit is doing to our nation, how it is very likely to leave us considerably poorer and how also it is 100% certain to see the rupture of Scotland from there UK, as the Scots never voted to leave the EU int eh first place. The mistreatment of Scotland’s voice by the Theresa May government has been constitutionally disgraceful, and I cannot blame the Scots for continuously stating that if brexit goes ahead they will leave the UK.

What I cannot comprehend is why is parliament so rude to them ? What is the matter with the Tory MP’s that they cannot seem to understand English ? Is it the Scottish accent they cannot comprehend ? Have they got such contempt and hatred and ignorance for their Scottish brethren that they are daring them or bluffing them ? Do they think they will be able to prevent Scottish independence on legalistic grounds for ever and a day, even after brexit and therefore have no care to listen to the warning from the SNP in parliament, which represent the great majority of the Scottish people after all ? The UK parliament is rapidly losing its right to be the UK parliament, and when Scotland leaves the UK, it will no longer be so.

Likewise, on the matter of Ireland, there is complete ignorance and disdain being shown by the government to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland who likewise did not vote to leave the EU. But by making a cynical pact with the DUP, they are trying to implement Brexit over the heads of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland and without consent. It is likely this policy will totally backfire and we will see a successful second referendum fought, on the basis of the Good Friday agreement, in which the majority of the people of Northern Ireland will vote to rejoin the republic in a united Ireland. The  Tory brexit will have brought this about. That much is historically certain. But there will probably be a resumption of fighting and bombing and killing in Northern Ireland before it happens. As Chair of the truth and Reconciliation Commission for Ireland and Britain, this is yet another reason why I believe brexit should be rejected by all right thinking and intelligent parliamentarians as the toxic and poisonous sludge it is, every bit as unpalatable as the radioactive sludge the government is dumping into the Irish sea without approval of Ireland and against all international environmental standards. This is precisely the sort of thing the European Union exists to prevent happening, another reason why this nuclear addicted government wants to get out of the EU which provides an extra layer environmental legal protection for the people of Europe.

This environmental reason for remain is yet another strong argument in favour of the EU, and Caroline Lucas, the sole voice of the green movement in parliament, has spoken up tirelessly against brexit and continues to do so, as she knows the negative impact brexit will have on our environmental standards as a nation. In a parliamentary system based on proportional representation the green party would have far more MP’s than it does now, and their voice would be listened to more intently.

But is the house of commons somehow congenitally unable to do the right thing ? How sound a place is this House of Commons that now claims the right to destroy our friendly relations with the EU after decades of mutual congress and well being ?

I have as a professional historian made it my business to find out what I can about the history of the commons as an institution. Since living in France I have discovered some interesting facts which shed a new and interesting light on why the commons seems unable to do the right thing.

It was the brainchild of  Simon V de Montfort (1208 – 4 August 1265)  who was also the Earl of Leicester, and whose father Simon IV de Montfort (c. 1175 – 25 June 1218) was the most brutal and ruthless and disgraceful thug of a crusading type that went against every single law of mediaeval chivalry in his ruthless campaign of extermination against the Cathars of South Western France.

Last year I help organise the Mary Magdalene conference in Betete, and Alet les Bains and visited the site of Montsegur and other Cathar places and researched deeply the story of Simon V de Montfort and his campaign of mass killings against simply honest people that he waged from 1206-2017. These are things we are never taught in UK schools about the lineage of the “founder of English democracy”.

This elder Simon de Montfort was a total fanatic, and reminds me of the worst kind of Brexiteer. There was no arguing with him, he was outwardly courteous, but behind your back was planning for destruction and massacre. If he was reborn now he would definitely be in Theresa May’s Cabinet.

This first phase of the Cathar crusade lasted from 1209-1215 and including such horrific episodes as the cruelty at Bram. At Bram, Simon de Montfort decided to terrorise the Cathars of the town he had captured, called Bram, near to Carcassonne, so he chose 100 men at random, some Catholics as well as Cathars, and had their eyes gouged out, their lips cut of and their noises sliced off, and sent them in a horrible mutilated column with the leading victim, allowed to retain one eye in order to lead them, and sent them walking to another Cathar town to warn the inhabitants to surrender straight away.

Simon de Montfort was himself very anti semitic, which is to say he hated Jews. He hated them on religious grounds as well as racial and political grounds. One of the facts about the Cathars is that they were philo=-semitic. So his rage against the Cathars was partly explained by this, and so was that of his son, Simon V de Montfort (1208 – 4 August 1265) the founder of the English House of Commons. I have never quite gotten over the sneaking suspicion that for the De Montforts and their anti-esoteric crusades, when they talk about democracy they actually mean “mobocracy”. The de Montfort’s were also always both complaining above all against Jewish moneylenders who they regarded as the devils incarnate. Funny how the word anti-Semite is always hovering in the air in the House of Commons, isn’t it ?

Now from the standpoint of transpersonal history, which is the particular field of history I am interested in, this tells us a lot. Transpersonal history studies the long term karmic cycles of events. It analyses how karmic cycles can recur over long intervals, and how reincarnational possibility becomes worked out as people’s karma is enacted and perfected life after life, and in a different historical context. As a field of history it is still in its infancy, and at what could be called a “pre-scientific” phase, drawing on authors such as Jung, Marx, Wilber, Steiner, Assagioli, Toynbee, Sorokin, and many others. I have written a PhD thesis on the transpersonal history of the period from 1945-2001 and have published over 35 books with some bearing on these complex matters. I have tried to interpret Biblical, Koranic and Enochian, and now also Marxist  literature from the standpoint of transpersonal history, for one thing.

So from the standing of transpersonal history what can we say about brexit and the chaos in parliament ?

That the house of commons is a nasty and unpleasant place, in which truth speaking is not required, and indeed mendacity and lies seem to be the order of the day – and it was founded by an anti-semitic thug who hated intellectuals and the refinements of philosophy, preferring the sword as the way of doing business. He hated esoteric Christians or anyone who tried to follow the inner light of Christ and he hated the idea of the equality of men and women in seeking the peace of Christ in a open handed and open hearted free spirited kind of way. He was contemptuous of spirituality seekers of wisdom period. Sound familiar ?

Since it was founded, parliament has done many other deeds of utter folly: in the English civil war period, it got embroiled in war against the Christian Anglican king and his followers (called royalists) which was totally unnecessary. It sent Cromwell into Ireland to ravage and destroy its ancient culture, and to murder priests and burn monasteries and their precious libraries. Its ignorant attitude to Ireland goes a very long way back indeed. Its cruelty to Scotland is also a matter of record. It permitted the clearances of hte highlands when people’s lives and homes were destroyed to make room for sheep. It outlawed the Scottish culture of the highlands and persecuted the Jacobites ruthlessly, and was behind the massacre of Glencoe. It thought it did a very clever thing by shutting down the Scottish parliament and then muzzling Scottish voices ever since. It has sent spies into Scotland to stifle any independent thinking ever since and as we now know, it sent its secret agents to report on the working of the SNP ever since it was founded. No doubt it is still doing the same.. Yawn..

It legislated further anti Semitic acts and expelled all Jews from England, and regarded all this as right and proper., adn only reluctantly let them back because it thought they would bring some money with them, not because it was the right thing to do. It also legalised and legislated or Slavery for several hundred years, and persecuted Indian independence fighters who were using non-violence under Gandhi with long stays in prison. It sanctioned the killings of Indian protestors such as at Amritsar by  never punishing the army officer responsible. It very possibly colluded in launching world war one unnecessarily because it was going along with an elaborate trap devised by UK intelligence to embroil Germany in a world war, against its will, adn then had the gall to blame the Kaiser for everything afterwards, as two Scottish historians have recently discovered. World Wear one was declared without even a vote in parliament being allowed beforehand.

The House of common also condemned the Quakers to extreme forms of punishment for daring to speak truth to power, and asking for the right to worship in silent prayerfulness, and to refrain from killing, The first sincere Christian pacifists, they were persecuted by parliamentary legislation and many of them imprisoned and punished harshly and most cruelly. One of their greatest poets, James Naylor, has a red hot poker pushed through his tongue, on order of the House of Commons, for daring to speak words of visionary spirituality. You are not allowed to speak that truth to parliament from a spiritual place of enlightenment, as Naylor did, or you get a red hot poker through your tongue, literally. I see shades of Simon de Montfort’s treatment of the Cathars however over this bestial act.

The House of Commons also enacted countless acts and bills against the witches and wise folk, or cunning folk of England, and they were hung, drowned and burned at every opportunity, especially by the extreme parliamentarians of the Puritan period, because they and their Witchfinder generals literally believed the devil was amidst them and had to be burned out by torture and cruelly. All this brutality was sanctioned by the house of commons and bills duly passed to make it legal. Again, I see shades of the anti Cathar persecutions, for it was out of Simon de Montfort’s brutality against the Cathars that the Inquisition was invented in European history. For the first time the idea arose in the mind of man that it was better to torture and kill devout souls because they believed in a more spiritual or esoteric form of Christianity than you did, and by killing them, you are actually doing them and yourselves a favour. I see shades of the Nazi holocaust in the inquisition, and indeed, there are direct lines of intellectual descent from the Nazi persecution of the Jews and their extreme anti Semitism, and the inquisitional persecution of the Cathars. The same inquisitional apparatus that was invented to fight the Cathars was soon unleashed against he Jews adn Moos of Spain. Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, a historian, wrote the standard history of the work of this inquisition, but left out its original against the Cathars. This explains also why Netanyahu doesn’t quite know what is going on either.. he doesn’t realise that his mistreatment of the Palestinians is exactly what the Inquisition did to the Cathars.

So is it any wonder, I muse, as  a transpersonal historian, that extreme right wing, anti semitic and neo-Nazi forces are now rallying behind Brexit as a cause worth using every trick they can think of to coerce on the British people and the good people of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, regardless of consequences ?

This is the same thought world as Brandon Tarrant who opened fire on innocent New Zealand Muslim worshippers and shot 49 of them in cold blood – in the name of white racism, Donald Trumpism and the right to brexit against all the universe. His manifesto proudly proclaims his allegiance to exactly ht same far right racism that underlies Trumps desire to build a wall against Mexico, and the brexiteers hatred of the openness, the liberalism, the freedom of movement, the sane social and Christian democratic decency, of the institutions of the European Union.

So where does that leave us now, on March 20 ? We should march on Saturday 23 March and demand a second referendum, a peoples vote. If 5 million people come out in to the streets it can show the sinister and dark forces that have attempted a coup against our democracy and our membership of the European Union, that we will not let them get away with it.

Am I saying that parliament is a dark and sinister force and we should bypass it ? Not exactly. I am saying that parliament and specifically the commons does have a dark past, and that it behoves us to learn about that and understand it. I am saying it has been a nest of vipers and liars and puritanical and arrogant schemers since it was first born in the light of day.

I am saying that the UK parliament in Westminster needs reforming in ways to make it genuinely more democratic and a system of proportional representation needs to come in whereby the number of MP’s in any given party are exactly proportional to the number of votes cast for the that party in any given general election. The current system is utterly corrupt and outdated. This idea to gradually reform parliament and make it properly modern and democratic is what the Liberal Democrats are proposing. They are also 100% opposing Brexit so they speak for me in Parliament at this time and they speak for common sense and wisdom in our political culture.

I am saying the parliament should rescind, revoke and delay the article 50 process and do so for long enough to hold a second referendum on this whole matter. And also, following that, or perhaps before it, to hold a general election. We will need perhaps 2 years to do both these things. Then we will know exactly where we stand on Europe, and if as I hope, the majority decide to vote in favour of Remain next time, we will all be a great deal happier and economically and psychologically more secure.

For the second referendum however, the terms should be changed. There must be a threshold set. All voters over 16 should get to vote, and strict policing should prevent outside interference by foreign countries such as the USA or Russia, or any other country that might get involved in the referendum. Our our intelligence agencies should work to prevent all outside interference. And every intelligence office should be required to swear an oath of political neutrality on the outcome and promise not to interfere one way or another. Groups and individuals found to have broken  the law during the last referendum should be disqualified from taking part (like Aron Banks et al).

This time there should be a clean contest between honourable parties.

Is this going to happen ? Well, I am a philosopher and a theologian and historian, and a peace scientist and future studies expert, and I can say one thing confidently – if this route is not chosen, and brexit is forced down all our throats without a second referendum, then you can kiss goodbye to the UK, and probably to the Monarchy which will not survive its break up. You can say hello to decades of uncertainty, growing poverty, chaos and conflict, as lawyers and politicians fight over what used ot be a great and glorious country, the United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland, living in harmony with its neighbours and was a proud and upstanding member of the European Union. You can say goodbye to all that, and I for one, am not prepared to watch this country of ours,  go down without a serious struggle for truth and justice, love and wisdom. As coordinator of Philosophers for Historians for Peace, and Director of IIPSGP  in the UK and Europe you would expect nothing less from me, surely ?



images (1)


Having just recently returned from a whistle-stop visit to the U.K during which I gave two lectures on the Metaphysics of Brexit, called THE KARMA OF BREXIT: A THEOSOPHICAL AND TRANSPERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, I have now returned to France to continue my work as Director of the European Peace Museum and to reflect on what we are living through in contemporary history.


Today, January 24 I have now finally published the fruit of some 3 years solid work, namely my history of the events of 9/11 and their possible causes, and proven consequences.


Since 9/11 we have had a continual series of international geopolitical disasters, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the destabilisation of that country, the destabilisation (attempted) of Syria by the same UK/USA military alliance which invaded Iraq, and unleashed the extremist Islamic jihadis who formed ISIS and other Sunnite groups.


In my book on 9/11 I do not give a definite answer as to who was behind 9/11 but I do give 15 hypothesis as to whom might have been involved. One thing I am certain of, from years of study and research, that the official Bush narrative, that 9/11 was caused by 19 Al Qaeda agents acting along under the command of Ossama Bin Laden, was simply not true. In other words, it was a lie – but if so then was it deliberate, and who concealed it – who concocted these layers of deception  ? That question is at the heart of this book. The answer to it will also implicate whoever was involved in the actual plot behind 9/11 namely the pre-wiring of the buildings at the Twin towers.


I trained in my historical research at the University of London and ended up specialising in modern and contemporary history, so I have brought all my forensic skills as a contemporary historian to bear on the questions confronted in the book – who caused 9/11, why, and for what purposes. Other writers have tackled these questions before, and have come up with a variety of answers (Mossad did 9/11, the CIA did it, Saudi Intelligence did it, China did it, Iran or Iraq did it,  UK intelligence was somehow involved, aliens and Dracos who are colonising our planet did it) and so on and on. I examine all these hypothesis, and more,  from the most probable to the least probable, and suspend judgment on their veracity while examining the evidence. The one thing we can all agree on – somebody must have done it ! This is the first time that any trained historian has actually tackled this huge and complex subject.

Another thing I should add – in the last couple of years I have been developing a new field of religious studies called Comparative Diabology. I have been writing and lecturing on the whole complex history of what or who the “devils” are in different religious and philosophical traditions – and how should we understand them ? Extraterrestrials of very nasty mien ? Psychological shadows we all carry within us ? Fallen angels from a primordial paradise who dared top challenge the top God ? Every faith, and sub denomination within the faiths, has their own take on the Devil story. One thing I believe strongly, and that this book explores, is that however and whatever the devil actually may or may not be, then that same force was certainly behind 9/11, psychologically at least. So this book is also an exorcism, a confrontation, a calling out. In the Mary Magdalene Studies Association that we have launched here in France, we have learned, at our recent two annual conferences so far in 2017 and 2018, that Mary and Jesus were brave and fearless when it came to exorcising negative and demonic forces. So should we learn to be as historians, which is part of the point of “transpersonal history”. If you lack courage as a historian, stick to the history of cricket or something, if you are fearless, join me in studying the history of 9/11. As the quote says on the floor of the Cathedral of St John the Divine in Manhattan, the mother church of the entire Anglican Communion worldwide: “The truth Shall Set You Free”



It is a fact that the time-line of my PhD thesis covered the Intellectual history of the search for peace from 1945-2001, and it stopped exactly at 9/11. So it is perhaps also appropriate that I should, of all historians, be the one to take up the pen again to examine the complex history of the post 9/11 world and our search for answers to the riddles of  9/11.


The reason I have devoted some 3 years of my research time to this work, is because I think it is the single most important issue that historians need to solve, to answer the simple question: – who actually caused 9/11 to unfold as it did, and why ? Who commanded and ordered this operation ? Why has no one been put properly on trial as yet ? Why has no one been brought to justice over this ? Why was all the forensic evidence from the site removed so quickly after the explosions ?


The book is nearly 400 pages in length, as you would expect from a detailed coverage of such an important subject, and I hope it will be read by fellow historians around the world, but also by the general public, to begin with in the English speaking world. The book is dedicated to “everyone on planet earth who has ever wondered, if only fleetingly, whether the official narrative of the events of 9/11, which were soon marshalled into giving some kind of legitimacy or excuse for the tragic and needless invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the USA and UK, with incalculable subsequent consequences in terms of the destabilisation of the Islamic and Middle Eastern world, was actually founded on veracity or not ? It’s a work of historical research in greater depth and more sustained analysis on this topic than has hitherto been attempted and is the first such study by a professional academic historian to ask these questions in any sustained and comprehensive manner. This book is also dedicated as an homage to all those amazing historians who were part of my own intellectual training at the University of London, and whose lectures and seminars I have attended over the years, or who worked in previous decades and helped make history a recognise pursuit for genuine academics worldwide.” But perhaps most importantly, the book is dedicated to the memory of the lives of all those who died on 9/11 in the USA, as well as those who died subsequently in the Middle Eastern wars which were triggered following those tragic events, including the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the subsequent civil wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and elsewhere. Whoever was responsible for 9/11 seems to enjoy warfare and killing and does not take much joy in actually causing peace, and this is why I am determined to track down who was responsible for 9/11 and the subsequent wars and mayhem in the Middle East, as well as the victims of terrorism that have over spilled into other regions, including above all Europe, where a million refugees have fled the destabilisation of the middle east especially in Syria.


The book is also dedicated to Ahmad Shah Massoud, who was a brave general of the anti-Taliban forces trying to keep Afghanistan in the 21st century, yet who was assassinated in a complex plot, having all the hallmarks of an international covert intelligence attack, 2 days before the events of 9/11 unfolded.


I knew people who were close to Ahmad Shah Massoud, and also met his brother, in 1997, when he was the then Afghan Ambassador to the UK, when I went to the Afghan Embassy for peace mediation talks having just set up my Multifaith and Multicultural Mediation Service (MMMS) whose history I subsequently recounted as part of my PHD thesis, and which still remains the only specialised mediation service dealing with interfaith conflict resolution. 18 years after 9/11 we still have  civil war raging in Afghanistan, with tens of thousands having died in the interval since then, and no lasting peace in sight, and so this book is also dedicated to the all the Afghans who have died since 9/11, largely blamed by international opinion for events that may well have not been plotted exclusively or even mainly on their terrain. One thing is certain – that whoever killed Ahmad Shah Massoud, was also responsible for the events of 9/11 themselves, and I therefore address these puzzles in this complex and detailed historical study.


But this book is not the final word on the subject, on the contrary, it is the first word. It is a Prolegomena.  It is the first time that the subject of 9/11 has been properly tackled in any shape or form by a trained historian. History however is a collaborative project, and just as in the work of mediaeval chroniclers sitting in their mediaeval abbeys, who relied on distant works by chroniclers and historians they had never met, to construct their narratives of history, and to join up all the pieces of the broken jagged edges of time, so too, to realise and comprehensively answer the historical questions in depth about who or what was responsible for 9/11 and with what purposes and motivations and with what ends and consequences, will be the work of many other present and future historians. I am simply an intellectual scout venturing into new territory that has not been covered before in any depth.

It is a simple fact that the topic has never been covered in any of the mainstream historical journals in the English speaking world, nor have any conferences or seminars been held at the most prestigious of our historical institutions, such as the School of History (University of London), or events organised by the Royal Historical Society, or the American Historical Association, nor even the World Conference of Historical Sciences (which meets every 5 years) and is due to meet in 2019 in Poland, where I hope to be presenting this work.

World Trade Center Hit by Two Planes


And so we come to Brexit – readers of this blog will have noticed over recent months my absolute determination to expose the intellectual weakness and ignorance of Brexit as a policy decision for the future stability and well being of the UK. It will make everyone poorer in the UK apart from a few very rich disaster capitalists who will stand to gain, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and his type. I have published the only in depth Journal going into all aspects of the Brexit arguments, for and against, which is available here:  http://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-thomas-clough-daffern/iipsgp-anti-brexit-and-pro-european-union-newsletter/paperback/product-23851836.html

In my recent talks in the UK I reminded listeners how the process of Brexit seems calculated to cause maximum self-harm to the UK and to lead to its demise as a great power. It will lead to a return to fighting on the streets of Belfast, and the eventual reunification of Ireland as the North of Ireland rejects Brexit and chooses instead to rejoin the Republic of Ireland and remain in the EU. It will lead to the separation of Scotland from the UK, as that proud nation also rejects brexit, and chooses instead a path of peace, social justice and social democracy, far more in tune with its own culture and intellectual history that the disaster capitalism that the Brexiteer Tories stand for. All this I foresee if brexit cannot be stopped in the remaining few weeks available to us. It is even possible that if Parliament actually legislates against a hard brexit, the Tory government extremist Brexiteers might try to do a coup and suspend parliament anyway, as Jacob Rees Mogg is advocating, like a being from another planet.

But what is the connection, if any, between Brexit and the events of 9/11 – is there any ? Will future historians shake their heads in disbelief that no one saw it at the time ? I suspend judgment, but all I will say here and now, is that the evidence is quite strong that whatever forces were behind 9/11 are also the same forces, in a similar or even identical combination, to the forces behind Brexit – and by that I mean the groups of shadowy operatives who use internet stalking, trolling, ghosting, false news,   and all the other dark-arts that have been developed in covert intelligence circles in recent years. I am at least 90% certain that whoever was paying for and operating these dark arts to ensure a victory for the leave campaign, was also, at the uppermost chain of command,  in the know about who had been responsible of the events of 9/11.

But how is that possible, you might ask – surely somebody by now would have blown the whistle ? Surely somebody would have exposed this massive conspiracy and called out the people who seem to be responsible ?

Well, for historical reasons that readers of my autobiography might be able to work out, it has fallen to me to be the one to blow the whistle. You will understand more when you have read this my history of 9/11, which also gives something of my own personal reasons for writing the book.

I would also like to state that if you thought the negative consequences of 9/11 were bad, the negative consequences of Brexit in the long run are also going to be bad, and on something approaching the same magnitude.

And I can let the reader into a secret in advance: whoever was responsible for 9/11 was certainly not a European nation – it was not Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Luxemburg, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Ireland or any of the other nations of the European Union, with the sole possible exception of the UK, who may well have had advanced warning of 9/11 in their uppermost intelligence and political circles.  I address this hypothesis, along with all the others,  in the course of the book. (Of course I might be wrong, it could have been Slovenia !)

There is also as strange karmic twist – if someone(s) at the very pinnacle of UK intelligence and policy knew 9/11 was an at least partially false flag event, and yet authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003, thus showing incredible arrogance and hubris and disregard for truth, then the karmic pay back for this action might well be the unraveling of the UK itself post brexit – which is really Gods way of showing that the rules of Karmic justice still prevail. The UK has for too long gone about destroying, subverting and meddling in the lives of other nations – now it is about to meddle in its own affairs to its own self-destruction, perhaps. How ironic !  (But of course, this is simply theory at this stage of play).

But ultimately this is not book written by one person. I have read through and studied virtually every single book previously written about 9/11 from a variety of perspectives, and have given a critical analysis of their contents in my own work. A huge literature review takes up over 100 pages of the current work, as you would expect in an academic historical  study.

But it is only a beginning, which is why it is entitled PROLEGOMENA TO A HISTORY OF 9/11 –  I have taken my cue from Kant here, in his Prolegomena To Any Future Metaphysic, (In the original German: Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten können) meaning that he was trying to point out certain common and fundamental problems which any future metaphysical theory after his day, would have to address.

So too in this work, I am merely writing a ground work so to speak, pointing out what terrain the work of future historians will have to cover, if we are to get a comprehensive, accurate and true version of the history of 9/11, as to who was actually behind it, and therefore why it happened. This obviously has huge implications for current policy in the Middle East, both among Middle Eastern nations themselves, but also for the whole of Europe and the USA and other nations worldwide.

The work also has huge implications for international organisations such as the United Nations, the European Union, the British Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Independent States (former USSR nations) and so on and in our common search for a peace policy as a global community of nations and inter-nations. The work also has significance for the various arms of the world federalist movement, and wherever people are trying to struggle towards some kind of global ethical world order. If elites within nations or intelligence services can conspire together to pull off events such as 9/11, then it means truly that the world’s ethical world-order activists are going to have one hell of an enormous struggle on their hands to challenge these dark War-Lords and their lackeys.

The subtitle of the work is TOWARDS A HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO 9/11 and here is the final conclusion of my book, that the data is so complex, the sources we need to draw on are so varied and the rival and competing theories as to causation so varied and difficult to prove or disprove, that we are going to need an INTERNATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO 9/11. This body, which IIPSGP will inaugurate here from France, and chair, will comprise only of professional and fully trained historians of the highest calibre, with at least a PhD in the subject,  who can be expected to be thoroughly objective and professional in their treatment of the topic and the evidence that we will examine. The work of the Commission is expected to take at least 3 years to complete and to run from 2019 to 2022, when it is hoped it shall be ready to deliver it first report.

Any fellow historians reading this blog with appropriate expertise and who wish to get involved in this vital work, please first read this book in detail, and then contact the author with a request to be invited to serve on the Commission.

The final point to make, is that this book is not only an historical study, although it is mainly that – it is also a philosophical and ethical study of 9/11. One of the most active researchers working on 9/11 issues hitherto is philosopher David Ray Griffin, who is a Process philosopher and theologian who has been most active in 9/11 research. But the one topic he has never written about, or lectured about, is exactly what is covered in the current book – namely who or what might have been actually behind the events of 9/11. He is brilliant at showing, conclusively, that for countless reasons, the official Bush Presidency narrative is unsound and untrue – but he has never attempted to put forward any possible alternative narrative or explanations. This work begins therefore, where Griffin’s work ends. As Coordinator of Philosophers for Peace in Europe (and Vice President globally) it is my duty therefore to pose the complex questions I have pursued in this book, and to have adopted the historical methodology as the most likely to yield concrete results. I have written this book therefore as a philosopher as well as a historian and I hope that not only professional philosophers, but also true lovers of wisdom and intellectuals throughout the world will find insights and ideas of value concealed in its pages.

In conclusion, it seems to me that in our media driven and information rich world, we have become more and more swept over by floods of detail, floods of concern, presented to us minute by minute by facebook and other social and digital media platforms, which give us hardly any time to stand back and focus on the deeper patterns behind events, or the deeper meanings of our lives. We are constantly in a state of reacting to this or that crisis, or this or that “world emergency”. The increasing impoverishment of large sections of the population adds yet further anxiety to our already crowded lives as many people must daily struggle for their own survival and have no time or leisure to ask bigger picture questions. But I have a duty as both a philosopher and historians to ask these bigger picture questions, and having been determined to make the leisure time to research and write this book, have managed to see it through to completion, and now present the fruits of those years of work to my fellow human beings, for all our sakes.

Anyone desirous of owning a copy of this book, which has been a long time in the making, can find it here:







Director, Dr. Thomas Daffern B.A. (Hons) D.Sc. (Hon) PGCE. Ph.D.  Treasurer: Jenny Wheatcroft (B.A.) Miss Tori Milner, French Coordinator, IIPSGP Media Department: Nicola Hague Italian Coordinator: Rebecca Ciarla B.A. New York Coordinator: Eden Gordon,  USA Coordinator, Almira Rzehak; Israel Coordinator, Gila Haron M.A; Balkan Coordinator. Gordana Netkovska; London: Nisa Saiyyid B.A. Isabella Wesoly BA.
Greece, Eleni Stamiris and Emanuella Stamiris; Ireland, Dr Sean English; Balkan Coordinator, Gordana Netkovska; Italy Coordinator, Francesca Dell’Ova M.A; South Africa, David Allan and Sheikh Satardien; Germany, Marie-Kristin Thimm; India, Dr. S. L Gandhi; Commonwealth, Maria Matulewicz; Moldova, Lyiudmila Scortesca; Australia Coordinator, Barbara Olive, Serbia, Relja Petkovic; Russia, Alexander Chumakov and Anna Ivanova; Sri Lanka, Muhammad Muzamil Cader

13 Grand Rue, Betete, La Creuse, Limousin, 23270, France (European address)

213 Ham Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2QB (United Kingdom)
Tel. +33(0)5 8756 5489 mob.+44 (0)7500 238523 Email:  iipsgp@educationaid.net

websites:   www.educationaid.net   www.lulu.com/iipsgp   https://thomascloughdaffern.wordpress.com/    http://musespress.wordpress.com/ https://multimediationservice.weebly.com/      http://www.globalgreenuniversity.com           http://daffernfamily.wordpress.com/     https://trcme.wordpress.com/  https://ceppr.wordpress.com      https://goldengateproject.wordpress.com www.interfaithpeacetreaty.wordpress.com

www.globalgreenuniversity.com Facebook: International Institute of Peace Studies YouTube: IIPSGP1

Edited by Dr. Thomas Daffern B.A. (Hons) D.Sc. (Hon) PGCE. Ph.D.

Chair, Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Britain and Ireland (TRCBI)

Director, International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (IIPSGP)

European Regional Director, World Intellectual Forum

Vice President, International Philosophers for Peace and the Prevention of Nuclear Omnicide (IIPPNO)

Archdruid, Order of Peace Poets, Bards and Druids (OPPBD)




Edited by Dr. Thomas Daffern B.A. (Hons) D.Sc. (Hon) PGCE. Ph.D.

Director, International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (IIPSGP); Chair, Commonwealth Interfaith Network; Chair, Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Britain and Ireland (TRCBI);

European Regional Director, World Intellectual Forum

Vice President, International Philosophers for Peace and the Prevention of Nuclear Omnicide (IIPPNO)




This is the first collation of information and news regarding the growing opposition to the policy of brexit being pursued by the UK Government led by Theresa May, which is taking the UK out of the European Union, even though the results were hardly a proper mandate to empower her to do this; The Brexit policies ignores the will of 64% of the UK who did not vote for Brexit. It will most likely result in the breakup of the UK. The editor argues this is a deliberate policy imposed by an ignorant and immoral financial and global elite who are hoping to make a huge profit from the practice of “Disaster Capitalism”. Some hard left activists and Jeremy Corbyn  are also following “Disaster Socialism” towards Brexit.  Brexit involves the willful destruction of an entire country, and thus can perhaps be analysed psychologically as an extensive project in self-harming. The sheer folly of Theresa May driving the UK towards a “Hard brexit” is breathtaking and we must work hard to stop it.  Plus the disaster that is brexit will possibly lead to a resumption of violence in Northern Ireland, that has been at peace since 1998 and the undoing of the Good Friday agreement. It is a thoroughly irresponsible piece of  misgovernment and calls for all true lovers of the UK and lovers of the EU to come together and campaign for an end to this mistaken and self destructive policy. Moderate Conservative leaders like John Major and Dominic Grieve, moderate Labour leaders, Greens and Liberal Democrats are all opposed to brexit. This Journal offers us a chance to share our findings and research and campaigning strategies. I am also calling for a weekly fast for non-violence, to counter the Brexit nightmare. I am suggested that everyone who is truly opposed to brexit spend each Sunday from now in fasting, prayer, study and campaigning. Gandhi advocated this method to fuel non-violence campaigns, so did the Druids of Britain and Ireland of old, and so did the hunger strikers in Northern Ireland when the Time of Troubles were at their worst. We have to prevent the madness that is Brexit so I ask you to join me in this Sunday weekly fast each Sunday until brexit is stopped. The School of Nonviolence continues its work under the auspices of IIPSGP with its new base here in France, but our work is Europe wide, including all of the British isles. Whereas the UK government wants to impose brexit and then go on spending on militarism, we at IIPSGP are saying – lets invest in peace, love, cooperation, nonviolence, and education, and  keep both Europe and the UK together.

































1.PEOPLE’S MARCH 20 OCTOBER 2018: An important march took place in London to rally the many people opposed to Brexit from throughout the UK, with about 700,000  people going from all over the country, which is a huge number. This represents a turning point in public opinion in the UK which is now definitely moving in the direction of a second referendum.


2.CALL FOR A SECOND REFERENDUM: Many voices have been raised to call for a second referendum following the fake referendum of 2016, which was allowed to take place without anyone realising the consequences, and which put no safety net in to insist that such a major constitutional change should be approved by at least 60% of the electorate. Instead only a wafer thin majority of actual voters called for Brexit, and the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against it. So for these and many other reasons, political commentators and political scientists have realised that calling for a second referendum is the only fair way to resolve this deadlock in British and European affairs. Some voices, who are immune to reason however continue to protest against it, including Pal Desmond owner of the Daily Express, and other brexit hard core lobbyists. It is becoming apparent that there are few if any intellectual argument against a second referendum, and therefore mostly the hard core Brexit mob rely on anti-intellectual arguments. They realise Brexit is irrational and therefore support it all the more strongly. It has become a badge of pseudo-conspiracy theorists to wear with honour, and the more they are told by all reasonable punters and commentators that brexit will be bad for the UK, the more they say “we told you so, the establishment is against brexit”. So to be pro Brexit has become a badge of being anti-establishment.  It is difficult to know how to debate with such a climate of fear, mistrust, paranoia and conspiracy theory going the rounds, a lot of it on the internet. It is the purpose of this Journal to be independent of any myopic political or economic interests, but to be purely rational, philosophical and academic in our analyses. The simple fact that the UK will break up following brexit is one of many reasons why IIPSGP opposes it. IIPSGP was founded in 1991 to establish an international centre for peace thinking in the UK, in London, and to provide scientific research and information to make peace policies viable for not just UK governments, but for and on behalf the British people as a whole. We have since then organized 100’s of educational events and conferences seminars, lectures, including 35 meetings in the House of Lords, all aimed at shifting the UK as a whole in the direction of peace policy, and a de-escalation of our arms and weapons expenditure and an increase of our educational and social, and cultural expenditure as a nation. To IIPSGP Brexit is the worst challenge since we were established in 1991, and the prospect of the fracturation of the UK which would cause years of chaos and legal wrangles between the members countries as they break up, and possibly even cause renewed fighting on the streets of Belfast, is such a horrific possibility, that IIPSGP opposes Brexit with all its resources and might. Therefore we 100% support the idea of a second referendum as the most fair and just and logical way of dealing with this situation.


3.PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSING A SECOND REFERENDUM: Some Brexit die hards remain implacably opposed to a second referendum, including sadly prime Minister Theresa May, her husband Philip May, Paul Desmond owner of the Daily Express, and almost certainly Rupert Murdoch owner of the Sun and the Times newspapers. The BBC has consistently played a negative role in forcing Brexit down the throats of the British people, even though it is against the will of the vast majority of thinking people, against the will of the Scottish and Irish citizens of the Uk. It raises the complex question of who decided the direction of policy at the BBC ? Nicholas Humphries the BBC interviewer has been consistently in favour of brexit . The BBC also gives hardly any air time to genuine voices opposing Brexit. All this has created a mind set in the public that it is somehow “unpatriotic” to oppose Brexit, but in fact the exact opposite is the case.  The majority of Theresa May’s Cabinet who now are pushing through Brexit actually initially opposed it. They have proved they have no real political principles, but just flip-flop every which way. The author’s Parliamentary Duty of Veracity Bill is designed to put an end to careerist politicians with no actually values or ethics.


4.EFFECTS ON NORTHERN IRELAND OF BREXIT: The people of Northern Ireland in the referendum of 2016 voted in favour of remaining inside the European Union. Their wish has been totally ignored by the May government as it rams Brexit down the throats of the whole of the UK. The Democratic Unionist party of Ulster hard line protestants have propped up May’s government, on the basis of enabling brexit to go ahead. Sinn Fein by contrast have called for a referendum to be put to the people of Northern Ireland before Brexit is implemented giving them the choice of rejoining with the Republic of Ireland and leaving the UK, and thereby remaining inside the EU, as per the specifically agreed Good Friday agreement, which is an international treaty. If the UK government forces Brexit on Northern Ireland it will be unilaterally going against the spirit and the letter of the Good Friday agreement, and this may well kick start extreme violence back on the streets of Belfast. The nationalist community will feel their views have been utterly ignored. If hard borders are brought back between the North and South of Ireland, manned by troops, they will become again the locus of discontent and dissatisfaction on  the part of ordinary people on the north and south of the border, who will once more have to present passports and all kinds of paperwork at the border, even if they are going on local shopping trips. Since it will be the border between a European Union member state and a non-Europe union member state, there is no way it can be other than a hard border, with all that implies. The only solution to this impasse, is either to let the entire UK have a second referendum on re-examining its decision to leave the EU altogether. Alternatively, the people of Northern Ireland must be given a referendum on whether they would prefer to accompany the UK out of the EU, or would rather join with the Republic of Ireland and remain together as one unified state in the European Union. For those who have forgotten the tragedies that the hard border caused in the time of troubles, from 1967-1990, the recent book by a survivor of the Miami Showband Massacre, by Stephen Travers, the bass player in the group, is a sombre reminder of how bad it was. This innocent pop group, which comprised both Catholic and Protestant members, and for a time was the most popular group in the whole of Ireland, North and South of the border, was on its way to Newry having been playing a concert that night, when it was stopped at a fake roadblock manned by extremist protestant loyalists, dressed up as British army  soldiers. They proceeded to plant a bomb in the back of the pop groups Volkswagen van, but the two protestant extremists planting the bomb were blown up by accident through their own mistake, whereupon the rest of the army squadies opened fire on the band, and killed them at point blank range, firing at the lead singer 27 times. One of the survivors, Stephen Travers, lived to tell his tale and how now published a book about it. He had been shot by a dum-dum bullet and his would be murderers thought he was dead. He was lying face down in a ditch not daring to move, and succeeded in convincing them he was in fact dead. They arms squad withdrew and he and one other survivor managed to get help and their lives were saved in a local hospital. Why would extremist Protestants target a pop group like this ? Because they opposed the very possibility of harmony and peace between catholic and protestants – being an Ulster Protestant had become a kind of fanatical violent club which inflicted death and mayhem on its enemies and pretended to do this “in the name of the British state”. The reason the majority of the people of northern Ireland voted against Brexit is that they remember these horrific times clearly and did not wish to see them brought back. The clutch of Conservative politicians who have delivered brexit have no real knowledge of Irish history, except what they might have picked up from army operatives in the good old days of the British army presence in Ulster, and no real acquaintance with the whole history of the search for peace in Northern Ireland., The Labour leader who managed to organise the Good Friday agreement, Tony Blair, is one  of the most articulate opponents of Brexit, partly because he knows how hard Ireland laboured to get peace. The Northern Ireland issue alone in IIPSGP’s honest opinion should be enough for the UK to hold a second referendum and cancel Brexit immediately as it is utterly contrary to the needs and wishes of the people of Northern Ireland except for a die hard minority of people the kind of people who carried out the Miami Showband Massacre back in 1975. At a recent rally (October 20, 2018) in Belfast opposing Brexit, cross-community Alliance Party leader Naomi Long said: “We have the EU to thank for the longest period of peace and stability on the continent of Europe in history. The EU forced nations to compromise, forced people to come together on the big issues like climate change. It underpinned the peace. The EU spent money underpinning the peace right across Europe, from the fall of the Berlin Wall, which could have been chaotic, right through to the former Yugoslavia. “Nowhere did it do that more so than right here.” She said the Brexit debate was not about protecting the UK’s union or creating a united Ireland, as it has been characterised by some on opposite sides of the issue. Instead, it was about celebrating the work of the wider Europe and the peace it had helped create out of the chaos of the former Time of troubles in Northern  Ireland, which had claimed thousands of lives and wasted so many years on violence. Now Northern Ireland had moved on and did not want to be dragged back to the days of outdated polarisation precipitated by a Brexit that Northern Ireland didn’t vote for, imposed over their heads from Westminster.


5.EFFECTS ON SCOTLAND  OF BREXIT: The idea of having Brexit rammed down their throats has made the average Scot ever more determined to bring about Scottish independence as quickly as possible. During the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, the Scottish people were told by the Westminster Press and Westminster politicians, that if they voted to leave the UK, they would also leave the European Union, and that the continuing state of the UK would block their re-entry to the European Union for years to come. This was a sobering warning which persuaded many people,. Including the editor, to vote for the UK to remain as an integral state. The argument now is entirely reversed however. A Westminster Conservative government is now pulling the UK out of the EU against the express democratic wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland, against all their long term interests as a nation. Scotland benefits greatly from EU immigration, as it does by the ability to send its sons and daughter abroad to other European nations. Ever since the mediaeval period Scottish thinkers and academics have benefited from teaching and studying in Europe, and the founding of the Scots College in Paris and also in Rome became centres of intellectual activity by the Scottish people abroad. Following the capture of the UK crown by the Hanoverian dynasty, many Jacobite Scottish intellectuals went into voluntary exile in France and elsewhere in Europe and brought many features of advanced Scottish intellectual activity. One of the most famous was Chevalier Ramsay who introduced freemasonry into France, which in turn influenced whole generations of French and European intellectuals. Scotland’s wish to remain a democratic nation at the heart of European cultural and political identity should be respect by Westminster, and it if it is not, then the strong probability that the people of Scotland will vote to leave the UK should be accepted as a likely outcome of Westminster Brexit policies. This means the immediate end of any attempt at great power status by the rump UK state, and the nuclear weapons base at Faslane will have to be relocated on to English soil, as the Scottish nationalist government would insist they are removed from Scotland once independence is achieved. .


6.FUTURE BREAK UP OF UNITED KINGDOM: the breakup of the UK as a political entity following brexit is in the editor’s opinion 100% guaranteed. Having lived in Scotland for 7 years, Wales for 10 years, and England for 30 years, and being one quarter Irish and having visited Ireland many times, and having set up the truth and Reconciliation Commission for Britain and Ireland, the editor is in a good position to judge the mood of the  nations of the UK, and having done his homework can announce beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, that the effects of brexit will be the certain breakup of the UK as  a political entity. There are three types of Brexiteer responses when you explain this to them. The first type is simply too rude to listen, and interrupts and literally will not listen to the concerns. The second type listens but simply says “I do not believe it, the Scots and Northern Irish are not that stupid (implying it would be their mistake), and anyway it’s not going to happen”. This response shows simply that the listener has not thought this through. The third kind gets angry and says “we will not let it happen, we will fight to keep the UK together, and if necessary we will put troops back in Belfast and re-garrison Northern Ireland, and if we have to, we will put troops into Glasgow” – this kind of response is simply immoral, ill educated and betrays a supreme degree of ignorance. To put it mathematically, the risk of the breakup of the UK following brexit is somewhere between 100% and 90% according to my own mathematical calculations. If you were told by the pilot of your transatlantic plane that the risks of your falling from the sky as you are taxying on the runway on takeoff, were something from 90-100% certain, would you stay on the plane ? Would you not immediately demand to get out ? there is a fourth kind of person who supports Brexit, and who says “Yes I know the UK will break up as a result of brexit, and that my dear friend is exactly the outcome we want.. we want the UK to break up”. Who would come into this picture ? These would be extremists who have no love for the UK and indeed want to see it collapse. They include some extreme right wing American USA citizens, hard right wing republican types, who are anti Monarchy, who hate the liberal and democratic UK system, who are extreme conservatives and want to bring back the death penalty, etc. etc. Some of these types work for the CIA and have been involved in dodgy intelligence work for decades. For them breaking up the UK is only a sideshow which completes the work that the USA revolution failed to achieve in 1776. The fact that the monarchy would almost certainly also collapse following the breakup of the UK is another thing they will cheer about. Such propagandists are responsible for all the virulent anti-Windsor propaganda that we see on our internet screens. But these USA extremists ignore the fact that it is actually against the real geopolitical interests of the USA to see the UK break up. Another type of people who might actually enjoy the breakup of the UK are extremist Muslims who would hope to see the break up the UK and its being in a period of uncertainty and economic and spiritual collapse, and the possible end of the monarchy, as a period in which the Kingdom of Allah would be advanced. The rich oil states are in general in favour of Brexit and have helped bankroll the brexit campaigns. They think they will benefit from a UK outside the EU, and not knowing anything about the politics of Ireland or Scotland, do not realise that with the UK broken up, London will cease to be a valuable financial centre and that England, outside the EU, will simply collapse as a wealthy nation of any consequence. At this point the Arab Sheiks and their oil money will move elsewhere. Arguably, some extreme Russian patriots might also take delight at the breakup  of the UK, since the UK has masterminded for decades virulent propaganda against them, has watched smirking on the sidelines as their agents helped arm Al Qaeda to fight them in Afghanistan, and then smirked again as Ukraine collapsed into civil war. So the UK has stood watching happily a the former USSR was reduced from superpower status to that of the Russian federation, and thought it had “won the cold war” though it alliance with Arab and Sunni petro-dollars. The Russians however have a very long memory, and it is possible that some extremist Russian patriots might be laughing as they think of the prospect of the breakup of the UK as a result of completely idiotic own goal of the UK at pursuing Brexit, against their self-interest as a nation. The only Russian who were cheer at this prospect however are anti-democratic and illiberal types who would see it as karmic pay back for all the years that the UK has interfered in Russian affairs, including in Afghanistan. A few other billionaires and very wealthy people around the world might think that if the UK is autonomous and outside the EU they can benefit personally from having a relaxed banking regime, and being able to carry on with dodgy financial operations in the city of London without too many questions being asked – the kind of people who base their offices in the Cayman islands, and who were exposed in the Panama Papers. But these people have simply not worked out the implications of Brexit on the breakup of the UK as a whole and the diminution of London’ status as the erstwhile financial capital of the world. Another extremist group who would no doubt laugh and cheer at the breakup of the UK into its constituent states, are some extremist Zionist elements, hard right Israeli’s who are completely and utterly opposed to any attempts to grant human rights or equal citizenship to Palestinians, and who instead think that Israel has the right to become a nuclear armed superpower and to bomb and destabilise neighbouring Arabic and Islamic nations at will, because it is the will of Yahweh. Such extremist political Zionists, not knowing anything much about Irish and Scottish history, will simply be ignorant of the impact of the breakup of the UK long term. When your explain it to them, however, as the editor has done, that it is the equivalent of Galilee region and the whole of Northern Israel and Haifa voting to leave Israel and become and independent state again, would you approve ? The penny begins to drop. But the descendents of the Stern gang and other anti-British die-hard Zionists who killed British troops in Palestine, and who furthermore offered to make a pact with Hitler and fight for a Hitlerite victory in world war two, mistakenly thinking it would give them a quicker chance of getting an independent Israel (as documented in the book by Ralph Schoenman, The Darker Side Of Zionism, and the works of Allan Hart, former BBC Panorama producer, who has written a three volume critical study of extremist Zionism (not the kind of loving fluffy Zionist envisioned by Moses Hess)  – these kind of extremist Zionists would no doubt see the destruction of the UK as their final victory in history over the hated British Empire, which has been reduced to nothing, a patchwork of insignificant nations. They would see it as the final revenge of Yahweh over the British. Such extreme Zionists are usually also extremely anti-Christian and would also like to see the destruction of the UK and the destruction of the British monarchy, as a hated relic of mediaeval Christianity, which deserves to die a death. Just as extreme Zionists give little credence to Christ or to Christianity, and believe he was a false messiah, so they will be able them to say to themselves, watching the self-destruction of the British nation, that it proves Christ was indeed a false messiah. The average intelligent Israeli of course does not share these views, and would be shocked if Mossad had indeed helped engineer Brexit, but there are certainly some darker extreme Zionist people in influential offices in Israel who would actually love Brexit to go ahead – doing as much damage to the Uk and to Europe is part of their own agenda for promoting Israel. One of my learned Israeli friends has just emailed the following: “Originally, the Zionist movement was visionary and noble. Its Declaration of the State of Israel in 148 included these words:  “The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” Unfortunately, this declaration is no longer legally valid in Israel and was replaced very recently by a ‘national law’ which says the opposite about the ‘others’, i.e., those who are not ‘legally Jews’, in the most dry and visionless manner. Fundamentalist Jews and so many of them in the settlements, mostly illegal, have betrayed the spirit of Zionism and plan on building their ‘third temple’ in Jerusalem. They imagine themselves to be the descendants of the Maccabeans of the Hasmonean dynasty that ruled Judea in the 1st and 2nd centuries and revolted against the Greeks, and of the Jewish population that rebelled against the Roman Empire in 66 CE, which led to the destruction of the second temple and their final exile. So now they are planning on reclaiming Judea and the third temple, not considering everybody and everything that happened in that region since then. They can’t care less about the Brexit nor do they care about Jews who don’t think like them, which have become a minority in Israel. These fundamentalist religious Jews calling themselves Zionists have taken over education and culture in Israel and now over the army, which as strange as it may sound, was once the source of positive developments. Very recently, a declaration led and signed by 70 previously highly regarded army commanders of the IDF demanded the Netanyahu government to reinforce a two-state solution, which it refuses to do. In other words, just as the Brexit will destroy the UK and damage Europe, the fundamentalist anti-democratic regime of Israel, calling itself Zionism, but which ought to be called pseudo-Zionism,  will destroy Israel and its needless third temple, just as it did when it foolishly and unnecessarily revolted against Rome 2000 years ago. Some people never learn… history repeats itself… and progress in cultural consciousness is very slow despite technological developments..”  To deconstruct the ideology of this extreme Zionism and why it’s theology (“the God of Israel is the only God of history and all other nations, all other Gods, all other peoples, can be destroyed for all we care”) is  false and dangerous,  is something I have addressed in other writings. It was precisely this kind of extremist position that Rabbi Yeshua of Galilee spoke out against in his own day. Of course we all want a beautiful, peaceful, happy and joyful Israel living in harmony with all their neighbours, with human rights for all citizens, but not if it means destroying the entire world and all other nations. Trampling on Palestinian rights, suppressing Islam and fomenting civil war throughout the middle East by covert means, and now creating brexit to bring down the EU and the UK,  in order to achieve it. That is utterly shocking, but may be part of what has been going on behind the scenes. Brexit is not only a struggle going on inside British hearts, but it raises also the same kinds of issues (egotistic nationalism or altruistic internationalism) that are going on inside Israeli and Jewish hearts worldwide.

My learned late Rabbi friends Rabbi Albert Friedlander and Rabbi Hugo Gryn of London, and most other British Jews I have known over my life, would be appalled at the ignorance of brexit and the danger it is putting our nation in.  This is however a mistaken ideology, in the author’s considered opinion, and not only dangerous to the UK and to Europe, but to the Middle East and to Israel itself, if there is to be a long term future for us all. This kind of thinking will end in world war three as humanity crashes out of the curriculum we are currently following in planet earth. Such extreme ideology that would take us to the brink of planetary self destruction, as well as the self-destruction of the UK, is literally an anti humanist ideology, and it deserves to be exposed as a danger to planet earth.


7.PLAID CYMRY ON BREXIT: The Welsh people are finally beginning to wake up and realise that allowing Brexit to go ahead is utterly against their values, wishes and needs as a nation. Although the Welsh narrowly voted in favour of brexit in 2016, they were in fact misinformed, misled and deliberately lied to about it all. The new inspired Welsh Plaid Cymru leader, has recently said that given a choice between being part of a rump UK intent on brexit, without Northern Ireland or Scotland, then Wales would also be much better going it alone as a n independent nation inside the EU, that part of a rump UK with only England left as a companion, outside the EU. From now on the Welsh will become more and more vociferous in their demands for an independence referendum, and for the stopping of brexit. Whole regions of Wales stand to suffer if Wales leaves the EU, and anyone with a modicum of common sense has realised that Brexit is entirely again the self-interest of Wales, just as it is against the self interests of the UK as a whole. The latest opinion polls show that the mood in Wales has swung over now to a majority seeking to keep Britain inside the EU.


8.CORRESPONDENCE OF IIPSGP TO THE QUEEN; As Director of IIPSGP the editor write to her Majesty the Queen on June 28, 2018, the following letter:

Dear Queen Elizabeth II,
I was born in 1956 in Canada three years after you became Queen, and therefore have always lived under your sovereignty as a loyal and devoted subject of Your Majesty.  I have no outer political power or office and have never striven for such.  I am merely a philosopher and intellectual, a Druid and an Anglican Christian who has always believed hitherto that you have abided by your oath of office when you became  Queen and that you have striven to do your best for your realms.  I believe that you are a person of great integrity and realise the responsibilities that high office brings.  I am writing to you in good faith with the confidence and hope that this is truly so.


Like many of your subjects, I was not an enthusiastic supporter of removing the UK  from the European Union.  The majority of your subjects, in fact, did not vote for this outcome in the Referendum in 2016: of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, meaning that 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU). Of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters registered to vote in your kingdom did not vote to leave the EU. In addition, the majority of voters of Northern Ireland voted to remain  in the European Union. The majority of voters of Scotland chose to remain in the European Union.  The great majority of British citizens now want a second referendum of this most vital of political questions.  Why has this current government interpreted the referendum results as a mandate for an absolute Brexit ?  In my work as a political scientist and philosopher of peace over many years teaching at both the Universities of London and Oxford, I have never known of such a fatal miscalculation.  The immediate consequences of this policy will result in the citizens of Northern Ireland being given a referendum by choice to join with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the European Union.  All the demographics point to this as an almost certain outcome.  Likewise the people of Scotland will lawfully demand a second independence referendum, and this time will vote for becoming an independent nation state within the European Union.  Again, the implications of the Brexit policy are that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to be renamed Little Britain (England and Wales).  

As a loyal subject to Your Majesty, I am utterly appalled and shocked at the shortsightedness of the conservative (sic) ruling cabal in implementing a policy which is not a legal requirement, has no real actual popular support nationwide, and is going to result in the breakup of the UK. Have they completely lost their minds ?

It is my understanding that you have a constitutional duty as Monarch to defend the integrity of your realm.  Your Privy Councillors have a sworn duty to protect Your Majesty from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I am writing to you not as a Privy Councillor but as a loyal subject, to warn you of the impending danger which I foresee for your kingdom.  I assure you that if you consult with any genuine academics, constitutional experts, legal advisers, political scientists etc. they will also confirm that what I have written here is as true as anything ever can be when it comes to political science.  If you are being told otherwise (the Scots will back down, the Northern Irish are not serious, etc.), you are being mis-advised by party political place-men lacking in a fundamental overview of the situation.  Melbourne was appreciated by Queen Victoria as a great Liberal Prime Minister, precisely because he told her the truth, not because he told her what she wanted to hear.  We seem to be lacking statesmen and stateswomen of his calibre nowadays.


We received finally a friendly reply dated 7 August signed by her Deputy Correspondence Secretary stating: “I have been asked to write and thank you for your letter of 28 June to the Queen, from which careful note has been taken of the views you express regarding  the United Kingdom’s departure from its membership of the European Union. While it is interesting to know of your views, I must explain that as a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty acts on the advice of her Ministers and remains strictly non-political at all times. These are, therefore not matters on which the Queen would personally comment”. Well at least she has been warned. It is interesting that 7 days later the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson resigned, and Theresa May finally announced what kind of brexit she wanted – i.e. a soft one.  So perhaps my letter had some use in triggering this decision.


  1. IMPACT OF BREXIT ON ACADEMIA: since the very referendum of Brexit got underway, more and more academics have come out and are warning that Brexit will play a disastrous role on academic mobility, and academic opportunity throughout the UK and in Europe as a whole. Some conservative MP’s have attempted to muzzle the freedoms of thought of academics to campaign against Brexit, and have asked which lectures teaching in political science courses are teaching against brexit and tried to get such information from the University Vic Chancellors. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Worcester took legal action against this demand from a Conservative MP and finally won their case in September 2018. A few academics have come out in favour of Brexit and have campaigned and lobbied to have Brexit pushed through as if it is in the best interests of the U.K, but they are simply people who for one reason or another have not joined up enough dots, or are too entrenched in one particular worldview to have the kind of mental skill set to enable them to think through all the implications and consequences of Brexit, including the breakup of the UK. Or they might actually be in favour of the Breakup of the UK, being either Irish nationalist who want a re-united Ireland, or Scottish nationalist who want an independent Scotland, or they might be left wing socialists who hope that in the chaos after brexit they will get a Labour government in the UK which can implement a socialist state and renationalize the economy, and recentralise the British socialist state. Others might be extreme Islamists or Zionists, or other nationals, from outside the European Union, who likewise want to see the breakup of the UK as a goal worth having. The vast majority of mainstream intelligent British academics in all 4 countries however are diametrically opposed to Brexit, knowing it is against their interests as a group, and against the future intelligence of the British people. Britain has benefited from close ties to the European continent, ever since the days of the Druids, long before the Romans, when Celtic intelligentsia moved freely across Celtic European as a whole, including the whole of the UK. Indeed, the various Celtic tribes migrated into the UK during the last thousands or even tens of thousands of years. During the era of Romanisation likewise, Britain benefitted from free and open contacts with the whole of Europe. And one of the most important legacies of that era was the adoption of the Latin alphabet for writing in English, and Irish, and the beginnings of a local literature. At this point Greek and Latin teachers and academics also would have been lecturing in Britain as part of the wider literary and educational reforms of the Empire, eg under Hadrian, who appointed state professors of higher education to each major Roman city for the instruction of citizens. During the time of the Christianisation of Europe, Britain also participated in this general movement, and throughout Europe, Britain and other Christians moved freely across the whole continent, teaching and researching, writing and preserving the most important of Christian philosophical wisdom from both Christian and early classical civilisations, Alfred the Great and many other British Kings and Queens travelled widely on the continent, and often went to Rome as the mother church of Christendom. Alcuin for example, from York, went to the Emperor Charlemagne and reformed his entire teaching system in the Empire. Wandering Irish and Scottish teachers founded monasteries as centres of learning throughout Europe.  During the time of the mediaeval universities scholars travelled freely from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to France, Italy and Germany and benefited from the exchanges of higher education that this made possible. Latin was the learned language of higher education throughout Europe and the British isles and made possible the beginnings of a scientific revolution. During the renaissance, again, British academics such as John Dee and Francis Bacon travelled widely on the continent and visited France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Holland etc. and doing the grand Tour of Europe became de rigueur for many generations of British intelligentsia. The enlightenment period in European philosophy, from the days of Hume and Kant, Hegel and Marx, has likewise see British and European intellectuals and academics benefit from their mutual congress and discourse. The chaos of World War One and its aftermath ended all this, and in the chaos of nationalism and xenophobia and the rise of Nazi and Fascist and Bolshevik regimes, extremists came to dominate academic and intellectual life in the UK and Europe in general, ending in the chaos of world war two and the cold war. The European Union played a role at creating a safe peace-zone in Western Europe, in which the values of tolerance, intellectual freedom, human rights, and social values can coexist in harmony, over and above those of nationalism, and in the mobility of its people and in the way that students for example can travel throughout Europe via interail another programmes, it has served as the new Grand Tour of the masses in the 20th century.  But all this is a risk from Brexit and so many British intellectuals and scholars and academics are now rallying to fight brexit and all it represents. The insularity of the Brexit mind, with its incipient nationalism and racism, is the very thing that caused all the troubles of the 20th century come back to haunt us.


10.IIPSGP MOVE TO FRANCE: In 2017 IIPSGP moved its base from Scotland, where it had lived for 7 years, to France, right in geographical heartland of France. This has shone a new light on our perceptions of how peace can best be served, and from our new base in France, we have been even more active in international peacemaking and scholarly work for peace than we were in Scotland. Only two hours from Paris, we have also been keeping our eyes on developments in international intellectual affairs, and have now become the European coordinating body for the World Intellectual Forum in Europe. Our aim is simply to continue running the many projects that IIPSGP is involved with, from our new center here in France instead of in Scotland. We have many friendships with colleagues across Europe. We have added some colour and presence to the scattered peace museums of Europe and as such have become the only peace museum in France to welcome visitors. People can come here and visit for a tour, or they can stay overnight or for longer periods. We have had several students and interns come and stay from Sweden, Russia, Japan, Switzerland, Austria, Scotland, Ireland, England, Bohemia, Holland, Belgium,  Slovenia, France etc. We have had many visitors come and see the museum for a tour from many countries and many different parts of the world.



11.WEAPONS SALES AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European parliament was in the process of passing legislation to outlaw weapons sales to Saudi Arabi, and other states which commit extreme human rights abuse. NO such legislation exists in the USA. The UK arms industry was lobbying hard at that time to ensure that the UK would leave the EU so as not to be affected by this legislation. The strong probability is that Saudi Arabian money ended up being used in the hands of the brexiteers extremists to lobby and gerrymander so that the UK voted to leave the European Union in that very same period. It is this referendum result, which was unfairly conceived, unfairly called, unfairly effected, and unfairly interpreted which is now being used as a scandalous “call of last resort” to pull the UK out of the EU against its will. All the major right wing newspapers of the UK are pushing for this policy which is so utterly against the obviously national interests of the UK that there has to be some other explanation. Such sustained illogic is usually the result not just of a temporary melt-down of common sense, but a sustained and bitter departure from normal logical forms of self interest. The Saudi and British arms trade dealers determination to get the UK out of the European Union is an important piece of the explanatory jig saw puzzle that provides the overall raison d’etre for why the referendum was called, the way in which it was called, and the way it has been interpreted as a result having being “cast in stone”.


12.SAUDI ARABIA AND MURDER OF JAMAL KASHOGGI: For many right thinking people,. This murder of Jamal Kashoggi, a Saudi Arabian intellectual, is perhaps the last straw that broke the donkey’s back of any remaining trust or confidence that the international community ought to place in the Saudi Arabian Wahhabi regime. Brought into power in the 1920’s after world war one, as an alliance of a particular desert tribe ruler Ibn Saud and an ideological hard line religious faction of Islamist extremists, with no real education in higher Islamic teachings or philosophy, the Saudi’s had remained neutral in world war one, and in fact soon moved to destroy and take down the Arab tribes who had helped the British and French cause, and who were appointed by them in reward as rulers of Syria and Iraq. The Wahhabi Saudi Arabic regime completely opposed these more moderate Muslims. They conquered the Saudi heartland by force of arms, They showed brutality and extremism over every region they conquered and compared to the earlier Ottoman rule of the Hejaz, they represented the difference between an oxford educated Christian Anglican philosopher and a hillbilly from the Appalachian mountains who worships the Ku Klux Klan version of Christianity – it is not at all sure they are actually from the same faith. So it is with the Wahhabist doctrines and authentic real Islam, whether Sunni or Shi’ah. Philosophers, scholars and critics have known this for decades, but ordinary men and women in the street have only begun to realise this slowly. The abuse of women’s rights and the denial of religious freedom to Christians, let alone Jews or Pagans, in Saudi Arabia, has been a scandal of huge proportions, which we can no longer ignore. The Saudi war in the Yemen, where it is waging a merciless war against Shiia tribal groups, and denying their basic human rights and causing famine on an industrial scale, has been accomplished with weapons sold by the USA and UK governments. Kashoggi was n opponent of all this. He had also known Osama Bin Laden and had friends operating at all levels of Saudi intelligence community, and it is just possible he might have worked out that the Saudi intelligence had actually known about the Al Qaeda plot of 9/11 and then colluded with the CIA to make it a far worse event by pre-wiring the buildings in New York. Kashoggi was also an intellectual opponent of the current clamp down by crown prince Muhammad Bin Sultan, who has been driving a more and more draconian bargain on Saudi government circles and taking more and more power. Only in a totalitarian and centralized monarchy can just a thing be even possible. Kashoggi went to the Embassy in Istanbul, at a prearranged time, and a hit squad ld by personal contacts and lieutenants of Mohammad bin Salman was waiting for him. They murdered him, and then with pre-determined zeal proceeded to dismember his body into parts, which they then smuggled out of the Consulate to the private house of the Saudi Consul General. What does this have to do with Brexit ? What it means is that a major so called ally of the UK, which has been campaigning for Brexit behind the scenes, and which has thrown millions of pounds of corruption money in the direction of brexit, has now revealed its true face. Its mask has slipped briefly from its face. While Theresa May goes to Saudi Arabia every opportunity she gets to trumpet her support for an abhorrent regime; while she sends missiles to attack that legitimate government of Syria if President Assad, and supports illegal jihadis Wahhabist insurgents trying to defeat and destroy the Syrian government through fake propaganda stories such s so called “chemical attacks by Assad” which have never been objectively corroborated – we now know the real face of the Saudi regime and its endless supply of crown prince’s. It thinks nothing of murdering somebody who merely voices intellectual opposition to their policies, and then cutting up eth body. This reveals that we are dealing with truly psychopathic individuals, and ones who are literally deranged and by any possible definition for the term, thorough evil. So when it comes to a choice for the British people – do we really want to be “allied “ for the next few centuries to real psychopaths who cut up and dismember the bodies of intellectuals, such as Saudi Arabia, or do we want to be allied with civilised countries in the European Union, who by law stand for freedom of debate and discours and the use of reason to win arguments, not builders saws. This tragic murder throws everything into very stark relief. The British people need to wake up and see what I happening and what are the real forces behind Brexit.


13.PHILIP MAY AND WEAPONS INDUSTRY AND BREXIT: It will come as no surprise, but nevertheless as an unpleasant discovery that the role of Philip May, husband of Tory Prime Minister Theresa May is not squeaky clean in all this Brexit catastrophe. In fact he works for a weapons manufacturing company, called Capital Group which is eth largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin, the US military armaments group that manufactures many of the modern weapons systems that are being used in the Yemen and which were also used in the recent attacks on Syria by the USA and UK regimes, without any authorization from the Un or other legal body. His same company, capital is the largest single shareholder in BAE systems, which actually manufactured the rockets that so spectacularly attacked Syria, called Shadow Storm missiles. The UK government launched 8 Shadow Storm missiles at facilities in Syria, none of which have been objectively proved to be involved in chemical weapons manufacture, but which were said to be so by the UK government. These actions were taken by the UK government without consulting parliament, which is itself now illegal under UK law – but the way they got round this was by not making any declaration of war against Syria. The sad fact of the matter is that Theresa May’s absolute determination to push Brexit though come what may, is as a result possibly of pressure from her husband Philip May and his contacts in the arms industry, who want to be able to make and drop their bombs and rockets wherever and whenever they want, at the behest of their Middle East clients and customers, with no control or say so from the interfering European Parliament, or even, it would see from the European parliament,


14.SAUDI ARABIA AND DUP MONEY: One of the worst features of recent UK politics is the way that an extremist Unionist and Protestant faction in the politics of Northern Ireland has been used to push through brexit against the interest and expressed wishes of the Scottish and Northern Irish people, let alone a vast and growing number of English and Welsh voters. The problem of course is that Ulster Protestants are so used to being attacked and told they are in the wrong, that to accuse them of this simple makes them more stubborn and determined to see out the opposition. This is how they have survived for so long. But this situation is different. There is something afoot in brexit which the average loyal Ulster Protestant has simply not been told, and deliberately so. The money which has propped up the DUP in power and which has bought them power, prestige and influence, seems to have come indirectly from Saudi Arabian intelligence sources. Someone in Scotland literally handed over large sums of money which were then used by the DUP during the 2016 referendum to help persuade Northern Irish voters to elect the DUP into government. By joining up these dots, we are seeing then that once again Saudi Arabia, a state which is so backward in its political ethics that it thinks imprisoning people for carrying a bible, or beheading people for kissing their lover, or which cuts up intellectual critics into little pieces – a state which does all this, can buy the influence and loyalty of Ulster protestants, willy nilly, and there will be no accounting. It is also incredible that the Ulster protestant community have hitherto boasted some fine Christian thinkers, such as C/S. Lewis, yet now they have stooped so low as to ally themselves, whether they realise it or not, with a despotic Saudi Arabian regime with blood on its hands, and whose policies and wealth are ultimately driving the brexit agenda, only to boost its own prestige and power and arms sales, at the behest of British intelligence and arms dealing circles. The Dup are hiding behind a legal fig leaf which means that they do not have to declare foreign source of money given to northern Irish parties ? Whereas in England they do. Why on earth is this ? This law should be immediately rectified and altered so that the Saudi Arabian origin of this money can be verified and confirmed fully and transparently.


15.ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BREXIT ON THE UK: The economic damage done the UK by Brexit already is incaluable. Many banks, companies and industries are already taking their business outside the of the UK. The Japanese car manufacturer Nissan is warning it may relocate or at least scale down its business if the UK leaves the EU. Land rover and many other important business ventures are saying the same. Even some of the core business of the Nat West bank, which is about as British a bank as you can get, has announced it will be leaving the UK when Brexit goes ahead. The value of the pound has collapsed by many percentage points in the chaos after brexit, and the damage done to the overall UK economy has been explained in depth by the governor of the bank of England, Mark Carney, to anyone who can read or has ears to listen. Yet still the Brexit extremists continue to punish their illogical and irrational course. This is not however irrational if we explore the hypothesis that the forces behind Brexit, and who have engineered it, and effectively bought the democratic mandate of the tiny majority who voted in favour of this catastrophe, actually originate in offshore multi-millionaires, who either think they will benefit personally from Brexit (by a looser regime over their own financial interests) or who think that it will help utterly crash and bankrupt the UK economic as a whole, and that has been their secret agenda all along. Whatever, it is a catastrophe of epic proportions, based on a mixture of self-harming and also direct attacks on the future wellbeing of the UK. The incredible thing is that whereas the UK Prime Minister and her cabinet, and the Queen and her privy council are supposed to be acting in the best interests of the nation and people of the UK as a whole, in this case it would appear that most of them have sold out, or possibly been bought by foreign wealth payments, to literally buy their silence as the ship of state goes down. There is no other possible explanation, unless you simply think that these brexit UK people are simply not intelligent enough to have worked out the long term consequences of their policies as given in this newsletter. That also is possible,


16.FINANCIAL THINKERS AND BREXIT: Here is a real statement from a real person who explained why they supported brexit:  I’m a finance trader and yes finance, as with all things in life are a gamble but I deal in calculated gambles, and leaving the EU will leave the UK far more wealthy in the coming years than remaining. Many of us will be making our fortunes shortly after Brexit on the knee jerk reactions of the likes of yourself when the value of the pound is expected to crash. It will recover within the follow 14 months. The value of the euro is expected to crash far below the dollar in the next 5 years. Italy is expected to follow Britain’s exit from the EU with France not too far behind. The EU isn’t the utopia you’ve convinced yourself it is, it is at the end of days” I found this an extraordinary admission from some who works in financial circles, but it explains in microcosm the thinking behind this influential and powerful lobby in favour of brexit: to put the statements in logical format:

1) The financial lobby intends to make huge profits off brexit once the pound crashes as it will after brexit 2) They w manipulate the markets and essentially bankrupt the UK, buy off its assets cheaply on behalf of private foreign capitalists, get rich dividends and make a fortune personally. Meanwhile the fact that the UK population will be hit by economic collapse means nothing to them. The fact that the UK will break up over this means nothing to them, the fact that the Scots will simply leave the UK and then there will ensure years of argument over who owes which bit of the national debt, England or Scotland, or who owns which bit of the North sea oil fields, means nothing to them. Because they will be making a “killing” of profits from the near collapse of the once great Britain. 3) We will also ensure through market manipulation that the Euro crashes in value – and we, the proud brexiteers will bring down the Euro to its knees, thus proving the superiority of the Pound over the Euros any day. So we will effectively crash the economy of the entire EU. Let the people of France, Italy, Spain etc. all join the queue for the food banks. We the rich money market manipulators, well we will have our millions stashed in offshore bank accounts like in Jersey for the Cayman islands or Panama. Why should we worry ? 4) After we have crashed the UK, and made our fortune, we shall next go on and crash the economy of Italy. We will force it took to think in populist terms, as if nationalism is going to save them. And they too will vote in a populist government that will latke them in turn out of the EU. This will further weaken and cripple the whole EU project. We the financial money men will be laughing all this while, because it will be proving brexit was the right thing to do. 5) next after that we will manipulate the market sand force the French economy to its knees and then we will ensure that populist governments like Le Pen get elected in France and they do a Brexit. They will think that nationalism will also save them, but of course it won’t. It will near destroy the French economy, but we, the money men, will be making our killing and stashing our millions, so what do we care ? So in sum my boy, the EU is a fools dream, we are going to bring it down, piece by piece and the UK Brexit is the kick starter of this entire operation,. We are laughing about all this and cannot wait to get brexit rolling so we can bank our profits.. The above summary of the points this financial trader made to me, are a translation of what he was saying.. and indicate a certain type of person who always thinks in terms of how the economy can personally suit their own profits and make them a killing,. They don’t think in terms of social capital, social cohesiveness, social justice, fairness, equality or the impact of economic policies on democracy and human rights, or whether there are such things as social rights, or whether investments should to some extent be controlled or moderated by social concerns – none of this is of interest. Everything is driven by naked hard capitalism,. The dogs can eat the dogs, and the naked can be flung into the ditch. I was shocked when I revived the above message on my facebook wall, but am also immensely grateful to this (real_ person for sharing exactly how he feels about brexit. I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people in the UK who work the money markets who are thinking the same. And there are no doubt thousands abroad who likewise cannot wait for the economic collapse and destruction of the UK, since they can dive in like vultures and pick off its assets cheap. But as a moral philosopher I find this abhorrent. Yet has all the worst attitudes of what Naomi Klein has called Disaster Capitalism. It makes profits out of peoples chaos and sufferings. This is what we are up against,. And it is why we need to stop brexit before it is too late.     DISASTER CAPITALISM will thrive in the aftermath of a  NO DEAL BREXIT, which is why the Tory Party, the mouthpiece of disaster capitalism, are pushing the UK towards that particular precipice. They literally want Britain to go over a cliff, because they know, from their private equity firms, that way lies the greatest profits. And the people ? Top hell with the people, they think – the rich alone matter in society. The poor are just going to die anyway, early and in rags..



17.EUROPEAN UNION MEDIATION SERVICE: This is a proposal on the table from IIPSGP, that  a professional and politically supported international mediation service should be created under the auspices of the European Union, comprising recognised experts in mediation and conflict prevention, ready instantly to offer mediation expertise in cases of conflicts involving European Union member states, their neighbouring states, and any European or Mediterranean state that wishes to join the mediation service as Associate members. Only full members of the European Union would be eligible for full membership of the EU Mediation Service. The EUMS would be brought into being by special treaty of member nations of the EU.  It would be staffed by a secretariat based in Venice, and financed by a sufficient budget made available through the EU. The purpose of the EU Mediation Service would be to have available a team of  expert mediation professionals, trained to the very highest professional standards, to be drawn on by the European Union and by the Presidency of the  EU, and by the Foreign Affairs Minister of the European Union,  in case of international crises affecting any European country, especially European Union member countries. Each member country of the EU would be asked to nominate a team of 10 meditation experts, and to make them available to stand-by in case of emergency. Each member state would select its own team of 10 mediators according to its own methods and protocols, according to an agreed rubric. The mediators would be either senior academics, judges, trained mediation professionals, religious studies experts, political scientists, philosophers, or people of similar calibre from other professional backgrounds. They would be able to be neutral and impartial and above reproach in matters of international conflict resolution, and of above average intelligence and wisdom. They would have a known commitment to peace, conflict resolution, non-violence and dialogue as a way of solving conflicts. Collectively the body of expert mediators would be known as the Panel of Mediators. The panel would, over time, by treaty be required to achieve gender parity, with 5 men and 5 women being appointed in each three year cycle of appointment. Gender parity would be observed at all levels of the operation of the EUMS. The Co-Chairmanship of the  Panel of Mediators within each country would be by appointment within each country elected from within the Panel of Mediators (one man and one woman). European Members of Parliament, and indeed ordinary European citizens,  would have the right to initiate formal mediation requests for mediation intervention on behalf of the EUMS, in cases of dispute involving either an EU member nation, or an associate member nation, but the EUMS would have the duty to work out which were within its remit and which not. This proposal, which was first put forward by IIPSGP in 2008, is still on the table and has not yet come into being. Meanwhile the wars have broken out in Ukraine, Syria, Libya etc. and the conflict in Israel-Palestine has continued unabated, and now Yemen has flared up.



18.GOVERNMENT BY PRIVY COUNCIL ? In the debates which took place subsequently to the bombing action against Syria in Aprils 2018, during which the UK missiles destroyed the most important scientific research institute in Syria, which was doing important medical and ecological work and apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with chemical weapons research, there was a special day of debates given over to the important moral and legal implications of this action. The negative propaganda by  the UK government claimed that the UK government had “evidence that Syria was developing chemical weapons in the sites hit”. The government refused to share this evidence with parliament however, but shared it with the Privy Council only. This means, as the editor made plain in a letter addressed to the Speaker of the Commons, that the government of the UK had effectively been relocated in the Privy council and removed from the House of Commons. If policy matters of war and peace are now being decided not in the Commons but by the Privy Council, then it follows that legally speaking the UK source of sovereignty has shifted back to the privy Council from tem the Commons. But this is how it used to be in the UK before the parliamentary side won the English civil war. Are we really going back to an absolutist government by monarchy and privy council ? This has huge constitutional implications. I doubt that the people of the UK as a whole would approve of this constitutional move if they were ever consulted. This expedient however is how the Conservative Party has now been ruling more than ever, and pushing laws through the UK parliament, under what are called the Henry 8th privileges. This means effectively that the Crown in Parliament can do whatever they like, when they want to . The problem is however that the Queen herself is not permitted to have a political view, so she remains a kind of ventriloquists dummy being manipulated by whoever her Prime Minister of the day is. But this cannot be right. If the Queen has been so manipulated as to be having to rubber stamp polices which she knows in her heart to be against the well fare of the British people and indeed the entire kingdom of the UK and Northern Ireland, then does she not then have a constitutional duty to resist and desist from giving her approval. Let us play a worst case intellectual game. Let us imagine that the entire senior Tory party higher echelon had indeed been bought, and corrupted by bribes coming from a foreign country; let us imagine the same had happened to the entire senior intelligence agents of the UK intelligence agencies. Let us say that the same had happened to the entire senior members of the Privy Council who are supposed to be advising her. Let us say that all these persons had indeed been corrupted and bought by foreign interests who are working diametrically in opposition to the long term interests of the UK, and indeed have only one goal in hand, which is the destruction of the UK. Let us imagine the Queen finds this out, as someone loyal to truth in her entourage manages to get through and lays the facts before her on the table. What is she to do ? Should she hide behind the constitutional fig leaf that she is “a constitutional monarch” and therefore not allowed to have any political views whatevever ? I don’t think so somehow. She surely at that point is required by her oath of allegiance to the British people she made when she was anointed, and her coronation oath before God, that she should speak out and resist actions being forced on her by unscrupulous, ignorant and possibly malevolent ministers. She therefore most certainly has a constitutional right  to protest. And if she is not listened to, then she has a constitutional right to abdicate. Yet further evidence of the way in which the Brexit faction have shown their contempt for Parliament is the way that the Brexit Secretary, Dominic Raab, has refused to come before the Parliamentary Lords EU Committee in reply to a written request to him to give evidence before it on the progress of negotiations and planning contingencies for Brexit. He stated in a written reply on October 23 “that he will be unable to attend or to give evidence to the committee until after a deal with the EU has been finalised.” But given that this is unlikely to happen and that we are facing a blank void, the committee has written back to say this is unacceptable, since it inhibits the Committee in fulfilling its obligations in scrutinising the progress of Brexit negotiations”. The Lords EU Committee has also called on the Government to ensure that enough time is allowed between an agreement being reached and any “meaningful vote” so that committees can make recommendations to the two Houses. Reports suggest recently that the time allowed for committees to report on the agreement and the “political declaration” on future EU-UK relations might be as little as ten days”. This shows once more the contempt in which the Brexit led government is abusing its parliamentary privilege to keep parliament itself in the dark about Brexit, and simply to push it through with the rest of us, even Parliamentarians, in the dark until the last minute. A recent trip by leading anti-Brexit parliamentarians to the EU however, has called on the EU to be prepared to delay article 50 until time for a second referendum to be held.


19.ORDER OF PEACE POETS, BARDS AND DRUIDS ON BREXIT & COUNCIL OF BRITISH DRUID ORDERS: OPPBD is an international order of Druids, poets and Bards opposed to war and militarism, which was founded on Bredon Hill in the 1990’s and whose Archdruid, Thomas Daffern, took part in the famous Struga Poetry Festival in 1998.1999 and 2000 reading his poetry, and meeting poets from many countries worldwide. It is one of the few networks of poet’s for peace in the world, but takes the view that poets need to be more pro-active when it comes to peacebuilding. The European continent, although it has suffered grievous wars over the centuries, has also been a land of inspired poets and bards, from the days of Homer and Amergin, Virgil and Taliesin, down to those of Shakespeare, Dante and Goethe. All the greatest poets of European civilisation have believed that peace is preferable to war, and their poetry is really an attempt to convince their fellow men and women to eschew violence and to practice the arts of eloquence, poetry and the divine inspiration (Awen) that originates from  the Muses. The Druids and Bards were the ancient poets and spiritual elders of Celtic civilisation which once spread widely across North Western European, including the entire British Isles, but also France (Gaul), Brittany, Austria, Switzerland, Northern Spain, Northern Italy etc. Many famous European cities were originally Celtic cities founded by the druids including Salzburg, Strasbourg, Vienna, Luibliana, London, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paris, Lyon, Milan, Brussels and so on. The ancient history of Celtic Europe shows that the Druids were sworn to peace and lamented the  cruel invasion of their lands by the Roman armies led by Julius Caesar, The Order has been a member of the Council of British Druid Orders since 1998, and its Archdruid has served as Peace Officer to that council since 1999, specialising in mediation work and bringing Druids and neo-again groups into dialogue with officials over Stonehenge and other political campaigns involving human rights,. As peace officer to the council Archdruid Daffern has warned about the likely impact of Brexit and its result in breaking up the UK, and although from a Druid perspective one might appreciate the independence of Scotland and the reunification of Ireland that will ensue, the more negative impact will be the serious economic downturn for the UK as a whole as a result of this break up, and also dislocation between Europe and the UK that will generate animosities and hurts that will not easily heal. Many UK citizens have now made their homes in Europe, and many Europeans have moved to live in the UK. All this will be threatened. Any possible gains that would come from Brexit will be far outweighed by these negative impacts. For this reason, having made a considered evaluation of the situation, Daffern has put the whole weight of his own ORDER OF PEACE POETS, BARDS AND DRUIDS in opposition to the Brexit plans of the Conservative government, who do not in his view deserve the name of “conservative” as their policies will dismember the UK for ever and cause incaluable damage elsewhere. As Peace officer to the Council Daffern has also made his warning clear, and informed his fellow senior Druids that this will be the most likely outcome of the brexit fiasco. Having  moved his main base to France from Scotland in 2017, Daffern also feels that the ancient Druid connections across Europe as a whole are worth preserving and fighting for. In ancient times, Druids and others were able to freely pass throughout the European continent as a whole, and were respected and listened to wherever they were found. The European Union, for all its faults, has created this space of common movement and common idealism and peace, throughout most of the European continent and including most of the ancient Celtic heartlands. To jeopardise all this on a fool’s errand is the height of political responsibility. Druids were also the intelligentsia, historians, storytellers, lawyers, judges, and “knowledge keepers” of the peoples of Celtic Europe, and we still are. Brexit is an affront to all the generations of UK and European citizens who have struggled for peace and unity and finally brought into being a European Union, which although not perfect is much better than the strident competitive nationalism which it replaced and which brought us two horrendous world wars in which millions of people were slaughtered.


20.UK MAY HAVE KICK STARTED WORLD WAR ONE DELIBERATELY – this is the shocking result of an important historical study called HIDDEN HISTORY: THE SECRET ORIGINS OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor,  (Mainstream, Edinburgh and London, 2013). The findings of these two Scottish historians is that the London financial elites deliberately engineered world war one in order to prevent the rise of Germany as a threat to their imperial ambitions and financial stranglehold of the world, undertaken in the name of capitalism. Cecil Rhodes and Milner and other British imperialists, were in close touch with city financial interests, who in turn were in close cabal with the British military intelligence and espionage world, and secretly they put in place plans to engineer the outbreak of world war one. The book reveals that the Kaiser did his best to keep the reaction to the murder of the crown prince of Austria-Hungarian Emperor to a small local conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, which would have resulted in a  swift defeat and punishment for Serbia, after which the Austria troops could have gone home and life resumed as normal. Instead the British intelligence circles deliberately fanned the flames of war mobilisation in Russia, and escalated the whole thing into a situation in which the Kaiser himself would be forced to counter-mobilise. They achieved this by having essentially bought the loyalties of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sazanov, over and above his allegiance to the Tsar, and then did the same in France, where they organized the mobilisation of the French troops for war on Germany. Faced with a potential war on two fronts, the German military machine under Moltke then was forced to counter-mobilise although the Kaiser tried to prevent this as long as possible. On the very last few days before the war, The Tsar, trying desperately to stop the war breaking out, sent a personal messenger direct to the Kaiser in Berlin to try to organize a persona peace treaty to be signed by the Kaiser and the Tsar direct, but Sazanov, at the behest of the British secret service which had penetrated the Russian Foreign ministry, had this courier marched off the train and arrest just before it left St Petersburg station to Berlin. The implications of this book are horrific if understood properly, and it should be read and discussed by historians all over Europe. What is interesting is that it reveals that the same financial interests that run the city of London as may have organized world war one, are now again at work behind organising brexit. Secret financial elites think they will benefit if Brexit is implemented, and they want to see London restored again as financial capital of the world with no opposition from the European Union. The irony is that Brexit has actually caused a haemorrhage of jobs from London, and that London has already lost its status as the world’s financial capital following the disastrous Brexit nightmare. Anyone who opposes Brexit should read this book and realise, oh no, we have been here before ! It is also a fact that the City of London has an officer who can walk around on the floor of the House of Commons at will and whisper into the ear of many sitting MP or Lord and given opinions that such and such is the view of the city of London. It is probable that the City of London remembrance (as they are called) has made known that Brexit is in their interest, and thus it has been implemented. The joke is that with time it is becoming apparent that Brexit is absolutely not in the interest of the City of London. London has recently lost to new York its status as financial capital of the world. Looks like the Remembrancer has forgotten.. let us hope that the Remembrancer can indeed have a word to the contrary quietly in their Lordship’s ears..


21.QUEEN VICTORIA AND CRIMEAN WAR AND RUSSOPHOBIA – A common feature of the Brexit debates pro and contra has been speculation about the role of Russia. Some people are convinced that Russia seeks the breakup of the UK and of the Europe Union, and therefore subtly  influenced the outcome of the results in favour of brexit, both by funding key figures in the leavers campaign, and also by direct interference in social media campaigns opposing the European Union. A part of the rhetoric of anti-Europeanism that the extreme right brexiteers have whipped up is an anti Russian hysteria, which accuses Russian of even trying to poison people on the streets of London or Salisbury. Coupled with this has been a widespread attack on Putin for backing President Assaad of Syria. But this Russophobia is nothing new – it has been part of the established “wisdom” of the UK foreign policy elites ever since the Crimean War, when Russia was regarded as a backward nation that needed liberating from the grip of feudalism and Tsardom. Queen Victoria herself had a personal hatred of all things Russian, according to a new book on the history of the Crimea war, and personally goaded her Prime Ministers to launch the Crimean War, in the name of “liberalism”. This Russophobia then influenced the rest of the Victorian era, and the great game” of Russian versus Britain war fought out in Central Asia and the British feared that Russia would threaten their stranglehold on India. But what if Russophobia has all along been an intellectual mistake  ? What if actually Russian has been consistently and historical a reliable ally to Britain ? After all, Britain would have lost to Napoleon and been occupied by French troops if it hadn’t been for the Russian army. Likewise in World War one, the UK would have lost to Germany without Russian support. Finally, in world war two, there is no question that Hitler would easily have conquered the UK and occupied it, without the active heroism of Russian troops on the Eastern frontier fighting back the most savage assault in the lands of Mother Russia. Those people who oppose the European Union normally accuse it of being too friendly to Russia, as if that is a crime, given that Russia is a land based superpower on Europe’s eastern frontier, with tremendous cultural, intellectual, historical and economic ties to Europe as a whole. Rather than continuing with the extreme anti-Russian sentiments of the Brexiteers, a more realistic and moderate response to Russia would be to keep the European Union strong and united, and to work out a lasting trade deal between the EU and Russian just as  we have with Canada for example, or recently with Japan. If the conflict in Ukraine can be mediated (as it can) and if a European Union Mediation Service can be created to achieve this effectively, and relations normalised with Moscow, then we can put to bed the long ghosts of the Crimean war and we can realise that cultivating extremists Islamist Jihadis from the Middle East in order to destabilise and attack Russian interests, is a fools game that can only end in tears.


22.TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR BRITAIN AND IRELAND: As Chairman and founder of this body, the editor of this Journal is convened that the imposition of Brexit onto the people of Northern Ireland is against the national interest of both the UK and Ireland itself. The only result of this will be to force the people of Northern Ireland to make the fateful choice of reuniting with the Republic of Ireland in a united Ireland which will send and end to the presence of northern Ireland inside the UK. Some people would say this is karmic payback time for the rulers of the UK state in Westminster, and that the eventual reunification of Ireland as a Republic, which would remain part of the European Union, is a good outcome to this particular long saga of troubles. What is so extraordinary about the ignorance of those peddling Brexit however is their complete lack of understanding of the depth and pain of the time of Troubles in recent Irish history. Do they really think it is a good idea to go back to the killings and cruelties of the times of conflict that took place in Northern Ireland without our lifetimes ? The European Union and the Good Friday agreement had brought about peace and lasting healing was moving forward in Ireland and in its own small way the TRCBI has played a role in this process. Yet all that is now threatened. The ignorance of the Brexit cabal who have captured control of the once great conservative party and who have struck a deal with the most extremist and bigoted of the Protestant ascendancy in Northern Ireland, are trying to dismantle all that has been achieved tine hw ay of peacemaking in the last 20 years since the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998. When the current author was teaching at the University of London he remembers teaching a class on peace philosophy in Kingsley Hall in the East end of London and hearing the rattling of the windows caused by a huge bomb which went off in Canary Wharf complex of buildings, set by the Irish Republic Army IRA). Do we really want to go back to this cycle of bombings and murders, and atrocities committed by both sides ? To give people an inkling of what it was like, recently a book has been published by the survivor of the Miami Showband  Massacre, Stephen Travers. This event was terrible and shows us exactly what went no back in those days. he Miami Showband killings/ The attack was carried out on 31 July 1975 by the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a loyalist paramilitary group. It took place on the A1 road at Buskhill in County Down, Northern Ireland. Five people were killed, including three members of The Miami Showband, who were at the time one of Ireland’s most popular cabaret bands. The band comprised both Catholic and Protest members, and was a success on the Irish music scene both North and South of the Border. The Ladies especially loved the music and the singers, and it was a phenomenon almost akin to the Beatles in terms of Irish history. The 1975 line-up comprised four Catholics and two Protestants. They were: lead vocalist and keyboard player Fran O’Toole (28, Catholic), guitarist Anthony “Tony” Geraghty (24, Catholic) from Dublin, trumpeter Brian McCoy (32, Protestant) from Caledon, County Tyrone, saxophonist Des McAlea (aka “Des Lee”), 24, a Catholic from Belfast, bassist Stephen Travers (24, Catholic) from Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary and drummer Ray Millar (Protestant) from Antrim. O’Toole and McCoy were both married; each had two children. Geraghty was engaged to be married.  The reason they were targeted by the Ulster extremists was precisely because they did not like the kind of inter-denominational harmony that they stood for, and resented the fact that here were protestant and catholic musicians getting along well together and creating harmony,. So the Protestants, ever a dour lot, targeted them viciously and most cruelly, in order to send the chill of fear into the hearts of all who actually wanted peace. The lead singer, was shot in the face nearly 20 times, and his face blown up to an unrecognizable pulp. Why ?  because the ladies loved his voice ? What madmen would commit crimes like this ? Well it’s the same lot as are engineering the brexit nightmare, as the biggest roadblock in the entire history of the UK. The band was travelling home to Dublin late at night after a performance in Banbridge. Halfway to Newry, their minibus was stopped at what appeared to be a military checkpoint where gunmen in British Army uniforms ordered them to line up by the roadside. At least four of the gunmen were actually “off duty” soldiers from the British Army’s Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), and all were members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF). Two of the gunmen, both soldiers, died when the time bomb they were hiding on the minibus exploded. The other gunmen then opened fire on the dazed band members, killing three and wounding two. It is believed that the bomb was meant to explode en route, so that the victim band members would appear to be IRA bomb-smugglers and stricter security measures would be established at the border. This was the stupid reason for the massacre. The UVF forces withdrew, and thought (mistakenly) they had killed everyone, but two survivors finally made it to a local hospital after having feigned to be dead, and one of them has now written his story (Travers, Stephen, The Miami Showband Massacre). Eventually, two active British soldiers and one former British soldier were found guilty of the murders and received life sentences; they were released in 1998. Those responsible for the attack belonged to the Glenanne gang, a secret alliance of loyalist militants, rogue police officers, and British soldiers. There are also indications that British military intelligence agents were involved. According to former Intelligence Corps agent Captain Fred Holroyd, the killings were organised by British intelligence officer Robert Nairac, together with the UVF’s Mid-Ulster Brigade and its commander Robin “The Jackal” Jackson. The Historical Enquiries Team ( a paralle group to the work of the Truth and RECONCILIATION  Commission of Britain and Ireland) investigated the killings and released their report to the victims’ families in December 2011. It confirmed that Jackson was linked to the attack by fingerprints. The massacre dealt a huge blow to Northern Ireland’s live music scene, which had brought young Catholics and Protestants together in peace and celebration. It was the end of the Hippie Era in Ireland, the long Summer of Love – which in Ireland blew up in a cloud of smoke and a hail of bullets.  So is it back to these brave old days that we would march ? Do not think so somehow – true bards, true musicians, true poets, and true philosophers and historians alike say “No to brexit – and no to any more Showband massacres, thank you very much We want the  European Union to remain in place and to continue to guarantee the open borders of the Ireland, and to complete the work of healing that has been going on since 1998 and the Good Friday agreement. This is why a second UK wide referendum on whether or not to leave the EU is in everybody’s interest. If the people of the UK again vote to leaved, then the people of Northern Ireland must be given a choice as to joining the Republic of Ireland in a united state, and remain gin the EU in that way. Meanwhile, more than 1,000 people in the north of Ireland – from the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland – including representatives from the arts, business, education, sport, law and medicine have written an open letter to the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, asking him to defend the rights of Irish citizens in the region. “We collectively seek to give expression to a deep sense of fear in respect of the current Brexit negotiations,” said a spokesman. “We urge the taoiseach and the Irish government to stand firm in these negotiations, to stand up for the Good Friday Agreement and a rights-based society, and to ensure that rights enjoyed in Donegal will continue to be enjoyed in Derry.”


23.KARL MARX AND RUSSOPHOBIA – many people think that Marxism is the intellectual answer to the world’s problems, and the UK labour party under its Marxist leader, Jeremy Corbyn, seems to think that the breakup of the European Union is a desirable thing, with Britain leading  the way. Perhaps one reason is that Corbyn’s left wing friends have told him it was EU legislation which prevented the UK labour movement from continuing with its closed-shop practices among trade unions, back in 1989 when in line with European Union legislation the British Labour Party had to change its policy on Trade Union closed shops. Corbyn either ignores the prospect of the breakup of the UK, or secretly wants it. He might well want to the reunification of Ireland because this is a cause he has been committed to for many years. So realising that the reunification of Ireland is a guaranteed thing after brexit, he might find this a secret reason for supporting Brexit. He also likes the idea of Scotland going it alone, because they have said they will get rid of the UK’s nuclear weapons fleet from Scottish shores and at that time, if in power, he would probably seek to have nuclear weapons abolished from the UK altogether.  He also opposes the European Union because he ideologically hates capitalism and want to see a socialist system built in what remains of the UK, presumably just England,  as Wales will certainly leave the UK given a chance). But do Corbyn and his band of Marxist intellectuals who he has gathered round him to take over the labour party actually realise what kind of a man Karl Marx was ? Have they done their homework ? At the end of reading a speech from Victor Hugo about the importance of peace to European civilisation, at the recent World Intellectual Forum meeting in France,   Thomas Daffern shared something that most people didn’t know, but which he had found out from his own researches, namely that Karl Marx had been invited to attend  a conference on peace a few years later in 1867, when Marx was Chair of the International Workingmen’s Association. This invitation came from the International League of Peace and Freedom (the forerunner of today’s International Peace Bureau)  which was supported by Victor Hugo, John Stuart Mill, Herzen, Garibaldi and even Bakunin, as a forum for discussing peace, a bit like the World Intellectual Forum of its day. It was in fact the director forerunner of today’s International Peace Bureau (see #55).  The League was holding a conference in Switzerland at the same time as the International Workingmen’s Association and had invited them to send representation. Marx himself opposed sending anyone to the peace conference, because essentially he said he was in favour of war as a catalyst of social change; he felt that the inevitability of class  conflict could only result in victory for the working classes after a great general war had engulfed Europe and the workingmen of Europe had then seized power through violent revolution. Marx had a particular disdain for Russia and actually wanted Germany to invade Russia in order to “civilise her”. In this he was sharing in the general anti-Russian feeling so prevalent in Victorian intellectual circles ever since the Crimean war, and which tragically led directly to World War One and the Bolshevik revolution, which then bifurcated Europe for decades and led not just to world war two, but to the horrors of the Gulag in Stalinist Russia, to the nightmares of Hitlerism in Germany as a counter-force, and to the cold war and the threat of nuclear omnicide. Thomas explained that if only if only Marx had gone to the peace conference in 1867 and met Victor Hugo in amity, instead of calling him a “impotent bourgeois ideologist” history might well have been very different. But Marx actually relished war and saw it as the agent of social progress – his “communist movement” would come and seize power once the war had done its work. And of course this is actually what then happened, after world war one, and in China, after world war two. So is Corbyn schooled in the darkest arts of Marxism ? He seems to think exactly like Marx, that after complete utter chaos has broken out in the UK after brexit, then he will lead the successful Marxist cadres to victory and  restore order in the promised land of Marxist socialism, and we can all blame our woes on capitalism and the EU and the Tories together. Everybody except ourselves for having voted in the monster that is Brexit and which will bring about the demise of the UK.


24.WORLD INTELLECTUAL FORUM – The WIF is a new global think tank, as the equivalent to the World Economic Forum, but with a wider remit, involving all manner of intellectuals and not simply economists. The world’s complex interlocking problems are too serious to be left simply to economists, who arguably have been responsible for some of the causes of the current crisis we find ourselves in. Certainly, the contemporary national and international scenarios in socio-economic, political, ethnic and cultural domains are throwing up many issues, problems and challenges. For the WIF,  these issues and problems are to be clearly identified and solutions are to be found. In this context, independent and unbiased thinking with a free mind in identifying, analysing and suggesting solutions would go a long way. An Independent ‘Think Tank’ approach involving intellectuals, scholars, scientists, public men and women and social animators need to be evolved to brainstorm periodically on issues of importance in international context and to bring out approach papers and provide policy inputs for development in the overall global context and for global peace, security and harmony. With this objective in view, the World Intellectual Forum is established. The WORLD INTELLECTUAL FORUM shall function, mostly in a virtual mode, as a powerful platform for expression of Intellectuals’ consensus and shall demand from the power wielding authorities, impact creating decisions reflecting justice and fair play for the needy, on the strength of reverse hierarchy. The Members of WIF shall be Nobel Laureates, Eminent Scientists, Individuals and Civil Societies who believe in its Objectives and committed for all the causes which sustain peace, harmony, tranquillity, equality and respect for nature and all its creations. The First Annual Conference of the Global Network For Peace, Disarmament And Development (GNET-PEDAD) and Second Annual Conference of the World Intellectual Forum (WIF) is taking place in Hyderabad, India, on  13 – 15th December, 2018 with the Focal Theme: World Peace and Disarmament. As European Coordinator of the World intellectual Forum, the director of this Journal believes strongly that Brexit makes no intellectual sense – it will harm the integrity of the UK and lead to its break up as a nation, and will also destabilise the European Union as a whole, causing unnecessary complications, frustrations and conflicts for years to come. In Ireland particularly Brexit will lead to the return of a hard border and a resumption of open conflict among the extremists who do not wish to see peace prevail. Intellectually then, the case for Brexit is long past its sell by date, and need to be exposed mercilessly at every opportunity, In fact it is a largely anti-intellectual position that is taken by the brexiteers, who like to attack intellectuals – but as the 1930’s taught us, when they start attacking intellectuals, and burning books, soon they burn the intellectuals. Brexit has more than a whiff of national socialism about it, and for this reason if no other, all thinking people throughout the U.K and Europe should oppose it, as antithetical to the founding ideals of the European Union, which is premised on a kind of soft liberal social-democracy / Christian Democracy. An 80 page newsletter of the World Intellectual Forum is available from Dr. Thomas Daffern in PDF.


10.THE SILENCE OF THE INTELLECTUALS – it is a strange feature of the Brexit debate that not many, or at least not enough, genuine intellectuals have been speaking up inside the UK against the follies of brexit. They seem to have bought the argument that “the people voted for brexit in 2016 and to question that is to challenge democracy itself”. However, The situation is not however irrevocably decided. Although a small majority of votes cast (in England and Wales) were in favour of Brexit as opposed to Remain, the fact that many people did not vote, or voted Remain in other regions, meaning this is hardly truly indicative of the true will of the entire British people. A vote not cast is in effect a vote for the status quo, which is therefore a vote to remain in the EU. Here are the figures: Of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU), of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters did not vote to leave the EU What it means, is that if we are to leave the EU, 34% of the voters will have imposed their will over 64% of the rest. This is hardly a ringing mandate for such a massive change affecting the nation for years to come, and indeed, affecting the entire history of Europe. Or to put this another way, the combined number of voters who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742. The combined total of those voters who either voted to remain in the EU or who voted to keep the status quo by not voting at all, was 29,089,259. which is 64% of the total. So to question the imposition of Brexit is hardly treason, but many pundits and especially the BBC and the mass media, keep trying to silence those who question it. Hopefully the march on October 20 will give more courage to those of us who continue to challenge and question the outcome of the implementation of the advisory referendum in 2016, as if it were set in stone. The entire national conversation has moved on, and it is obvious that the will of the majority of the people of the UK is now set against Brexit. Some intellectuals are beginning to raise their heads over the parapets, and the editor of this Journal is one of them. Another is Professor A C Grayling whose the New college of the Humanities in Bloomsbury, where IIPSGP was also founded back in 1991. others who have consistently spoken out against brexit include: the LSE Brexit unit, which has produce reams of documentation proving that brexit will be very damaging indeed for the UK economy. One reason why intellectuals have been keeping quiet is because Conservative MP’s have been trying to witch-hunt anti-brexit academics on the university campuses of the UK. The Chancellor of the University of Worcester protested against this demand from the Conservative party to reveal the names of academics who were anti brexit, and who might be teaching as much to their students. The Conservative MP Chris Heaton-Harris was the MP who demanded this information, but was rebuffed by David Green and others. The Daily Mail then launched a front page article blaming UK academics for teaching against brexit, and also gave the names of the head of 14 Oxford Colleges, outing them as “loony leftists”, and claiming they were opposing Brexit. The irony of the Daily Mail’s position is apparently beyond its own powers of self-criticism given that most Marxist leftists are supporting Jeremy Corbyn in his attempt to help break up the UK, for his own purposes of destroying capitalism from within.


  1. BOOK ON 9/11 AND ROLE OF SAUDI ARABIA, UK AND USA- 9/11 HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION – the Director of IIPSGP is about to publish the first detailed historical study of the events of 9/11 and to ask the pertinent questions from all possible angels of historical research. It is the intention to then launch an INTERNATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION INTO 9/11 which will be the first time that professional historians have got involved in studying this complex case. The Commission will be open to historians who have conducted research already on the history of 9/11 and who are interested to sit on the International commission. This body will be run by IIPSGP, and WIF members, in so far as they have actual historical training and professional qualifications, will be invited to sit on the Commission as well. The Commission will maintain rigorous intellectual standards for evidence gathering and hopefully eventually come up with the final facts about who caused the events of 9/11, and which of the roughly 10 hypotheses that we are pursuing actually turns out to be accurate. Although not taking place on European shores, the events of 9/11 sent out huge ripples through time and space, which have impacted negatively on Europe’s history. By launching a series of false wars in the Middle East, especially the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the USA and UK have created an enormous destabilisation in the Middle East, which then over spilled to Syria and in turn caused massive migration movements into Europe from people fleeing the combat zones. All of this was a direct and immediate result of the policy taken up by Bush and Blair following 9/11 namely to go after Saddam Hussein, in a series of faked propaganda allegations, that he has “something to do with 9/11” claims which were demonstrably false and manufactured. The European nations on the whole refused to get embroiled in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and France for example did not send troops. But all of Europe has suffered the consequences afterwards, and the Middle East itself has been widely destabilised. It is against this backdrop that the work of the Commission, based in France, will be subjecting all the various hypotheses to the most rigorous testing and historical analysis. The one hypothesis, that seems to have the least credence of all, is the “official” one put out by Bush and Blair, namely that Al Qaeda, alone and unaided, under the control of Osama Bin Laden, organised the whole attack on 9./11 unaided, and without anyone helping them from within the USA security system. Yet architects, scientists and engineers have conclusively proved that the twin towers in New York cannot have collapsed as they did without the buildings having been internally wired. The question which our Commission will therefore examine historically is who might have pre-wired these buildings, and why, and on whose authorisation. It is unlikely we will get peace in the Middle East, and therefore peace in Europe, till these matters have been cleared up objectively and historically once and for all. The sinister probability is that all the evidence points to the fact that whoever engineered 9/11 was also behind the event of Brexit. There are innumerable dots that can be joined up to point in the direction, for example, of Saudi Arabia has having a huge investment in seeing Brexit pushed through against the real long term interests of the UK and Europe. Saudi Arabia is on record as wanting to destroy the European Union, and by co-organising waves of migrants fleeing from wars that it is sponsoring through its jihadists in Syria, it is partly responsible for the complete meltdown of confidence in the European Union to protect our shores that partly led to the Brexit vote. The Saudi Arabian elites also seem to have helped finance the Brexit referendum through channels paying into the DUP in Northern Ireland, who have now become the party that is proposing up the Conservative party in government. Now we have the gruesome and vile nature of the Saudi Arabia regime exposed by the murder of their own moderate Islamic intellectual Kashoggi and it is time to take the scales from our eyes. Brexit is a nightmare cooked up between London city elites, Saudi Arabia billionaires, CIA Agents operating in dark corners of the world, and Mossad destructionists who oppose the European Union for their even handed policy of wanting a two state solution to the problems of Israel-Palestine. All these forces want brexit to succeed and have come together to over-determine its outcome, The Conservative party is merely the puppet that is implementing this policy decision taken in boardrooms and secret intelligence conference rooms from Washington to Tel Aviv to London. The impact on the ordinary people of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England has been calculated in as an “acceptable risk” to their grand game policy. But what these people do not realise is that their time is up. The facts about 9/11 are going to come out and the links of the gamers who organized that tragedy to brexit will be proved beyond all possible doubt. Ultimately, it is the truth itself that is at stake.


  1. EUROPEAN UNION FOUNDERS – many people in the UK do not really know much about the history of the European Union, nor who its founder sand architects were. This is partly because they are never taught European histyory. They are not even taught Irish or Welsh or Scottish history in their schools. Mostly school kids in £England get a very distorted view of world events – they are taught a bit about the Roman invasions of Britannia, then it skips to Norman castle and then to the Tudors and the wives of Henry 8th. Then we get a dose or British parliamentary history up till the end of the second world war, where the UK is hailed as the plucky little nation that defied Hitler, and that is it – nothing else. Such a distorted view of history led to the failure of imagination that underpinned the brexit vote. Without any understanding of why the European Union came into being, and who created it then of course it will be lost by default. The statesmen and women who have supported it over the decades include: Joseph Bech of Luxembourg, who as Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Bech was actively involved in the establishment of the Benelux Customs Union and later the European Coal and Steel Community. Played an important role in preparing the 1955 Messina Conference which paved the way for the establishment of the European Economic Community in 1958. Johan Beyen of the Netherlands, who as Dutch Foreign Minister and one of the principle architects of the common market after 1955 Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom, who as British Prime Minister during World War II, Churchill called for a “United States of Europe”, organised democratically, to prevent future wars in Europe. He even agreed to implement Jen Monnet’s proposal to unite England and France in the dark days of the invasion of France by Nazi Germany in 1940. In other words he felt that pooling sovereignty was a good idea. Without Churchill’s leading the UK to victory in world war two, no European Union could ever have come into being. Alcide De Gasperi of Italy, who as Italian Prime Minister and a skilled mediator, was involved in the creation of the Council of Europe and in creating rapprochement between other European states.Walter Hallstein of West Germany, who was a German academic and diplomat who served as the European Commission’s first president at the European Economic Community and played a notable role in creating the common market Sicco Mansholt of the Netherlands, who as a farmer and member of the Dutch Resistance during World War II where he witnessed the Dutch famine of 1944, Mansholt’s ideas on the need for European self-sufficiency in food formed the basis of the Common Agricultural Policy.Jean Monnet of France, A political and economic advisor, Monnet helped to create the Schuman Declaration of 1950, a milestone Franco-German rapprochement after World War II and the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, and promoted international industrial cooperation.Robert Schuman of France, who as French Foreign Minister between 1948 and 1952, Schuman was responsible for the 1950 Schuman Declaration (together with Jean Monnet) which agreed to place France and Germany’s production of coal and steel under a single international authority, a key milestone towards the European Coal and Steel Community.Paul-Henri Spaak, A Belgian, who as Prime Minister involved in the negotiation of the Benelux Customs Union in 1944 and later appointed to leading roles in the United Nations, NATO, Council of Europe and European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s and 1960s. He played an important role in creating the 1957 Treaty of Rome which led to the foundation of the European Economic Community.Altiero Spinelli of Italy, A left-wing and progressivist politician and convinced federalist, Spinelli was involved in the Italian resistance during World War II and instrumental in the 1941 Ventotene Manifesto. He remained an influential federalist and was author of the 1984 Spinelli Plan, beginning a process which would culminate in the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the European Union. There are many others who helped create the European Union as we know it today, including: Denis de Rougemont, a famous writer and intellectual who wrote on the history of love, Kojeve, a famous Hegelian philosopher who was originally Russian but lived in France, and then ended up working to help create the European Union; Charles de Gaulle, the French Roman Catholic General who led the resistance to Hitter in World War two and gave France back her pride and dignity after traumas of occultation; Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock, Jacques Delors (born 1925), who was a successful Commission President in the 1980’s and 90’s; Lorenzo Natali (1922–1989); Mário Soares (born 1924), Portuguese Prime Minister at the time Portugal acceded the EC; and Pierre Werner (1913–2002) a Prime Minister of Luxembourg. Then we can go further back in time and speak of those who nurtured the idea of European federation from the earliest times, and we can include in this list Immanuel Kant, who said that European federation would one day happen as a logical extension of the innate laws of human reason and common sense; William Penn who dreamed of this also; Rousseau, who felt it was ethically important to achieve European federation one day, with power decentralized to local and regional levels; Jeremy Bentham, who felt that constitutional government would lead to a European federation one day in which peace would be become perpetual between European nations; Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) who founded the association “Young Europe” in 1834 with the vision of a united continent; Victor Hugo (1802–1885) who made a speech where he called for United States of Europe in 1849 at the International Peace Congress of Paris; Milan Hodža (1878–1944) who was famous for his attempts to establish a democratic federation of Central European štáte (book: Federation in central Europe, reflections and reminiscences); Jean de Bloch (1836-1902) peace leader. All this long history is rich and fertile and should be studied by every school child in Europe, with their own local heroes and nuances, but it is seldom touched on. In England Europe is too often treated as if it is a dirty word, and this bias and prejudice has resulted in the tragedy of the Brexit result. But the situation can be reversed, and only through education can we achieve this victory, first a second referendum, and secondly a victory for the common sense option of staying inside the European Union and trying to build it and rebuild t in a better direction, to my mind, in a true peace direction. The irony of the anti-Europeanism shown by the Brexit mentality is that I flies totally against the grain of European and British history both. It is important therefore that history teachers throughout the UK revisit their history curriculum and introduce courses that tell the story of the founding and development of the European Union in a proper and exhaustive way, and realise that this story is also part of the narrative of the UK itself. There should also be history courses on Irish and Welsh and Scottish history so that the average English student realises he lives in a vibrant country called the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and great Britain, which is itself part of the European Union, a grouping of some 27 nations, each of which has its own diverse and rich history. A GCSE and A level course in European Studies should also be introduced, and it was in designing such a course that my own mother, Eileen Daffern, directed some of her academic research to back in the early 1970’s. She worked under François Duchene who ran the School of European Studies at the University of Sussex. All this work deserves to be more developed and augmented, and we in the UK should realise that Europe is not a threat, but an opportunity. Likewise in the philosophy curricula of university philosophy departments, the rich intellectual history of European thought should be taught and made more available to students as a matter of course.



  1. PROPOSAL FOR A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT RAINBOW ALLIANCE: In October Daffern wrote to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable, after he had launched a listening exercise asking how Liberal Democrats see the future of their party, among other things,


Dear Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Leader,


I appreciate your getting in touch with me and asking for my views on the best ways forward for the Liberal Democratic party in the changing landscape of British politics. I am going to answer you as fully and as truthfully as possible. I am a Canadian-British dual citizen, born in Montreal (in 1956) and I joined the old liberal party in 1982 then I came back from Canada to the UK in 1981. I was never very active and worked with the Association of World Federalists with some old school liberals, a lady called Irene Watson, and Bruce Ritchie, you may have heard of them. Patrick Armstrong ran the Parliament group for World Government from an office in the bowels of Westminster. I worked a bit with the Federal Trust for Education and research, which Lord Beveridge had been active with. Then I read a history degree at the University of London and got a 2.1 and went on to work at the University of London on creating a centre or Institute for Peace Studies. It was supposed to be a federal institute like say the School of Historical Studies, but we ran into huge opposition from Kings College War Studies Department and other rear-guard actions, and there was a concerted attempt to close down my nascent centre. So I took it outside of the university of London and it became an autonomous academic institute a status it still holds, rather than let it be closed down. You yourself know something of the duplicity of the MOD as it has been reported in the press that you were lied to over the use that Britain’s weapons sales to Yemen would actually not be subject to human rights monitoring. They are now being used indiscriminately to harm civilians in a crazy war we have helped fan into flames. The British arms traders wanted us out of the EU because it is cracking down on arms sales to regimes that abuse human rights. I am sure you have joined up these dots yourself. I serve as President of Philosophers for Peace in Europe and have a long track record of thinking through at the highest levels of academic and scientific research how we can effectively organise a more peaceful world on this planet, where we do not spend trillions on arms and militarism every year, while 5% of the world’s total workforce of 4 billion people are unemployed.   I worked hard to get a national Institute Of Peace Studies in London and all I ask in return for helping you to save the UK from breaking up, is that once we succeed, in your first government, you also pass legislation founding an Institute Of Peace, which would be funded by a agreed small percentage of the MOD budget, and which would have  statutory duty to advise governments (UK ) on conflict prevention and resolution, war prevention, peace and reconciliation, such as the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute does for the Swedish government. After all this, I then worked as a school teacher in UK schools and then completed my PhD at the University of London, which was finally awarded in 2009, under the title: Towards a Transpersonal History of the Quest for Peace 1945-2001. I enclose my CV to give you a detailed overview of my academic career to date. Then my Institute was based in Scotland from 2010-2017. At that point, I came into a small inheritance and so moved to France and bought a centre for all my work, which is in La Creuse a delightful part of France but only two hours from Paris. I continue a career of teaching and writing, and recently have become European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum. I am trying to make contact with other liberal democratic thinkers in Europe, to support the work of the European Union, but to also reform it and make it more friendly and approachable by the ordinary people of Europe. The danger is that populists of the extreme right and the extreme left, in Europe as in the UK, have adopted an anti-EU tone and this is threatening us with a reversal back to the bad old days of the 1930’s. I support instead Macron’s vision of a socially engaged liberal democratic tradition, which is at the heart of finding a forward movement for the people of Europe as a whole. I also support Justin Trudeau’s leadership in Canada where he is doing the same for my other homeland, so to speak. I therefore 100% support the Liberal Democrats and your valiant attempts to stop Brexit. You ask – how are we doing? Are we doing enough? Frankly I don’t think so. The Tories are going to use their technical majority in parliament to push their Brexit in the teeth of all the popular opposition against them. And then they are going to smirk and grin and say – there we did it ! We have to stop them, and it has fallen to the few liberal democratic MP’s and in the Lords and their growing supporters outside parliament to lead this resistance movement. Plus any break away Tories and Labour we can find, plus the SNP , Plaid Cymru and other true opponents of Toryism. I think this grouping will eventually make a majority. You need to stress also the social democratic roots of the Lib Dems to attract moderate Labour party members to join. Why am I so against Brexit ? Well, I recently wrote to Her Majesty The Queen and explained to her why I am against Brexit. In case you haven’t seen this letter, I am sending it to you again herewith. I am also enclosing her reply to me, which was very diplomatic and very polite, and reading between the lines, I think she agrees with me, but cannot say so. The real and immediate risk is that following this totally unwanted and treasonable Brexit imposition by the Tories, the UK will almost 99% certainly break up. How will this happen? Firstly, Scotland will demand and agitate for a second referendum, and be granted it, eventually – and they will then vote for outright independence from the UK. I lived in Scotland for 7 years so I know this will happen. Alternatively, the Tories might try to block the Scotland from having a second referendum, for years, but eventually,  Scotland will just go ahead and organise it anyway. It will lead to huge acrimony and legal conflicts. But eventually, within I think 3 years from Brexit max, Scotland will go it alone and declare and gain independence from the UK. In Northern Ireland, since the  majority of people voted to remain in the EU, they also will demand a referendum, under the Good Friday agreement, on remaining inside the EU by joining the Republic of Ireland in one single state – and this vote will also be won by them, I believe, thus Northern Ireland will leave the United Kingdom. Some die-hard so called Ulster loyalists might try to stop them, a Tory Government might try to impose direct rule and put troops back on the streets of Belfast and to man the borders with a hard and militarised border, but eventually, through fair and democratic means, the people of Northern Ireland will leave the Union, because of Brexit. Eventually, watching her Celtic neighbours break free of the UK, Wales will follow suit. Already the new Plaid Cymru  leader, Adam Price,  has said they will pursue independence.  I regard this as inevitable that given Scotland and Northern Ireland will be leaving the UK, that Wales will follow suit soon after, maybe in 3-5 years after Brexit, maximum. So much therefore hangs on this Brexit monstrosity created by the Tories that we have at all costs to prevent it. I am willing to set up a Liberal Democratic Intellectual Forum, operative both in Europe, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland – to think through how we can all do this together. I think I have the credentials to set this up and run it. Judge for yourself. I would hope Nick Clegg would be involved, Shirley Williams, Lembit Opic (who was my MP in Wales for years)  along with other intelligent polysavant Liberal Democrats, and of course yourself when not too busy, whether currently  active in the party or not. I did myself rejoin the party by the way, so I count as a full member. What my proposal would be is the following: In order to save the union, we have to find a way of communicating exactly what liberal democratic values mean and stand for, and why they preserve the future of the UK and our important place in Europe. Firstly, we have to say we want to preserve the UK. We must warn the people about the dangers of the breakup of the UK from Brexit. You have to make that message loud and clear. The attitude by the media and the Tory establishment seems to be – don’t mention that risk, because it might bring it to pass. But people are not stupid. They can see the writing on the wall. They can read the runes. To treat them as if they are stupid is an unconscionable act, and will rebound on whoever does so at the next general election. So if you, as the openly one of the three main parties actually comes out and say this loud and clear, then you will get huge credit and votes at the next election.   You have to tell the British people, all of them, every UK citizen, whether living in the UK or in Europe, the bitter, difficult but integral truth – if we do Brexit on the results of the 2016 referendum results, it will lead to the breakup of the UK, and that is not a price we in the liberal democrats think is worth paying. So – How to stop it ? I have a few suggestions..You have to make an electoral pact with the other anti brexit parties, by which I mean the Green Party, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Sinn Fein, and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, You have to all make a sworn pact, an omerta vow:  We will not stand against each other in the next election. We will make a temporary alliance, called The Liberal Democratic Rainbow Alliance, and will only stand one candidate from each party at the coming general election. They will stand on one Principle and one thing only – to prevent a Tory return to power and to stop immediately and forever Brexit, by rescinding article 50, and by holding a second referendum on the issue. In addition, we will enact a new written constitution for the entire UK, in which the House of Lords will be replaced by a federal senate, made up of senators sent from each region of the UK on a proportional basis (Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland – I also suggest Cornwall be added as a separate region, to lessen England’s dominance here, and because Cornwall has a unique and separate cultural history, and they stand to lose hugely from Brexit).You can also say, as you have been saying – we will open up this rainbow alliance to save Britain, to any moderate conservative MP’s or moderate Labour MP’s who want to join us – temporarily, for the purposes of the coming general election.  I think you will attract quite a good few Tory MP’s (old school) i.e. people like Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry, and a whole load of others. Then I also think you will get the moderate and intelligence labour party voters and MP’s who also want to stop Brexit and realise it for the danger that it is, to join the Liberal Democratic Rainbow alliance. I would also like to suggest that you need to set this up immediately, before a general election is called, and that you should get on with forming this Liberal Democratic Rainbow Alliance without a seconds delay. I am willing to help in any way I can .I am quite a good speechwriter and am happy to serve in that capacity if you will have me. I live in France but I am available via skype if one of your aids wants to call me. I admire your integrity and courage as a leader, and am pleased to say that I think you have the vision to accomplish this great thing, and that it might have just fallen on your shoulders to save the UK from destruction at the forces who brought Brexit down upon us, like a plague on the land. You asked for opinions. Now I have given you mine, and I look forwards to your reply.

Yours in peace and service, Dr Thomas Daffern


  1. EUROPEAN DRUID COUNCIL: Thomas Daffern as a druid elder from the UK, has taken the initiative to set up a European Druid council, open to Druid groups and individuals throughout the continent of Europe. We were formed in 2017 and are a group of senior Druids from many European countries. At the recent Annual meeting off the Druid Council, the Order of Peace Poets, bards and Druids declared their continuing opposition to Brexit, as likely to not only bring grief to the people of the UK, not only to see the breakup of the UK, but also to bring negative effects to the people of European as a whole.


  1. EUROPEAN POLITICAL PARTIES : The European People’s Party (EPP) is a conservative and Christian democratic European political party. A transnational organisation, it is composed of other political parties, not individuals. Founded by primarily Christian democratic parties in 1976, it has since broadened its membership to include liberal-conservative parties and parties with other centre-right political perspectives. The EPP has been the largest party in the European Parliament since 1999 and in the European Council since 2002. It is also by far the largest party in the current European Commission. The President of the European Council, President of the European Commission and the President of the European Parliament are all from the EPP. Many of the Founding fathers of the European Union were also from parties that later formed the EPP. Outside the EU the party also controls a majority in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The EPP has alternated with its centre-left rival the Party of European Socialists (PES) as the largest European political party and parliamentary group. The EPP includes major centre-right parties such as the Union of Germany (CDU/CSU), The Republicans of France, KDU-ČSL of the Czech Republic, Fine Gael of Ireland, Forza Italia of Italy, the People’s Party (PP) of Spain and the Social Democratic Party of Portugal, the Civic Platform of Poland, and also Fidesz of Hungary. While one may or may not agree with its basic philosophical outlook, the European Union has many traditions f robust political culture in its heritage. There is also a large grouping of the ALLIANCE OF LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS FOR EUROPE PARTY (ALDE Party) which is also a European political party mainly active in the European Union, composed of 60 national-level liberal parties from across Europe. On 26 March 1976, it was founded in Stuttgart as a confederation of national political parties under the name Federation of Liberal and Democrat Parties in Europe and renamed European Liberals and Democrats (ELD) in 1977 and European Liberal Democrats and Reformists (ELDR) in 1986. On 30 April 2004, the ELDR was reformed as an official European party, the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR Party). The ALDE Party is affiliated with the Liberal International and a recognised European political party, incorporated as a non-profit association under Belgian law. The ALDE parliamentary group is led by Guy Verhofstadt, a former Prime Minister of Belgium. Prior to the 2004 European election the party had been represented through its own group, the European Liberal Democrats and Reformists (ELDR) Group. As of 2018, ALDE is represented in European Union institutions, with 68 Maps and 5 members of the European Commission. Of the 28 EU member states, there are eight with ALDE-affiliated Prime Ministers: Mark Rutte (VVD) in the Netherlands, Xavier Bettel (DP) in Luxembourg, Jüri Ratas (Estonian Centre Party) in Estonia, Charles Michel (MR) in Belgium, Miro Cerar (SMC) in Slovenia, Juha Sipilä (KESK) in Finland, Andrej Babiš (ANO) in the Czech Republic and Lars Løkke Rasmussen (Venstre) in Denmark. Liberals are also in government in three other EU member states: Croatia, Romania and Lithuania. ALDE’s think tank is the European Liberal Forum. Board members of the European Liberal Forum include: Jürgen Martens, President, Martina Dlabajová MEP, Vice-President, Olle Schmidt, Vice-President, Airis Meier, Treasurer, Josef Lentsch, Board member, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroek, Board member, Csaba Tóth, Board Member. See http://www.liberalforum.eu/ The European Liberal Forum (ELF) is the foundation of the European Liberal Democrats, the ALDE Party. A core aspect of their work consists in issuing publications on Liberalism and European public policy issues. They also provide a space for the discussion of European politics, and offer training for liberal-minded citizens. Their aim is to promote active citizenship in all of this. Their foundation is made up of a number of European think tanks, political foundations and institutes. The diversity of their membership provides us with a wealth of knowledge and is a constant source of innovation. In turn, they provide their members with the opportunity to cooperate on European projects under the ELF umbrella. They work throughout Europe as well as in the EU Neighbourhood countries. The youthful and dynamic nature of ELF allows us to be at the forefront in promoting active citizenship, getting the citizen involved with European issues and building an open, Liberal Europe. There are also healthy groups of European Socialists and greens who work across the European democratic landscape, which is exactly as it should be in healthy functioning democratic system. he Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) is the political group in the European Parliament of the Party of European Socialists (PES). The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats was officially founded as a Socialist Group on 29 June 1953 which makes it the second oldest political group in the European Parliament after ALDE. It adopted its present-day name on 23 June 2009. Centre-left in orientation, the group mostly comprises social-democratic parties and is affiliated with the Progressive Alliance. Until the 1999 European Parliament elections, it was the largest group in the Parliament, but since those elections it has constantly been the second-largest group. During the 8th EU Parliament Assembly, the S&D is the only Parliament group with representation from all 28 EU member states. In the European Council, 8 out of 28 Heads of State and Government belong to the S&D Group and in the European Commission, 8 out of 28 Commissioners come from PES parties.


31.PRESIDENT OF FINLAND is currently Sauli Niinistö, who is someone who has a deep commitment to peace, partly from his spiritual convictions as a Christian. He is the 12th President of Finland, in office since 2012. A lawyer by education, Niinistö was Chairman of the National Coalition Party from 1994 to 2001, Minister of Justice from 1995 to 1996, Minister of Finance from 1996 to 2003, Deputy Prime Minister from 1995 to 2001 and the National Coalition Party (NCP) candidate in the 2006 presidential election. He served as the Speaker of the Parliament of Finland from 2007 to 2011 and has been the Honorary President of the European People’s Party since 2002. On July 16, 2018 Niinistö officially hosted U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin for the US-Russia Summit in Helsinki. President Sauli Niinistö was involved in the 73rd United Nations General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2018 and gave an excellent speech about Finland’s deep commitment to peacemaking. Recently, the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, paid an official visit to Finland on Wednesday, 17 October 2018. The President of the Republic of Finland, Sauli Niinistö, welcomed President Nazarbayev with an official ceremony held at the Presidential Palace. Following the welcoming ceremony, President Niinistö and President Nazarbayev gathered for discussions, before conducting a wider working meeting. The discussions focused on bilateral relations between Finland and Kazakhstan and also covered a range of international issues. President Niinistö and President Nazarbayev have previously met on several occasions, most recently in summer 2017 in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. “I have always placed great value on President Nazarbayev’s geopolitical views and his thoughts on the ways in which Kazakhstan and smaller nations like Finland can promote peace globally. Indeed, Astana has served as the venue for the Syrian peace process. Our discussions in Helsinki today have been an opportunity to exchange views and information. The talks have proved extremely productive, and I would like to extend my thanks to President Nazarbayev for that,” President Niinistö said at the joint press conference held by the presidents following the conclusion of the talks.Naaarbayev is also a visionary like Ninisto who believes in the importance of peace, particularly from an interfaith perspective, and Nazarbayev has founded in Astana, his capital in Kazakhstan, an important centre for interfaith peace work, called the Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions is a unique interfaith forum, convened every three years in Astana at the initiative of President Nursultan Nazarbayev. For 15 years, this forum has played an important role in the rapprochement of cultures and civilisations, in searching for answers to the key challenges of our time. “Religious Leaders for a Safe World” is the main topic of the Sixth Congress, which was  held October 10-11 in the capital of Kazakhstan. The idea of convening the Congress was put forward in 2003 against the backdrop of emerging crisis of the world order after the Cold War, unprecedented 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States and military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. These events have become consonant with a well-known hypothesis of Samuel Huntington about the inevitable clash of civilisations. There was a real threat that the theory of inter-civilisational conflict would become a rapidly growing trend in modern international relations. We needed a decisive counter action. The human civilisation continues to face a protracted crisis of moral values. Apparently in the 21st Century the concept of modernisation, which previously entailed total westernisation and secularisation of societies, requires deep reconsideration, with an emphasis on respect for traditions of societies in different parts of the world. It turns out that religion has not lost its value in public and political life. Moreover, globalisation facilitates its revival. But at the political level, the role of religion is often underestimated. Nowadays, even the UN Charter, which is the legal basis of international relations, is quite uncertain about the place of religion and religious leaders in achieving the primary goals of the organisation: strengthening peace and security, promoting international cooperation, ensuring sustainable development of states, protecting human rights. Thus, at the turn of the century there was a dangerous global situation, directly affecting inter-religious relations in the world. Kazakhstan with its multinational and multi-confessional society, complex geopolitical environment, had not only to be involved, but also to take active steps. At the beginning of the 2000’s, the rapprochement between cultures, religions and peoples was facilitated by the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to Astana in September 2001, by a major part of the first Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in Almaty in June 2002 and the International Conference of Peace and Reconciliation in February 2003. These developments led to a new initiative on convening the Congress of the Leaders of World and Traditional Religions. This is an important initiative to get dialogue going in the world among moderate religious leaders and intellectuals. Nazarbayev is a true moderate Muslim who is a million miles away from the extremist Wahhabi ideology that led to the murder of Jamal Kashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in October 2018, So it is god that the president of Finland has strong diplomatic ties to the President of Kazakhstan, and that both men will have bent their minds towards the urgent task of peace-making. This is why the European Union maters, in all its complexity and in all its multinational geographical extent. From Finland to the West coast of Ireland, from South Western Portugal to the island of Crete or Cyprus, Europe is a hue region of the earth, which an ancient history stretching back to the old Neolithic civilisations of the Balkans and Greece, in one continuous arc of development. Not for nothing is European named after Europe, a Princess from the Levant. This Europe then, is worth fighting for, and Britain deserves to remain inside its most important political grouping,. This is why Brexit is a retrograde step and will only damage the people of the UK irreparably.


  1. CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA AND MISUSE OF DATA On Saturday, the Observer published the account of a former worker at data firm Cambridge Analytica, who lifted the lid on the company’s relationship with Facebook. Christopher Wylie revealed how an academic, Aleksandr Kogan, had harvested data from users via a personality quiz on the social network and, through his company Global Science Research (GSR), had shared it with Cambridge Analytica. Since then, there have been more revelations about both firms and about the way consumers’ data is used. A linked investigation by undercover reporters at Channel 4 News revealed the head of Cambridge Analytica, Alexander Nix, boasting of using dirty tricks to swing elections. Speaking to someone who he believed wanted to use the firm for work in Sri Lanka, he talked about creating sex scandals and using fake news to swing votes. The report was followed by revelations of its role in the US elections – a senior member of staff claimed the firm was behind the “defeat crooked Hillary” ad campaign – and of its parent company’s activities in Nigerian politics. Former employees of Facebook have also been speaking out. Sandy Parakilas, the platform operations manager responsible for policing data breaches by third-party software developers between 2011 and 2012, told the Guardian that other companies had used the same terms as Cambridge Analytica to access users’ data. He said he had warned senior executives at the company that its lax approach to data protection risked a major breach. The company’s ownership has come under the spotlight. In the US, it is backed by the Mercer family, who threw their weight behind Donald Trump in his run for president. In the UK, the company is linked with SCL Group. The government says it no longer has any contracts with SCL, but that it has worked with it in the past, while both Labour and the Conservatives were in power. It has emerged that SCL was given access to confidential documents when working for the Ministry of Defence. It was paid almost £200,000 for carrying out two separate projects.SCL Group has a number of Conservative donors among its shareholders and directors – one told the Guardian he had refused a request to introduce the firm to the party. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal was a major political scandal in early 2018 when it was revealed Cambridge Analytica had harvested the personal data of millions of people’s Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for political purposes. It has been described as a watershed moment in the public understanding of personal data and precipitated a massive fall in Facebook’s stock price and calls for tighter regulation of tech companies’ use of data.The illicit harvesting of personal data by Cambridge Analytica was first reported in December 2015 by Harry Davies, a journalist for The Guardian. He reported that Cambridge Analytica was working for United States Senator Ted Cruz using data harvested from millions of people’s Facebook accounts without their consent. Facebook refused to comment on the story other than to say it was investigating. Further reports followed in the Swiss publication, Das Magazin, by Hannes Grasseger and Mikael Krogerus, (later translated and published by Vice), Carole Cadwalladr in the Guardian and Matthias Schwartz in The Intercept. Facebook refused to comment on the claims in any of the articles.The scandal erupted in March 2018 with the emergence of a whistleblower, an ex-Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie. He had been an anonymous source for an article in 2017 in the Observer by Carole Cadwalladr, headlined The Great Brexit Robbery. This article went viral but was disbelieved in some quarters, prompting sceptical responses in the New York Times among others. Cadwalladr worked with Wylie for a year to coax him to come forward as a whistleblower. She later brought in Channel 4 News in the UK and the New York Times due to legal threats against the Guardian and Observer newspaper by Cambridge Analytica.The three news organisations published simultaneously on March 17, 2018 and caused a huge public outcry. More than $100 billion was knocked off Facebook’s share price in days and politicians in the US and UK demanded answers from Mark Zuckerberg. The scandal eventually led him agreeing to testify in front of the United States Congress.The scandal was significant for inciting public discussion on ethical standards for social media companies, political consulting organizations, and politicians. Consumer advocates called for greater consumer protection in online media and right to privacy as well as curbs on misinformation and propaganda. Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at Cambridge University, developed an app called “This Is Your Digital Life” (sometimes stylised as “thisisyourdigitallife”). He provided the app to Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica in turn arranged an informed consent process for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users would agree to complete a survey only for academic use. However, Facebook’s design allowed this app to not only collect the personal information of people who agreed to take the survey, but also the personal information of all the people in those users’ Facebook social network. In this way Cambridge Analytica acquired data from millions of Facebook users.The Observer and the New York Times reported that dataset has included information on 50 million Facebook users. Facebook later confirmed that it actually had data on up to 87 million users with 70.6 million of those people from the United States. Within the United States, Facebook estimated that California was the most affected U.S. state with 6.7 million impacted users; followed by Texas, with 5.6 million; and Florida, with 4.3 million. While Cambridge Analytica says it only collected 30 million Facebook user profiles Facebook estimated that the number was around 87 million profiles. Facebook sent a message to these users believed to be affected, saying the information likely included one’s “public profile, page likes, birthday and current city”. Some of the app’s users gave the app permission to access their News Feed, timeline, and messages.The data was detailed enough for Cambridge Analytica to create psychographical profiles of the subjects of the data. The data also included the locations of each person. For a given political campaign, the data was detailed enough to create a profile which suggested what kind of advertisement would be most effective to persuade a particular person in a particular location for some political event. The New York Times and The Guardian reported that as of March 17, 2018 the data was available on the open Internet and available in general circulation. In December 2015, The Guardian reported that Cambridge Analytica used the data at the behest of Ted Cruz. Cambridge Analytica also assisted with President Trump’s campaigns. On March 17, 2018, The Guardian and the New York Times broke the story simultaneously. The Guardian worked with Christopher Wylie, a former employee of Cambridge Analytica, for more than a year before bringing in the New York Times to help report the story out in the US.  Various political organizations used information from the data breach to attempt to influence public opinion. Political events for which politicians paid Cambridge Analytica to use information from the data breach include the following: 2015 and 2016 campaigns of United States politicians Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, 2016 Brexit vote, 2018 Mexican general election, 2018 for Institutional Revolutionary Party. Now the key thing here for our Journal is that Cambridge Analytica used data from facebook to help swing the Brexit results. The fact of the matter is that a fellow Canadian, called Christopher Wylie, at the age of 24,  came up with an idea that led to the foundation of a company called Cambridge Analytica, a data analytics firm that went on to claim a major role in the Leave campaign for Britain’s EU membership referendum, and later became a key figure in digital operations during Donald Trump’s election campaign. Or, as Wylie describes it, he was the gay Canadian vegan who somehow ended up creating “Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare mindfuck tool”. In 2014, Steve Bannon – then executive chairman of the “alt-right” news network Breitbart – was Wylie’s boss. And Robert Mercer, the secretive US hedge-fund billionaire and Republican donor, was Cambridge Analytica’s investor. And the idea they bought into was to bring big data and social media to an established military methodology – “information operations” – then turn it on the US electorate, and later on the Brexit referendum electorate. Another word for what Cambridge Analytica did is “information warfare”. Wylie oversaw its birth. Aged 24, while studying for a PhD in fashion trend forecasting, he came up with a plan to harvest the Facebook profiles of millions of people in the US, and to use their private and personal information to create sophisticated psychological and political profiles. And then target them with political ads designed to work on their particular psychological makeup.“We ‘broke’ Facebook,” he explains. Wyllie originally did work for the Liberal Democrats in the UK,. But then when they failed to take up his ideas, a Lib Dem connection introduced Wylie to a company called SCL Group, one of whose subsidiaries, SCL Elections, would go on to create Cambridge Analytica (an incorporated venture between SCL Elections and Robert Mercer, funded by the latter). For all intents and purposes, SCL/Cambridge Analytica are one and the same. Alexander Nix, then CEO of SCL Elections, made Wylie an offer he couldn’t resist. “He said: ‘We’ll give you total freedom. Experiment. Come and test out all your crazy ideas.’” The job was research director across the SCL group, a private contractor that has both defence and elections operations. Its defence arm was a contractor to the UK’s Ministry of Defence and the US’s Department of Defense, among others. Its expertise was in “psychological operations” – or psyops – changing people’s minds not through persuasion but through “informational dominance”, a set of techniques that includes rumour, disinformation and fake news. SCL Group (formerly Strategic Communication Laboratories) is the name of a private British behavioural research and strategic communication company. In the United States, SCL has gained public recognition mainly through its subsidiary Cambridge Analytica. It performs data mining and data analysis on its audience. Based on results, communications will be specifically targeted to key audience groups to modify behaviour in accordance with the goal of SCL’s client. The company describes itself as a “global election management agency”. London-based SCL was founded by Nigel Oakes who serves as its CEO. On 1 May 2018, SCL Group stated that it would be closing operations due to the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. However, its website and staff continue to operate. SCL group is owned by its parent company SCL Elections. In 1990, Nigel Oakes, who had a background in TV production and advertising, founded the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDI) as a research facility for strategic communication. The study of mass behaviour and how to change it led him to establish Strategic Communication Laboratories in 1993. Oakes thought that in order to shift mass opinion, academic insights as gained through psychologists and anthropologists at BDI should be applied, and would be more successful than traditional advertising methods. BDI became a non-profit affiliate of SCL. After an initial commercial success, SCL expanded into military and political arenas. It became known for alleged involvement “in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting”. In 2005, “with a glitzy exhibit” at Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI), “the United Kingdom’s largest showcase for military technology”, SCL demonstrated its capacity in “influence operations”: “to help orchestrate a sophisticated campaign of mass deception” on the public of a big city like London. According to its website, SCL has influenced elections in Italy, Latvia, Ukraine, Albania, Romania, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Mauritius, India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Colombia, Antigua, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Trinidad & Tobago. SCL formed Cambridge Analytica to participate in the election process in the United States. It entered the U.S. market in 2012, and was involved in 44 U.S. congressional, US Senate and state-level elections in the 2014 midterm elections. In 2015 it was disclosed that the company had entered the Republican Party presidential primaries for the 2016 election, primarily in support of Ted Cruz. CA is heavily funded by hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, a major supporter of Cruz and then Donald Trump, and is now under investigation by both the UK and the US governments. Emerdata Limited was established in August 2017, by many of the people involved in Cambridge Analytica. Emerdata was established in 2017 by the chief data officer and chairman of Cambridge Analytica’s parent company SCL Group, which closed operations on the 1 May 2018. Its headquarters in London is in the same building as Cambridge Analytica. Emerdata’s board of directors included Frontier Services Group officer Johnson Chun Shun Ko, Cambridge Analytica investor Rebekah Mercer, and Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix. In January 2018, Emerdata reportedly raised $19 million from international investors. Emerdata was widely discussed in the news media. It was portrayed as a potential successor to Cambridge Analytica. In May 2018, Nigel Oakes, founder of the SCL Group, Cambridge Analytica’s British affiliate, acknowledged that Emerdata’s intent had been to acquire Cambridge Analytica and SCL, but said that these plans had been abandoned and that Emerdata and its partly-owned subsidiary Firecrest Technologies Ltd., which had been set up by former Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix, would be wound down. Who exactly is this chap, Nigel Oakes ? Nigel Oakes was born in July 1962, the son of Major John Waddington Oakes, who was High Sheriff of Warwickshire in 1996, and lived at Whichford House in Whichford, Warwickshire. He was educated at Eton. He claims on the SCL website to have studied psychology at University College London (UCL), but a university spokesman says they have no record of this, and Alexander Nix (a director of SCL) says Oakes attended UCL “in a private capacity.” Oakes ran a mobile disco, before working in advertising for Saatchi & Saatchi. In 1992, Oakes talked to a trade journal about his work: “We use the same techniques as Aristotle and Hitler … We appeal to people on an emotional level to get them to agree on a functional level.” So we begin to get the bigger picture here, about how the great Brexit catastrophe has come upon the British people. Someone from a totally privileged background, without an inch of ethical understanding in their bones, has created a ruthless company whose entire job is to influence, through psychological warfare tactics, the outcome of democratic processes, and who boasts of basing his operation model on that of Hitler. He created a ruthless series of companies, that then went into information war battlefields all around the world, and no doubt helped by his plumy English accent, landed all kinds of contracts with corrupt and semi corrupt dictators, in order to subvert  the democratic will of voters who might otherwise have wished to unseat them. Then this company (Cambridge Analytica) was used to steal the USA election for Donald Trump, and shortly afterwards, was used to steal the brexit referendum from the British electorate and bring about the great Brexit catastrophe. Although Christopher Wyllie may have been the nerdish brains behind the whole operation, there is no doubt that Nigel Oakes was the actual eminence noire who invented the whole operation. BY aligning up his work for Vote Leave and its related Leave operations, Nigel Oakes basically pushed the juggernaut of the UK into self-destruct mode. Was any of this illegal ? Should any of this be illegal ? In the opinion of this author at least, the answer is yes on both counts. Certainly new legislation is needed for the democratic system to be able to catch up with eth harsh reality of what has happened to our electoral democracy. We have ended a brave new work of sinister structure in which not ethics, not vision, not belief, governs the way people vote, but rather computer algorithms designed by super-geeks and which can then be juggled to alter our own behaviour and ideological preferences. I hope that when the second referendum is put to the British people whether or not we really want to leave the European Union, Nigel Oakes is safely behind bars, and his companies forbidden from operating anywhere in the world.


  1. IMPACT OF BREXIT ON ARCHAEOLOGY – one of the many tragic implications for Brexit in academia is that British archaeology will be very badly hit. Kate Geary, from the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, said EU nationals made up to 60% of workers on some projects. She said the obligation to carry out such work may be scrapped due to staff shortages, which would be “detrimental to the country’s heritage”. In March 2018, as part of the ArchSci 2020 mid-term meeting, the White Rose Brussels hosted a debate in the European Parliament to discuss the possible impacts of Brexit on UK archaeology, from both the perspective of the University sector as well as on the wider Archaeology community. The background was the fact that ArchSci2020 offers the first European Joint Doctorates in Archaeological Sciences. The programme consists of 15 PhD students working at four leading research institutes (York, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Groningen) who transverse cross-disciplinary boundaries between archaeology and the natural sciences. The network attempts to address the complex interactions between the peoples, cultures and environments of Northern Europe situated within the broader east-west interaction zones of the Circumpolar World. Matthew Collins explained the potential impact of Brexit on Archaeology. For archaeology, brexit is an unmitigated disaster as British archaeology has been flourishing in recent years, due to the ease of movement for research students and teachers across the European Union, and has also enabled the discipline to discover the truly fascinating mobility, trade and cultural patterns that existence d across Europe from the very earliest times, even as fart aback as 10,000 BC. But all this newly developing knowledge is now at risk, because ignorant politicians and their ethically challenged data lackeys, such as Nigel Oakes, have stolen the UK out of the European Union, just to prove they could. It is like children without any education breaking apart an expensive toy, just for the fun of it.



  1. OVERSPENDING OF CAMPAIGN GROUP for BREXIT – it would appear that the Vote Leave campaign and other pro Brexit lobbying groups during the 2016 referendum overspent their allotted amounts considerably, and thus broken the law. The electoral commission has discovered these facts out after an investigation. Britain’s official pro-Brexit campaign broke the law by overspending and has been referred to the police, regulators said Tuesday, prompting renewed calls for another referendum on any European Union divorce deal. Vote Leave breached spending rules in the June 2016 vote and has been fined $80,843, the Electoral Commission ruled. Britain voted 38% to leave the E.U. against 37% who voted to remain in the trading bloc, paving the way for the biggest change in the country’s trade and foreign policy for decades. The fact that the campaign operated illegally however is no surprise to people who have seriously studied this matter, and in fact is simply part of the bigger picture – the brexit referendum and everything about it was an illegal and criminal operation, in conception and in delivery, from start to finish – above all in the way that no back stops were put in place of such a wafer thin majority, insisting that a certain percentage clearance would be necessary for such a major constitutional change to be activated, as in every other civilised referendum ever held. It was wild west and disinformation from day one, and so no surprise – the UK government is simply ignoring the implications s of these legal findings. Any other country, and the results of the referendum would be declared null and void and the referendum re-run under properly constitutional rules. “Brexit was not only sold on deliberate lies and false promises, but also by breaking electoral law,” said Conservative lawmaker Sarah Wollaston. Opposition Labour Party lawmaker Chuka Umunna said: “We know Vote Leave lied on a gargantuan scale — we now know they cheated too and it’s official.” He backed a so-called People’s Vote on the final terms of Brexit. Under British electoral law it is the responsibility of campaigners to ensure that an accurate and complete campaign spending return is finished on time. The Electoral Commission opened an investigation in November 2017 after it found evidence indicating that Vote Leave’s referendum spending was 7,449,079.34 pounds (around $9,865,000), exceeding its statutory spending limit of 7 million ($9.3 million).Bob Posner, Electoral Commission Director of Political Finance, said it found “serious breaches” in transparency in the pro-Brexit campaign.“Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation,” he said.“It has refused to cooperate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence we have found is clear and substantial.” IN other words, Vote Leave has been acting like a criminal organisation, as indeed it was, from start to finish. Vote Leave was founded in October 2015 by political strategists Matthew Elliot and Dominic Cummings as a cross-party campaign; involving Members of Parliament from the Conservative Party, Labour Party and the sole UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell along with MEP Daniel Hannan and Conservative peer Lord Lawson. Labour MP Gisela Stuart served as chairman and Leader of the Vote Leave Campaign Committee as Co-Convenor with Michael Gove MP, of the Conservatives. The campaign was also supported by a number of prominent politicians; including outgoing Mayor of London Boris Johnson, who became a key figurehead for the Vote Leave campaign. A number of Vote Leave principals; Douglas Carswell, Michael Gove, Bernard Jenkin and Anne-Marie Trevelyan were also members of the influential IPSA resourced European Research Group. Several of these individuals may have known Vote Leave were breaking the law and should be held legally responsible. The Crown Prosecution Authority should get busy on this matter and not just leave things alone – the group is not called “Vote Leave Us Alone” – and must be held accountable.


  1. MATHEMATICS OF THE 2016 REFERENDUM: the way the figures of the 2016 are presented is important: the facts are as follows: Although a small majority of votes cast (in England and Wales) were in favour of Brexit as opposed to Remain, the fact that many people did not vote, or voted Remain in other regions, means this is hardly truly indicative of the true will of the entire British people. A vote not cast is in effect a vote for the status quo, which is therefore a vote to remain in the EU. Here are the figures: Of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU), of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters did not vote to leave the EU. What it means, is that if we are to leave the EU, 34% of the voters will have imposed their will over 64% of the rest. This is hardly a ringing mandate for such a massive change affecting the nation for years to come, and indeed, affecting the entire history of Europe. Or to put this another way, the combined number of voters who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742. The combined total of those voters who either voted to remain in the EU or who voted to keep the status quo by not voting at all, was 29,089,259. which is 64% of the total. This Journal is therefore aimed at this 64% of British people, plus the large numbers who have changed their minds since the 2016 referendum and want a second vote, including the 700,00 who marched on October 20, 2018. These figures are simply not sufficient to take us out of the European Union. There has to be a second vote, and it should be compulsory for all UK voters to vote in this election this time round., as it is in Switzerland when important matters come up.


  1. ROLE OF ANGLICAN CHURCH IN BREXIT – a surprising piece of academic research has been carried out by Linda Woodhead into the voting behaviour of Anglicans during the brexit referendum in 2016. Some religious groups showed an even split between the two options on the ballot (Methodists and Baptists) and some showed a slight preference for one side or the other (Catholics and Church of Scotland / Presbyterian for remain; Jews and other Christians for leave); but more distinct voting patterns are also evident. Those who identify themselves as Anglican or Church of England were clearly in the leave camp – 60% backed Britain leaving the EU and 40% supported staying. Muslims were clearly in the remain camp, with 69% choosing this option and 31% in favour of leaving the EU. Those with no religion (a group with a younger age profile) were in the ‘remain camp’, by 57% to 43%, as were those belonging to other non-Christian faiths (55% to 45%) and those who preferred not to disclose their religious affiliation (55% to 45%). Details at http://www.brin.ac.uk/ Speaking as an Anglican Druid with strong interfaith leanings, the current editor finds it appalling that Anglicans could have voted for brexit in this manner and finds a serious dereliction of duty going on at the head of the Anglican church. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has shown no leadership on the issue sand seems completely myopic when it comes to the long term consequences of Brexit. The Queen, who is technically; the head of the Church has been informed by letter of the long term consequences of brexit i.e. the breakup of the United Kingdom) and for once, you would think a political statement might be forthcoming from her, that as a Monarch she cannot enact legislation that will self-destruct her own nation. Or she is forced to then she will abdicate. Her coronation oath includes the duty to defend and preserve her realm. By menacing brexit she is destroying and ending her realm. So it possible she has thought it through ? is it possible she so lives in her comfortable Southern English bubble of affluence that she doesn’t realise how brexit will hit the poorest people of her kingdom hardest, and only benefit the very rich ? the Anglican church has some very serious soul searching to do if it doesn’t rise its voice against brexit in a serious and substantial way. IN my own considered opinion, Henry 8th who effectively founded the Church of England, would be totally against Brexit as a very stupid idea.. Henry loved Europe; he kept trying to marry European ladies; he loved Catholicism (just as long as he was in charge); he was a renaissance Prince who knew European languages including Latin; he was a scholar who supported academics in Oxford and Cambridge (we celebrated St Frideswide’s Day just recently in Oxford); he was wary of Scotland so wanted to keep them close, and he was happy to unite England and Wales into one legal country (so would be mortified at the thought of the UK breaking up and everyone going their own way). Henry supported the sciences and so would be devastated at the thought of the scientists of the UK losing out on all that European funding. His master of wine also fathered young John Dee, and Henry loved to read nice occult books brought back from Europe, and would have missed being able to send his spies to ransack the esoteric libraries of Europe.. What a nightmare, no more access to the libraries of Europe without ridiculous passports and visas ! And so, the verdict is, that the REAL Henry 8th would be intelligent enough to see that Brexit = destruction of UK.. ergo restat in unitate. Simplicissimus. So if Henry 8th was alive today he would be trying to save his country from the idiots who think Brexit is a good idea. Actually, he would have sent them all to the Tower by now. However, it could be said that if Brexit happens and the UK breaks up.. it’s the end of the karmic cycle that kick started with Henry 8th and the so called reformation. I am interested in studying long term cycles and patterns in history, as well as the psycho-history of particular cases.. I think the attitude of the extreme Brexiteers is definitely Henryician.. indeed, they are pushing it all through parliament on the “Kings prerogative” which is a legal loophole invented by Henry 8th’s lawyers.. So Brexiteers are using Henry’s legal structure to push through Brexit.. but my point is that I am pointing out that actually Henry, for all his faults (and they were many) was also a master of real-politik.. he knew when staring harsh reality in the face, what to do.. that’s why Elizabeth was his steely eyed daughter too.. and so, all I am doing above is pointing out that if Henry’s advisers had told him, Brexit will break up the existing UK permanently and without repair, certainly Scotland, Northern Ireland and possibly even Wales will go independent and we are back to little old England in 10 years maximum outside the EU.. Having heard that advice, he would have IMMEDIATELY cancelled Brexit..Whether he was a good or a bad man is irrelevant to my argument here.. like all of us he was a mixture, and he certainly liked scholarship because he founded trinity College in Cambridge a place I like… and his work laid the foundations for the Elizabethan renaissance.. but that is irrelevant, my argument here is purely based on a real-politik.. assessment of how a Renaissance King would have thought.. and by the way, compared to Ivan the Terrible, he was a total softie..So when we get a second referendum on leaving the EU or not, on proper rules, any Anglican that I catch voting for Leave better think it all through very carefully and consider the implications long term.



  1. IMPACT OF BREXIT ON CULTURE IN THE UK: Although the Brexit white paper states the UK will seek a culture and education accord with the EU, Bernard Donoghue, the director of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, said cultural organisations believed the government was unlikely to replace European Union funding for museums and the arts in the event of a no-deal.“In the last six months, we’ve seen UK cultural organisations increasingly excluded from EU funding initiatives in anticipation of Brexit,” Donoghue said. “We’re already seeing a brain drain of skilled workers in the culture, science and design sectors who are leaving because either they know that the EU funding for their job is going to dry up or they’re insecure about the status of their jobs post-March 2019.”He added: “The effect of a no-deal on the whole of the economy would be so profound that when it comes to any kind of commitment about future funding, all bets are off. It’s difficult to imagine how the whole cultural sector will not be affected detrimentally.”A spokeswoman for Arts Council England said: “Over two-thirds of our funded organisations work internationally and in the event of a no-deal Brexit, many would feel the impact immediately.“The range of issues include staff and artists requiring visas, equipment needing carnets and exhibitions needing licences to tour, in addition to increased costs relating to working or touring overseas.”A House of Lords report in July said that leaving the EU without an effective Brexit deal “would be to the detriment of the cultural sector, and represent a significant loss to audiences that enjoy seeing talent from across Europe performing [here]”. Alistair Brown, the policy officer at the Museums Association, said EU funding and talent was already going elsewhere because of the uncertainty about Brexit and the prospect of no deal. “No-deal also puts the legal systems that museums use to lend and borrow cultural objects across the EU at risk. That could deprive museums of major objects for exhibitions in the UK.” Loyd Grossman, the chairman of the Heritage Alliance, said a no-deal Brexit would have significant consequences for heritage projects, which received at least £450m in EU funding in 2007-16 and relied on significant numbers of EU workers. He added: “Preventing access to EU labour could jeopardise huge heritage projects such as the restoration of the Palace of Westminster.” In other words for the entire cultural sector including Museums and heritage centres, leaving the European Union is about the worst possible disaster that can be summoned up from the marshlands of the Plain of Gondor in the Lord of the Rings.



  1. LEONARDO DA VINCI PEACE PRIZE – one of the background reasons for brexit is the arrogance of the UK weapons industry. They have been bought by largely Saudi money and persuaded that they will be better off as a nuclear armed weapons state (the UK) outside the European Union, and not subject to any ethical or moral checks and balances, than remaining inside it. The American arms companies that manufacture and supply our nuclear weapons also want us out of the EU, and likewise the finance groups that people like Philip May work for also want us out of the EU because it restricts their ability to engage in cut-throat capitalism. So the solution long term has to be to bridle the global arms trade worldwide, not just in the UK, but globally. One way of doing that, symbolically, is to literally put a cap on the Pentagon, which is the world’s single biggest spender on weapons and military products worldwide, by far. The prize will be awarded in two stages. The first will go to the architectural design for putting a top floor on the Pentagon, to house a New Department of Peace. The Second phase will go to the lobbying team or political consultancy group, who manage to get the US Department of Peace Bill through both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President of the USA. Both prizes will be awarded on the same day, when the first building work actually begins on the Nonagon, and after the President has signed the Bill into law. RATIONALE: The Pentagon is currently the largest single source of expenditure on planet earth, and spends billions of dollars per year, and trillions over decades, all of which go to military and defence expenditure on behalf of the USA. It organises, finances and plans, the entire running of the USA military, including the Navy, the air force, the army, and also pays for all weapons research and development. It also manages the budgets of the military intelligence networks of the USA, which have spiralled into astronomical expenditure rates since 9/11. It is also responsible for paying for USA army bases around the planet, which are many in number. All this military-industrial complex which is fed from the Pentagon, is also the largest single aggregate consumer of energy on the planet and responsible for major pollution worldwide. Yet this vast expenditure I actually buying the USA as a nation very little security. Attacks on USA interests worldwide are ongoing. The rival major powers of the planet are not fading away, and continue to protest and oppose many aspects of USA policy, and also continue to develop their own military arsenals. All this vast expenditure by the Pentagon has actually witnessed many new wars breaking out worldwide. THE NONAGON: The Nonagon will be a nine-sided building sitting on the top of the existing Pentagon structure, which will house the new USA Department of Peace. This will be voted into being by act of USA congress and the President. The budget of the Department of Peace will be exactly the same, in any calendar year, as the Department of Defence. Once the Nonagon is built, the easiest way to achieve this parity will simply be to cut the Department of Defence budget in two, and allocate one half to the new Department of Peace. THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE: The purpose of the new department will be to achieve peace worldwide in our lifetimes, by seeing a peaceful end to all ongoing wars and military and violent struggles taking place worldwide. Its aim will be to achieve bilateral peace and nonviolent treaties between the USA and every other nation on earth, pledging that neither will attack the other in military aggression or covert destabilisation and intelligence wars. Its tools will be: communication, mediation, dialogue, peace-building, confidence building measures, social development, poverty alleviation, providing alternatives to recruitment into terrorist armed groups through peace training provision, and above all educational provision, from school through university level to post graduate research institutions. It would be the aim of the Nonagon that every Ministry of Education worldwide will write and implement a peace education curriculum for all schools in their country, varying according to the prevailing cultural norms of that country. Likewise it would be the aim of the Nonagon, that all Universities in the world would have a department of peace studies in their universities, teaching and researching the whole field of peace from a variety of academic lenses, including political science, sociology, philosophy, religious studies, arts, literature, psychology, theology, humanities, history, ecology, earth sciences, natural sciences, biology, engineering, law, diplomacy etc. The Department of peace would have large budgetary resources at its disposal and would insist that development funding can be given to rebuild shattered post conflict communities, once all sides agree to a comprehensive peace plan that can be drafted, and presented by the Department of Peace. THE EXISTING PENTAGON STRUCTURE The Pentagon was designed by American architect George Bergstrom (1876–1955), and built by general contractor John McShain of Philadelphia. Ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941, and the building was dedicated on January 15, 1943. General Brehon Somervell provided the major motivating power behind the project; Colonel Leslie Groves was responsible for overseeing the project for the U.S. Army. David J. Witmer replaced Bergstrom as chief architect on April 11, 1941, after Bergstorm resigned due to charges, unrelated to the Pentagon project, of improper conduct while he was president of the American Institute of Architects  The Pentagon is the world’s largest office building, with about 6,500,000 sq. ft (600,000 m2), of which 3,700,000 sq. ft (340,000 m2) are used as offices. Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000 non-defence support personnel work in the Pentagon. It has five sides, five floors above ground, two basement levels, and five ring corridors per floor with a total of 17.5 mi (28.2 km)  of corridors. The Pentagon includes a five-acre (20,000 m2) central plaza, which is shaped like a pentagon. THE FUTURE NONAGON STRUCTURE: The Nonagon will retain the overall internal size as the Pentagon below it, but will be a 9 sided building, instead of a 5 sided one. The existing height of the walls of the Pentagon is 22 metres high and consists of 5 storeys full of offices, in which the numerous employees of the Pentagon are accommodated. Likewise, the Nonagon will be 22 meters high and also consist of 5 floors likewise. This will bring home to everyone that the work of the Department of Peace is equally important as the wok of the Department of Defence. All prize entries for the Leonardo Da Vinci Peace prize must explain in detail how the Nonagon structure will be built so as to cap and sit aside the existing Pentagon structure, and must also explain how a 9 sides building can be made to fit safely and beautifully atop a 5 sides structure.  On the very top of the Nonagon will be a purposely built World Peace garden for people to admire the views and enjoy nature at her finest, with trees and shrubs from all over the world, and with cooling fountains for hot summer days. There will also be meditation pavilions and prayer spaces for all world faiths to pray for peace and keep up a steady energy of goodwill for the work inside the Nonagon below. All necessary facilities for the Nonagon structure to house the new US Department of Peace must be included in the plan, and specified by the architectural design presented. A detailed specification of the interior space design requirement for the Nonagon will be made available to candidates wishing to enter for the prize. THE LEONARDO DA VINCI  DIMENSION: Why Leonardo da Vinci ? Leonardo was a famous Italian artist, inventor, architect, designer, draughtsman, sculptor, mathematician, and scientist, whose work has become the very base line of the ideal of Renaissance genius. The American colonies of North and South America, and then the USA, were themselves  born out of the European renaissance and the Americas are named after a fellow Florentine, Amerigo de Vespucci (1454-1512), who like Leonardo was a protegee of the Medici family of cultural and financial patrons  running the Florentine democracy in its glory days. Amerigo and Leonardo could have met and discussed ideas together at the Academy in Florence. The necessity of the times mean that Leonardo had to spend time working as a military engineer and technical inventor, both for Lodovico Sforza, the ruler of Milan, which was one of the superpowers of the day, and for Cesare Borgia, the fierce military general working for his father, Pope Alexander Vl. In today’s world, many brilliant inventors, scientists and engineers likewise end up working for the military around the world, spending the best years of their lives designing weapons and high-tech equipment that will end up killing and maiming people all over the world. They also work for high tech military intelligence projects designed to pump out propaganda to weaken and demoralise self-defined “enemies”. But Leonardo’s vision was ultimately one of peace. As a Christian catholic and universal mystic, Leonardo dreamed of a world where the spiritual laws of love and wisdom would one day prevail over a world based on barbarism, cruelty and violence. He dreamed that peace can be furthered through art, science and beauty and the realisation and manifestation of the divine patters that underlie all our lives. He was an expert in sacred geometry and had studied Islamic and Jewish science, Sufism and the Qabalah, as well as advanced Christian philosophy and metaphysics. The Leonardo Da Vinci Peace Prize has been launched as a project of IIPSGP following the Leonardo Da Vinci Peace Study day in France, and the visit to the Chateau of Amboise and Close Luce where Leonardo lived and died from 1516-1519, having been invited by King Francis 1st, the great renaissance King of France who did so much to boost education, scholarship, learning and the arts in France and Europe. The USA was itself a truly renaissance country, which historically also prizes and values renaissance thinking, and a whole lineage of savants and polymaths like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Buckminster Fuller, Edison, A.G Bell, Tesla, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and many others, have contributed in the centuries since its foundation, to the advancement of humanity as whole, by developing numerous excellent inventions and technical and engineering devices. Whereas Leonardo da Vinci only dreamed of flight, the USA has developed the air industry. Whereas Leonardo only sketched ideas for self-moving automobiles, the USA has developed the car industry. The greatest statesmen and leaders of America, such as Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy, have all realised that whereas the USA might have to fight unavoidable wars from time to time, the best long interests of the USA and the planet as a whole, are found in developing and securing peace. Thus the coming into being of the Nonagon and the Department of Peace represents the best brightest dreams of all the greatest visionary American citizens and pioneers. Peace was likewise the vision of the native peoples of North America, and in Deganawidah profound teachings on peace were shared before the coming of the Europeans. Many of the early settlers and pioneers who came to North America likewise dreamed of a country living at peace, such as William Penn. The Nonagon will represent the achievement of all their hopes and goals too. IMPLICATIONS: Building the Nonagon will represent a major shift for the people of the USA and the world. By recognising that peace is an equally important goal for mankind as defence, it will send a signal to other nations to likewise follow suit. Instead of proving one’s friendship to the American people by match-spending the Pentagon’s massive budget, nations could instead develop their own departments of peace and develop their own peace projects in their own unique cultural contexts. instead of the USA military continuing to strive for strategic military dominance over all other nations, it could realise that the true way to security is via peace, not war.  It represents a major shift of consciousness suitable for a third millennium, that shows mankind there is a way out of the current chaos and confusion caused by unsolved military conflicts worldwide. The Nonagon would tackle creatively and imaginatively the necessity to end peacefully (un)civil wars such as have been raging in Syria for too long, and the long-standing Israel-Palestine conflict over hegemony in the Holy Land. By building the Nonagon and prioritising peace, the USA would show it is serious about peacebuilding not only in the Middle East, but globally, and in this new mission it would hopefully be joined by its true friends and partners. PRACTICALITIES: Fully trained and qualified architects and architectural practises are invited to submit their design plans for building the physical infrastructure of the Nonagon. Political lobbying forms and consultancies are invited to submit their plans to ensure the passage of the US Department of Peace Bill, including the wording of the bill. Both prizes will be judged by a professional team of architects and savants organised under the rubric of the IIPSGP. The final announcement will be made in Amboise at Clos Luce where Leonardo lived and died from 1516-1519. The prize will remain open until the building of the Nonagon commences. GUIDING VISION: It has been well said of Leonardo that “He was like a man who had woken too early in the darkness when everyone else was still asleep” (Dmitri Merezkhkovski, 1901) The same will be said of the Leonardo da Vinci Peace prize and the Nonagon Project, but later, humanity will only ask why it took so long to think of it. The big question is of course – who will fund the Nonagon ? I would like to suggest that every nation in the world be asked to chip in a proportion of the cost of 50%, and the USA to pay the other half, since it is every nations interests to see the Nonagon built.


  1. IMPACT OF BREXIT ON THE ARTS IN THE UK: Sir Nicholas Hytner has delivered alarming warnings about the health of British arts and culture amid Brexit, council spending cuts and the downgrading of subjects at school. Hytner, who was the director of the National Theatre for 12 years, expressed publicly views that are shared privately by many people in the arts. The difference, Hytner told the Cheltenham literature festival in 2018, was that he no longer worked in the public sector. “I can say all this because I run a theatre that does not receive a penny from the government. I don’t even know who the arts minister is any more,” he said. “The future is precarious and it really matters.” On Brexit, Hytner said: “You will find nobody in the arts world who doesn’t think there is an enormous black cloud on the horizon in the shape of Brexit. We are so dependent on ideas, talent, people moving freely. Freedom of movement was nothing but good for us. “This is a tomorrow crisis for the classical music and dance world,” he said. “It will just all finish. They need players, dancers … they are dependent on them coming in from the European Union. It will take a little longer in my world.”


  1. MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF MARK WILLIAMS, ANTI-BREXIT CAMPAIGNER: IN October 2017 a good friend of the author and a fervent anti Brexit campaigner, Mark Williams was found mysteriously dead in his home in Surrey, one the eve of moving his home from England to France to come and work full time on giving legal advice to IIPSGP and to our anti-brexit campaign. Having tried to inform the police of the many reasons why it is extremely unlikely that Mark would have taken his own life, and having tried and failed to get the Coroner in charge of the case to take an interest in our evidence, all the signs remain that he was murdered for being so against brexit that he was prepared to come and work for IIPSGP. One year later there has still been no official inquest and the coroner has continued to refuse to listen to our detailed evidence more or less proving that Mark was murdered for his passionate beliefs against Brexit. One day justice will be done and hopefully those responsible will be punished. Even if Mark did take his own life when his mind was temporarily unhinged, it can be said that the brexit nightmare was the immediate cause of his death.


  1. SPIRITUAL INTEGRATION AND THE HISTORY OF EUROPEAN PHILOSOPHY: Something that thinkers who are critical of the European Union often forget, and who base their arguments on supposed spiritual or theological grounds, and who argue for some kind of essentialism in the UK case, that we are a special island with a different destiny to the rest of Europe, is that Europe has its own spiritual history and destiny which actually includes and encompasses all that is best about the spiritual integrity of the UK and British isles as a whole. The foundation myth at the core of the UK-Brexit idea, is that Britain is somehow the most spiritually advanced and pure of all European nations, and therefore has to escape the clutches of the horrible European continent. Feeding into this myth is the idea that whereas Europe is a fundamental dangerous and evil power, Britain is a holy and magical island which deserves to be cut free from nasty Europe. Most of the intellectuals, or pseudo intellectuals who have supported brexit, have made the case for it on some version of this “exceptionalism” myth. However it is unfortunately a false narrative because if you examine the facts in depth, much of the intellectual ideas and teachings that the UK bases its exceptionalism myth on, actually arose in Europe in the first place. Firstly the entire Celtic and druidic pagan tradition, arose in Europe and Britain simultaneously, and descends from the ancient Cave dwelling peoples who lived in the Dordogne area of Southern France in about 30,000 BC – the ancient pagan European culture, giving rise to modern day Druidry and Wicca, which are popular in the UK, some of whose followers have been seduced by Brexit arguments – have simply forgotten that these ancient pagan traditions are pan-European, and not simply belong to the UK – Ireland for example, which is in the EU, is the home of much of what we know about Druidry. Secondly, Christianity, which replaced paganism, arose in the context of European intellectual history and the great early Christian thinkers who came to the Britih isles, spent much of their formation in France or Gaul and other European spiritual and religious centres of early Christianity. Many Anglo-Saxons spent time on the continent of Europe, and indeed the whole Anglo-Saxon peoples arose in Angeln and Frisia and Northern Germany and the Netherlands, and so Europe was literally their original homeland. The King of Kent converted to Christianity because his French wife opened his eyes to the beauty and wisdom inherent in Christian theology. The protestant reformation, which also appealed to many in Britain, and which supposedly is the preferred teaching of many Brexiteers, likewise arose in Europe, with Luther, Zwingli and Calvin and other reformers all being European. Most of the famous Protestant thinkers of British history spent time studying in Europe. The golden age of scholastic philosophy was likewise a pan European tradition and the Universities of Bologna and Paris were founded before Oxford, and many oxford and Cambridge schoolmen spent time studying in Europe to complete their higher studies. The spiritual order of mediaeval Europe, the Franciscans and Cistercians and Benedictines, the Knights Templars and Dominicans, who peppered the British isles with sacred monastic retreat centres, all the way from Lewes to Paisley, all originated in Europe. The Gnostic version of Christianity which has appealed to many British thinkers also arose in the Cathar and other European Gnostic traditions, as we have been discovering recently in our Mary Magdalene Studies Association conferences. Other British intellectual argue that freemasonry is a unique contribution by British culture to European and world history and that this is yet further proof that the UK needs to break away from Europe. Yet all the evidence is that freemasonry arose as a pan-European phenomenon, with lodges and Masonic traditions descended from the mediaeval cathedral builders who constructed Charters, Notre Dame, Bourges and other magnificent cathedrals, and then brought their passes and lodge system into the Anglo-Saxon realms. Certainly freemasonry has always been popular in Europe, and many lodges and freemasonic traditions flourish in modern Continental Europe just as much as in the UK. Interestingly, the European Masonic traditions was influenced strongly by an esoteric theosophical teaching called Martinism, descended from Martinez de PAsqually and Louis Claude de St Martin. Pasqually wrote a very influential esoteric freemasonic text, which is little know in UK Masonic circles, but which has been deeply influential in European Masonic intellectual circles, called Martinès de Pasqually Treatise on the Reintegration of Beings into Their Original Estate, Virtues and Powers both Spiritual and Divine (Traité de la Réintégration des êtres dans leurs premières propriétés, vertus et puissance spirituelles et divines) (1773). The history of this movement and its impact on European thought behind the scenes ifs fascinating and yet hardly ever studied or taught in the UK. The only centre that was teaching the history of European esotericism, at the University of Exeter, has been shut down, whereas in Europe the field of Western esotericism continues as a major academic field of research. The author of this Journal gave a paper to the Czech conference of the European Studies Association for Religious Studies in July 2018 (in absentia) on the comparative idea of the devil in Western history, for example. Martinism is a form of Christian mysticism and esoteric Christianity concerned with the fall of the first man, his state of material privation from his divine source, and the process of his return, called ‘Reintegration’ or illumination. As a mystical tradition, it was first transmitted through a Masonic high-degree system established around 1740 in France by Martinez de Pasqually, and later propagated in different forms by his two students Louis Claude de Saint-Martin and Jean-Baptiste Willermoz.The term Martinism applies to both this particular doctrine and the teachings of the reorganized “Martinist Order” founded in 1886 by Augustin Chaboseau and Gérard Encausse (aka Papus). It was not used at the tradition’s inception in the 18th century. This confusing disambiguation has been a problem since the late 18th century, where the term Martinism was already used interchangeably between the teachings of Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin and Martinez de Pasqually, and the works of the first being attributed to the latter. Regular transmission of Martinism to Augustin Chaboseau and Gérard Encausse still has to be documented. The fall of Adam led man to the loss of the original shining (glorious) body, and to its transformation into the present material body. In this regard, a person has lost the ability to think independently, and all the thoughts are the result of suggestions by good or fallen spirits. Therefore, the man doesn’t have the right of choice—the freedom of will—through which he can reject bad suggestions and choose the good, or on the contrary, thereby bringing himself into a state of even greater enslavement and dependence on the ‘spoiled creatures’. The most important thing that man lost, according to Pasqually, is the direct communication with God. In order to achieve reconciliation with God, the incarnation of Jesus Christ was necessary, which by preaching, suffering, death, and resurrection laid the foundation for reconciliation, and the Reintegration of the present generation of mankind. Previous generations, according to the Treatise, were reconciled by the most vivid Old Testament saints and prophets: Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Elijah. For the final stage of reconciliation, it took Divine Condescension, that is, the incarnation of Jesus Christ. However, in order to follow the path of the Reintegration, according to the teachings of Pasqually, one should follow the path of internal self-perfection, and also make good use of the theurgy operations that Pasqually taught to the ‘men of desire’, whom he found worthy of initiation. Through these operations, the disciples must enter into relations with the angelic entities, which ‘pass through’ the theurgy operations.

Louis Claude de Saint Martin (1743 –1803) became the most significant interpreter and disciple of Martinez de Pasqually who further developed the teachings of “Martinism”. While in the garrison at Bordeaux, he came under the influence of Martinez de Pasqually, usually called a Portuguese Jew (although later research has revealed the probability that he was a Spanish Catholic), who taught a species of mysticism drawn from cabbalistic sources and endeavoured to found thereon a secret cult with magical or theurgical rites. Around September 1768 Saint-Martin was introduced to the Elect Coëns. From 1768 until 1771, Saint-Martin worked at Bordeaux as secretary to Martinez de Pasqually. In 1771, Saint-Martin left the army to become a preacher of mysticism. Same year he was living with Jean-Baptiste Willermoz at Lyon, while writing his first book. During his writing periods, his patron was his aunt countess Cecile Sophie de Saint-Martin married to Marquis Francesco Lodovico de Candia, a Savoyard duty-ambassador in Lyon, from whom he received an allowance to sustain his life and project. His conversational powers made him welcome in Parisian salons; but his zeal led him to England, where he made the acquaintance of William Law, the English mystic, and to Italy and Switzerland, as well as to the chief towns of France. In February 1784, Saint-Martin joined the Society of Harmony in Paris. In 1787, he met William Law on a trip to London. From 1788 until 1791 he resided at Strasbourg, where he met Baron Karl Göran Silfverhjelm, the nephew of Emanuel Swedenborg. At Strasbourg, in 1788, he met Charlotte de Boecklin, who introduced him to the writings of Jakob Böhme.

Saint-Martin regarded the French Revolution as a sermon in action, if not indeed a miniature of the last judgment. His ideal society was a natural and spiritual theocracy, in which God would raise up men of mark and endowment, who would regard themselves strictly as divine commissioners to guide the people. All ecclesiastical organization was to disappear, giving place to a purely spiritual Christianity, based on the assertion of a faculty superior to the reason moral sense, from which we derive knowledge of God. God exists as an eternal personality, and the creation is an overflowing of the divine love, which was unable to contain itself. The human soul, the human intellect or spirit, the spirit of the universe and the elements or matter, are the four stages of this divine emanation, man being the immediate reflection of God, and nature in turn a reflection of man. Man, however, has fallen from his high estate, and matter is one of the consequences of his fall. But divine love, united to humanity in Christ, will work the final regeneration. Saint-Martin’s version of the fall is not the fable of the Garden of Eden but a  philosophical fall from the spiritual into the concrete. “The true serpent,” he  wrote, “is the spirit which deviates [s’e’carter] from the straight line.” Sin is  essentially the first error. Man’s original dwelling space was the square, the only  pure form composed of straight lines.  The circular is the beginning and end of all form, a state of confusion, and the  prison of l’esprit. Saint-Martin denied that human languages could be  simply the product of habit and convention. The diversity of these languages was no proof of their arbitrary nature. These differences, he wrote, were only “an accidental flaw, and not in its nature.” For Saint-Martin, the many languages of the present were all deviations from the pure first language of man, the  pure communication with the divine intelligence, a “secret” and “interior” language. The origin of convention in language, he went on to argue in his next  book, is the lapse into the corporal world, where communication is no longer  perfect but conducted through external signs and expressions, which can only be  distorted versions of the primitive signs that constituted this originary communication. With Rousseau, Saint-Martin rejected much of the Enlightenment speculation on the origin of language.  The problem is that  signs, being necessarily linked to the region of the sensible, have an inherent tendency to deviation and imperfection, an inevitable inclination toward errancy.  This errancy has taken us so far from the pure realm of ideas, that we almost cease to believe this region even exists” (Louis Claude de Saint Martin). for Saint-Martin, the goal of all human association can only be the  very point from which it has descended, as the result of some “alteration.” The  very disorders and irregularities that continually plague human society offer  evidence of a higher order. “In fact, one could say that in the very disorders of  his thought, man is a being who searches to regain the point from where he  first fell” (St Martin, Eclair sur l’association humaine (Paris, 1797 [an V])  The Revolution, for Saint-Martin, was an “abbreviated image” of the Last Judgment, a “magical operation” to restore order.


So whereas the idea of integration has never been fully studied or considered in the British Masonic and esoteric tradition, it has been a key feature of European esoteric thought ever since Martinez published his work back in 1773. So when European intellectuals talk about the important of European integration, this is the metaphysical background to that whole movement, and it is a vital and deep part of the esoteric intellectual history of the European Union project, about which the British thinkers either remain completely ignorant, or which they oppose as malevolent thinkers intent on destruction and disintegration. From a Europhile British intellectual perspective, honouring the whole process of integration both of Europe and the UK and indeed the world as a whole, the brexit project seems to be rather a project of disintegration; it is a product of anti-intellectualism and a project of denying and flouting the will to love which is represented by the European re-integration project. Finally, many of the Brexiteers who voted against the continuation of the UK inside the EU actually did so from an anti-intellectual perspective. Not that they have counter arguments to make proving why the breakup of the UK and its leaving the EU is a rational, sane, clever and well thought out idea – but simply the whole Brexit phenomenon has been an anti intellectual project from start to finish, run by mob opinion harnessed by malevolent elitist forces marshalled behind the scenes – including figures like Nigel Oakes who set up Cambridge Analytica who masterminded the facebook thefts that swung the referendum victory. IN conclusion, the entire intellectual history of Europe is more or less ignored and not studied in britih academic study centres and intellectual circles. British freemasons don’t study the history of European freemasonry and its fascinating traditions, and prefer to hide behind the ideas of exceptionalism – that they alone are the true freemasons, and therefore they refuse to enter into alliance with the European freemasons, most of them in alliance with the grand Orient of France, are in deviancy from the pure stream of authentic freemasonry. Thus freemasonic exceptionalism partly underlines the whole secret rhetoric of brexit. But it is based on very flimsy intellectual grounds, and seems to lack any authenticity on close examination. From a wider perspective, britih freemasonic history, is also a subject of wider European Masonic history, including the history of the lodges of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Belgium, Czech republic, Spain, Yugoslavia, Netherlands etc. This is  pan-European phenomenon which historians have hitherto neglected, but which points to a pan-European context. The role of freemasonry in helping create the conditions which have made possible the coming into being of the (imperfect) European Union is a chapter of modern esoteric history which has yet to be written, but which will prove to be a not inglorious chapter of its history, in the long run. The history of English freemasonry in attempting to hoist brexit ideology on the entire people of the UK and to pull the UK out of the European Union will also in turn be written up one day as a not so glorious attempt by rogue freemasonic lodges to bring about selfish goals which they judge to be in their own self interest…



  1. WHO ACTUALLY ENGINEERED BREXIT AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES ? WHO WERE THE BILLIONAIRES WHO SUPPORTED BREXIT – most analysts say that the key figures pulling the strings behind brexit were the very wealthy international elites, many of them from the usa, who saw a chance to make profits out of the chaos and disturbances that would be caused by brexit. these include figures such as Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, Facebook, may other vested interests such as hedge funds and banks litter the story. Other figures include Robert Mercer, Steve Bannon, AggregateIQ, Leave.EU, Vote Leave, as well as Nigel Farage, Nigel Oakes of Cambridge Analytica, the DUP and other big financial donors.= who donated to the 2016 referendum campaign, many of whom live off shore from the UK. Others include the owners and editors of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, and Rupert Murdoch whose paper the Sun was a mass tool for mobilising the Vote Leave voters. All the emerging evidence shows that these billionaires and super rich genuinely feel that they can personally make huge profits out of brexit. They have not thought through the impact of the breakup of the UK into its parts, and most of them simply are not familiar enough with UK politics to realise this is a threat. Alternatively, some of them may actually want it to happen, so that they can reap the rewards of Disaster Capitalism. Some such as Rupert Murdoch do not like the way that The European Union stands up to their attempts to monopolise the circulation of information in the world and are trying to take it down, just as they did against  UNESCO when it proposed a new World Information Order back in the 1980’s. Before you could say jack rabbit the USA had withdrawn from UNESCO and the UK followed suit. The campaign against the EU by the super rich is part of the same campaign to prevent the global commons from scrutinising or exercising any democratic control over their monopolisation of wealth in the global community. Since 2016 the richest percentage of UK citizens have increased their share of wealth disproportionately. The living standards of ordinary UK citizens are going down, and the prospects for UK citizens now living in Europe are disastrous, as they face an utterly uncertain future.



  1. DELIBERATE TAKE DOWN OF MODERATE MUSLIM REGIMES BY EXTREMIST SUNNI FANATICS SPREADING CHAOS AND MASS REFUGEES INTO EUROPE Extremely wealth Saudis and other Arabic billionaires would also appear to think they will benefit from Brexit, as it means the Saudis can go on using the UK as its arms manufacturer, and the cosy relationships that have developed between Arab states and the UK military-industrial complex can go on without any interference from human rights concerns being expressed throughout the European parliament,. But we have seen in the recent killing of Jamal Kashoggi the real shape of Saudi influence in the world with the gloves taken off. Does the UK really want to become an axis in the USA-Saudi world domination axis, with the strange alliance of Israel thrown into the alignment ? How actually benign and how democratic is this hegemonic alliance of world petro-dollar diplomacy ? Don’t forget this same dark alliance brought us the conditions that made 9/11 possible, and also brought us the war against Iraq, has done nothing to liberate or equip the Palestinians with a decently sized an secure nation state, and has done nothing whatsoever for solving the global poverty of millions of people around the world. It brought down the USSR through its military interference in the Jihad in Afghanistan, but then this has led to the destabilisation of the Balkans and the breakup of Yugoslavia, the breakup of the old USSR and civil wars in regions such as Ukraine or the Caucuses. The rise of nationalism has even used by this USA-Saudi-Israeli axis of power, which has never been a genuine alliance of friendship but rather a mutual collaboration of revisionists seeking power – one of their main aims has been the destruction and destabilisation of the UK, and with Brexit this master stroke has finally been accomplished. Yet the majority of the people of the UK who voted for brexit literally haven’t a clue what they were voting for or what its consequences would be, namely the almost certain final destruction of the UK as a political entity. The intellectually empty numskulls who are hooting brexit through Parliament like robot owls have t though it through, or are in the pay of the very Saudi-American alliance which has been running parliament since we voted to go to war on Iraq in 2001 thus ending any appearance of an independent foreign policy in the middle east. The lies that were told then by Tony Blair and the complete distrust it led to on the part of the average voter for politicians is also part of the cause of brexit. It was the breakdown of democracy, since parliamentarians discovered they didn’t have to tell the truth, at all, and they would get away with it. Since that day, honourable political leaders have been assassinated, or silenced (Michael Meacher, Robyn Cook, Nick Clegg) or marginalised. The Murder of Jamal Kashoggi has revealed the complete nakedness of this emperor and we the British people must rise up against our brexit puppet masters and reclaim authentic power and democracy and remain inside the imperfect but improving European Union, and keep the integrity of the UK as a nation into the future.








Jo Swinson, MP for East Dunbartonshire, Jamie Stone, MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, Stephen Lloyd, MP for Eastbourne, Norman Lamb, MP for North Norfolk, Sir Edward Davey, MP for Kingston and Surbiton, Mr Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney and Shetland, Sir Vince Cable, MP for Twickenham, Tim Farron, MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale,  Sharon Bowles (Liberal Democrats), Wera Hobhouse, MP for Bath, Christine Jardine, MP for Edinburgh West



Ian Blackford, leader in the Westminster Commons, led a walk out of SNP MP’s on June 13, 2018 at Prime Ministers Questions, when the UK government imposed legislation that gives the UK government unilateral powers to decide where repatriated powers from the EU should reside – in Westminster or in the devolved parliaments. All SNP MP’s in Westminster oppose Brexit.

Stephen Gethins MP (Scottish National Party),



All Plaid Cymru MP’s in Westminster oppose Brexit.

Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru),

Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru).

All other Plaid MP’s.




Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas, sole MP, opposes Brexit utterly.













Labour voted in favour of a Brexit motion keeping the option of a second referendum open.


DAVID MILLIBAND: former Labour Foreign Secretary, has come out fully against Brexit and says: “I would argue there is a very strong case… for a stronger line that says the Brexit fantasy that was proposed two years ago is not on offer and while it’s the government’s job to negotiate a deal with the European Union, it’s vital for the stability and security of the country going forward… that the deal is put back to the country. I would have liked to have seen Labour take a stronger line on that. The facts on the ground speak to a moment of really quite grave national crisis that needs to be addressed, not just be the government but also by the opposition.”


COOPERATIVE PARTY – the Cooperative party has now voted in 2018 to require a second referendum for the UK public on Brexit


CONSERVATIVE PARTY – a small but growing group of Tory MP’s have realised they are actually self-destroying the UK by pushing brexit. The most intelligent among them are beginning to have doubts.;













JOHN MAJOR – Has come out strongly in favour of stopping and reversing brexit and says it is a terrible option, and also points out exactly the same points as I have made in this newsletter, that it was not supported even by 64% of the actively registered voters back in 2016. He has said: I understand the motives of those who voted to leave the European Union: it can – as I well know – be very frustrating. Nonetheless, after weighing its frustrations and opportunities, there is no doubt in my own mind that our decision is a colossal misjudgment that will diminish both the UK and the EU. It will damage our national and personal wealth, and may seriously hamper our future security. It may even, over time, break up our United Kingdom. It will most definitely limit the prospects of our young. And – once this becomes clear – I believe those who promised what will never be delivered will have much to answer for. They persuaded a deceived population to vote to be weaker and poorer. That will never be forgotten – nor forgiven. Our domestic focus is on the impact leaving Europe will have on the UK. That is quite natural, but, to the world at large, the bigger question is how the EU itself will be affected. The answer is – badly. Without the UK the balance of the EU changes. The free market majority may be at risk: protectionists will be encouraged and, perhaps, empowered. The UK will no longer be a buffer between the Franco-German steamroller and smaller nations. Germany will be more isolated, and friction may grow. “So what?” committed Brexiteers say. “We won’t be members: it’s Europe’s problem.” But that ignores reality. How can it not be our problem, too? Whether we are “in” or “out” the EU is in our neighbourhood; it is our predominant economic partner and our wellbeing is inexorably linked to their own wellbeing. In the hot heat of debate it should not be forgotten that we ignore the EU, disdain it, or stand aside from it, at our own risk. None of the mainstream political parties is in a healthy condition. Both the Conservatives and Labour face pressure from fringe opinion within their own membership. My fear is that the extremes of right and left will widen divisions and refuse to compromise, whereas more moderate opinion will often seek common ground. The risk of intransigence – “my way or no way” – is that the mainstream parties will be dragged further right and further left. Our nation should not tolerate the unreasoning antipathy of the extremes – to the EU, to foreigners or to minority groups. Such antipathy is repellent, and diminishes us as a nation. Softer, more reasonable voices should not be drowned out by the raucous din of the loudest. I freely confess to a taste for compromise. Politics is real life. It isn’t warfare. It isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about people. It’s about four nations who deserve more than an ideological tug of war. Respect and civility would do much to help lift politics out of the dog days in which it is now living. More compromise – less confrontation.”


TONY BLAIR – has come out 100% in favour of the EU and a new referendum, he realises what a disaster for the UK Brexit will be; he also was the architect of the Good Friday agreement, and realises what is at stake in Ireland if Brexit goes ahead, undoing all the hard work he achieved with the help of Mo Mowlem and others. Recently he has urged all MPs to vote down whatever Brexit deal Theresa May presents to parliament and to push instead for another referendum, warning that if they fail to do so there will be a backlash from voters that will last a political lifetime. Writing in Sunday’s Observer on November 4, the former prime minister, who won three general elections as Labour leader, says there is now no outcome May can secure that can be good, or even reasonable, for the country... We are approaching Brexit crunch time,” he writes. “Everyone is going to come under intense pressure to agree a ‘reasonable deal’, Labour MPs especially. They should resist. There is no ‘reasonable deal’. “There is the pointless, the painful or fudge through postponement of the core issues. Each option is bad. MPs should vote it down and give the people the final say.” With expectations rising that a deal may only be weeks away, and that the prime minister could put the outcome to a vote in parliament before Christmas, Blair says that rather than being afraid of voting it down, Labour and other MPs should be more worried about the consequences of inflicting a bad outcome on an electorate that would prove unforgiving. He has told  Labour MPs, not to flirt with a ‘lesser evil’ Describing May’s Chequers plans as “madness”, he writes: “Time has not lessened my sense of the catastrophic effects of Brexit. It has increased it. MPs should vote against the deal, while saying to their constituents: ‘We cannot, in all conscience, agree with this, but the final decision is yours.’


GORDON BROWN – was always against Brexit and he helped swing the vote to enable Scotland to remain in the UK during their independence referendum –but he now realises that this has changed, and that if a second referendum were to be held, it would be won by the Scottish referendum lobby, if Brexit is implemented. He is an intelligent man who realises that brexit will mean the breakup of the UK. Gordon Brown is a passionate remainer who during the infamous 2016 referendum made an excellent speech which was filmed inside the ruins of Coventry Cathedral, in which he argued that the UK should remain inside the EU for countless reasons, but the most important of them was because it had kept the peace in Europe all these years, and the UK needed to ensure that it has a long and healthy life ahead of it. This speech is still well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLgwtfWYdTs



All of their MP’S oppose brexit because of knowing the chaos it will unleash in the northern Irish predicament. some however might actually want it because they feel sure it will lead to the repaid reunification of Ireland as one country, and so might just be a price worth paying for that.





LIBERAL PARTY: Lord Addington, Lord Alderdice, Lord Allan of Hallam, Lord Alliance, Lord Paddy Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville,Baroness Barker,Lord Beith,Baroness Benjamin,Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury aroness Bowles of Berkhamsted, Lord Bradshaw, Tom Brake, MP for Carshalton and Wallington, Baroness Brinton, Lord Bruce of BennachieL Lord Burnett, Baroness Burt of Solihull, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord Chidgey, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Cotter,  Lord Dholakia, Baroness Doocey,Baroness Falkner of Margravine,  Baroness Featherstone,  Lord Foster of Bath,  Lord Fox,  Baroness Garden of Frognal,  Lord German, The Earl of Glasgow, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Greaves, Baroness Grender, Baroness Hamwee, Baroness Harris of Richmond, Baroness Humphreys, Lord Hussain, Baroness Hussein-Ece, Baroness Janke, Baroness Jolly, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, Baroness Kramer, Lord Lee of Trafford, Baroness Ludford, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, Baroness Maddock, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord McNally, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Lord Newby, Baroness Northover, The Earl of Oxford and Asquith, Lord Paddick, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, Baroness Parminter, Baroness Pinnock,  Lord Purvis of Tweed, Baroness Randerson, Lord Razzall, Lord Redesdale, Lord Rennard, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Baroness Scott of Needham Market, Lord Scriven, Lord Sharkey, Baroness Sheehan, Lord Shipley, Lord Shutt of Greetland, Lord Smith of Clifton, Baroness Smith of Newnham, Lord David Steel of Aikwood, Lord Stephen, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, Lord Storey, Lord Strasburger, Lord Stunell, Baroness Suttie, Lord Taverne, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord Teverson, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Baroness Thomas of Winchester, Baroness Thornhill, Viscount Thurso, Lord Tope, Baroness Tyler of Enfield, Lord Tyler, Lord Vallance of Tummel, Lord Verjee, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Baroness Walmsley, Lord Watson of Richmond, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, Lord Wrigglesworth.



NORTHERN IRISH LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (ALLIANCE PARTY) – all its MP’s arte utterly opposed to Brexit and area doing what they can to reverse it.


LORD ALDERDICE – a key figure in the Good Friday agreement, he opposes Brexit knowing full well what chaos it will cause on the streets of Northern Ireland, and that it will lead to the reimposition of  hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. He runs a peace institute in Belfast which is a sister institute IIPSGP. He is also involved with the Global Thinkers Forum and hence has no time for the follies of Brexit, being a genuinely global thinker and actor. Since 2010 he has served as convenor of the Liberal Democrat Peers, a role in which he chairs the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party in the House of Lords. He was elected President of Liberal International in 2005 and served until Liberal International’s Cairo congress in 2009. He was succeeded by Dutch politician Hans van Baalen.


LABOUR LORDS: Peter Mandelson, Former Member of the European Commission and

Lord Kinnock, former leader of the labour Party, are but two of the members of the Lords for Labour who are opposed to brexit. Many of the other Labour Lords are likewise opposed in spirit and principle to brexit, but with the hijacking of their party by Jeremy Corbyn, their voice has been needlessly silenced and cowed.




John Kerr (Crossbench

Baroness Sally Greengross OBE, Former Director General, Age Concern England




Andrew Duff MEP – he has been a leading member of the European Convention which produced the first draft of the European Union’s controversial Constitution. In his important new book, he analyses the Convention’s successes and failures, and he describes the final negotiations and their outcome. Andrew Duff believes that a durable constitutional settlement is vital for the future of Europe. He explains how the Constitution would strengthen the EU at home and abroad.



On 23 June 2018, the second anniversary of the EU referendum, People’s Vote organised a march and protest from Piccadilly to Parliament Square in Central London. Speakers included actor Tony Robinson (who criticised the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for not attending the march), business owner Gina Miller, Liberal Democrats Leader Vince Cable, Labour MP David Lammy, Lucas and Soubry. An estimated 100,000 people attended the march.


Organisations: People’s Vote is a collaboration between several groups. They use a campaign office based in Millbank central London, apart from Wales for Europe which is based in Wales. The European Movement UK and Britain for Europe also have roughly 150 local campaign groups. People’s Vote was launched at an event in London on 15 April 2018, at The Electric Ballroom in Camden. The event comprised Andy Parsons with MPs Umunna, Soubry, Layla Moran (Liberal Democrats), and Lucas speaking, as well as actor Patrick Stewart. Lord Adonis also attended the event.


Many political groups have been set up to oppose taking the UK out of the EU, including Britain for Europe, European Movement UK, For our Future’s Sake (FFS), Healthier IN the EU, InFacts, Open Britain, Our Future Our Choice (OFOC), Scientists for EU, Wales for Europe, Best for Britain. A new political party has also been set up to campaign to keep the UK inside the EU, Renew Britain.


Others:  In July 2017, the Parliament of the United Kingdom established an all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on the UK’s relations with the European Union. Co-chairs are  Chuka Umunna MP (Labour) and Anna Soubry MP (Conservative); the remaining members of the group are Caroline Lucas MP (Green), Jo Swinson MP (Liberal Democrats), Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru), Stephen Gethins MP (Scottish National Party), Ros Altmann (Conservative), Andrew Adonis (Labour), John Kerr (Crossbench), Sharon Bowles (Liberal Democrats), and Dafydd Wigley (Plaid Cymru). This group is pretty much clearly in favour of the UK remaining within the EU.


On 1 February 2018 The Guardian reported that a grassroots coordinating group (GCG) representing more than 500,000 members opposed to a hard Brexit had formed, with Umunna as its leader.  Later that month it was reported that George Soros’s Open Society Foundations had donated £182,000 to European Movement UK and £35,000 to Scientists for EU, two of the grassroots groups. In March 2018, HuffPost reported that several pro-EU groups had moved into an office together in London’s Millbank Tower in order to co-ordinate their campaign to retain strong links between Britain and the European Union. This was also reported to be in order to work alongside the APPG on EU Relations. Umunna commented, “In our democracy, it is vital that the people get their say on Brexit.



The co-founder of Superdry, Julian Dunkerton, donated £1m to the campaign to keep the UK Inside the EU

Gina Miller has also called for a second referendum to give the UK population a chance to reconsider Brexit; she has also brought a legal case against the Government over brexit and won it.

John Cooke, Economic Consultant, formerly at the DTI and UK Representation in Brussels.

Robert Emerson, Director, Grosvenor Lifestyle

Dr Nigel Forman, Non-Executive Director, HFC Bank plc

Claudia Hamill, Fondation Arlon; formerly Brunswick PR and the National Trust

Nicolas Maclean, Chief Executive, NWM

Alan Sugar, UK Businessman


More than 70 business leaders have signed a letter to the Sunday Times calling for a public vote on the UK’s Brexit deal. The chief executive of Waterstones James Daunt and former Sainsbury’s boss Justin King are among those saying a “destructive hard Brexit” will damage the UK economy. A group called Business for a People’s Vote  launches on November 5. Other in favour of a second referendum include: Richard Reed, the co-founder of Innocent Drinks, Lord Myners, the former chairman of Marks and Spencer and Martha Lane Fox, the founder of Lastminute.com  The 70 business leaders who have backed a second Brexit referendum, warned that the UK faces “either a blindfold or a destructive hard Brexit” that would be bad for firms and jobs.

Deborah Meaden has written (November 19) “As business leaders gathered today at the CBI conference to discuss the future of our economy, the main topic on everyone’s minds is how their businesses will fair after this miserable Brexit deal. Brexit has already hurt British businesses. Almost 50 employers have cited Brexit as the reason for cutting 21,000 jobs and we have lost £42 billion in inward investment since the referendum. This dodgy deal that we are being sold will leave businesses facing years more of uncertainty and does nothing to fix the drain on confidence in our businesses. For me and many like me this deal is going to be so much worse for business than the deal we currently have inside the EU. This is why I’ve been calling for a People’s Vote. In just a few weeks our MPs are going to vote on this deal so now is the time to let them know what we really think of this dodgy Brexit deal and the affect it will have on our futures.”


TRADE UNIONISTS SUPPORTING A SECOND REFERENDUM: The Trades Union Congress has warned Theresa May it is poised to throw its “full weight” behind calls for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. TUC leader Frances O’Grady said that unless the government struck “the deal that working people need” with the EU, she would demand a “popular vote”. “It’s only right that people should get a say,” she told the BBC. The GMB union backs another referendum on the Brexit idea.  Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show as the TUC conference gets under way in Manchester, Ms O’Grady urged the government to extend the UK’s EU membership to allow longer for negotiations.”Time is running out and a crash out of the EU would be an absolute disaster for the people we represent,” she said. She said people’s livelihoods at companies like BMW, Airbus and Jaguar were at stake, calling for jobs and workers’ rights to be the government’s priority.”I want to serve notice to the prime minister today that if we don’t get the deal that working people need, then the TUC will be throwing our full weight behind a campaign for a popular vote so that people get a say on whether that deal is good enough or not,” she said, adding that union leaders always consult their members when they negotiate a deal. In September  the GMB Union announced its support for the People’s Vote campaign. To coincide with the start of the TUC conference in September, People’s Vote has published polling suggesting most members of Unison, Unite and GMB supported the campaign’s demands. It said the YouGov poll of more than 2,700 trade unionists was evidence of the “growing momentum” for its campaign




Carole Cadwalladr from The Guardian  This is Britain in 2017. A Britain that increasingly looks like a “managed” democracy. Paid for by US billionaires. Using military-style technology. Delivered by Facebook. And enabled by us. If we let this referendum result stand, we are giving it our implicit consent. This isn’t about Remain or Leave. It goes far beyond party politics. It’s about the first step into a brave, new, increasingly undemocratic world.” Carole has listed ten ongoing criminal investigations into financial irregularity involving the lease campaigns in the 2016 referendum. It was she who exposed the true role of Cambridge Analytica in all this through her reporting for the Guardian newspaper.








GAVIN ESLER broadcaster






ELOISE TODD (founder of Best for Britain)


JON DANZIG (founder of Reasons2rtemain)


JOHN HARRIS, journalist at the Guardian


ALASTAIR CAMPBELL,  Former Downing Street Director of Communications – he has said “the Brexit that was campaigned successfully for doesn’t exist” and went on the march on October 20, 2018


THE INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER – The Independent wrote an editorial on 24 July 2018 calling for a “final say on the Brexit deal”.[


THE GUARDIAN – not all of the articles in the guardian oppose Brexit, but most do, and the majority of journalists working from the Guardian and publishing therein oppose brexit and favour a second referendum


THE EVENING  STANDARD – the majority of journalists in the Standard oppose brexit – the editor likewise; the editor of the Evening Standard is the former Chancellor of the UK, George Osborne, who campaigned hard to remain inside the EU and warned us all what would be the consequences of voting for Brexit.


There are no doubt many other journalists who oppose Brexit and a growing number at that. Some writers in the Times have also written articles critical of brexit and other newspaper journalists have followed suit. The BBC remains relentless propagandistic in its refuse to countenance any alternative to supporting Theresa May’s hell bent self destruction of the UK in a post brexit nightmare. They seem to have dropped their requirement that people that join the BBC should be bright young University graduates with at least a 2.1 and a serious interest in current political and cultural life.



  1. SPORTS PEOPLE FAVOURING A SECOND REFERENDUM One of the key figures is Gary Lineker, also Olympic athlete Paula Radcliffe, former England rugby stars Brian Moore and Lawrence Dallaglio, darts player Bobby George, and OIympic gold medal sailor Ben Ainslie. David Beckham – The former captain of the England international football team also voted to Remain. He said: “We live in a vibrant and connected world where together as a people we are strong. For our children and their children we should be facing the problems of the world together and not alone.” His wife, Victoria, has also announced her support for the EU.Many other sports people have also come out in favour of second referendum and would like to see the UK reverse its decision to leave the EU.


  1. CULTURAL FIGURES FAVOURING REMAIN: There are many leading cultural figures of UK origin who support a second referendum and remaining in the EU, including: Elton John – the singer who announced his intention to vote Remain on Instagram, sharing an image with the words “build bridges not walls” along with the caption: “I’m voting to remain. #StrongerInEurope” Others in the music industry in support of the EU are Billy Bragg, Jarvis Cocker, Simon Cowell, Bob Geldof and Florence Welch. The most famous children’s author our generation is JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books and she has expressed in the past the concern that “racists and bigots” directed parts of the Leave campaign. In a blog post, she added: “How can a retreat into selfish and insecure individualism be the right response when Europe faces genuine threats, when the bonds that tie us are so powerful, when we have come so far together? How can we hope to conquer the enormous challenges of terrorism and climate change without cooperation and collaboration?” Another famous figure in favour of a second referendum is actor Daniel Craig, who stars in the James Bond movies. James Bond himself would have been in favour of a second referendum by the way. Another actor in favour of Britain staying inside the EU is Benedict Cumberbatch and Sir Patrick Stewart. There are at least as many as 280 other figures from the arts world who backed a vote to stay. Support for Remain has also come from  music stars Hot Chip, alt-J and Paloma Faith, authors Dame Hilary Mantel and John le Carre, and fashion designer Dame Vivienne Westwood. Other actors to voice support for a second referendum and the cause of the UK remaining in Europe are  John Hurt, Idris Elba, Helena Bonham-Carter, Game Of Thrones actor Daniel Portman, Masie Williams of Game of Thrones, Amber Anderson  and singer Jordan  Stephens,  Keira Knightley and Cara Delevingne. The late Sir John Hurt (1940-2017) who was the voice of the dragon in Merlin, was also in favour of staying inside the EU. Also in favour of the EU and the UK remaining in Europe, is Bear Grylls the adventurer and TV presenter who has said: “At such a time for the UK to retreat, run and cut ourselves loose from Europe, when there are so many challenges on our doorstep, to me just doesn’t feel either courageous or kind,” he said. “Europe has many flaws, but I also believe the way to help resolve many of those tough issues is from within… I have never been a good quitter and I am so proud of the UK and our values: tolerance, kindness, respect, courage and resilience. This is why I want us to stay together and Remain in Europe.” Another great actor to back a second referendum and the UK staying inside the EU is Patrick Stewart who starred as captain Picard in Star trek, a much loved series by many UK viewers. Likewise Richard Wilson, the actor who played Gaius,  the teacher of Merlin, in the popular TV Series of Merlin, has come out publicly in favour of Remain in the EU and made a humourous short film exposing the stupidity of Brexit which has been shown widely on facebook and other social media platforms. Actor Tony Robinson spoke at the huge Peoples March in London on October 20, 2018 and criticised the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for not attending the march. Famous cook and author Delia Smith also supports staying inside the EU, as does comedian Steve Coogan, as well as comedian Eddie Izzard, Andy Serkis, and The Thick of It star Chris Addison. All of these latter figures were on the march on October 20 2018 along with 700,000 others in London. Also supporting are satirist Armando Iannucci, comedian Rory Bremner plus Scottish comedian Billy Connolly (who has said that if brexit goes ahead he will support Scottish independence). Comedian Nich Kumar has also expressed horror at Brexit. BONO, the lead singer of U2 has also expressed considerable dislike of Brexit and spoken out in favour of a second referendum. Actor Danny Dyer, who stars in Eastenders has also come out in favour of a second referendum and opposing brexit. He said of brexiteers: “They just don’t give a fuck. This us against them-type vibe has got worse. We are living in an age of food banks. How the fuck did that happen? Seriously.” He went on to say: “Politicians are floundering around. They have been given this thing called fucking Brexit because of one man. One man. Who we voted in to be our prime minister, who purely for his own ego decided to call a referendum just to get rid of Nigel Farage. Farage, another prick in a suit who tapped into something – and I suppose it is that white working-class, middle-age man who lost his voice slightly.He tapped into what he felt maybe they wanted to say and twisted it. He got a bit of a following, so Cameron decided to call a referendum just to get him.Well, fuck you, Cameron you posh twat. Sorry. It backfired on him didn’t it? And what does he do? He fucks off. He doesn’t like the way it went and he fucks off. Look where we are now. If our leader is willing to say ‘oh, I can’t be bothered’, where is our structure? Where is the foundation?” Several young actors have recently written an open letter to  MP’s asking for a second referendum: “Most of our generation voted to stay in 2016. Many were devastated at the result. But we’re democrats, and of course the government had to negotiate a deal which works for this country. If this is it, then whether you voted Leave or Remain, you know it is not good enough. Even the government admits we will be poorer as a result.Austerity has been bad enough. This miserable Brexit is going to make it worse. With inequality growing, public services failing, housing costs beyond so many of our young people, and tuition fees crippling, don’t be surprised that many of us, the first generation to grow up to be poorer than their parents, are losing hope in politics altogether.Can you look us in the eye and tell us this Brexit Deal will be good for our futures? Can you honestly say that this deal is better than the one we have as a moment?We’re not interested in more Brexit fantasies. We’ve had enough of the lies and the chaos. The Brexit now on offer is so far removed from what was promised in 2016, it is frankly undemocratic to deny people their say. The only way out of this mess is to put the decision back to the people and let them decide.” Well done to these brave voices, including Masie Williams of the amazing Game of Thrones and also my own god-daughter, Amber Anderson. Keep speaking out, oh Thespians, in the name of Dionysus and all who love. The immortal Bard of Britain set Romeo and Juliet in Italy, along with others of his plays, because he was a Europhile. So lets not let him down, eh ?


  1. ACADEMICS AND INTELLECTUALS WHO OPPOSE BREXIT: The following list is by no means complete and there are probably literally thousands more academics who would like a second referendum and who oppose Brexit as being against the best interests of the UK, and leading to its inevitable break up. The Tory government has tried to prevent academics from speaking out against Brexit, but many are now beginning to speak up and rely on the principles of academic freedom, which are legally respected, to be able to speak out without fear of losing their jobs. Academics from all disciplines are speaking out against brexit: Philosophers, natural scientists, mathematicians, astronomers, biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, historians, theologians, political scientist, human rights and law professors, feminists, sociologists, educationists, economists etc. Of course there are also a few academics who support brexit, such as historian Simon Seebag-Montefiore, who organized a website for historians in favour of leaving the European Union, and a group of other academics (many of whom have organised in a website called Briefings for Brexit) but the vast majority of mainstream academics in all fields are opposed to Brexit, for they realise that it will mean less access to research funding, more centralized control by the UK government over freedom of thought, less pluralism in intellectual debate and a stifling of the continental input into British culture and history, and above all, that it will mean the breakup of the UK as will taking Scotland and Northern Ireland out of the EU against the declared democratic will. Here is a small; sampling of academics and scientists opposed to brexit, but the numbers could be increased probably by thousands. It also should be said that the vast majority of Students are against Brexit. Student unions representing almost a million young people studying at UK universities and colleges have joined forces to demand a referendum on any final Brexit deal, amid growing fears that leaving the EU will have a disastrous effect on their future prospects. Predicting a young people’s revolt, student unions – representing 980,000 students at 60 of the country’s leading universities and colleges – wrote to MPs in their areas  in May 2018, calling on them to back a “people’s vote” before a final Brexit deal can be implemented. Student leaders said that they were planning action that would dwarf protests held in 2010 against the coalition government’s plans for student fees, and that they would not rest until they had been granted a say on their futures.


Prof Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London


David Miller, a professor of sociology at Bath University and an authority in psyops and propaganda, says it is “an extraordinary scandal that this (i.e. Cambridge Analytica) should be anywhere near a democracy. It should be clear to voters where information is coming from, and if it’s not transparent or open where it’s coming from, it raises the question of whether we are actually living in a democracy or not.”


Prof Michael Douggan,Professor of Law at  Liverpool University is utterly opposed to the folly of Brexit and has been making short documentary information videos about the implication sand consequences; he is especially riled at the stupid effect it will have on destabilising Anglo-Irish relations and putting us right back into a further time of troubles.


Prof. Richard Dawkins, of Oxford University, one of the most famous scientists in the UK, has come out firmly against brexit and in favour of  a second referendum, on grounds of pure logic. Probably he realises that the Brexit group lobby are a kind of religious cult, and indeed that they are backed by quite a few people for “religious reasons”, i.e. on pure faith grounds, rather than any empirical scientific evidence.


Prof A.C. Grayling, a philosopher and founder of The New College to the Humanities in Bloomsbury, close to where IIPSGP was founded, has also become a very vocal critic of Brexit, and someone who actively campaigns for a second referendum.


Prof Keith Featherstone, head of the European Institute at the LSE, who defended Vice Chancellor of Worcester University’s refusal to issue Chris Heaton-Smith MP with a list of teachers of European studies at his University who might have been teaching pro-brexit perspectives.


Prof Photis Lysandrou: Research Professor at City University Political Economy Research Centre (CITYPERC), Department of International Politics, City University of London. He has published widely on global political economy and on the global financial crisis. His book ‘Commodity: The Global Commodity System in the 21st Century’ will be published by Routledge in the autumn of 2018. He has written Appeal from a political economist: the left internationalist case for a second referendum on Brexit (August 2018) on Open Democracy in which he argues that “The conclusion that follows from everything that has been said in this article is that any genuinely left internationalist position on the EU is one that fights for its preservation. And what this means in the British context, is that the left must come together with those who demand a second referendum on Brexit that can reverse the original decision. Only by remaining in the EU and acting in concert with its EU partners can Britain confront the multinationals and the super-rich on the scale necessary for the realisation of a growth-generating and job-expansion programme. Of course the present structures of the EU inhibit the degree to which such a coordinated confrontation can be made, and of course the present dominant economic ideology in the EU is one that favours austerity-type programmes. But these are reasons for fighting to change these existing structures and this dominant neo-liberal ideology within the EU. They are categorically not reasons for abandoning the EU, for to do so will constitute a highly irresponsible act that will neither be forgotten nor forgiven by future generations.”


Prof. Anne Applebaum – Prof at the LSE in the centre for Global Governance, A historian who has studied the Gulag in the history of the Soviet Union, previously an adjunct fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. She has an extensive career as a journalist, working for the Washington Post, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph and the Economist. She was deputy editor of the Spectator and political editor for the Evening Standard. However, she resigned from the Legatum Institute in 2016, having disagreed with the director over the Institute’s support for Brexit and she now works at  the LSE. She is essentially someone who opposes Brexit from a conservative intellectual perspective.


  1. DALIBOR RINAC author of Towards an Imperfect Union: Conservative Case for the European Union. Dalibor Roháč received his PhD in political economy from King’s College London. He’s currently a Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, in Washington, DC. He’s widely published in popular media including articles in the Financial Times, and his most recent book Towards an Imperfect Union: A Conservative Case for the EU came out in 2016. He argues that earlier writing in the 1930s and the 1940s, thinkers such as Hayek, Röpke or Mises understood that unless Europeans create a platform for international governance, they were doomed to repeat the horrific experience of the first half of the 20th century. After the war, Europeans indeed created such a platform for international governance. It is not perfect, of course. But right now, it comes under unprecedented pressure and Brexit is the worst kick in the teeth it could have dreamed of receiving. Yet it was British federalist thinkers who first helped dream it into being in the first place. And now there is a real danger that it unravels, returning us precisely to a situation that Hayek et al. urged us to avoid. Dalibor explains that “the University of Chicago economist Harold Demsetz coined the concept of the ‘Nirvana fallacy’, the comparison of the existing, necessarily imperfect institutions and arrangements with some impossible ideal. Instead, we should be comparing what is with available alternatives, not some impossible standards. A libertarian utopia is not on the menu in Europe, nor is a single market based on simple, unconditional mutual recognition of standards. When we criticize (for good reasons!) the excesses of European regulation, we need to be mindful that oftentimes the relevant alternative to an EU directive we don’t particularly like are 28 mutually incompatible pieces of national legislation – something that would make doing business on the continent far more difficult. More generally, we need to be aware of a Europe of nation states, unconstrained by organizations such as the EU, would likely look like. Again, it wouldn’t be a continent particularly friendly to free trade, economic openness, or limited government. It might not even be peaceful. How do I know? Well, we’ve done a Europe of nation states in the past, and it didn’t work very well.”


SIR PAUL NURSE former president of the Royal Society and Director of the Francis Crick Institute, Sir Paul has been a vocal critic of brexit for a long time, and as one of Britain’s most internationalist scientist, he knows the huge impact Brexit will have on the status of UK science worldwide. He is a Nobel prize winner and has written a letter in October 2018 along with 26 other Nobel prize winners warning against the consequences of Brexit for the standing of British science. The ability of students and teachers, scientists and other academics to travel freely about the 27 nations of the European Union makes their access to scientific and academic research of a high level, as well as funding streams, makes it imperative that the UK should remains inside the EU, he argues.


PROF. ROBERT JACKSON – Professor of Religious Education at the University of Warwick, one of the UK’s leading experts on religious education, moral and values education, has argued that brexit has brought out a very xenophobic and racist side of the British character that would have been better to have been left lying dormant, and that it is against the moral well being of the UK and Europe for Brexit to be allowed to go ahead.


DR DESMOND LACHMAN of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) who formerly worked for the World Bank and served as Dalibor Rohac is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies European political and economic trends. Specifically, he is working on Central and Eastern Europe, the European Union (EU) and the eurozone, US-EU relations, and the post-Communist transitions and backsliding of countries in the former Soviet bloc. He is concurrently a visiting junior fellow at the Max Beloff Centre for the Study of Liberty at the University of Buckingham in the UK and a fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London; he has argued that brexit makes no economic sense and has written that the UK government is foolish to pursue it in the face of all possible sensible economic indicators.


Dr. Mike Glasworthy, Senior Research Association at University College London  founder of Scientists for EU, gained his PhD in behaviour genetics from Kings College London in 2003 under Prof Robert Plomin.


Prof. David Green, Vice Chancellor of Worcester University, for opposing right of Tory MP to find out who opposes Brexit on campus. He has also campaigned against attempted Government interference in university teaching, as well as for increased student nursing places. Professor Green has always championed a truly inclusive approach to education. By placing great importance on combining enduring human values with professionalism, the University of Worcester community is an environment in which staff and students thrive: there is no gender pay gap and 59% of senior positions are held by women. David has lectured at universities and spoken at conferences throughout Europe and the United States as well as in India, Pakistan, Thailand, Australia, China and Mauritius. In 2016 he was the only Vice Chancellor invited to speak at the International Paralympic Committee’s Inclusion Summit, as part of the Rio Games, alongside IPC President Sir Philip Craven. His authored publications in academic books and journals have focussed on financial reform, banking, and economic policy. David plays an active role in the local community. His leadership work led to the 2006 Pride of Worcestershire award being conferred upon him. David is the long-serving chair of the Worcester Alliance, which brings together a wide variety of local organisations for the common good. In 2011, when the Worcestershire Local Economic Partnership was formed, David was appointed a member of the seven-strong Board. David also serves on the Worcester Cathedral Council.


Rob Davison, co founder of Scientists for EU


Prof Benjamin Selwyn, Professor of International Relations and International Development (International Relations, School of Global Studies, International Development). He has spoken strongly against Brexit saying it is a betrayal of all the cultural and intellectual values that the UK has historically stood for int the world.


Sir Tony Robinson, The Time Team, an English actor, comedian, author, presenter and political activist. He is known for playing Baldrick in the BBC television series Blackadder and for hosting historical documentaries, notably the Channel 4 programmes Time Team and The Worst Jobs in History.


Dr Ewan McGaughey, law – Lecturer in Law at King’s College London;  He holds degrees from King’s, the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and the London School of Economics, and has taught at UCL. He is also a research associate at the University of Cambridge, Centre for Business Research. He was a Visiting Scholar at University of California, Berkeley in summer 2016. Ewan’s core research interests are economic and social rights, particularly in the governance of enterprises. He specialises in corporate law, insolvency, pensions and institutional investment, labour law, private law, law and economics, and legal history, in the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States. He is particularly interested in law’s social role, and its consequences for equality, fairness and justice. He has spoken strongly against Brexit as a completely crazy idea.


Prof. Martin McKee, Prof of European Public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, an co founder of Healthier in the EU


Dr Andrew Black, is a trained economist and holds a Ph.D in Economics from London University, as well as Bachelor and Master’s degrees in the same subject. He worked as an academic researcher and fellow at the International Institute for Management in Berlin, and at the Max Planck Institute in Sternberg. He has taught economics at various universities, and most recently was a visiting lecturer at the University of Warwick Business School.  He has also given courses at the London Business School on business strategy and valuation issues. He is a research fellow at the Global Policy Institute, and has recently written papers for Chatham House and the Society of Business Economists.


Brendan Donnelly, Director, The Federal Trust, a federalist by persuasion and intellectual argument, a keen supporter of the European Union and the UK’s role therein, and a protégé of the late Prof Stephen Haessler Prof of politics and a public intellectual in the deepest sense of the term. Brendan is a pro-European Union British think. Donnelly was elected as a Member of the European Parliament in Sussex South and Crawley at the European Parliament election in 1994 for the Conservative Party. He then left the party, continued as an independent for a period, and then co-founded and became deputy leader of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party at the 1999 European elections. He failed to get elected and subsequently briefly joined the Liberal Democrats. He stood in the 2009 European elections under the Yes2Europe political label. He stood in the 2014 European elections for the 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP). Now Donnelly is director of the Federal Trust and, until 6 March 2010, was chair of Federal Union, when he was succeeded by Richard Laming. The Federal trust is a think tank on federal issues founded by the late Sir William Beveridge, Lord Lothian and others when he was Director of the LSE.


George Irvin, is a Research Professor at the University of London (SOAS) and author of ‘Super Rich: the Growth of Inequality in Britain and the United States’, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2008. He contributes to Social Europe (SE) which is a leading digital media publisher. They use the values of ‘Social Europe’ as a viewpoint to examine issues in politics, economy and employment & labour and are committed to publishing cutting-edge thinking and new ideas from the most thought-provoking people. Since its founding, SE has published thinkers and decision-makers of the highest calibre including Nobel laureates, global leaders and internationally acclaimed academics as well as some of the best young talent.


Stanley Henig – Stanley Henig has enjoyed twin careers as an academic political scientist and a practical politician. He has held academic appointments at the Universities of Lancaster, Warwick and Central Lancashire and also at the Civil Service College. In the 1960s he was a Labour Member of Parliament and in the 1990s Leader of Lancaster City Council. In the latter capacity he was also a senior member of the Local Government Association. Since 2001 he has been a Senior Research Fellow at the Federal Trust.


John Stevens, Chairman, British Committee, European People’s Party, John Stevens was educated at Winchester and at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he read Jurisprudence. After a time working in France, Germany and Italy for Banque Indosuez, Bayerische Hypotheken Bank and Reuters, he joined Morgan Grenfell in 1979 and rose to become a main Board Director and head of their European Currency and Government Bond Trading Operation, which, in the mid 80s, was the largest of its kind in London. He was seconded for a period to New York and Tokyo.In 1989 he was elected Conservative MEP for the Thames Valley and became immediately Vice Chairman of the European Parliament’s Economic & Monetary Affairs Committee. He conducted all the legislation for the creation of the Euro through the European Parliament from 1989 to 1999. He was the European Parliament’s representative on the EBRD and on the European Monetary Institute which became the European Central Bank.In 1999, with a number of others, he set up the Pro Euro Conservative Party, with the intention of encouraging Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine to reform the Conservative Party under their leadership and restore it to its pro European traditions.


Dr Kai Oppermann, he is a graduate of the Free University Berlin and obtained a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cologne in 2007. Before joining the University of Sussex in October 2013, he was a Lecturer in European and German Politics at King’s College London. He has been a member of Faculty at the Institute for Political Science and European Affairs at the University of Cologne and was managing editor of a German-language journal on Foreign and Security Policy. Kai has been awarded the Venia Legendi in Political Science (2013) at the University of Cologne, on the basis of a professorial dissertation on the domestic sources of European integration and foreign policy. In 2010, he won a Marie Curie Fellowship for a research project on European integration referendums. He has also taught at the Free University Berlin, the Philipps-University Marburg and the Centre International de Formation Européenne (CIFE) in Nice. Before he took up his first academic position, he worked as a personal assistant in the German parliament, the Bundestag.


 Dr Sue Collard,      Senior Lecturer in French Politics & Contemporary European Studies (Politics, Sussex European Institute, Sussex Centre for Migration Research) Admissions Tutor for UG Politics and PG European Politics and Contemporary European Studies.Convenor of MA courses in European Politics and Contemporary European Studies.Special advisor to students taking joint degree in Politics and History.Special advisor to International Students.Trustee and Member of the Franco-British Council. Leader of The European Citizens Party: local candidate in 2011 local elections in Brighton and Hove, Westbourne Ward. Elected member of municipal council in St Gervais des Sablons, Orne (Basses-Normandie) since 2008.


Dr Adrian Treacher, Lecturer in European Studies (Politics, Sussex European Institute)


Prof. Aleks Szczerbiak –  is Professor of Politics and Contemporary European Studies. He is currently Director of Doctoral Studies for Law, Politics and Sociology and was Co-Director of the Sussex European Institute (SEI) from 2006-14. Aleks graduated from the University of Sheffield and, following a few years spent working as a political researcher and consultant, returned to take a Masters degree at Birkbeck College, University of London and PhD at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London. He started lecturing at Sussex in 1998.Aleks is the co-convenor (with Prof Paul Taggart) of the ‘European Parties Elections and Referendums Network’ (EPERN) and Associate Editor of the ‘Party Politics’ journal. He is also on the Editorial Advisory Boards of the ‘Journal of Common Market Studies’, ‘European Politics and Society’ and ‘East European Politics’ journals. Aleks is a member of the European Union Democracy Observatory (EUDO) Observatory on Political Parties and Representation. Previously, Aleks was Associate Director of the ESRC ‘One Europe Or Several’ Programme (2001-2003), convenor of the Political Studies Association (PSA) Specialist Group on Communist and Post-Communist Politics (1999-2002), and Associate Fellow of the Royal Institute of Institutional Affairs (RIIA) European Programme (2002-2007). Aleks was also the 2004 Main Prize Winner of the Political Studies Association Sir Bernard Crick Prize for Outstanding Teaching in Political Science.


Sir Brian Unwin, President, European Centre for Nature Conservation/Honorary President, European Investment Bank


Professor Richard Whitman, Professor Richard G. Whitman is Director of the Global Europe Centre and Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Kent. He is also an Associate Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House). His current research interests include Brexit and especially the future foreign and security and defence policies of the UK and the EU. He is the author and editor of eleven books, published over sixty articles and book chapters, and a lead editor of the Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS). He is an Academic Fellow of the European Policy Centre (EPC), an Academician of the UK Academy of Social Sciences and the current Chair of the British International Studies Association (BISA). He has given evidence to the UK Parliament on UK and EU foreign and security issues.


Sir Stephen Hawking  the late physicist was also in favour of the UK staying in the EU, and said “progress comes from co-operation”. He said: “By working together in Europe we make our economy stronger and we give ourselves more influence in the world and we provide future opportunities for young people.”


Other academics, thinkers and policy experts  supporting a second peoples vote include Dr. Bob Savic, Dr. David Gow, Dr. Joseph Egerton, Professor Sam Whimster, Professor Jo Shaw, Catherine Stewart, John Bruton (fomer Prime Minster of Ireland), Professor Stephen Haseler, Dr. Graham Bishop, Dr. Ira Straus, U.S. Coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, an independent policy analysis organization; and Chair of the Center for War/Peace Studies,  Sir Brian Unwin, Dr Hywel Ceri Jones, Simon Burall, Stuart Weir,  the late Francois Duchene. Sir Stephen Wall GCMG LVO, Former European adviser to the British Prime Minister, Professor Iain Begg, Professor of International Economics, London School of Economics, Dr Hywel Ceri Jones, Executive Chairman, European Policy Centre, Brussels, Professor Stefan Collignon, Visiting Professor at Harvard University and Professor of European Political Economy at the London School of Economics, Richard Laming, European Movement, John Leech, European Co-ordinator, West-West Agenda, Robert Moreland, European Movement; former MEP, John Palmer, Former Political Director of the European Policy Centre and journalist, Professor Mark Webber – Professor Roland Dannreuther – Dr Kyle Grayson – Dr Nick Robinson – Dr Vicki Squire – Dr Toni Haastrup -Dr Helen Turton -Dr Michelle Bentley – Dr Julia Welland – Dr Danielle Beswick -Professor Richard Beardsworth –Professor Nicola Phillips Kings College London, Professor Marysia Zalewski, Dr Charlotte Heath Kelly, Dr Jonathan Gilmore (University of Manchester), Dr Alix Dietzel (University of Bristol), Dr Stephan Engelkamp (KCL), Tom Spencer Executive Director, European Centre for Public Affairs, Prof Richard Beardsworth (Aberystwyth), Dr Cian O’Driscoll (Glasgow), Dr Natasha Saunders (St Andrews), Dr Elke Schwarz (Leicester), Kirsten Ainley (LSE), Joe Hoover (Queen Mary & Centre for Global Cooperation Research), Kimberly Hutchings (Queen Mary), Paul Kirby (Sussex & LSE), Lauren Tooker (Warwick), James Hampshire, Reader in Politics (Politics, Sussex European Institute) Other posts:       Director of Research and Knowledge Exchange (School of Law, Politics and Sociology), Dr. Laura Morosanu, Lecturer in Sociology (Sociology, Sussex Centre for Migration Research), Dr. Emily Robinson, Senior Lecturer in Politics (Politics, Sussex European Institute), Prof. Mark Walters – Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology (Law, Sussex Rights and Justice Research Centre), Dr Moira Dustin, Research Fellow (Law, Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research,Professor Nuno Ferreira – Professor of Law (Law, Sussex European Institute, Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research), Professor Susan Millns – Professor of Law (Law, Sussex European Institute, Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research), Prof Paul Taggart – Paul Taggart is Professor of Politics and Jean Monnet Chair, Director of the Sussex European Institute, former editor of Government and Opposition, former editor of the journal Politics, co-Convenor (with Prof. Aleks Szczerbiak) of the European Referendums, Elections and Parties Network (EPERN).  He has been a visiting scholar at the Universities of Gothenberg and Sarajevo and is a visiting scholar at the Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University. Jules Hoffmann – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine; Paul Nurse – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Klaus von Klitzing – Nobel Prize in Physics, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji – Nobel Prize in Physics, Jacques Dubochet – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Albert Fert – Nobel Prize in Physics, Timothy Gowers – Fields Medal, Martin Hairer – Fields Medal, Harald zur Hausen – Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, Richard Henderson – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Gerardus ‘t Hooft – Nobel Prize in Physics, Jean-Marie Lehn – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Pierre-Louis Lions – Fields Medalist, Edvard Ingjald Mose – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Kostya Novoselov – Nobel Prize in Physics, Christopher A. Pissarides – Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, John E. Walker – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Ada Yonath – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Venki Ramakrishnan – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Michael Atiyah – Fields Medal, Paul J Crutzen – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Simon Donaldson – Fields Medal, Gerhard Ertl – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, John Gurdon – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Serge Haroche – Nobel Prize in Physics, Stefan W Hell – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Avram Hershko – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Robert Huber – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Tomas Lindahl – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Hartmut Michel – Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Erwin Neher – Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine, John O’Keefe – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, Peter Scholze – Fields Medalist, Kurt Wüthrich – Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Polly Billington, communications and campaigns consultant for We Are Here Now. Ruth Davis WHO is a senior associate at E3G and a writer and campaigner on nature, climate and politics.John Denham is director of the University of Winchester’s Centre for English Identity and Politics and former MP for Southampton Itchen, as well as coordinator of the England and Labour project. Robert Ford who is professor of political science at the University of Manchester and co-author of Revolt on the Right. David Goodhart who  is director of the Integration Hub, and who founded Prospect magazine and has served as director of Demos think tank. Andrew Harrop is general secretary of the Fabian Society. Paul Hilder is co-founder of CrowdPac, where he currently works as chief international officer and  has previously co-founded 38 Degrees and Open Democracy.





Almost 10,000 EU health workers have quit the NHS since Brexit vote went through in 2016. NHS managers have warned the NHS will reach breaking point if the UK leaves the EU and indeed, that it already has. IN a measured statement, the Kings Fund has said: “Although the EU has limited legal jurisdiction over how health and care services are organised and provided in member states, the UK’s vote to leave the EU will have major implications for health and social care in England. First, because the government has been clear that Brexit will mean the UK leaving the European single market and the customs union – arrangements that currently play an important role in facilitating the delivery of health services, via access to workforce as well as goods and services. Second, because EU directives affect many areas of UK law that impact on the delivery of health and care services. Third, because the vote has ushered in a period of significant economic and political uncertainty at a time when the NHS and social care are already facing huge financial and operational pressures. Almost 18 months ago, the Fund published an article that considered some of the most important implications for health and social care in England in the wake of the UK’s vote to leave the EU.” There are hugely worrying implication for the NHS now brexit is looming: firstly medicines and health equipment coming from Europe will suddenly cost more and so the UK may well begin to run out of medicines; secondly, major pharmaceutical companies are already downgrading their UK production facilities and may well leave the UK altogether. As the Kings Fund has put it: “The UK’s membership of the European single market, customs union and Euratom has provided significant benefits. Securing equivalent access to new drugs and treatments must be a priority in the next phase of negotiations.  The government has set an ambition for the UK to be a world leader in life sciences and medical research. To fulfil this ambition, it will be essential for the government to make good a significant loss in EU funding for research and development and that the UK continues to benefit from the collaboration of researchers and scientists across the EU.  Perhaps most importantly, if independent forecasts are correct and Brexit has a significant long term negative impact on the economy, this will reduce the funding available for health and social care.” Furthermore, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is to scale back operations as it copes with higher than expected staff losses, triggered by the watchdog’s forced relocation from London to Amsterdam because of Brexit. Overall, EMA expects a staff loss of about 30 percent, with a high degree of uncertainty regarding mid-term staff retention, Europe’s equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is quitting Britain. The EMA employs around 900 staff and is the biggest EU institution affected by Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.” So there are 900 employees who are not happy at brexit, to put it mildly. It is probably fair to say that most doctors and front line nurses and health care staff are against the UK leaving the EU because they realise it is going to have an overall negative effect on the provision of health care services in the UK. Another frightening possibility is that the Tory government is considering privatising huge chunks of the NHS and sell it off to international capitalist forms, mainly from the USA, who will then provide a substandard service on a for-profit basis. The chances are that the NHS as we know and love it today, will not long survive brexit. As there will be a huge economic collapse following brexit and the breakup of the UK, the chances are that privatisation will be wheeled out as the only logical thing to do, and the NHS will be privatised as part of an overall asset stripping sale to international capitalist interests, mainly USA driven. That the Labour Party should be enabling Brexit to go through is frankly scandalous to the party that actually created the NHS in the first place. To cap it all, the British Medical Association has issued a stern warning about Brexit: The British Medical Association (BMA) is today warning that a no deal Brexit could have could have potentially catastrophic consequences for patients, the health workforce, services and the nation’s health. In a briefing paper published in August 2018, the BMA outlined what is at stake for health services if the UK and the EU fail to reach a deal on the Withdrawal Agreement by March 2019. The paper warns that, in a worst-case scenario, a no deal scenario could: Cause real disruption for almost a million patients receiving treatment for rare diseases as the UK would be excluded from the European Rare Disease Network;

Cause delays in diagnosis and treatment for cancer patients because the UK would have to source important radioisotopes from outside of EURATOM; End reciprocal healthcare agreements which could disrupt patient care and increase insurance costs. If 190,000 UK state pensioners currently signed up to the S1 scheme and living within the EU return to the UK it could cost the health services between £500 million and £1 billion per year; Weaken the UK’s response to pandemics and increase the chances of diseases spreading as we lose partnerships with key EU bodies, such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control; Risk the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which could see doctors leaving the profession and patients having to travel miles to receive care; See fewer doctors and other medical staff, at a time when there are already huge shortages of these roles, due to uncertainty over future immigration status and confusion around the mutual recognition of medical qualifications across the EU. It can be safe to say then that the vast majority of UK doctors are utterly opposed to the follies of brexit and like many other professional and scientific workers in the UK, have realised that brexit represents a real danger to the entire system of health care provision for the reasons given above.


EUROPEAN BANKING AGENCY:  This agency which governs and regulates the European banking industry, has been forced to leave the UK and move to Paris, france. The European Banking Authority started work in 2011 under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition to tighten up financial supervision after the 2008 crash. The Decision on the banking authority, which employs 150 and is based in Canary Wharf, was made in little more than an hour as voting went on between the 27 EU member countries. This is a piratical and tangible loss to the UK and ironically signals that the UK is now moving into an era of cut-throat capitalism and turning lots back on any kind of decently regulated system. Genuine bankers and economists are appalled at this move; speculators and rogue traders are licking their pips in anticipation of being able to run rings round anyone left in the UK with the brains to try to regulate them.


BRITISH INTERNATIONAL STUDIES ASSOCIATION (BISA) – This is the premier think tank for scholars in the UK who study international relations and its members have expertise on all aspects of international affairs, and the complex politics of Britain and the UK in relation to international organisations and international relations such as our relations with the European Union. Most of the academics involved in international relations research and teaching whether at the Universities of London (LSE), Sussex, Aberystwyth, York, Kent, Lancaster, Glasgow, Edinburgh, St Andrews etc. are members of BISA, and its anural conferences act as a feast of ideas in which experts bounce ideas off each other and students share their first tentative proposals to make the world a better place through objective study of international affairs. The vast majority of members of BISA are diametrically opposed to Brexit, but as a body it has taken no corporate decision or announcement since it is a charity which does not engage in politics. Individually however, its members will be thinking deeply about how to counter the folly of brexit. The editor of this Journal has been a “sleeping member” of BISA for many years and knew some of its founders at the time when IIPSGP was established back in 1991.


UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CONSTITUTION UNIT –  constitutional Research centre which has done research into referendums and recommended that the Brexit referendum was badly conceived, badly managed and produced a flawed and ambiguous outcome. It established the Independent Commission on Referendums and whcih published a report in July 2018. Its leading academics include Jack Sheldon and Michael Kenny. The Constitution Unit conducts timely, rigorous, independent research into constitutional change and the reform of political institutions. Their research has significant real-world impact, informing policy-makers engaged in such changes – both in the United Kingdom and around the world. Constitutions change frequently. Roughly five national constitutions are completely rewritten every year, and another thirty are amended in some way. Many other changes take place without formal constitutional amendment, through shifts in constitutional conventions, judicial interpretation, or statute law. This is crucially important in the UK, which famously lacks a codified constitution. Matters such as the UK’s relationship with the European Union, the composition, powers and procedures of the two chambers of parliament, the mechanisms through which citizens can participate in politics, and the territorial nature of the United Kingdom all depend on political decisions, but have broader constitutional consequences. The Constitution Unit was created in 1995 to aid policy-makers involved in changing their constitutions. Robert Hazell founded the Unit initially to conduct detailed research and planning on constitutional reform in the UK. They continue to fulfil that remit, but also assess the effects of reforms that have taken place, and research constitutional and political arrangements beyond the UK. Their publications include reports, books, and articles in both academic journals and mainstream media. They prioritise providing timely evidence to policy-makers, and Their work has had substantial real-world impact. After more than 20 years, the Constitution Unit continues to thrive. Meg Russell, who has been Director since 2015, leads their research on parliament.  The Deputy Director is Alan Renwick, a specialist on elections and referendums. Robert Hazell, though he has retired from the role of Director, continues to work on areas such as the judiciary and the civil service. Jennifer Hudson leads their work on parties and politicians. Further details of their team and their work are available on their people and research pages. The Unit is housed in UCL’s Department of Political Science. They collaborate with scholars and practitioners all over the world, drawn from politics, law and the public service. They frequently host visiting researchers, public servants taking research breaks, and others working as volunteers (from whom expressions of interest are always welcome). They also have a blog, a regular newsletter and a lively events programme. Many of their previous events can be viewed online. The Constitution Unit is based at the School of Public Policy, 29-31 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9QU, Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 4977, Fax: +44 (0)20 7679 4969, Email: Constitution@ucl.ac.uk, twitter: @ConUnit_UCL The work of this unit follows the longstanding interest of Jeremy Bentham,, the founder of UCL, who was also fascinated by how constitutions operate. He argued that the UK should itself have a written constitutiotn. One of the outcomes of the Brexit fiasco is that if the UK survives, then it is indeed obviously it must now get a written constitution. The putsch by the extreme right of the Tory party to take us out of the EU, is akin to the Bolshevik coup against Gorbachev, when it tried to bring back hard line Soviet control. This is a putsch by the hard line Tory right to try and claw back power. If it fails, and a second referendum result against Brexit manages to save the UK, then there must be a written federal constitution in which all parts of the UK are given equal say in the running of our affairs, and not just the London elites. The Constitution Union and its work here at UCL will no doubt come in helpful in drafting such a Constitution.


LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE (UNIVERSITY OF LONDON): The LSE has set up a special Brexit unit to monitor developments, and has consistently warned against the economic and political fallout from implementing brexit, and has called for a second referendum as the best way to break the deadlock in contemporary British political life


HEALTHIER IN THE EU was co-founded in 2016 by Mike Galsworthy, Rob Davidson,  and Martin McKee. Its advisory board included former Chief Executive of the NHS in England Nigel Crisp, former Minister for Health John Bowis, former Chief Medical Officer for Scotland Harry Burns, former President of the Royal College of Physicians Ian Gilmore, President of Royal College of Psychiatrists Simon Wessely, and the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton. Healthier in the EU is a grassroots organization making the health case for continued EU membership. Healthier IN the EU is a founding member of People’s Vote.


THE FEDERAL TRUST which is a research institute studying the interactions between regional, national, European and global levels of government. Founded in 1945 on the initiative of Sir William Beveridge, it has long made a powerful contribution to the study of federalism and federal systems. It has always had a particular interest in the European Union and Britain’s place in it. Its former director was John Pinder OBE who was an expert on the European Union, and it includes in its ranks many experts on EU law, politics and democratic systems, and it campaigns for a greater understanding of the workings of the European Union among the people of the UK. It has a broadly sympathetic stance on the European Union, and most of its academics and supporters would be in favour of a second referendum to reverse the damage caused by the brexit referendum of 2016.


UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX, SUSSEX EUROPEAN INSTITUTE – Founded in 1992, the Sussex European Institute (SEI) is the leading research and postgraduate training centre on contemporary European issues.SEI has a distinctive philosophy built on interdisciplinary, a broad and inclusive approach to Europe, policy-relevance at the academic cutting edge, and integrating the European and the domestic levels of analysis.SEI was designated a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence in 1998 and works in close collaboration with pre-eminent research centres in Europe and the wider world. As well as delivering internationally renowned Masters and doctoral courses, and providing tailored courses for practioners, SEI is also one of the foremost centres of cutting edge academic research on contemporary European studies. SEI acts as the hub of a large range of networks of academics, researchers and practitioners who teach on our courses, supervise our doctoral students and collaborate with us on research projects.


UNIVERSITY OF KENT – has an excellent Department of International Politics and international Relations with all manner of expertise in international politics and the likely consequences of the UK leaving the European Union. It also houses the  Conflict Analysis Research Centre which is a multi-disciplinary Faculty Research Centre based in the School of Politics and International Relations. Most of the staff of the University of Kent faculty, which has close working relationships with European Universities, and Kent is the closest University to Europe being situated in Canterbury, and is privately and publicly committed to doing what they can to seeing the UK remain in the EU, and to advocating and supporting the idea of a second referendum. The Student Union at Kent has voted overwhelmingly to do all it can to bring about a Second referendum in support of the Peoples Vote organisation.


UNIVERSITY OF ABERYSTWYTH – this is one of the founding centre for the study of international relations in the UK, and although a far flung outpost of scholarship on the wild west coast of Wales, is home to many of the best thinkers in international politics that the UK has to offer. Aberystwyth also houses the National Library of Wales, and is a strong centre for Celtic Studies. From a Welsh academic perspective, leaving the EU makes as much sense for Walesa and the UK as cutting the head off bran when he was trying to build a bridge between Ireland and Wales. Most of the scholars at the University of Wales in Aberystwyth, especially those with the relevant expertise, will be utterly opposed to the leaving of the UK from the EU, knowing the huge impact it will have on student mobility and the general expansiveness of the Welsh mind in Europe. Owen Tudor, founder of the Tudor Dynasty, took refuge in France, and without the French connection, Wales world never have managed to assert its rights, and the Tudor Dynasty would never have managed to come to the throne. The ancient Druid traditions of Wales are still strong, and much research is also done at Aberystwyth on the matter of the unique history of Druidry in Wales, so that the idea of Wales suddenly being forced out of the EU because of a badly organized referendum in 2016, has little intellectual credibility among the genuine savants of Wales, many of whom are clustered at Aberystwyth.


UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (LSE) – the LSE has a first class department of international Relations, where advanced research is conducted into all manner of peace, conflict, power politics and international affairs – the vast majority of the excellent staff here will be utterly opposed to Brexit as the height of folly – a kind of thrown back to imperial delusions of grandeur on the part of the Tory right wing, supported by international finance capitalists who have bankrolled them, in the hope that by taking the UK out of the EU it will enable them to create  a kind of capitalist economy where free trade and laissez faire capitalism can set up shop and rule the world again, with no questions asked. The LSE staff will however be able to tell you that the rest of the world has moved on; the people of India, of China, of Latin America, of Africa, are unlikely to want to accept UK plc as their capitalist overlord, and whereas in the 19th century the arrival of British gunboats might have caused certain deference, such a repeat performance is likely to be greeted with wry humour and irony.  The vast majority of the civilised world (excepting a few pirate islands where the robber capitalists have hidden their cash) are moving in the direction of a civilized social-liberal-democratic system of democratic governance, where ethics and policy go hand in hand, and where peace, equality and justice are the paramount concern of citizens. The LSE was founded by a group of Fabians to provide a long term base for the intellectual challenge to the hegemony of rampant capitalism, and since brexit has brought this cultural clash to the fore, with the rhetoric in the right wing Brexit press against the very idea of a “social Europe” let alone a “socialist Europe”, it is probable that the vast majority of staff and students at the LSE, who have expertise in the likely impact on the UK of leaving the EU, will be opposed to Brexit, By considering the further economic impact of the break up of the UK as a result of brexit itself, and the certain independence of Scotland that will arise, the good burghers who run the LSE must be scratching their heads to try and work out how to reverse this decision, and thus supporting the idea of a second referendum as the clearers and most rations choice. The motto of the LSE is from Virgil “Rerum cognoscere causas”, is taken from Virgil’s Georgics. Its English translation is “to Know the Causes of Things. So we have to think deeply about the causes of the brexit vote, and realise it was also a cri de couer from the marginalized and disposed among England’s poor, and try to bring in government policies that can reverse this. For many mainly working class areas of England, the whole EU project has seemed an elitist concept that benefits only wealthy lawyers and politics, and does nothing of benefit for the lives of ordinary people. This is a policy challenge, as well as a presentation challenge, because in fact the EU has been doing a great deal for the lives of ordinary working class English people but it has not been its style to brag about it. Academics at the LSE working in all areas of the social sciences need to get busy on how to think through the causes of the Brexit Vote, how to reverse it (second referendum is the way to go) and then how to tackle its underlying causes long term. The Labour Party Corbyn regime has taken an unprincipled and ignorant decision to support Brexit, as any genuine academic with an interest in the joined-up-ness of thought can inform you, and yet he has also captured the rhetoric support of large parts of the disenfranchised left, who were disillusioned by the Tony Blair turning of the Labour party into a rubber stamping machine for George Bush’s Middle Eastern bid for global hegemony in alliance with Saudi Arabia. Thus the staff at the LSE also have to think through how to challenge the narrative of brexit as being either the fulfilment of the dreams of the extreme right (Tory imperialists) or the extreme left (Corbynistas) and instead, to insist that the EU itself is partly to blame, by not actually functioning properly as a network capable of advancing peace, prosperity, security, justice and democracy for all its citizens. The LSE should support therefore the idea of developing the European Union Mediation Service as a matter of policy, and set up immediately a centre for European Peace Studies which can focus on the way that we can return the EU into a peace organisation, . This would satisfy the Labour left, and bring it back on board to support the EU. Maybe Corbyn himself might even let the scales of anti EU hatred fall from his eyes. The author of this Journal and Director of IIPSGP studied at the LSE for part of his own history degree and learned international diplomatic history there including the history of the founding of the EU. The LSE remains the home of the study of international history in the UK and has housed many of the most eminent of UK historians over the years. Most of whom will be turning in their graves at the thought of the UK leaving the EU. Much better to stay inside and reform it from within; that is the Odyssean strategy, which even left wing intellectuals such as Varoufakis have supported.


INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PEACE STUDIES AND GLOBAL PHILOSOPHY – this body, which has produced this newsletter, arose at the University of London, from the Institute of Education, following a feasibility study into setting up a national institute for Peace studies in London as part of the University of London, back in 1991, when the first Gulf War broke out. Ever since then, it has organised concerenes, held seminars, run courses, and produced reports and publications, omn all asects of peace studies and the study of conflicting paradigms and global philso0phciaal approaches. IIPSGP is now based in France, but still has close links to UK academia, and decided in 2017 to support the idea of a second referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU as a matter of intellectual common sense. Having analysed the problems that will arise from the UK leaving the EU, IIPSGP has been at the forefront of debates, on social media and other sources, opposing the Conservative government’s decision to pull the UK out of the EU. The editing of this Journal is the next logical step in this campaign. IIPSGP is the home of Philosophers and Historians for Peace and other intellectual groups working on architectural designs for a European continent living in peace with its neighbours, a middle east where the Israel-Palestine conflict can be solved, and where the Sunni-Shiia civil war inside Islam can be solved. Our You tube channel at IIPSGP1 gives news on all aspects of the numerous campaign and research projects we are currently running, Volunteers are welcome to come visit our base in France and to help with this work, or to get involved as research faculty or as students. The late Mark Williams, briefly IIPSGP’s legal officer, helped us launch our anti Brexit campaign, but sadly he died, and so we hope to organize a  Mark Williams Memorial Service in his honour once brexit is reversed.





One of the worst features of the brexit process has been how every single qualified economist and financial expert looking at departure of the UK from the EU objectively has predicted that it will result in a disastrous down-turn for the UK economy and indeed this has already been happening in many ways. Yet the government still continues under Theresa May as if no one has said anything. Furthermore, a large number of reports commissioned by the  government itself on the impact of leaving the EU in all manner of areas of the economy – health, food, holidays, culture, heritage, science, education, medicine, air travel, banking, finance, manufacturing, etc. have revealed that the UK will be immeasurably worse off after leaving the EU. Yet the government has so far refused to publish the large majority of these reports and has instead simply sat on the date. It is playing a game of ”we will just leave first” before we let you see whets in Pandora’s Box.. It’s like forcing the British people to open Pandora’s Box with a blindfold on.. and then laughing at us. In our opinion, every single one of these Reports should be identified, catalogued and published, in a comprehensive website which is available free to the UK public, and when the second referendum takes place, we can all read what it is our political “masters” (who ought to be our servants)  have been hiding from us for all this time.



  1. CAMPAIGNING ORGANISATIONS: A number of campaigning organisation shave spring up to oppose Brexit on various grounds, and for a variety of reasons, led by numerous disparate individuals. Numerous marches have been organized throughout the UK and gradually the momentum is swinging in favour of a second Referendum on Brexit and stopping brexit. The first March for Europe, took place in London on 2 July 2016, shortly after the Brexit referendum on 23 June 2016, and was attended by thousands of people. The second March for Europe took place in London on 3 September 2016 and was also attended by many thousands of people. It was one of a number of events to take place on the day, including rallies in Edinburgh and Birmingham. Then in 2017, the Unite for Europe march, which coincided with the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, was held in London on 25 March 2017, and was attended by tens of thousands of people. AS a result of this, an organisation The People’s March Ltd was formed in the summer of 2017, to help ensure that a march planned for 9 September 2017 in London also went ahead. The event began on 9 September with a march of 50,000 people and was followed by speeches in Parliament Square. The event was attended by thousands of people and was part of a series of protests dubbed “the Autumn of discontent”. Over 50,000 people took to the streets under the banner “Unite, Rethink, Reject Brexit” marching from Hyde Park to Parliament Square followed by a rally with speakers from the remain movement and from across the political spectrum and received broad media coverage. Outside of London, The Stop Brexit Manchester march was held in All Saints Park, Manchester, on 1 October 2017, to coincide with the Conservative Party conference. The event consisted of a rally followed by a march through central Manchester, and finishing with a street party organised by local pro-EU groups. An estimated 30,000 people took part in this event. The Stop Brexit Leeds march was held on 24 March 2018 in Leeds. The march assembled at The Headrow in central Leeds and ended with a rally at The Headrow, with thousands of people reported to have attended. Leeds for Europe organised the march. On 23 June 2018, the second anniversary of the EU referendum, People’s Vote organised a march and protest from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square in Central London. Speakers included Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, Green Party co-leader Caroline Lucas, Labour’s David Lammy and the Conservatives’ Anna Soubry. The organisers said that at least 100,000 people attended the march. A smaller pro-Brexit march was held in London on the same date. The People’s Vote march was not designed to reverse the result of the referendum, but to hold a public vote on the final terms of the UK’s EU exit deal. The organisers said Brexit was “not a done deal” and Cable said “Brexit is not inevitable. Brexit can be stopped.” The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was criticised for not attending the march, As it has become increasingly obvious that he actually supports Brexit and wants to see it happen for his own ideological reasons. On 20 October 2018, organisers estimated that 700,000 people attended the march jointly organised by People’s Vote and the UK newspaper The Independent, although police were unable to verify the number. The aim of the march was to secure a vote on the final Brexit deal. The march organisers stated: “Whether you voted leave or remain, nobody voted to make this country worse off, to harm jobs, to damage the NHS, to affect the future of millions of young people, or to make this country more divided. The more the shape of the final Brexit deal becomes clear, the more it is clear that it will do nothing to improve social justice, reduce inequality, increase our standard of living, or create a better future for future generations.” A number of celebrities, including Delia Smith, Ian McEwan, Sir Patrick Stewart and Charlie Mullins, stated that they would fund coach travel to London, to enable those wishing to attend the march to do so. If the organisers’ stated estimate of the attendance was correct, then the event was the second-largest protest of the 21st century in the UK, after the “Stop the War” anti-Iraq War march in 2003. In March 2018 six national groups moved into a shared Remain office in Millbank Tower, London, in order to pool their resources for campaigning.


Launched in April 2018, People’s Vote is a UK campaign group calling for a public vote on the final Brexit deal. The campaign comprises nine anti-Brexit groups, including eight operating from Millbank Tower. The groups include the five listed below, plus For our Future’s Sake (FFS), InFacts, and Open Britain, along with Wales for Europe working from Wales. Britain for Europe was established shortly after the EU referendum. It is an independent pressure group and umbrella organisation for grassroots activists from around the UK. It lobbies in favour of the UK remaining in the EU.] The group organises marches, conferences, meetings, and national campaigns. It is a founding member of People’s Vote. The Chair of Britain for Europe is Tom Brufatto. Britain for Europe is organised from the grassroots membership. The organisation has about sixty member affiliated groups including: Camden for Europe, Devon for Europe, Bath for Europe, Berkshire for Europe, Bristol for Europe, EU in Brum, Leeds for Europe, Cornwall for Europe, Brighton and Hove for Europe, Dorset for Europe, Perth for Europe, and many more


European Movement UK is an organisation which campaigns in support of greater European integration and for reform of the EU. It is part of the European Movement International, which pushes for a “democratic, federal, enlarged European Union”. Formed in 1949, it campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum and continues to oppose Brexit in collaboration with other major pro-European campaign groups such as Open Britain and Britain for Europe.


Our Future Our Choice – Our Future Our Choice (OFOC) was incorporated as a company on 19 February 2018 and is aimed towards young adults. Its four founding members are Femi Oluwole (spokesman), Calum Millbank-Murphy (spokesman), Lara Spirit (co-president) and Will Dry (co-president).Our Future Our Choice is a founding member of People’s Vote.


Scientists for EU is a pro-EU research advocacy group. It was co-founded by scientists Mike Galsworthy and Rob Davison on 8 May 2015, the day after the UK general election 2015. Its advisory board included high-profile UK scientists, including former EU chief scientific advisor Anne Glover, and MPs from different political parties. Galsworthy articulated two concerns that Scientists for EU aimed to address: “first, a lack of clarity and cohesion within the community on EU benefits and Brexit risks; and, secondly, a lack of public understanding on the UK/EU relationship in science.”Following the referendum, hundreds of scientists contacted Scientists for EU voicing concerns about the future of scientific research in the UK after Brexit, many saying they planned to leave the UK; for some, xenophobia was a significant concern. Programme Director Galsworthy concluded, “It is clear that the UK has overnight become less attractive as a place to do science.” Scientists for EU has continued to publicize the benefits of EU membership for Britain and the negative consequences of Brexit for science and healthcare, including uncertainty over immigration and funding, and the loss of influence over EU regulations and policy. In February 2018 George Soros’s Open Society Foundations donated £500,000 to a number of groups opposing Brexit including £35,000 to Scientists for EU.Scientists for EU is a founding member of People’s Vote.


Postcards from the 48% – David Wilkinson’s full-length film Postcards from the 48% (2018) opened on 23 June 2018 at the Edinburgh International Film Festival and went on general release on 6 July 2018. The documentary was made by, and featured, members of the 48% of voters who chose Remain in the referendum. A reviewer for The Times wrote that it “gives voice to the fears and the hopes of the nation’s discontented Remainers”.


Last Night of the Proms – Anti-Brexit campaigners gave away EU flags to audience members at the last night of The Proms in 2016 and 2017.


No. 10 Vigil boat trips – The No. 10 Vigil campaign group, which holds regular demonstrations outside Downing Street, organized a boat trip on the Thames on 19 August 2017. A subsequent boat trip occurred on 24 July 2018. The late Mark Williams was an active member of the No. 10 Vigil campaign group, along with rock star Peter Cook and many others. Peter Cook was recently attacked by Brexit groups  on his way back from an anti brexit march in Liverpool but this has not dented his spirit which remains determined to see the power of the Muses, beauty, music and melody, triumph over the ignorance and brutality that brexit represents.


  1. STRATEGIES FOR OPPOSING BREXIT – there are a number of paralle strategies that are being pursued to oppose brexit, as follows:


  1. Challenging it legally in the UK and European courts
  2. Opposing it in parliament and voting it down
  3. Opposing it intellectually by challenging its intellectual origins, history and coherence, and by pointing out its negative effects on the UK, European and global economy
  4. Opposing it in the Scottish parliament and organising for an independence referendum to remain in the European Union and leave the UK
  5. Opposing it in the Welsh parliament by organising for an independence referendum if Brexit goes through without a second referendum
  6. Opposing it in the North Irish a\assembly if Brexit goes through with a second referendum and demanding a referendum under the Good Friday agreement for reunification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland


  1. Opposing it intellectually by revealing who supported it, lobbied for it, and campaigned for it, and exposing their different extremist political viewpoints, hiding behind a mask of political acceptability
  2. Rallying moderate political voices throughout the UK in opposition to brexit
  3. Challenging the BBC refusal to intellectually allow anyone to challenge the 2016 referendum and refusing to permit honest deep debate about the benefits of staying inside the EU and having a second referendum
  4. Opposing brexit by demanding and obtaining the resignation of Theresa may and a general election before march 2019 and electing a coalition government opposed to brexit (many groups and politicians are in favour of this option throughout the country)
  5. Repealing the EU WITHDRAWAL BILL but this will require first securing a majority of anti-Brexit MP’s gaining a majority in the UK house of Commons, and thus will require the change of heart-mind on the part of the present sitting MP’s or a general election in which they are replaced by others who are anti brexit.
  6. Proving comprehensive information and educational resources to turning the intellectual arguments against Brexit and to give people enough facts and background to genuinely make up their minds at a second referendum, and to realise that staying inside a reformable EU, is a better option for England, Wale and northern Ireland, than leaving the UK and then breaking up into the constituent parts of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and a reunited Ireland). It is to further this 12th method of opposing brexit that this Journal has been put together.



  1. CANADIANS OPPOSING BREXIT the vast majority of Canadians at home and abroad are confused why the UK would want to self-destruct and leave the European Union. PM Justin Trudeau has been helping the Liberal Democrat party with its campaigning to try and see them capture the imaginative middle ground of British public opinion and to make the case for a second referendum and to reverse the decision of the first referendum, as it is so obviously against the interests of the UK as a whole. Canada has had populist separation movements in Quebec for a long time, but when put to a referendum, the French Canadian population of Quebec decided to stay inside the Federal Canadian constitutional settlement and not create a separate nation. Likewise, although there were moves in Western Canada in the 1970’s to separate from Ottawa and create an independent state of Western Canada, wiser heads prevailed and the people of Alberta and British Columbia realised it was in their own interests to remains inside the Canadian federal, which dates from 1867 only. Judging on Canadian precedence, a new federal constitution in which all parts of the UK would have some kind of genuine input into the political life of the nation should be drawn up. A written constitution granting civil and political rights to all UK citizens for the first time, should be put down on paper and enshrined in law. Simultaneously some kind of senate needs to be  created with equal representation from all the 4 nations of the UK, perhaps by reforming the House of Lords, and enabling it to represent the nations of the UK in a fair and equal way. The Canadians have also just legalized medical and recreational  cannabis as a sign of a liberal government and a liberalizing society, and the UK likewise might want to copy this legislation from the Canadian people, and loosen up its tyrannical and faux-puritanical war on drugs and war on consciousness and now war on the EU which the Tory Tyrants like to impose whenever they get a chance. It was the Tory Tyrants, who for centuries though slavery was a good idea; it was the Tory Tyrants who thought women should never get the vote; it was the Tory Tyrants who thought the highlands clearances were a good idea, and forced people to leave the highlands to move to Canada or the USA; it was the Tory Tyrants who thought the Irish famine was simply a self-correcting problem of market forces, and that doing nothing about it was the most “sensible policy”. It is these same Tory tyrants who have brought us brexit on a plate. But the Sensible Commonwealth of nations which make up the UK is not going to stand for this nonsense, anymore that it would accept legislation to bring back slavery. The fact that this Journal is being brought to you by a Canadian-British dual citizen of liberal inclinations is perhaps not entirely coincidental to its content.


  1. COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES AND LEADERS OPPOSING BREXIT: the Commonwealth as a whole is likewise puzzled at the stupidity of brexit. Why on earth would the UK want to self destruct as a nation ? Many important commonwealth nations have signed trade deals with the EU as a whole. Including Canada, Singapore and others, and India has been negotiating one for 11 years, Commonwealth countries play an active part in the EU-Asia forum which brings Europe and Asia together. The fact that the editor or of this Journal founded and directs the Commonwealth Interfaith Peace Network (CIPN) is also not irrelevant. As a Canadian, interested in the rich panoply of religions in Commonwealth countries, the CIPN has long taken the view that we should work together for peace throughout all Commonwealth countries, which includes 53 nations, in every part of the globe. We should be drawing on the rich intellectual, legal, political and religious heritage of the Commonwealth to help make the world a more peaceful and just and prosperous place. The fact that three Commonwealth countries are members of the EU (UK, Malta, Cyprus) is something to celebrate and we should work within and through the EU to help bring about a more peace oriented EU, and oppose attempts to create an EU armed force or combined military intelligence service. Instead, we should be working together as three commonwealth nations to –persuade our European allies that the EU should set up a EUROPAEN Union Mediation Service and work to prevent and resolve conflicts on its borders and indeed in neighbouring countries. And thus preventing conflicts causing mass movements of refugees on Europe’s shores. The fact that an independent Palestinian state wants to join the Commonwealth should also be supported and affirmed, and Commonwealth nations could help pay for the rebuilding of destroyed Palestine infrastructure and make the independent state of Palestine viable, and ensure that it sighs an inviolable and lasting treaty of peace and nonviolence with Israel, and that both states co-exist in harmony. IN the view of the Commonwealth Interfaith Peace Network this transformation of the European Union can best be achieved by all three Commonwealth members countries remaining inside the EU and working from within to reorient it in the direction of peace, which is in fact the declared goal of the European Union from the very beginning.


  1. ITALY AND THE FASCIST TRADITION OF EUROPE AND THE UK CONNECTION: some of the contents of this Journal might have come as a surprise to some readers. Why link Brexit to Saudi Arabia’s interference in UK affairs ? Why link Brexit to 9/11 and possible false flag operations involving collusion between Saudi Arabia and the USA dark intelligence forces ? Why argue that the USA and other foreign intelligence services (whether Russian, Saudi, Israeli or whatever) might have had a hand in tipping the brexit vote in the direction of Brexit ? isn’t this all a bit farfetched ? In fact the hints given in this Journal are probably too moderate and too gentle; the real truth is probably far worse than we are allowed to realise, and the possibility indeed probability is that brexit was indeed engineered by extreme rightist not to say neo-Fascist force on the far right of politics, and was supported by an alliance of right wing Republicans from the USA, extreme Wahhabi Saudis with billions to spend, and extreme Zionist nationalist Israeli’s who have wanted to take down the UK for decades, ever since the King David Hotel bombing made clear that their war time collusion with Nazi and fascist elements in Germany and Italy was not an aberration, but followed logically from their hatred of all things British (probably going back to the Greek-Persian war era and the time of Ezra, when the Persians in their hatred of all things Greek and pagan, decided to co-opt Judaism in their holy war against Greece, with its pagan polytheism and relaxed attitude to sexuality and esoteric wisdom). Since the UK has been a central player in the rebirth of polytheistic paganism since the renaissance, these same anti-pluralist monotheising elements have been trying to take down the UK since as long as the waterfall of Pistyll Rhayader has been falling. But that’s just a theory from the long term history view of transpersonal history… More to the point: the UK right wing governments of the Tories have been proved to have been behind the rise of Fascism in Europe. The Tory appointed agent in the run up to World War One, who worked for British intelligence in Rome, funded the rise of Mussolini as a respectable socialist intellectual, who then came out for Italy joining the war against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The natural instincts of the Italian people had been to stay out of world war one, but by funding Mussolini British intelligence made it feasible to sway Italian public opinion in favour of Italy’s intervention into the war on the side of the UK. This has been recently revealed by a Cambridge professor who has unearthed archived documents showing that money from MI5, Britain’s counterintelligence and security agency, helped Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini lunch his political career. Dr. Peter Martland, Fellow at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, said MI5’s Rome station, which at the time was staffed by 100 British intelligence officers, paid Mussolini £100 a week (around £6,000 or $9,600 a week in today’s money) starting “from the autumn of 1917 and for at least a year”. The payments, which were authorized by MI5’s director in Rome, Sir Samuel Hoare (later Lord Templewood), were aimed to assist Mussolini’ newspaper, Il Popolo d’Italia, propagandize in favour of Italy’s continued fighting in World War I on the side of the Allied Powers, of which Britain was also a member. This little glimpse into the machinations of British intelligence behind the scenes is in fact rather startling and frightening for its moral implications. Along with promoting a pro-war message, Mussolini, who was 34 at the time, offered to use the money to fund a paramilitary squad that targeted Italian antiwar protesters. MI5’s money appears to have helped Mussolini’s entry into politics, facilitated largely through the popularity of his newspaper, and to have funded an early prototype of his fascist Black shirt units, which terrorized Italy throughout his 1922-1943 dictatorship. The moral implications of this are stark beyond words: the UK’s own intelligence agency, under a Tory who later became an important player in conservative party politics (Sir Samuel Hoare) in fact oversaw, for reasons of deliberate policy, the rise of the extreme right wing Fascist movement in Italy, which after securing power in Italy, then went on to influence the rise of fascism in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria and elsewhere in Europe, and also even in Latin America. This was done because the UK at the time wanted to create a right wing opposition to the spread of Bolshevism following the Russian revolution and at all costs it needed allies to prevent Russian peace movements and socialist ideals of ending the war spreading. Instead, it wanted to fight and win the war and was prepared to whip up extreme right forces to do so. All this would have been opposed by the genuinely progressive and freedom-loving people of the UK had they know what the Tories were getting up to behind our backs. Whilst the more extreme elements of the Bolshevik revolution might have shocked them, they would not have agreed to creating a counter movement of Fascism and Nazism to oppose it. Yet this seems to have been what the Tories were secretly doing. Let historians and moral philosophers debate the longer term implications of these discoveries. For the purposes of opposing brexit it means two myths can be dispelled that have been used by the Leave campaigners. One: The Europeans are dangerous and have fascist tendencies, we the British are decent people who like fair play, , who will be better off outside the EU, where funny Fascist types like Victor Orban seem to be too much in evidence, let’s just get out.. in fact it turns out it was the UK itself which helped created these funny little fascist types in the first place, and so, instead of running, we ought to out our cards on the table, and come clean about how we have used out intelligence services in European history to interfere, meddle and block genuine attempts at democracy,. It is time the people of the UK and Europe itself found a way to get peace through truth, not peace through secrecy and lies 2) The UK is an honourable nation, and it would never use false propaganda, or secret intelligence spending to sway public opinion one way or another as in brexit politics – again, this is disproved by the fact that we were prepared to fund the rise of Fascism and indirectly Nazism just to win a war against our fellow European nations, that we have d also partly engineered and started. So its shows there is nothing the UK will not do to have its own policy agenda met, and especially when that policy is being made by the Conservatives. So the implication is that now, we cannot likewise trust a single thing the Tory Government is saying – as it might well likewise just be crisis propaganda engineered to create a feeling of national solidarity and “anti-European” feelings, So the Tory campaign mouthpieces of the Daily Mail, the Daily telegraph etc. pump out a constant stream of propaganda, which is Anti European anti Russian and anti Remain, just as Mussolini’s paper was paid to pump out anti peace propaganda back in 1917-1918, in order that the UK could go one slaughtering men on the battlefields in their millions, rather than actually work out a peace plan with the Kaiser and with the Austro-Hungarians which is what all sensible Italians and British citizens actually wanted. They even helped support the rise of gangs of right wing fascist thugs who would patrol the streets of Italy for Mussolini and literally beat up the voices of peace and common sense. How do we know the UK intelligence services are not doing the same now, and deliberately trying to create chaos and confusion in European states, and to bring about even economic difficulties inside them (eg Italy, Spain etc.) so as to be able to justify Brexit (look we told you so, its falling apart) ? We don’t, Indeed, we can go further. Almost certainly the UK intelligence services have been ordered by the UK government determined on brexit to do exactly that: do anything you can to make it look as if brexit is a great idea ! Subvert and bring down foreign countries, destabilise their people, plant false stories in the press, and above all attack Russia relentlessly, spread the lie that Russia is somehow subverting the EU, spread the lie that the EU has become like a prison camp akin to the old Soviet days under Stalin, etc etc. All this anti-EU hysteria, spread by the right wing press in Britain is so obviously being supported by rampant and unbridled British intelligence agents, that is looks like the fake misuse of intelligence resources used to justify invading Iraq in 2003 all over again. Bu this time the British people can see through it. We will not be dragged out of a peace loving cooperative confederation of mature and democratic and prosperous nations against out will. After a false run and falsely delivered fake referendum in 2016, in which the leave campaigners deliberately lied to the UK public, and were influenced and paid for by foreign companies and interests intent on bringing about brexit against the actual interests and best wishes of the British people ourselves. We demand a second referendum.



  1. UK INTELLECTUALS WHO SUPPORT BREXIT: The following list is indicative of those intellectuals who have publicly spoken in favour of Brexit, and is interesting because of various reasons: `1) it shows how few scientists support brexit 2) it shows how few Northern Irish, Welsh or Scottish intellectuals support brexit 3) Its shows how many wealthy people who are operating the levers of international capitalism and making a killing from the profit-driven system are supporting Brexit 4) It shows how ever former heads of UK intelligence are supporting brexit and how they have managed to infiltrate academia (intelligence infiltration of academia should be banned by legislation in my opinion). 5) It shows a huge bias towards academics in post in the South East of England, thus living in the comfortable; bubble of the Shires what wouldn’t know what an actual ranger is if it passed one on the highway 6) It shows how many comfortably well-off academics from the upper levels of Middle Classdom and smug prosperity bubbles are supporting Brexit, and have no doubt never starved or gone homeless in their life, and how not a single clue about the millions of people in the UK living on food banks, or living and dying on the streets (450 so far in 2018 have died) or facing “the worst economic crash for 60 years” after brexit according to all reports. This bunch of academics are cardboard cut-outs of exactly the cultural myopia that is set to break up the UK. If any of them, or all of them, en masse, would care to hold a public debate with me, I would be extremely happy to host this, and if I don’t manage to convince every single on of them in 30 minutes that they need to reverse their position, then I am not worthy of being the Archdruid of Britain’s Peace Druids or European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum and Director of IIPSGP. Here’s the list: Rt Hon Sir Richard Aikens, former member of the Court of Appeal, and former Vice-President of the Consultative Council of European Judges. Dr Graham Gudgin, Economist, Centre for Business Research, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. Professor Robert Tombs, Emeritus Professor of French History, University of Cambridge. Professor David Collins, Professor of International Economic Law, The City Law School, City University of London.Baroness (Ruth) Deech, former chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and former Principal of St Anne’s College, University of Oxford. Dr Richard Ekins, Associate Professor in Law, St. Johns College, University of Oxford. Professor Carol Harlow, QC, FBA, Emeritus Professor of Law at the London School of Economics.Dr Bryn Harris, barrister and freedom of speech campaigner. Professor Peter Ramsey, Professor of Law, London School of Economics.Professor Guglielmo Verdirame, Professor of International Law King’s College, London.Professor David Blake, Professor of Finance and Director of the Pensions Institute, Cass Business School, City University of London.Mr. Alexander Darwall, Jupiter Fund Management.Mr Martin Davison, retired tax consultant, now following academic pursuits in early Christianity, palaeoanthropology, mathematics and Latin.Mr Robert Lee, Former Chief Economist, Board of Executors (South Africa), Economic Consultant (UK), and private investor.Sir Paul Marshall, chairman of Marshall Wace.Mr Rory Maw, Bursar, Magdalen College, Oxford.Mr John Mills, Entrepreneur and Economist. Chairman of JML. Chair of Labour Leave and Labour Future. Dame Helena Morrissey, Head of Personal Investing. Legal and General Investment Management. Formerly Chief Executive, Newton Investment Management.Mr Rory Sutherland, Executive Creative Director at OgilvyOne, Ogilvy Group UK.Professor Paul Ormerod, Economist at Volterra Partners, a Visiting Professor at the UCL Centre for Decision Making Uncertainty. Professor Robert Rowthorn, Emeritus Professor of Economics and Fellow of Kings College, University of Cambridge. Dr Paul Sheard, Former Vice-Chairman and Chief Economist of S&P Global, now Senior Fellow, Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School.Mr Edmond Truell, Disruptive Capital Finance, London.Mr Peter Udale, CEO Pembridge Analytics.Mr Harry Western, pen-name of a senior economist working in the private sector who wishes to remain anonymous. Professor Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, and Canon of Christ Church, University of Oxford. Professor Paul Elbourne, Professor of the Philosophy of Language, Magdalen College, University of Oxford.Professor John Gray, political philosopher, broadcaster and writer. Formerly Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics.Dr James Orr, McDonald Post-Doctoral Fellow in Theology, Ethics and Public Life, Christ Church, University of Oxford.Dr Tom Simpson, philosophy of public policy, Blavatnik School, University of Oxford. Professor John Tasioulas, Director of the Yeoh Tiong Lay Centre for Politics, Philosophy, and Law, King’s College, London.Dr Philip Cunliffe, Senior Lecturer in International Conflict, University of Kent. Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of the Secret Intelliegence Service, former master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and Chair of the Trustees, University of London. Mr John Forsyth, former member of the Council of the Royal Institute for International Affairs and Centre of International Studies, Cambridge. Mr Adrian Hill, former head of Commercial Department, British Embassy, Seoul, and former British Army Officer.Dr Lee Jones, Reader in International Politics, Queen Mary, University of London; Sir Peter Marshall, retired FCO, former Assistant Sec-Gen of Commonwealth. Dr Thomas Mills   Lecturer in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, University of Lancaster. Professor Gwythian Prins, Emeritus Research Professor, London School of Economics, visiting academic professor, École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr.  Dr Philip Towle, Emeritus Reader in International Relations, and former Director of the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge. Sir Andrew Wood, former UK Ambassador to Yugoslavia and to Russia, and currently Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House. Dr Robin Dunbar, Professor of Evolutionary Psychology, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford. Lord (Maurice) Glasman, Labour peer, political theorist, and Director of the Common Good Foundation. Professor Robert J. Jackson, Distinguished Professor at Carleton University Ottawa, and Emeritus Fletcher Jones Professor of International Relations at the University of Redlands, California.Michael James, former university lecturer in Politics, assistant editor of Economic Affairs. Professor David Lane, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and  Emeritus Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University. Dr Tara McCormack, School of History, Politics & International Relations, University of Leicester. Jonathan Rutherford, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Studies, Middlesex University. Writer and political adviser. Professor Richard Tuck, FBA, Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government at Harvard University. Professor George Yarrow, Chair of the Regulatory Policy Institute, a charity dedicated to promoting the study of regulation for the public benefit, and Emeritus Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford. Professor David Abulafia, FBA, Professor of Mediterranean History, Cambridge. Professor Robert Colls, Professor of Cultural History at De Montfort University. Sir Noel Malcolm, FBA, Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. Professor Andrew Roberts, historian, Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Dr Daniel Robinson, international history, Fellow of Magdalen College, University of Oxford. Former Senior Policy Adviser to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. Professor Jonathan Rutherford, writer, political adviser and Emeritus Professor of Cultural Studies, Middlesex University and co-founder of Blue Labour. Dr Peter Sarris, Reader in Late Roman, Medieval and Byzantine History, Cambridge. Professor Michael Vickers, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology, University of Oxford. Pamela Dow, formerly director of strategy at the Ministry of Justice, now chief reform officer, Catch22. Dr Munira Mirza, arts adviser and writer. Dr Nicholas Shrimpton, Emeritus Fellow in English Literature, Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford.  Professor David Coleman, Professor of Demography, University of Oxford Institute of Population Ageing. Dr Ian Moody, Associate Lecturer with the Open University from 1987-1997 and Head of Psychology at Hayesfield Girls’ School in Bath from 1998-2013. Dr Joanna Williams, author and commentator. Education Editor of Spiked magazine. Author of Academic Freedom in an Age of Conformity (Palgrave/McMillan). Dr Ian Winter, senior lecturer, Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge. The tragic irony is that most of the above intellectuals have probably never been to Northern Ireland or Scotland and therefore have literally not a clue how intense the feeling is in those countries in favour of the UK remaining in the European Union. They represent the quintessential cultural arrogance of Oxbridgers who feel entitled to decide on behalf of everyone what will be the fate of the entire British Isles, as if a Godlet given right. When this arrogance falls apart after brexit, as it surely will, I hope for a public apology from every single on of these named so-called “intellectuals” who have trumpeted their support for brexit. Alternatively, it is not too late for them to read carefully this newsletter, draw their own conclusions and change their minds. In addition to the above list, there are several key journalists and media people who also strongly support brexit and have been pushing for it – these include the person who was until recently in charge of political affairs for the entire BBC who has now been appointed head of communications for Prime Minister Theresa May. The head of the BBC’s political team at Westminster, Robbie Gibb,  has been appointed to take over as Downing Street’s director of communications. A BBC message to staff said Robbie Gibb had accepted the job advising the prime minister and would leave the corporation after 23 years. Downing Street also confirmed the news. Gibb takes over from Katie Perrior, the previous director of communications, who quit before the election. The job was held by Craig Oliver and Andy Coulson under David Cameron. Gibb’s brother is Nick Gibb, the junior education minister. Gibb, who edits the Daily and Sunday Politics programmes, was one of two senior BBC staffers up for the job. He saw off competition from James Landale, the diplomatic editor. The corporation’s head of news, James Harding, said: Gibb had “deployed his renowned organisational skills, political acumen and editorial creativity” in his current job and in earlier roles such as deputy editor of Newsnight. Harding said: “Robbie always has an eye to the interests of our audiences, he has been an innovator in story-telling on television and an unrelenting advocate of the BBC, its independence and our public service role. “The signal quality he and his programmes have shown is the willingness to speak truth to power – I suspect it will come in handy.” May’s press team has been short-staffed since Perrior left. The strained atmosphere at Downing Street before the election also led to the departure of May’s press secretary, Lizzie Loudon, though she has been replaced. The director of communications, like the press secretary, is a political appointment, but involves less day-to-day contact with reporters and the media. Gibb’s post is more strategic. May also has an official spokesman: James Slack, a former Daily Mail political editor. His is a civil service role, heading the No 10 press office, which includes the duty of conducting the regular lobby briefings for the media. What is incredible is that this Robbie Gibb has had enormous power at the BBC to shape the public understanding of Brexit and to insist that it is going to be a “good thing”. What bubble are these people in ? How can they be deaf to the overwhelming evidence given in this newsletter, from professionals in every sector of society, as well as from ordinary people all over the country, that brexit is the worst news for the UK since 1603, when it formally came into being, since it will lead to its collapse. HI brother Nick Gibb seemed also intellectually challenged when I met him at Poole Grammar school during his official visit, and suggested that we need a Gifted and Talented programme in Higher Education to match the ones in schools. He looked at me blankly… I don’t think he even understood the importance of the suggestion.  And the consequence ? A brexit pushed by semi-educated ministers and semi-educated media “professionals” who haven’t been taught to think in joined up sentences but in sound byes and “tweets”..


  1. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF BREXIT: The constitutional implications of brexit if it is pushed through the House of Commons against the wishes of the people of Scotland, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, and against the wishes of most local government structures and bodies in England, who are beginning to voice their own opposition to Brexit, and if a second referendum is denied and blocked, but Conservative party miscuing their fig leaf majority in the House of Commons, supported by a spineless and intellectually challenged Corbynite wing who have simultaneously taken over control of the Labour party – are in fact rather frightening to contemplate. What it means is that the moderate consensus that has existed in British politics since 1973, when we became a member of the European Union, will have been utterly torn up and thrown out of the window. We will almost certainly break up as a nation with a very short space of time, and the people of Scotland have given every single signal that they will be holding a second independence referendum very soon after brexit is pushed through against their will. If Westminster try and stop them they will almost certainly withdrawn their MP’s from Westminster and just go ahead anyway. The Scottish SNP MP’s already walked out of the Commons in a display of disgust at the way that the UK government has forced legislation through that gives them alone the power to decide where the repatriated powers bring brought back from the European Union will reside in the future. The UK government will of course decide that most of these powers are retained by Westminster. In their minds, they see this as “taking back power from Brussels” but in fact, from a Scottish or northern Irish or Welsh voter’s perspective, it should actually read “taking back powers to Westminster”. But given the history of what Westminster has been up to behind the scenes in the long history of the UK (Highland clearances, funding of Fascism, building of nuclear weapons to threaten the obliteration of other countries peoples, colluding with fake invasions of the Middle East, probably colluding in the judicial assassination of opponents to the hijacking of the moral conscience of our public intellectuals by fear such as the probable (possible) killings of John Smith, David Kelly, Michael Meacher and Robyn Cook, failing to provide the UK a proper educational curriculum in British schools where the real story of the achievements of European civilisation can be told in depth and detail, including the actual history of  the formation of the European Union as a force for democracy and human rights in the world, and so on – all this means that the constitutional future of the UK post brexit is looking like the UK as a project will be coming to an end very shortly. It is to head off this catastrophe, which may well end up in bloodshed and the return of the time of troubles to the streets of Northern Ireland, and possibly elsewhere in the UK this time, such as Scotland, that IIPSGP is proposing a second, binding referendum on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the EU, should be brought forward and auctioned by consensus of all parties, to be held in February 2019. Simultaneously the triggering of withdrawal under article 50 should be suspended and postponed, and we should argue to the EU leaders that we have decided to have a rethink and we would like a further 1 years extension the article 50 process. If the referendum results in a clear counter-decision, to remain inside the EU, then a general election would be held and it could be decided at that time which party should lead us into a process of the renormalisation of our relationship with the EU, since there will be relationships that need repairing and healing conversations that need to be had. Colleagues have suggested that at this second referendum all eligible voters should be required to vote, one way or another, and that failure to do so would result in a fine, as in key votes held in Switzerland and Australia, where voting is likewise compulsory. Furthermore, the spending limits of both sides should be properly enforced this time, and for every amount over the spending limit, votes should be deducted from the result. Furthermore, each spate part of the UK should have voted to leave the EU, and if they do not, the UK as a whole does not leave the EU. If the English voters wish to leave the UK, then they should be required to also leave the UK, and set up a new state called “England”. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should remain together in the UK, and voters in Cornwall should also be given the right to remain in the UK. Likewise if London, or Brighton or other urban centres vote to remain in the EU, they should also be given the option to remain in both the UK and the EU. If large parts of “England” vote to leaved the EU and to leave the UK, so be it. NO doubt the constitutional Studies centre of University College London (UCL) can given useful and salutary advice in the run up to any second referendum and can suggest ways forward on this and other constitutional matters as they develop. In addition, many lawyers and legal experts are no speaking out against the folly of brexit: More than 1,500 of the UK’s top lawyers have urged Theresa May and MPs to back a second Brexit referendum, saying that “democratic government is not frozen in time”. Labour peer Helena Kennedy QC, former court of appeal judge Konrad Schiemann, and David Edward, a former judge at the court of justice of the European Communities, are among those who have called for a “people’s vote” on EU membership. In a letter to the prime minister in Oct 2018, they say parliament should not be bound by the 2016 vote any more than it should be by the 1975 referendum that took Britain into the EU, especially when there were question marks over its validity. They write that “voters are entitled to know what they are voting for”, adding: “There was a key difference between 1975 and 2016. The earlier referendum was held after negotiations were complete, so voters knew what they were voting for. Let the people judge whether a Brexit deal is fit for purpose.  “In 2016, the nature of the negotiation process and its outcome were unknown. Voters faced a choice between a known reality and an unknown alternative. In the campaign, untestable claims took the place of facts and reality.” Human rights specialist Jonathan Cooper, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said: “The current state of the Brexit negotiations is worrying people throughout the UK and the legal profession is no exception to that. We represent people from across industry and society and we see every day the way the prospect of a catastrophic Brexit deal is already causing real harm. This letter to the prime minister has been signed by over a thousand of my colleagues who are convinced that not only is a people’s vote the right thing to do, it is the most democratic thing to do as well.”


  1. NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS SUPPORT UK REMAINING INSIDE THE EU FOR THE SAKE OF GOOD SCIENCE: a letter has been sent in October 2018 to Prime Minister Theresa May, arguing that for the sake of science the UK should remain inside the EU, or at the very least ensure that if it does leave the EU, it should not harm our scientific standing as a country. The letter is very eloquent and well argued, and although not saying specifically that the Prime Minister should reverse her decision, more or less makes it obvious that that is the preferred option of the signatories. Sir Paul Nurse who is responsible for bringing the letter into being, has corresponded with Theresa May before. In 2015 he authored a report which advised bringing a whole new body into being called Research UK which would oversee funding to every part of the academic and scientific community, The Prime Minister accepted his views and began to implement his suggestions. This body is now up and running and called Research UK, and it includes the various research council that exist in the UK including the: Having met and discussed with Sir Paul back when I was living in Wales, the author knows the intellectual depth and gravitas of the man, and believes that by organising this letter campaign to Theresa May he has managed to swing one more hammer in the direction of sounding out the bell of liberty from ignorance, which is the common concern of all true scientists, philosophers and academics worthy of their name. The letter is given in full here below:


The Rt Hon Theresa May MP

The Prime Minister

10 Downing Street




19 October 2018


Dear Prime Minister May,


Scientific research and innovation are crucial for tackling the many shared  hallenges we face, including treating disease, generating clean energy, building the digital industries of the future, protecting the environment and ensuring an adequate and affordable supply of food. However, to meet these challenges for everyone’s benefit, science needs to flourish and that requires the flow of people and ideas across borders to allow the rapid exchange of ideas, expertise and technology. Europe was the home of the enlightenment and the birthplace of modern science, but partly as a result of two devastating internecine wars in Europe in the 20th century, it suffered a decline relative to the USA. However, this decline has been reversed in the last few decades as a result of the ease of collaboration nurtured by the EU through its many initiatives and programmes, which have greatly benefited European science. Creating new barriers to such ease of collaboration will inhibit progress, to the detriment of us all. Many of us in the science community therefore regret the UK’s decision to leave the European Union because it risks such barriers.


All parties in the negotiations on the UK’s departure from the EU must now strive to ensure that as little harm as possible is done to research. It is widely recognised that investing in research and innovation are increasingly crucial for shaping a better European future. In your Jodrell Bank speech, you restated your desire for the UK to have a ‘deep science partnership with the European Union’. We must not allow the UK or the EU to become more insular in our approach to each other. By deciding to leave the EU, the UK has given up its right to participate in EU research and innovation programmes. It must now step up its commitment to those programmes if it wants to remain involved. For the EU it is vital that it makes international cooperation a trademark of its research and innovation programmes. That means acting on Pascal Lamy’s report for the European Commission on maximizing the impact of EU research and innovation programmes which calls for opening up the programmes to ‘association by the best and participation by all’, based on a financial contribution that is fair to all.The challenges we face must be tackled in a manner that benefits everyone and those challenges are better faced together. Only a deal which allows the closest possible cooperation between the UK and the EU, now and in the future, will make that possible.


Yours Sincerely


Jules Hoffmann – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Sir Paul Nurse – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Klaus von Klitzing – Nobel Prize in Physics

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji – Nobel Prize in Physics

Jacques Dubochet – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Albert Fert – Nobel Prize in Physics

Timothy Gowers – Fields Medal

Martin Hairer – Fields Medal

Harald zur Hausen – Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine

Richard Henderson – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Gerardus ‘t Hooft – Nobel Prize in Physics

Jean-Marie Lehn – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Pierre-Louis Lions – Fields Medalist

Edvard Ingjald Mose – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Kostya Novoselov – Nobel Prize in Physics

Christopher A. Pissarides – Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John E. Walker – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Ada Yonath – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Venki Ramakrishnan – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Michael Atiyah – Fields Medal

Paul J Crutzen – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Simon Donaldson – Fields Medal

Gerhard Ertl – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

John Gurdon – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Serge Haroche – Nobel Prize in Physics

Stefan W Hell – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Avram Hershko – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Robert Huber – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Tomas Lindahl – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Hartmut Michel – Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Erwin Neher – Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine

John O’Keefe – Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Peter Scholze – Fields Medalist

Kurt Wüthrich – Nobel Prize in Chemistry


Address for correspondence: Venki Ramakrishnan, The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG


  1. FACEBOOK CAMPAIGNING GROUPS AGAINST BREXIT: many of us in the anti-brexit activist camp, have used facebook to network and link ideas and make our views known, Not everybody uses facebook of course, but for those who do, its a useful networking tool, indeed its a unique and irreplaceable tool that has revolutionised political campaigning, and when used right, can be very helpful, so here are some of the major anti-brexit campaigning pages and groups which you might want to link up with if you are critical of the whole direction that the UK is going in following the disastrous planned and ill conceived Europe referendum in 2016, and are trying to get a second referendum adopted by parliamentary consensus as the only way out of this chaotic mess, apart from the break up of the united kingdom. Fight against brexit; Anti brexit Cartoons; Bollox to brexit; Better together – lets exit brexit; Exit from brexit; Stop brexit ltd; brexit means trump; Upcoming anti brexit events; brexit resistance; brexit – not in my name; UK Citizens – say yes 2 Europe – remain in the EU; No brexit UK; brexit watch; Anti brexit Bristol activists; No brexit UK; British-Spanish anti-B friendship; brexit memes; Rage against the brexit machine; brexit victims; brexit – the inconvenient truth; Jobs lost to brexit; Local events anti brexit; Stand up2B; Cost of brexit; Bresistance News; British-EU Ciizens; brexit Protest effigies; BBC Brexit Broadcasting Corporation – cancel your licence; Anti Brexit Strategy Meeting conclusions; Help stop brexit Page; Stop brexit events; 2nd EU Referendum / Parliamentary vote to stop brexit; Flock brexit Media; Remainers Commenting on Pro Brexit Media; Inspire EU; NHS against Brexit; Exeter Students for Europe; The New Europe; a positive global vision for the UK in Europe; UK to Staying EU; Friends against brexit; Reasons2remain; Tories against brexit; Labour against brexit; Young Europeans; Brexit ? No No No; Full English brexit and the fight to remain; LSE brexit blog; stop brexit; pants to brexit; we are the 63% who did not vote for brexit; brexit breaks Britain; brexit second thoughts; Remain in the EU =- exit from brexit; Brexit exposed; Resisting brexit; We demand UK; Border countries against brexit; No to brexit; Stop brexit; Brexit Brits abroad; Stop brexit – Oxfordshire; our future our choice; women against the right; alliance europea London; liberal democrats; green party of England and Wales; London green party; derry girls against borders; west London for Europe; against tories and tory austerity; humans of London; brexit second thoughts; London 4 europe; send referendum; RIFT – Remain in Poitou-Charentes (& Vendée); Remain Hopeful – TransAtlantic 48ers; EUnite – Protecting EU & British Citizens’ Right to Remain in the EU & UK; remain great: european movement London; say yes 2 europe – remain in the EU – northern Ireland; Say Yes 2 Europe Scotland; Remain in EU; Liverpool for Europe; Alliance for Europe; ALDE Party – Liberals and Democrats for Europe; Stand up for Europe; EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy; Sinn Féin Ireland; Brighton and Hove for Europe; Camden for Europe, Devon for Europe, Bath for Europe, Berkshire for Europe, Bristol for Europe, EU in Brum, Leeds for Europe, Cornwall for Europe, Brighton and Hove for Europe, Dorset for Europe, Perth for Europe, Sussex for Europe, The Truth And Reconciliation  Commission  For  Britain  And  Ireland  TRCBI; Commonwealth Interfaith Network.; Scientists for EU; the Muses Love Journal; Truth  And  Reconciliation  Commission  For  Stonehenge; Education Aid project, a core initiative of IIPSGP;  Historians and Archaeologists for peace, Spiritual Pilgrimage centre at Stonehenge; Order of Peace Poets, Bards and Druids; Mary Magdalene Studies Association, and many more. IIPSGP is also setting up Lovers Of The UK And Lovers Of The EU Against Brexit, and Ecumenical Christians Loving The  UK And The EU United Against Brexit All of the various facebook groups are actively campaigning in their various ways, intellectual and political, for the UK to remain inside the European Union. Now Nick Clegg is going to work for Facebook, it will hopefully become even more an intelligent choice for all anti-Brexiteers to use in order to reverse the Brexit stupidity.


  1. OFF-SHORE TRUSTS AND THE ROLE OF SECRET FINANCIAL ELITES IN BREXIT: An extraordinary new documentary has been made recently and is airing on you tube, exposing for the first real time the secret world of how financial elites supposedly based in the UK, In actual fact hold most of their money in offshore trusts in financial tax havens, which are crown dependencies, such as Jersey, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda etc. Something over a trillion pounds of wealth are locked up in these crown dependencies. The film is called The Spiders Web: Britain’s Second Empire directed by MIchael Oswald, and was made by Co Producer John Christensen, Executive Producer, Simeon Roberts, in collaboration with Sean Adam, Boucher, narrated by Andrew Piper, Associate producers Daniel Turi and Katharine Round. It reveals that huge amounts of money are locked up in these secretive trusts, which are only nominally controlled by the Bank of England and the British financial markets, but which actually operate to all intents and purposes outside the jurisdiction of the political control mechanisms of the British state. In the Cayman Islands, Jersey, the Isle of Man and other offshore locations, literally trillions of pounds are locked up and deposited in the name of secretive trusts, which were set up and run from the UK, but which have their deposits held outside the reach of the UK tax authorities. No taxes are paid on all these deposits, and thus speculators are free to sit on their huge holdings and simply buy up properties or businesses around the world, without being accountable to anyone. The documentary exposes how these practices are embedded into the secretive elites of the City of London corporation and are backed by the crown, since all these territories are Crown dependencies. The Queen ennobles and underpins the elites who own, run and manage these trusts, and they are only seen as safe and trustworthy to investors because the British state stands behind them. If you join the dots, you will realise that it is precisely these financial elites, who own and operate these offshore trusts, that engineered Brexit. They have captured control of the Conservative Party, and pushed Brexit through Parliament and the British people, without telling them actually what they are up to. The same offshore billionaires also control and publish the Daily Telegraph which is their main propaganda anti-Brexit flag ship, as well as the Daily Mail, which comes a close second. David Cameron’s father Ian Cameron made millions by operating and managing several of these off-shore trusts for clients. He ran an offshore fund that avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small army of Bahamas residents – including a part-time bishop – to sign its paperwork. Ian Cameron was a director of Blairmore Holdings Inc, an investment fund run from the Bahamas but named after the family’s ancestral home in Aberdeenshire, which managed tens of millions of pounds on behalf of wealthy families. Clients included Isidore Kerman, an adviser to Robert Maxwell who once owned the West End restaurants Scott’s and J Sheekey, and Leopold Joseph, a private bank used by the Rolling Stones.The fund was founded in the early 1980s and still exists today. In 30 years Blairmore has never paid a penny of tax in the UK on its profits. Known as Secrecy Jurisdictions, these tax havens operate with the benefit of the wider British former Empire and yet outside the reach of the UK Government for tax purposes. They are in a kind of legal and tax limbo, where they cannot be counted, and are effectively accountable to no-one. The British Virgin islands are  typical of these British tax havens, and are used by the company Mossad Fonseca, whose dealings were exposed in the famous Panama Papers. These revealed that not only British elites but also political and criminal elites around the entire world, from Russia to the USA, to Israel to the UK, to Latin America, all have huge amounts of money squirreled away in these off shore companies, usually in British dependencies such as the Virgin islands, and that the UK financial elites have essentially become the pirate bankers to the entire super-rich elite. The lawyers and politicians and accountants who create these complex trusts and shell companies, domiciled in off shore locations such as Jersey, the Isle of man, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands etc. apparently wanted to effect brexit because the EU has slowly begun clamping down on tax avoidance by UK financial elites through these tax havens which are operating through the UK off shore financial system. The time line of the EU beginning to clap down on this whole secret world of off shore trusts and shell companies, and secret jurisdictions, more or less coincides exactly with the decision by David Cameron to push an unwelcome referendum on the British people and then for the same financial elites who benefit from this system, to ensure that the vote went according to their plan. It even turns out that Philip May, husband of Theresa May, has interests in off shore tax havens through his company Capital. So too do the owners of the Daily Telegraph., the Barclay Brothers. The Barclay brothers bought the Daily Telegraph newspaper from Black. Their castle is cleaned and maintained by Philipino women who are shipped in daily from Guernsey. Visitors have included David Cameron. The Barclay brothers also have a son called Aiden. The Barclay twins were born within ten minutes of each other in London to Scottish parents who had ten children. Their father died when they were twelve and they left school four years later to work in the accounts department at General Electric before doing a stint as painters and decorators. By 1962 they started redeveloping old boarding houses in London and making them into hotels. In 1975, they bought the Howard Hotel, overlooking the Thames at Temple Place. In 1983 they bought Ellerman, the brewing and shipping group for £45m. They later sold its brewing division for £240m. They used the proceeds to buy the Ritz Hotel in London’s Piccadilly. They still own the Ritz but don’t pay a penny of income tax as it is technically owned by an offshore company not based in the UK (which they control). The Same with the Daily telegraphy AND Sunday Telegraph newspapers, which dicate the marching orders to most of the elite financial amnd political experts who are pushgni brexit – not a penny is paid for income tax on this entire operation as it is owned “offshore” by the Barclay Brothers. This would be laughable were it not actually tragic. It is yet further proof that the entire Brexit operation is a kind of Pirate invasion of the UK state. It is as if pirate ships have moored in the Thames off Westminster, and tied up the actual MP’s, dressed in disguise as Tory MP’s and literally taken over the running of the country for their own interests. The Barclay Brothers  are reported to be close friends of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, former Archbishop of Westminster. According to newspaper reports, the cardinal has stayed at the Barclay brothers’ home on the Channel Island of Brecqhou and is believed to have blessed the brothers’ private chapel and said Mass for them there. The Barclays are philanthropists and were knighted in 2000 for their support to medical genetic engineering research, to which they have donated an estimated forty million pounds between 1987 and 2000. n 2004, they were listed in 42nd place with an estimate of £750m on the Sunday Times Rich List, and in 2005, they were ranked 33rd with a value of £1.3 billion (USD $2.3 billion). In 1993, the Barclay brothers bought the island of Brecqhou, one of the Channel Islands, located just west of Sark. Their own mock-Gothic/Classical castle on Brecqhou, designed by Quinlan Terry, features 3 ft granite walls, battlements, two swimming pools and a helicopter pad. The brothers are tax exiles, supported by David Cameron, and give their address as Le Montaigne, 7 Avenue de Grande Bretagne, 98000 Monaco. The best source to watch on the Barclay Brothers is a documentary by Panorama journalist John Sqweeney, which reveals some incredible skulduggery going on in Sark and their island of Brequo. Basically, the Barclays are revealed to be pretty unpleasant characters who used the law against their fellow citizens at every possible alternative, and then use their incredible wealth to win silence, through generating a climate of fear. This same mentality is what they have managed to do in the entire UK with their Brexit madness, in the opinion of this Newsletter. They have created a witchunt against anyone who opposes Brexit and defames them by using the Daily telegraph to do so. But why ? Is this all for religious reasons ? Are they secretly member of some extreme sect like Opus Dei who want to destroy the UK for its daring to break away from Rome in 1534 ? Are they secretly extreme Jacobite Scottish Nationalists, who want to push brexit, knowing full well it will lead to the breakup of the UK, and thus Scotland will rise again as a beacon of anti English nationalism, and the Barclays can reveal their secret plot all along, and get awarded the Knighthood of the Order of the Thistle ? The mind boggles. They surely cannot be so ignorant that their policies are going to break up the UK forever, can they ? Perhaps they simply live in a such a tax-avoiders bubble world that they literally haven’t realised how brexit is going to affect poor people (Gosh, what are they ?) or how the UK as a whole is going to suffer when it crashes down in flames, of their own creation. One thing is absolutely clear from the documentary, that they have no loyalty whatsoever to the UK or to the Queen, since they are engaged in a war of open intimidation against her representative on Sark, the Seignior who she has appointed personally. They have gone to court again and again to try to get this poor gentleman, an 80 year old whose wife is ill, to basically crack and fall apart. I have not seen such shocking and merciless behaviour by people who ought to know better for a long time and John Sweeney is to be commended for finding all this out and presenting it to the British public. But these are the people who are bringing us brexit. Let that sink in for a moment. Their propensity to go to lawyers again and again to silence critics, shows they may be legally clever and rich and powerful enough to get away with their actions, but they are not morally intelligent and totally lack an understanding of ethical and philosophical wisdom. If they are some kind of Christians, then it can only be of a ritualistic and outer format, knowing nothing about the law of love, compassion and mercy which Christ actually taught. Of such people Christ already hinted he would say “I do not recognise you” at his return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlcgJAseSC8

It turns out that back in 2015, Britain rejected plans announced by Brussels to combat “industrial-scale tax avoidance by the world’s biggest multinationals”. Britain had built a corporate tax haven for multinationals that included slashing corporation tax from 28% to 20%, new favourable tax regimes for multinationals with offshore financing subsidiaries, and tax breaks for patent-owning companies. As a result, Britain saw a number of large corporations like Aon, Fiat Industrial, and Starbucks’s European operations, set up headquarters in the UK with a small number of staff in order to take advantage of these tax laws. The EU common tax regulations would have clamped down on off shoring and removed many of these elements of Britain’s competitive tax advantages over other EU Member States. Then European Commissioner for Tax, Pierre Moscovici, stated that, “The current rules for corporate taxation no longer fit the modern context, as corporate tax planning has become more sophisticated and competitive forces between member states have increased, the tools for ensuring fair tax competition within the EU have reached their limits.” The Treasury at the time declined to give reasons for their rejection of the plans, but issued this statement, “Direct taxation is a matter for EU countries, and any direct taxation matters require unanimity across all EU countries. We’re fully involved in international discussions on tax issues and have consistently supported global measures, through the EU, G20 and OECD, which will strengthen international rules to prevent corporate tax avoidance.” Earlier in 2015, Conservative, UKIP and DUP MEPs also voted against EU’s plans to crack down on corporate tax dodging, by making companies report where they make their profits and pay taxes. The plan included a requirement for all Member States to agree on a common EU position for the definition of tax havens and for co-ordinated penalties to be imposed upon countries or territories across the world that are uncooperative in tackling tax evasion. It also called for a blacklist to be drawn up of these countries and, perhaps most importantly, it called for “The Member States to equip their competent authorities to carry out rigorous and thorough investigations, and put forward sanctions such as suspending or revoking the banking or advisory licences of financial institutions, accountants, law firms or other financial advisors if it has been proven that they have assisted in tax fraud…” All present Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid, and Green MEPs voted for the plan. The Conservatives voted against. In 2013, Cameron personally wrote to the then president of the European council, Herman Van Rompuy, to prevent offshore trusts from being dragged into an EU-wide crackdown on tax avoidance requesting that trusts should not automatically be subject to the same transparency requirements as companies. The EU had planned to increase transparency on the dealings of offshore bodies by publishing a central register of their ultimate owners but, in a letter unearthed by the Financial Times, Cameron said, “It is clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts … This means that the solution for addressing the potential misuse of companies — such as central public registries — may well not be appropriate generally.”Rather than holding trusts to the same standards as companies by forcing them to make their owners publicly known, the Prime Minister argued that the EU should ask the Organisation for Cooperation and Development and the G20 to agree on a global framework for transparency agreements. However, despite these protests, the EU has now moved forward with these plans, and rules are set to come into force in 2019. The UK has had legislation on the marketing of tax schemes since 2004, but these new rules would force all EU Member states to share details of all tax schemes every three months to be displayed in a central directory of avoidance schemes. These plans would tighten up restrictions on UK based intermediaries that take part in off-shoring and tax avoidance, of which Britain is a global leader alongside the US and Hong Kong. It would appear to an unbiased observer therefore that the reason the Tory Party is so determined to push Brexit through Parliament as a “no deal exit” is because these very off shore tax loopholes will have to be declared under EU law soon after that. Another way then off looking at the whole brexit fiasco is to say that the elites who run these offshore tax havens, such as jersey, Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Isle of Man etc. have literally effected a coup to take over the UK government, through the Tory Party, and to pull the UK out of the European Union because it suits their own shady financial dealings. Not because it will be good for the British people as a whole. And since their types ruin the influential media backing brexit, they managed to sway the public moon ion 2016 to win the referendum for their point of view. They know they will not win again because we have wised up to what is going on, which is why they are so determined to push through brexit immediately without any deal and at all cost avoid a second referendum. Hey are like criminals escaping from a break in with a bag of swag, but we the British people, like honest bystanders, seeing what is happening, have somehow to tackle them. All this has horrified many Tory and Labour MPs at Westminster. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said it would create a “bargain-basement Brexit” that would transform the country into “a low-paid tax haven on the shores of Europe”. There is a broader debate: whether the offshore world, with the secrecy that it offers, and the tax breaks it can give, remains moral and ethical in a time of growing global inequalities. There are legitimate questions about why people use offshore arrangements – what benefit they had, or were hoping for. Even Labour John McDonnell has called on Theresa May to prove she has “nothing to hide” and declare her tax returns, after more than 10,000 people signed a petition calling on MPs to debate whether the prime minister should disclose whether she has any offshore interests. Both the PM and her husband have money invested in a shared “blind trust” which could contain offshore investments, while Philip May works for a company that was linked to the Panama Papers tax avoidance scandal. The revelations of the Paradise Papers offer new vignettes about them – and how they have benefited, legally, from the kind of practices that are now under more scrutiny than ever before. One who uses offshore havens is Aron Banks. On Nov. 1 2018 Aron Banks has been referred to the National Crime Agency for having broken the law by giving money to the Leave.EU campaign from his offshore businesses in Gibraltar and the Isle of man, which is against UK law. The Electoral Commission has said: “From the evidence we gathered, we have reasonable grounds to suspect that a number of offences may have been committed. These relate to the financial transactions which led to the £8m being paid into BFTC’s bank account. Mr Banks and Ms Bilney (and through them BFTC and Leave.EU) gave us unsatisfactory explanations about these transactions, and we have reasonable grounds to suspect that they knowingly concealed and sought to conceal the true circumstances. We also have reasonable grounds to suspect that a non-qualifying or impermissible person or body, Rock Holdings (incorporated in the Isle of Man), was a party to the relevant transactions.” Banks donated £8.5m to Nigel Farage and his campaign to leave Europe and he continues to argue for a hard Brexit. He co-owns the Isle of Man-based Conister Bank with his friend and fellow Brexiter, the Isle of Man resident Jim Mellon. The bank is part of the Manx Financial Group, which is also controlled by the two men. Recently  the MFG reported a 30% rise in profits with total assets worth £174.3m. By Banks’s own admission, Conister had been unprofitable for 25 years before he and Mellon took over more than 10 years ago. The Paradise Papers reveal previously unknown details of some of Conister’s clients. One, in particular, appeared to represent a potential high risk. They show the bank opened accounts in 2012 for a businessman whose gambling firm and business partner were pursued by the US Department of Justice for allegedly laundering billions in illegal proceeds. Another such figure is Lord Magan who is a former Conservative party chairman and has donated around £1.5m to the Tories. He helped Iain Duncan Smith on the campaign trail with the loan of a chauffeured car. Awarded a life peerage in 2011, he appears in the papers for several reasons. He is the settlor of two Jersey-based trusts that hold properties and fine art. As a director of the yacht firm Edmiston he is also involved in a Jersey company, which the law firm Appleby described as being set up to help clients who want to employ their staff through an offshore firm. Secrecy is of course one of the benefits of tax havens – and it is something valued by Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, owners of the Daily Telegraph, who live on Brecqhou in the Channel Islands, and Monaco. Prem Sikka, professor of accounting at the University of Essex, said: “Nominee shareholdings add opacity and make it impossible for the authorities to call the ultimate controllers and beneficiaries of financial flows to account.” One of the biggest funders of the leave campaign, Lord Edmiston, appears in the Panama Papers in connection with two Malta-based aviation companies. The founder of the car importer IM Group, who is estimated to have a fortune of about £440m, gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to two Brexit groups, Vote Leave and Grassroots Out. Edmiston, whose address is listed as being in Portugal and whose companies have donated around £4.5m to the Conservative party, was a Tory peer sitting in the Lords from 2010 to 2015, when he resigned his seat. The Panama Papers show him as a shareholder in a plane and helicopter company, Aircraft Operations Limited, registered in Malta, in 2016, which describes itself as selling and renting planes and helicopters. Shares were also transferred to him the same year in another Malta-registered company, Aviation Assets Limited, in which he became a director. Again in 2016, shares in Reston Holdings Limited, which had been shown in the Panama Papers as being registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), were transferred to him and registered in Malta. Another involved in the secret world of offshore tax havens is Jacob Rees-Mogg and a former school friend who has managed the MP’s multimillion-pound investments. Rees-Mogg is referred to because of a $680,000 payment he received when the BVI-based investment firm he worked for was bought by a Canadian bank. Rees-Mogg held more than 50,000 shares in the BVI-based Lloyd George Management at the time it was bought by Bank of Montreal in 2011. Rees-Mogg’s finances are complex – and a matter of public record. He owns a company called Saliston, established in 1995 to hold property that originally belonged to his father. These days Saliston also holds his stake in Somerset Capital Management, an emerging markets fund he co-founded in 2007. Somerset is managed via subsidiaries in the tax havens of the Cayman Islands and Singapore. MP has defended offshore tax havens. But his vast wealth has left him open to criticism that he does not understand the concerns of ordinary people. He was roundly criticised in September for saying the growth in the use of food banks was “rather uplifting”. He told a newspaper that politicians condemning the tax scams exposed by the Panama Papers were “hypocritical and not very bright”. Jacob Rees-Mogg is the son of William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg, Kt (14 July 1928 – 29 December 2012) who was an English journalist and public servant. He served as editor of The Times (1967–81), chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain, and vice-chairman of the BBC. We can see how elites perpetuate their influence and power generation to generation. Interestingly the BBC continues to back brexit contrary to all possible rational or ethical accountancy. Perhaps it is simply being loyal to the Rees-Mogg brand ? Another donor to the Tory party, De Putron runs a multibillion-dollar hedge fund from Guernsey. He was also the joint owner with his wife of a company, Tyrolese (Malta) Ltd. Incorporated in 2000, De Putron’s company was the single shareholder of the UK-registered Tyrolese (636) Ltd, the Paradise Papers show. Another character involved is James Mellon, an arch-Brexiteer and Isle of Man tax exile, who is a proprietor of a cocktail bar in one of London’s hippest neighbourhoods – the Hoxton Pony in Shoreditch. In 2007, he teamed up with his longstanding business partner, the Canadian billionaire Stephen Dattels, to become a co-partner in the venture. Rather than invest directly in a British business, Mellon created a layered structure. The bar was run by a UK-registered company, Calabrese House Ltd, which was entirely owned by an Isle of Man company, Calabrese Holdings Ltd, which had four equal shareholders. Mellon and Dattels provided the funds, investing £500,000 each. They each held 25% via the Isle of Man. And it was the Manx vehicle that would pay out any dividends. If the bar was ever sold at a profit by its Manx parent, there would be no corporation tax to pay – because the Isle of Man does not tax company profits. The leaked Paradise Papers files show Appleby suggesting various ways this structure could help minimise tax. Even The Queen has her own personal estate also tied up with an offshore tax avoidance company, as revealed in the Paradise Papers.  Is this why the Royal Family is doing nothing to prevent brexit but staying mute as it unrolls through the Parliamentary wafer thin majority that the Tory Party has managed to capture ? The Paradise Papers are a set of 13.4 million confidential electronic documents relating to offshore investments that were leaked to the German reporters Frederik Obermaier and Bastian Obermayer from the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. The newspaper shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and a network of more than 380 journalists. Some of the details were made public on 5 November 2017 and other stories are still being released up to a year later. The documents originate from legal firm Appleby, the corporate services providers Estera and Asiaciti Trust, and business registries in 19 tax jurisdictions. They contain the names of more than 120,000 people and companies. Among those whose financial affairs are mentioned are, separately, AIG, Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth II, President of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. At 1.4 terabytes in size, this is second only to the Panama Papers of 2016 as the biggest data leak in history. What the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers leaks have revealed is that the financial elites who back Brexit are part of a global international conspiracy to avoid taxes wherever possible and to keep concentrating their capital in places where democratic governments cannot tax them, for the benefit of the common people. Just as the European Union was beginning to crack down on these practices, hey presto, the UK is about to leave the EU. It seems obviously to be connected if you join up the dots. Services are being run down in the UK, as the tax base which is available for UK governments to spend on schools, hospitals and social care, is collapsing, yet the rich elites who run the Tory Party have squirreled their money off shore so it cannot be used to help solve the social problems we face. This is one of the most scandalous causes behind brexit but is never being discussed in the mainstream media – why ? Because they are all benefiting from this system…


  1. RESIGNATION OF JO JOHNSON MP: Here is the very important resignation statement made by Transport Minister Jo Johnson, which every single Cabinet member ought to follow, If every Cabinet member resigned, then Theresa May would have to stop her brexit nonsense. Maybe then the penny would drop for her. “Why I cannot support the Government’s proposed Brexit deal Brexit has divided the country. It has divided political parties. And it has divided families too. Although I voted Remain, I have desperately wanted the Government, in which I have been proud to serve, to make a success of Brexit: to reunite our country, our party and, yes, my family too. At times, I believed this was possible. That’s why I voted to start the Article 50 process and for two years have backed the Prime Minister in her efforts to secure the best deal for the country. But it has become increasingly clear to me that the Withdrawal Agreement, which is being finalised in Brussels and Whitehall even as I write, will be a terrible mistake. Indeed, the choice being presented to the British people is no choice at all. The first option is the one the Government is proposing: an agreement that will leave our country economically weakened, with no say in the EU rules it must follow and years of uncertainty for business. The second option is a “no deal” Brexit that I know as a Transport Minister will inflict untold damage on our nation. To present the nation with a choice between two deeply unattractive outcomes, vassalage and chaos, is a failure of British statecraft on a scale unseen since the Suez crisis. My constituents in Orpington deserve better than this from their Government. What is now being proposed won’t be anything like what was promised two years ago. Hopes for “the easiest trade deal in history” have proved to be delusions. Contrary to promises, there is in fact no deal at all on our future trading relationship with the EU which the government can present to the country. Still less anything that offers the “exact same benefits” as the Single Market, as David Davis promised, or the “precise guarantees of frictionless trade” that the Prime Minister assured us would be available. All that is now being finalised is the agreement to pay the EU tens of billions of pounds. All that may be on offer on trade is the potential for an agreement to stay in a temporary customs arrangement while we discuss the possibility of an EU trade deal that all experience shows will take many years to negotiate. Even if we eventually secure a customs arrangement for trade in goods, it will be bad news for the service sector — for firms in finance, in IT, in communications and digital technology. Maintaining access to EU markets for goods is important, but we are fundamentally a services economy. Many in Orpington, for example, are among the two million Britons employed in financial services, commuting into the centre of London to jobs of all kinds in the City. Countries across the world go to great lengths to attract financial and professional services jobs from our shores. An agreement that sharply reduces access to EU markets for financial services — or leaves us vulnerable to regulatory change over which we will have no influence — will hurt my constituents and damage one of our most successful sectors. While we wait to negotiate trading terms, the rules of the game will be set solely by the EU. Britain will lose its seat at the table and its ability to amend or vote down rules it opposes. Instead of Britain “taking back control”, we will cede control to other European countries. This democratic deficit inherent in the Prime Minister’s proposal is a travesty of Brexit. When we were told Brexit meant taking back powers for Parliament, no one told my constituents this meant the French parliament and the German parliament, not our own. In these circumstances, we must ask what we are achieving. William Hague once described the goal of Conservative policy as being “in Europe, but not run by Europe”. The government’s proposals will see us out of Europe, yet run by Europe, bound by rules which we will have lost a hand in shaping. Worse still, there is no real clarity about how this situation will ever end. The proposed Withdrawal Agreement parks many of the biggest issues about our future relationship with Europe into a boundless transitionary period. This is a con on the British people: there is no evidence that the kind of Brexit that we’ve failed to negotiate while we are still members can be magically agreed once the UK has lost its seat at the table. The leverage we have as a full member of the EU will have gone. We will be in a far worse negotiating position than we are today. And we will have still failed to resolve the fundamental questions that are ramping up uncertainties for businesses and stopping them investing for the future. My brother Boris, who led the leave campaign, is as unhappy with the Government’s proposals as I am. Indeed he recently observed that the proposed arrangements were “substantially worse than staying in the EU”. On that he is unquestionably right. If these negotiations have achieved little else, they have at least united us in fraternal dismay. The argument that the government will present for the Withdrawal Agreement ‘deal’ is not that it is better for Britain than our current membership. The Prime Minister knows that she cannot honestly make the claim that the deal is an improvement on Britain’s current arrangements with the EU and, to her credit, refuses to do so. The only case she can try to make is that it is better than the alternative of leaving the EU with no deal at all.Certainly, I know from my own work at the Department of Transport the potential chaos that will follow a “no deal” Brexit. It will cause disruption, delay and deep damage to our economy. There are real questions about how we will be able to guarantee access to fresh food and medicine if the crucial Dover-Calais trade route is clogged up. The government may have to take control of prioritising which lorries and which goods are allowed in and out of the country, an extraordinary and surely unworkable intervention for a government in an advanced capitalist economy. The prospect of Kent becoming the Lorry Park of England is very real in a no deal scenario. Orpington residents bordering Kent face disruption from plans to use the nearby M26, connecting the M25 to the M20, as an additional queuing area for heavy goods vehicles backed up all the way from the channel ports. This prospect alone would be a resigning matter for me as a constituency MP, but it is just a facet of a far greater problem facing the nation. Yet for all its challenges and for all the real pain it would cause us as we adapt to new barriers to trade with our biggest market, we can ultimately survive these difficulties. I believe it would be a grave mistake for the government to ram through this deal by once again unleashing Project Fear. A “no deal” outcome of this sort may well be better than the never ending purgatory the Prime Minister is offering the country. But my message to my brother and to all Leave campaigners is that inflicting such serious economic and political harm on the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the minds of the public. It cannot be what you wanted nor did the 2016 referendum provide any mandate for it. Given that the reality of Brexit has turned out to be so far from what was once promised, the democratic thing to do is to give the public the final say. This would not be about re-running the 2016 referendum, but about asking people whether they want to go ahead with Brexit now that we know the deal that is actually available to us, whether we should leave without any deal at all or whether people on balance would rather stick with the deal we already have inside the European Union. To those who say that is an affront to democracy given the 2016 result, I ask this. Is it more democratic to rely on a three year old vote based on what an idealised Brexit might offer, or to have a vote based on what we know it does actually entail? A majority of Orpington voters chose to leave the EU in 2016 and many of the close friends I have there, among them hard-working local Conservative Party members, are passionately pro-Brexit. I respect their position. But I know from meetings I have had with local members that many are as dismayed as me by the course of negotiations and about the actual choice now on offer. Two and a half years on, the practical Brexit options are now clear and the public should be asked to choose between the different paths facing our country: we will all have different positions on that choice, but I think many in my local party, in the Orpington constituency and around the country would welcome having the last word on the Government’s Brexit proposals. Britain stands on the brink of the greatest crisis since the Second World War. My loyalty to my party is undimmed. I have never rebelled on any issue before now. But my duty to my constituents and our great nation has forced me to act. I have today written to the Prime Minister asking her to accept my resignation from the Government. It is now my intention to vote against this Withdrawal Agreement. I reject this false choice between the PM’s deal and “no deal” chaos. On this most crucial of questions, I believe it is entirely right to go back to the people and ask them to confirm their decision to leave the EU and, if they choose to do that, to give them the final say on whether we leave with the Prime Minister’s deal or without it. To do anything less will do grave damage to our democracy.”


  1. RELIGIOUS AND ETHICAL AND EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATION OF BREXIT: The following are some remarks on the Implications of Brexit campaign in the UK for Religious, Citizenship, Moral, Intercultural, Political and Human Rights Education by Prof. Robert Jackson – Professor of Religious Education at the University of Warwick and an eminent expert in the field worth taking note of. He writes: “The fact that the majority of young voters in the UK voted to remain in the European Union indicates some awareness of the inevitable pluralisation and globalisation of societies. It may also indicate some success from educational programmes – although the erosion of subjects like citizenship education and religious education in England through policies of the Conservative government (and largely the responsibility of Michael Gove) limits the effectiveness of such good work. I know that the quality of religious education (RE) teaching is mixed (and there are good reasons for that), but I am aware of wonderful RE secondary teaching and classroom discussion in response to incidents such as the Charlie Hebdo attacks (an example reported in Jackson 2015), and of many primary schools where values relating to human dignity and care and respect for one another are fundamental to the life of the school. The racism and xenophobia expressed during the Brexit campaign: Shows the need for more adult education about citizenship, politics and political discourse, human rights, and religious and cultural diversity. This needs to include education about the ethics of political discourse (the end justified the means for key politicians), and the idea of political office being an opportunity for service to other citizens; Shows the need for collaborative and interdisciplinary work, involving educators in fields such as citizenship, religious, human rights, moral, political and intercultural education working together; Illustrates the manipulative power of the right-wing popular press (and other media) – and therefore shows the vital need for better education for critical reading of media accounts of migration, religious plurality etc (there is a chapter about this in the Council of Europe Signposts book (Jackson 2014, ch6) and the Council of Europe has produced various resources to help students take a critical approach to media accounts-http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/autobiography/AEIVM_Tool_en.asp]; there are also some research findings on media representations of religions and recommendations from the European Commission REDCo project, especially from the Norwegian researcher Marie von der Lippe; again some of this material is referenced in Signposts); Shows the vital need for human rights education, especially exploration of the concept of human dignity, from a variety of perspectives (including, but certainly not confined to, religions). Again, the Council of Europe has various resources relating to human rights education as well as education for democratic citizenship and for intercultural dialogue; Shows the need for discussion and reflection (by young people in schools, but also by adults) as well as for accurate information. From the point of view of studies of religions in schools, I have argued in various places for an inclusive form of religious education in publicly funded schools, which features well prepared teacher-moderated classroom discussion/dialogue as well as the sharing of accurate and well selected information (some recent publications are listed below); I have seen some really good examples of this (and know of many others recorded through European research), which illustrate that it is possible to do it; Shows the importance of a collaborative, international perspective on human rights. Theresa May’s remarks on human rights are entirely focused on the UK and see no need for collaboration and interaction with others (Magna Carta rules…). This is totally against the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was so strongly supported by Winston Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt, and which still permeates the Council of Europe and its educational work. Every project I have been involved in with the Council of Europe since 2002 has involved international and often interdisciplinary teams, working closely together with common objectives. It has been a privilege to take part in this kind of activity and it should be mirrored in school education (there are some good examples already, of course, but more needs to be done). Further thoughts: We need a critical approach to human rights education that recognises some of the contextual factors which helped to shape how the human rights codes are expressed. There needs to be space for the interpretation of certain requirements; especially, rights need to be linked to responsibilities. The right to freedom of speech carries with it some responsibilities. In the Brexit campaign, we saw very little responsibility expressed towards the electorate, and a good deal of manipulation through the use of fear. (Some aspects of the UK Prevent policy inhibit classroom dialogue unnecessarily – See Jackson, R. (2016) there are also vital issues about funding, the supply of appropriate degree courses, , teacher training (including developing skills to manage classroom dialogue), in-service training and sources of advice; Finally, to reiterate, I am convinced of the importance of collaborative work across different fields and across nations. The Council of Europe and the European Wergeland Centre set a good example. http://www.theewc.org/


  1. OPPOSING BREXIT ON GROUNDS OF ONTOLOGY AND THE UNITY OF BEING: the first point to make is that in political praxis there are times of revolutionary disruption, based on hatred, conflict and chaos, as in the micro-universe of personal relationships and family life, like fatal arguments that end in stabbings or violent divorces and crimes of passion – these are based on what can be called centrifugal movements of force in political science terms. Hatred and disruption is the key theme. Empedocles called these the forces of strife. Then there are times of love, togetherness, unity and friendship and amity. These are times that manifest the centripetal forces in political science, where things pull together towards the centre. The European Union as a project is definitely as centripetal dynamic, a coming together opf European national, ethnicities, languages, cultures and histories, into an overall common project which we call “Europe”, and which has received the formal title of the European Union. It is a dream which many of the greatest thinkers and statesmen of European history have long laboured over. Some have sought to achieve it by might of conquest, by bringing one European nation or ethnicity to the fore and then moulding all other European nations into its trajectory (Caesar, Charlemagne, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler) But the European Union is a specifically declared peace project, and eschews violence as the path to European unity. Thus it is a manifestation of the force of love-in-action, which is the centripetal force that brings lovers together in mutual attraction and desire. The European Union thus appeals as a project to many idealists and has done since it was founded. Indeed, it was founded by idealists, such as Denis de Rougemont, Monnet, Schuman, Spaak,  and many others, and it has always been hated by those who base their political ideology on hatred instead of love. Extreme right wing nationalists, who want to go back to the good old days of Hitler, hate the European Union precisely because of its moderation, its collective responsibility, its respect for human rights, for minorities, for immigrants and refugees. People on the extreme left also hate the European Union because their ideology is likewise based on class hatred and class conflict. They want to see an immediate and if necessary violent expropriation of wealth fromt the ruling classes to the poor, and see the European Union, with its economic moderation and its toleration of social democracy and capitalism both, as standing in the way of this violent revolutionary socialism. But philosophically speaking, this way of moderation, this way of synthesis, is the right royal road of authentic wisdom, it is the way of statesmanship according to the ethical norms and values of the very best of European political philosophy. For this reason the great Hegelian philosopher Kojeve not only went to work for the European Union, because he saw it as the coming-to-be of the dream of Hegelian philosophy at its best, of the realisation of the European soul in journeying towards a rational and peaceful polity, but he even died in Brussels and is buried in grave near to the headquarters of the European Union itself where he worked for the last years of his life. Who exactly was this Kojeve ? He was born Aleksandr Vladimirovič Koževnikov in Russia to a wealthy and influential family. His uncle was the abstract artist Wassily Kandinsky, about whose work he would write an influential essay in 1936. He was educated at the University of Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany. In Heidelberg he completed in 1926 his PhD thesis on the Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Soloviev’s views on the union of God and man in Christ under the direction of Karl Jaspers. The title of his PhD thesis was Die religiöse Philosophie Wladimir Solowjews (The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Soloviev). Early influences included the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the historian of science Alexandre Koyré. Kojève spent most of his life in France, and it was from 1933 to 1939, that he delivered in Paris a series of lectures on Georg Hegel’s work Phenomenology of Spirit. Some of Kojève’s more important lectures on Hegel have also been published in English in the now classic Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, in 1947. His interpretation of Hegel has been one of the most influential of the past century. His lectures were attended by a small but influential group of intellectuals including Raymond Queneau, Georges Bataille, Maurice Blanchot, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, André Breton, Jacques Lacan, Raymond Aron, Roger Caillois, Michel Leiris, Henry Corbin, Jean Hyppolite, and Éric Weil. His interpretation of the master–slave dialectic was an important influence on Jacques Lacan’s mirror stage theory. Other French thinkers who have acknowledged his influence on their thought include the post-structuralist philosophers Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. In addition to his lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, Kojève’s other publications include a little noticed book on Immanuel Kant, and articles on the relationship between Hegelian and Marxist thought and Christianity. His 1943 book, Esquisse d’une phenomenologie du droit, published posthumously in 1981, contrasts the aristocratic and bourgeois views of law. Le Concept, le temps et le discours, extrapolates on the Hegelian notion that wisdom only becomes possible in the fullness of time. Kojeve also wrote a study of pagan philosophy in Esquisse d’une histoire raisonnée de la pensée païenne, which covers the pre-Socratic philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, and Neoplatonism. In short, Kojeve represents to me exactly the kind of intellectual depth and richness that Europe stands for at its best: a certain cosmopolitanism, a certain breadth of spirit. The fact that British philosopher Roger Scruton, one of the architects of the Brexit catastrophe (it would appear) and who has now even been knighted (woe is me, oh woe is me) and who has been a consistent destroyed of attempts to do serious peace thinking in the UK, mocking peace studies as a discipline, because of his complete lack of knowledge about it, along with mockery against sociology and other “new fangled intellectual fashions”. Scruton has taught at Birkbeck College where I also taught for many years. He  mocks Kojeve and uses him to attack the EU, as a Stalinist organisation, which however simply shows up his own woeful ignorance and smallness of mind. Recently, three more books have been published posthumously from Kojeve’s Oeuvre: a 1932 thesis on the physical and philosophical importance of quantum physics, an extended 1931 essay on atheism (“L’athéisme”), and a 1943 work on “The Notion of Authority.” After World War II, Kojève worked in the French Ministry of Economic Affairs as one of the chief planners of the European Common Market. Kojève was an extraordinarily learned man. A polyglot, he studied and used Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, Latin, and Classical Greek. He was also fluent in French, German, Russian, and English. Kojève died in Brussels in 1968, shortly after giving a talk at the European Economic Community (now the European Union) on behalf of the French government. The fact that the European Union does not acknowledge the spiritual foundation of society in its constitution, apart from most fleetingly, is not a problem for the philosophical mind of Europe. It is there by implication. It is there in its peace aspirations. It is there in its symbology of the golden stars set against the blue background of its flag. Thus all who truly love philosophy, who walk the way of reason and moderation in political thought and action, and who eschew violence, should rally to its support at this time in our life as a continent. It is also instructive to see who opposes it. To analyse the actions of the enemies of Europe. Firstly they are the forces of the nationalist right, who wish to reassert the broken idol of nationalism. These are some of the most violent forces who voted for brexit. They want to assert the right to English nationalism, or British nationalism. But they have exposed their own ignorance and folly by ignoring the respectful wishes of Scottish nationhood,. Which is not anti-European, and also Welsh nationhood, which in the hands of the Plaid Cymru realises that Wales long term belongs inside the European Union as a nation on equal terms to, say, Slovenia. It might take the breakup of the UK itself, and its fissuring into a united Ireland (by referendum), an Independent Scotland and an independent Wales, to all find their place back in the fold of the European Union on equal terms. The harsh bellicosity  of English nationalism however, which engineered the clearances in the highlands, which sought to downplay Scottish nationhood throughout history, and which sought to permanently conquer Ireland, and Wales, might be the main victim of Brexit in the long run. The fantasy utopia of the UK as a single nation emerging unscathed after brexit and sailing towards global prosperity, is simply that, a fantasy, and like the Titanic on its maiden voyage, it will split in tow after hitting the half-submerged icebergs of actual political reality. But why is it our political leaders cannot see this ? Some can – everyone who is calling for a second referendum, and that includes many mean political leaders of vision and statesmanship in the UK, can see the disastrous consequences of brexit. It is not because they are trained Druids or Ovates, but simply because they have a modicum of common sense. Why can Theresa May and her hard coterie of brexiteers not see this ? Perhaps there is such a thing as institutional myopia? Theresa May was sworn into the post of Prime Minister at a secret meeting with David Cameron in which he gave her the mission of implementing brexit, lock stock and barrel, based on the 2016 results. She cannot and will not re-examine them. This shows simply her lack of political,. Moral and logical intelligence. It shows the serious limitations of politicians. It causes the observation that to be a senior politician, in charge of the lives and destinies of nations, requires no extra education, no moral instruction, no training in ethics or political philosophy. Thus brexit reveals this scandalous situation. To my mind therefore, as a moral philosopher,. We must bring in as soon as possible, a new Bill into the UK and all European parliaments, that every politicians has a duty of parliamentary veracity. The trouble is of course that the current corrupt politicians, both of the hard right and the hard left, would never agree to bring in such legislation. Because they have come into power by lying and intend to carry on doing so. It will require a huge and supreme effort to bring about such a change. But it will come. It is the philosophical task for our age. Long term this has shown the constitutional dilemmas at the heart of the UK system of governance. Why can’t we have a federal state within a monarchy ? Canada does.. I think it’s a good model to follow.. the UK as it is has a serious constitutional issue with lack of genuine fairness at its core.. and brexit has shown this up totally.. abolish the house of lords, replace it with a genuine federal parliamentary chamber.. and give that chamber authority on all federal matters including defence, foreign affairs etc. as in Canada in Ottawa.. including the right to select the federal prime minister.. the commons becomes just the English parliament. and all this needs to go into a written constitution.. I would say we need a less centralised monarchy, more for the merely ceremonial, and as a first off, we should publish the weekly meeting of prime minister and monarch as a matter of public record, and also the minutes of all the privy council meetings should be available to public scrutiny and published by Hansard  which currently they are not.. I myself do not object to a constitutional monarchy in a federal arrangement. but I do object to rule by secrecy, in which parliament is being reduced to a bunch of powerless mannequins


  1. PAGAN AND DRUID HISTORY OF EUROPE: So much for the politics of brexit and its complete idiocy and stupidity. But what about the deeper philosophical, metaphysical and religious questions which set the backdrop, so to speak, against which the merely political is being enacted. How can one take politics or politicians seriously, when we never even know if they are telling us the truth ? if they lie habitually, how can we trust them on iota ? So the question then becomes – but where is the truth ? And that is a job for the philosopher, the sage, not the mere politician who struts their hour upon the stage of power, with its shrill alarums and clashes of ego on ego, and then is heard no more. Where is the real truth ? Many people are asking that now, not just in the UK but also in Europe, and indeed the wider world. In so many places, power and naked cruelty, lies and deceit seem to be triumphing over decency, kindness and humanity, that it appears truth has fled the planet. But if we turn deep within we find this is not so. The truth comes to us at night in our dreams. It comes to us even in our prison cells. It came even to Kassoggi as he realised he was about to be murdered most cruelly. The truth is the metaphysical bedrock, al Haq, which underlies everything else. It has many names: God, Goddess, Dharma, Tao, Absolute, Holy Trinity, Love. For most of European history, truth in this ultimate sense has been conceived of in a pagan sense, as the force or divine intelligence which animates and directs the laws of nature. It is the God and Goddess of Nature in a pantheistic sense, and which for all ancient European civilisations, was therefore conceived as a Pantheon, as a plurality of contesting energies and tendencies, held in balance, by the supreme La\was. Thus greek, Roman, Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Finnish, Hungarian, Basque – all these original European peoples, who have been here for millennia, lived according to the discerning of the supreme laws of the Pantheon of deities who ruled both human affairs and the laws of nature./ So today many Europeans have found their way back to the ancient wisdom traditions, and have reaffirmed their traditional lagan insights and values. As an Archdruid of the Peace Druids of Britain and Europe, the current author likewise has found in ancient paganism the wisdom of eternity. The pagan traditions amplify what is revealed in nature, in the wind sighing over a Welsh moor, or the curve of a buzzard high in the cloudless sky curling about, or in the depths of an ancient cave in which our ancestors were living perhaps 30,000 years ago, or in the magical feel of the rocks of Stonehenge during an all night peace vigil at the midsummer solstice.. Europe and the UK are all home to innumerable ancient shrines to pagan wisdom, where countless generations of priests and priestess, Druids and Druidesses, runic elders and young spiritual seekers, have waited patiently for illumination to descend. These temples are literally as old as the hills: Stonehenge, Avebury, Gulbeke Tepe, Malta, Orkney, Cyprus, Crete, Mycenae, the Capitoline Hill in Rome, Tara, Tintignac, the Acropolis of Athens, Cape Sounion,  New Grange and the Boyne Valley, the Goseck circle of Germany, and many others. The very soil, mountains and forests of Europe are pagan in their history and origin. So to find out our ethical and political orientations, we need to listen in deeply to the ancient wisdom that lies scattered in both these sacred places, and also in ourselves. From this deeper perspective, I find that brexit is an utter nonsense. From a Druidical point of view, Brexit makes no sense.. its threatens the breakup of Scotland, Ireland and Britain which will lead to decades of legal and political wrangling,. Conflict and harsh words. It might even, before long, lead to physical violence on the streets of Northern Ireland again.  Most of the EU nations have strong Celtic elements and many have hundreds of sacred Celtic Druid sites. Many of the  EU’s major cities were Druidical foundations eg Paris Strasbourg, Lyons, Milan, Brussels, Rouen, Rennes, Clermont Ferrand, Berne, Halle, Leipzig, Salzburg,  Bordeaux, Leiden, Luibliana, Vienna.. all these are ancient Celtic Druidical foundations. Modern Europe is at least as much a Druidical idea as it is a Roman idea. So to oppose the EU because it is too Roman is to show total ignorance of European history. The EU is actually the victory of druidical ideals over ignorance and hatred. These druidical ideals include internationalism, peace, dialogue, communal decision-making, bringing counsel and spiritual contemplation to bear on important deliberations,  keeping the tribal chieftains and their warriors in check.. this is all very Druidical in orientation… Winston Churchill was a Druid and helped found the modern EU context.. and  Queen Elizabeth 2nd is also a Druidess, and she signed the act of accession for the UK. So I oppose Brexit as Peace Druid of Britain and also as founder of the European Council of Druids. Let those who have supported Brexit hitherto rethink, listen and learn. This is what I call the Odysseus option, which is that we stay in the EU and reform it from within.. outside, we will have no influence whatsoever for the good. As the Archdruid of Peace Druids for the UK, and as founder and Chair of the European Council of Druids (ECOD), I would argue that we in the UK, Britain, Ireland, Scotland, and all over the whole of European, from the Urals to the Portuguese beaches, from the Shetland islands toe the southern shores of Crete, need to reconnect the most ancient wisdom traditions of the European continent as a whole, to contact again the wisdom of our ancient ancestors, to remember their love of nature, their love of each other. To remember the incredible creative and wisdom that brought us here, and that moulded and shaped European culture and civilisation, right though different epochs and ages of European pre-history from the most ancient Lascaux cave dwellers of 30,00 who invented incredible art forms, and through the Magdalenian revolution, down the Neolithic era of the inventions of settled dwelling and temples such as Gulbeke Tepe and early Stonehenge, down through the Bronze age cultures of Mycenae, Wessex culture, the Boyne valley, the Orkney islands, Malta and the rich Celtic cultures of France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. As yet the EU is but an imperfect manifestation of the essential cultural unity of European peoples and civilisations, and we are such a patchwork of influences and histories, that archaeology and prehistory and historical science is still working out the complex ;layering of peoples who settled in Europe and have arisen here over the past 30,000 years. But we do know they belong together. We are ultimately one people. In my book the Qabalah Runs I have speculated that ultimately the Indo-European and the Hamito Semitic peoples are descended from common tribal ancestors who emerged in Palaeolithic times around 30,000 BC in Europe and Central and Southern Asia, and who became the ancestors of the Hebrew, Phoenician, Egyptian, Babylonian as well as alt he Indio European peoples. One thing is certain – only peace will give us the right conditions in which to study these mysteries in depth. The tradition of the druids is that our founder, Fenius Farsaidh, was a Scythian who passed by the Tower of Babel at a time before its destruction, when all mankind still spoke on original language,. He founded the Druid schools to transmit secretly and esoterically the knowledge of that original ur-language, which was the languages of all humanity originally. IN my book the Qabalah Runs I explain that knowledge of hits original language was handed down orally with the schools of Vedic mysticism, Druid wisdom, Runic esotericism, and Qabalistic, Zoroastrian, Classical greek mystical and Neoplatonic schools, including the original Academy of Plato,  and later Christian and esoteric Sufi schools, and also among freemasons. It is in this esoteric common wisdom which is the ultimate bedrock on which European civilisation is built, and which gives us our transcendental as well as our intellectual unity as a continent. It is this which underlay the great intellectual achievements of Celtic, greek and Latin civilizations, and the later European renaissance starting in Florence, Italy, which then radiated out with its new found Neoplatonic and hermetic universalism. This in turn gave rise to the enlightenment in its many forms and guises, including advanced humanities scholarship, the liberal arts and sciences and the scientific enlightenment at its best. All of this rich cultural and intellectual heritage we owe to the ancient pagan ancestors who built European civilisation over the past 30,000 years, and which survives in a seamless and continual line since then, like a line of lighthouses twinkling on and off in the dark night of an Orkney seascape. It is for this reason that Brexit makes no intellectual or spiritual or moral sense, and why the European Union project makes perfect and undying sense. Because we as a continent have emerged from love, like Odysseus, struggling to get home to his beloved Penelope. We belong together as people. We have come through vast conflicts, world wars, civil wars, the holocaust, the nightmares of racism and nationalism, of slavery and imperialism, of revolution and revolutionary excesses. Now we have come finally to a place of tolerance, of moderation, of wisdom and of enlightenment. Let us not abandon this hard won resting place lightly. Instead, let each European culture and civilisation, whether Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, British, Irish, French, Spanish Latin, Greek, Hungarian, Basque, etc. celebrate and affirm its complex contributions to the wider European story. This is the story that the new European House of History is trying to tell in Brussels. This is a new peace museum which opened in 2017 and which attempts to tell the historical story of the unfolding of European history, and how we eventually as a continent came to create tighter the European Union, and how we should reflect soberly on the signifance  of this historical journey, before we casually thrown it all away. UK readers of this Journal are urged to visit the House of European History before allowing the Government to pull them away from this precious European Union. Go and see what you are about to lose. It is found at: House of European History, Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 135, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, Its opening hours are:  Monday 13.00 – 18.00, Tuesday – Friday 9.00 – 18.00, Saturday – Sunday 10.00 – 18.00, The museum is closed on 1 January, 1 May, 1 November, 24-25 & 31 December. Admission is free. Its website is: www.historia-europa.ep.eu and its email is historia@ep.europa.eu –  Likewise, on a much smaller level, the author of this work has opened the EUROPEAN PEACE MUSEUM in France in 2017


  1. CHRISTIANITY AND EUROPE: But hang on a minute the keen reader might interject at this point. I thought Britain is a Christian culture ? Many people who oppose the European Union would say indeed that Europe is far too pagan and that Britain is self-consciously a Christian nation, and therefore for some people, this holier=-than thou attitude prevails. Many of the hardest brexiteers are Protestant (Gove etc.) while a few are also Roman Catholic (xx), including the Barclay Brothers who own the Daily Telegraph and continuously p[ump out anti European Union propaganda. Perhaps they literally feel that the EU is the anti Christ and that they are fighting a kind of Christian crusade to save us from the devil. For some simplistic Christian souls, fed a diet of alarmist you tube videos, the EU is literarily that – a diabolic force, and therefore brexit has become a religious Christian duty. Theresa May seems to think like that, as she continues to cling to her Brexit fantasy as the ship goes down all around her and the waters of truth flood in to the captains bridge on this particular titanic. But a little reflection, a little reason, soon dispels these brexiteering religious myths. The simple fact is that Europe as a whole, since very early times, accepted the best insights of Christianity, which in the earliest centuries after Christ were of a more quietist and Gnostic form of Christian teachings, and later after Constantine became a more imperial state kind of cult. Ironically Constantine himself was baptised an Arian Christian, although he supported the Catholic and Orthodox churches and helped give them their current form and shape, and their Nicene and other creeds. So Christianity was very much a faith movement that spread through Europe from the earliest times. St Paul, St Peter, St Mary Magdalene, St Luke and St Andrew and many of the other early apostles and Saints either came to Europe to live, or at least passed through here. Armenia became the first European country to become officially a Christian state. Many also died here in Europe. Britain and Ireland also became Christianised from very early on, and it seems the at the indigenous Druids by and large accepted the teachings of Christ as complementary and supplementary to their own native wisdom traditions, although they continued to believe in reincarnation, divine justice, and the necessity for spiritual purification and karmic accountancy, as the great Druid Christian Pelagius upheld against the Manichean influenced Augustine who brought a more fanatical tone to European Christianity than was healthful. I therefore oppose utterly the idea that to be Christian is to oppose the EU, since I understand that the founders of the EU were in fact largely Christian idealists and realists themselves, who believed that by creating the European Union they would be treasuring and safeguarding all that is best about European civilisation. I wish to celebrate together therefore the rich Christian traditions of the entire European Union region and also the UK, and to celebrate and affirm all the rich tapestry of these traditions, including Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Calvinist, Lutheran, Protestant, Gnostic, Puritan, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, Pietist, Rosicrucian, Anthroposophical, Benedictine, Cistercian, Franciscan, Jesuit, Dominican, Cathar, Hesychast, Rastafarian, etc. I  believe that the Christian message is one of love, unity, spirituality, prayer, peace and wisdom – and that it is this message that has given protection and robustness to British, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and European cultures for centuries, and I  believe that therefore deep Christian spiritual witness is needed now to prevent Brexit and to prevent the breakup of the UK that will ensue. I  call to witness therefore in this struggle against brexit, the great saints of the Christian European tradition, going back to very early times, or the first generation of Apostles, such as Paul and Peter, Andrew and Mary Magdalene, Luke and John, all of whom lived for at least part of their lives in Europe, and understood the Christian message to be not confined to simply the small territories of the holy land, but that they had relevance to the lives and well-being of Europeans living throughout the continent,. For generations therefore missionaries, teachers, apostles and saints laboured and worked to bring about the spread of Christian wisdom in Europe, and I  celebrate and confirm that this long labour culminated in the great epochal movements of the age of Christian monasticism, when the monasteries and their libraries preserved Christian and classical civilisation from the attacks of Viking marauders, or other invaders.  I also celebrate the traditions that arose from Charlemagne’s drawing together of the Holy Roman Empire and the work of Alcuin of York, and the interconnectedness of European and continental and British and Irish spiritual currents. As Alfred the Great, greatest King of Wessex, esteemed European Christian learning, and invited St Grimbald to England, who founded the first higher study centre in Oxford, so too the Anglo Saxon saints and sages such as Bede, Wililbrord, Boniface, Egbert, Wilfrid, Henry of Finland, Reinald of Stavanger and many others, helped spread Christianity to Frisia, Saxony, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany. Thus European Christianity in these realms was greatly inspired by Anglo-Saxon Christianity. Likewise the great Irish saints such as Columbanus, St Virgil of Salzburg, and many others spread Christian teachings in continental Europe once again showing the interconnectedness of British, Irish and European streams and currents of Christian spiritual faith. I  celebrate also the great British Celtic Christian saints who spread their love of Christ to the Continent, such as St Ursula and her thousand British Virgins (probably a slight exaggeration and a touch of irony a thousand virgins or marriageable age in Britain, really ?), and St Patrick who took Christianity to Ireland after studying in France, and Caractacus, who may well have met St Paul and the earliest Christians in Rome. Caractacus who had been taken to Rome as a captive after being defeated, was the son of Cunobelinus, and king of the Britons, and was husband of Genuissa, Queen of Siluria. They were in turn the parents of Saint Claudia; Marius ap Gweirydd, King of Britain; and Linus Lleyn “The Martyr” ap Caradoc, Pope, who some say was the first Bishop of Rome after St Peter. It is difficult to find out the ultimate truth here, but it is very probable that the British became Christians very early on and certainly Glastonbury and St Albans were linked to early Christian activity in the islands. Tradition says that Mary Magdalene might have come to visit Britain and that Joseph of Arimathea did likewise. At the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Britain was free and outside the Roman Empire, and was only invaded by the Romans in 44AD, 10 years after Jesus’ crucifixion. The Druids of Britain are believed to have given shelter to fleeing family and followers of Jesus escaping from persecution. So I do not think it appropriate to turn our back on our European fellow Christians now. We belong together as we come from one greater spiritual family of descent. Likewise I therefore affirm the great Irish saints who spread Christian teachings in continental Europe, such as Columbanus, St Virgil of Salzburg, and the great philosopher Johan Scotus Erigena, who spent time in the Frankish court. These Irish, scholars and Saints monks had a very important role in Medieval Europe, which they transformed culturally and spiritually. So as we see, Britain, Scotland, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Austria, Italy, Slovakia, Russia, Iceland, Greenland, America… are all in many ways linked to their Christian legacy. So We should not turn our back on all this and pretend it never happened and try to rewrite European history as if Christianity and the love of unity in Christ never existed, or is of no account. Instead we should celebrate and affirm Bobbio, Fiesole, Lucca, Taranto, Lumièges, Auxerre, Laon, Luxeuil, Liège, Trier, Wurzburg, Regensburg, Rheinau, Reichenau, Salzburg, Vienna, St. Gallen… for these are all European towns founded by, or linked to, Irish monks. Many dioceses in France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Italy also have an Irish Saint as their Patron. So we find in the 7th century Columbanus, from Leinster, in France and later in Bobbio; Cathaldus, from Canthy, in Taranto; Finbar or Redrian in Lucca; Killian, from Mullagh in Co. Cavan, in Wuerzburgh; Fergal or Vergil, the philosopher and cosmologist, from Kilkenny, & Colman, as Patrons of Salzburg and the province of Lower Austria respectively. Once again we are shown the interconnectedness of British, Irish and European streams and currents of Christian spiritual faith. Therefore we should utterly reject Brexit and all it implies as it is against the spirit of Christian love with which our forefathers laboured to bring the whole of Europe under Christ’s redeeming and sanctifying light, and to make of us one continent living at peace with itself. I therefore reject brexit as an anti-Christian conceit nourished by hatred, fear and ignorance and I affirm the lives of all Christians in the entire history of Europe who have striven for peace, unity and truth, often against immense odds. So too in our fight against brexit, we are armed only with the sword of peace and wisdom, which Pilgrim also took with him on his journey to the celestial city. And who are we up against ? Exactly the same dark and sinister powers that St Paul warned us about, who delight in chaos and confusion, darkness and lies, and not in love and unity and peace. Each November 7 we celebrate St Wilibrord’s Day, who was a truly great Christian Anglo-Saxon Europhile and who would be horrified by Brexit and would see through its lies. So we should likewise remember the great Saints of European history who stood for unity and peace, and who can send their healing energies now as we face off the darkness that is brexit from our shores. But what if some people think brexit is a great idea, and they think, mistakenly, that Europe is the anti-Christ they are battling ? What if they invoke Christ as the patron and sponsor of brexit itself ? I am afraid theirs is an illogical position. The people, who have been fanning the flames of Brexit are small minded, lacking in tolerance, lacking in love, and basing their urgencies and their manipulations on a narrow minded theology, in which love of the 2016 referendum result has become a kind of useful idolatry under which they can smuggle into history incalculable damage and destruction. It is a new form of heresy in fact which puts the interests of the part above the interests of the great whole, which is the very definition of what heresy is. Brexit is a deluded and demented championing of ignorance over wisdom, of fanaticism over tolerance and hatred over love. Foreign people like Steve Bannon who likewise trumpet brexit, or Donald Trump, are also fanatical in their own politics and merely wear Christianity as a kind of fig leaf to attract voters. There is no spiritual depth to them, which is not based on lies, fear, hatred and the love of power. The act that brexit was only voted for as a result of voter manipulation and date cheating and over speaking against the law, all this likewise points to the fact that brexit really is the work of lies, darkness and untruth, theologically speaking,. It is not the work of the Holy Spirit, that much is certain.  To argue for Brexit therefore is precisely to deny all these currents of the interconnectedness of love that the true Holy Spirit brings us in its fullness. Recently the leaders often  Anglican and the Lutheran Churches have made a solemn declaration of interconnectedness, saying that whatever happens over brexit, they are brothers and sisters in the One Christ light. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, and the leader of the Evangelical Church in Germany, Bishop Heinrich Bedford-Strohm, therefore  issued an urgent appeal “to all politicians to find fair and sustainable solutions for the future coexistence of the UK and the EU.” The Church leaders made their plea in a joint statement at a time when the British government and the European Commission are finalising a deal to revoke the UK’s membership of the European Union”. In their statement, the two Church leaders point out that the relationship between the Church of England and the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland “goes back over many centuries – long before the European Union.” Bishop Heinrich, Landesbischof of the Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria) was elected Chair of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) – the national umbrella body for the 20 regional Lutheran, Reformed and United regional churches in Germany – in November 2015. He visited Lambeth Palace, the London offices and official residence of the Archbishops of Canterbury, for two days last week, during which the Church leaders issued their joint statement.“Europe is changing but the Church of God remains constant in its witness”, they said. “The deep commitment that we have to one another is not based on our common membership of the European Union but on our membership of the body of Christ. “We witness the rise of populism and the emergence of extremist political parties which are being successful at the ballot box. Some of the old certainties are not so certain any more. European relationships are changing, not least as a result of Brexit [Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU]. We do not know what will happen and what the relationship between the UK and EU will look like after 29 March 2019. However, what we do know is that the relationship between the Church of England and the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland goes back over many centuries – long before the European Union. As churches, we urgently appeal to all politicians to find fair and sustainable solutions for the future coexistence of the UK and the EU. United in Christ we are drawn together in hope, faith and love, and those things which divide us are of much lesser importance.” But in fact ideally, these two church leaders would surely prefer it if Brexit simply didn’t happen at all. To the Christian should of Europe then, Brexit is an ontological threat that betokens disunity, and the breaking up of the work of our forefathers and foremothers who laboured long and hard to bring us the freedoms and rights that we now inherit. The freedom to live and work, to travel and love, to study and think, right across the lands and territories of al the 27 European Union countries. This is a precious freedom and responsibility which we have inherited,  and the contribution that our Christian brothers and sisters have made towards it s achievement has been considerable. The very fabric and warp and weft of European civilisation is Christian in the very best sense of the words, as much as it is pagan or druidical. Both aspects of our heritage can therefore be celebrated best by remaining within the European Union, by keeping the UK together, and by retaining our common seamless internal borders with Ireland both North and South. We need to affirm the pagan and Christian wisdom, that has brought tolerance, wisdom and peace to our continent and not throw it all away. After all, in purely theological terms,   it is the Holy Spirit which builds up and strengthens the body of Christians, and which makes of any two or three gathered together, a single church. So Europe has been built up over the centuries by the power and work of  the Holy Spirit, as anyone who is familiar with the bible and subsequent Christian theological writings, can surely attest. Likewise, when anti-Christian ideologies threatened the unity of Europe, both in the form of fascist and Nazi ideology, which sought to create an ideal of the state over their person, and which imposed violent racism and the hatred of the other upon the duty of Christians to love the other as oneself – this threat was defeated and ultimately brought down by Christians who worked not only for the defeat of Hitlerism, Nazism and Fascism, but also for the building up of post war institutions of liberal democracy and in which civil, social and economic rights and freedoms would be guaranteed to all. Thus the Council of Europe came into being, thus the European Union came into being, and in your continent, freedom of religions is now guaranteed to us all, whatever our denomination or philosophical orientation. Great thinkers like Hegel  laboured long and hard to understand how the holy spirit works through history, and Schelling, another of his contemporaries and other profound philosophers likewise tried to discern how we can build a peaceful European civilisation living truthfully before spirit, and adhering to the universal values and ethical norms that such fidelity requires of us. The citizens of all 27 European Union nations still to this day retain their Christian cultural heritage and yet seek for new ways to understand how to manifest these in concrete terms. Above all, the true beating heart of Christianity in Europe manifests as our common commitment to peace, and to avoid all return to warfare as a way of settling disputes in our continent. This is why I for one, have called for the creation of a European Union Mediation Service as a way of helping our fellow human beings resolve their disputes, without recourse to violence, as in the conflicts of Syria Ukraine, Yemen, Libya, Israel and Palestine. This quest for peace therefore is still not ended, and in many parts of the world horrific violence e continues. The European Union would therefore do well to develop systems, structures and services that can help spread peace to other regions outside the EU members states. And the UK would be a far more Christian nation, true to its own roots, if it remained inside the EU and helped found and build these peace bestowing structures. Many contemporary European statement and women are doing that they can to help with this process. By staying together as nope European Union, we can strengthen and build on the work of the past in bringing this peace witness to the fore.

Likewise, I also celebrate and affirm the Christian scholastic traditions when Christian learning received new insights that led to the founding of the University of Bologna, the University of Paris and the University of Oxford, Naples and soon many other universities, over one thousand years ago.  The European University system was Christian in its attempt to find ultimate truth, and respected the classical and pagan heritage of Europe in its openness to truth and its reverence for the teachings of Aristotle, Plato and other great classical philosophers. The University traditions of European civilisations, including those of the British Isles, flourished because they were open to students of eminence from all European countries, and figures like Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Ramon Lull, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, etc. contributed to European civilisation in general, and are not the restricted to the “ownership” of any one nation. They are universal men and women who belong instead to the Kingdom of God and the nation of universal humanity. This is the true meaning of the word “University” – a place where universal thinkers search after Universal truths. And this is one of the greatest gifts that European Christian civilisation has given to humanity as a whole. But brexit is a betrayal; of that largesse of spirit. It is to replace universalism with small mindedness and mean-mindedness. No wonder the Universities of the UK are saying loud and clear that brexit is a disaster for them. Indeed it is worse than that, studied philosophically – it is an ontological attack on their very foundation as institutions of universal wisdom and freedom of thought and movement. Every single person with a degree who has benefited from a university education should oppose Brexit with every atom of their strength.


  1. ARGUMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT BREXIT BASED ON THE 2016 REFERENDUM RESULT AND COUNTER-ARGUMENTS: There is of course one basic and constantly reiterated counter argument put forward to all of the above, above all by the current so called prime Minister (we ought to call her mini-minister) Theresa May, which is that, all these arguments are nullified by the fact that in 2016 the referendum held resulted in a (narrow) victory for the leave UK side of the arguments, and therefore, the government has a moral duty to implement this result come what may. This argument is one of the most specious, false and transparently ridiculous political arguments that I have ever come across as a moral philosopher. The fact that it is trumpeted endlessly by Theresa May and her folk only shows how ill educated and incapable of moral thought or political intelligence they are. I wrote to Theresa May and pointed out to her endless reasons why this argument is specious and false, and originally, she had her underlings write back a one line attempt at civility saying something like “the prime Minster thanks you for your views, but has determined to push through Brexit anyway notwithstanding”. Last letter I sent to Theresa may I received a reply which instead simply said The Prime Minister acknowledges receipt of your letter, Yours sincerely”. Since then I have not bothered writing again,. The woman is beyond redemption, and beyond education. So why am I so certain she is wrong ? Why do I not accept this argument as valid ? here is the list of reasons:
  • The voter numbers were ambiguous,. Scotland, Ireland and London voted to remain. Of the total population of voters 64% did not vote for brexit. Only 26 % opf registered voters voted for brexit.
  • of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, meaning that 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU).
  • Of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave which is an incredibly narrow result.
  • This means that 64% of the total voters registered to vote in the UK did not vote to leave the EU.
  • In addition, the majority of voters of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union.
  • The majority of voters of Scotland chose to remain in the European Union.
  • The great majority of British citizens now want a second referendum of this most vital of political questions.
  • This current government interpreted the referendum results as a mandate for an absolute Brexit but this was a false decision based on lies and misinformation
  • The referendum was only ever meant as advisory.
  • Either David Cameroon or Theresa May are genuinely truly ignorant people who failed to realise the difference, or they are surrounded by malevolent and truly ignorant people who deliberately tricked them into this position, without them realising the consequences.
  • In my work as a political scientist and philosopher of peace over many years teaching at both the Universities of London and Oxford, I have never known of such a fatal miscalculation.
  • The immediate consequences of this policy will result in the citizens of Northern Ireland being given a referendum by choice to join with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the European Union.  All the demographics point to this as an almost certain outcome.
  • Likewise the people of Scotland will lawfully demand a second independence referendum, and this time will vote for becoming an independent nation state within the European Union.
  • The implications of the Brexit policy therefore are that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to be renamed Little Britain (England and Wales).
  • Eventually, the people opf Wales will also wake up and demand independence and thereupon ask to rejoin the EU, in all probability.
  • At this point the people of England may finally enact a revolution, get rid of the monarchy (that has stood by and let its country break up, which is actually to commit an act of treason against oneself) and bring a republic into being, but first we may even have to go through a period of extreme right wing fascist violence, as the extreme right essentially try to take over what remains of the rump UK, ie “England”. It will not be pleasant. They will not succeed. But they will try. Brexit imposition is their first flexing of their muscles.

To sum up my counter argument, the position of the argument that the 2016 result is binding, legally unstoppable and morally beyond question, is so intellectually and obviously and transparently false given the risks as described above, that those who are uphold it are either purely and truly ignorant, or they are truly and purely malevolent, or possibly both. In the former case it is not counter argument that they need but education,. They need to learn some basic moral philosophy, logic and political philosophy. And in the latter case, they need exorcism and not counter arguments. With people who have sunk so low as to continue to uphold blatant falsehoods in the face of all rational and legal, moral and spiritual evidence to the contrary, then one has to realise that we are truly dealing with something demonic here, something not quite human. No counter arguments will make a dent in the hard Brexiteers armour – only prayer and fasting, prayer and meditation, will prevail against these.


  1. BUDDHIST RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: But what about if one is neither a pagan, Druid or Christian – what if one is a relatively recent immigrant to Europe or the UK. What if for example one is of Buddhist or other spiritual allegiance, and one happened to vote for brexit, because, not knowing much about European history, having only arrived a few decades ago, from say Sri Lanka, or Pakistan, or India, or elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, one dint realise the real implications about brexit and thought it sounded rather glorious and romantic =the UK going it all alone again. After all, we have the British commonwealth to give us back up, don’t we ? Let me therefore take one by one in turn the moral and ethical traditions which might have influenced people to vote for brexit on this line of arguing. Let us start with Buddhist teachings. Some Buddhists might say that Europe is too big, too greedy, has hurt too many nations, and therefore little UK is better off outside of it. We need to disassociate from it. The karma of the UK however is better, since we are a glorious land of freedom and truth, and there are many Buddhists now living in the UK. So we would be better to end our links to the EU. However many people who voted for brexit were attracted by greed, since they felt the UK would be better off economically than if we remained in the EU. That was the argument trumpeted by Vote Leave, mercilessly. Vote to leave the EU – the UK will be richer. Thus we were tempted with false desires, false addictions. Secondly, this argument ignores the facts of karma. The fact is that the UK is inexorably bound up with European history and civilisation whether we will or no. We are not a Buddhist nation on the Himalayan plateau. We are not some mini Tibet able to live in purity and isolation. Europe is our China and we cannot ignore it. Far better to acknowledge our cultural interdependence and seek to bring complete and collective enlightenment throughout all the wider regions of Europe including the UK. It is a huge Buddha field to work within. There are innumerable Buddhist groups, Sanghas and meditation groups active throughout Europe as well as in the UK. We belong together. We need to try and build a dharmic pure land across the whole continent, not just in some little Albionesque fantasy Shamballah-lala land. The Dharma is one and universal. Indeed, the principles and practises that the European Union stands for (peace, equality, justice, lawfulness, moderation, environmental compassion, science, education, freedom of movement, freedom of abode, etc.)  seem, eminently suited to an enlightened dharmic universal realm, and thus the advanced practioner of meta-Mahayana Buddhism will naturally wish to keep this potentially dharmic realm open and free for educational advancement. To see it break up again into warring states, as would happen in the UK and perhaps elsewhere, would be to wish upon oneself a time of troubles and suffering, such that we have already put behind us. Which Buddhist in their right mind, or which European or UK citizen with an ounce of Dharmic inclinations in them, would willingly inflict on the people of Northern Ireland, for example, a resumption of the time of troubles, when Protestants and Catholics regularly used to torture, kill and maim each other for decade after decade. TO seek to return to these times of troubles is absolutely contrary to any dharmic wisdom at all. There are many Buddhists groups in Ireland both North and south of the border, and also in Wales and Scotland as well  as England –so all of them should be striving every single sinew of their faith and practice towards stopping brexit. Other Buddhists will say “they don’t interfere in politics”. But this is an abdication of ones duty as Buddhist. The word Buddhist means an “awakener” one whose commitment is to awakening, for oneself and for others. Negative politics is based on putting people to sleep. Not letting them think, not letting them awaken. Many modern thinkers realise this such as Corinne McLaughlin, William Irwin Thompson, David Spangler, Marianne Williamson, William Bloom, Charlene Spretnak,  Ken Wilber and many others like them.  These are more or less enlightened people who realise that we have to also be involved in politics.  The new show Buddha at the Gas Pump, although it mainly avoids politics, occasionally gets some intelligent spiritual practioners on it who realise you cannot divorce spiritual practice and enlightenment pursuits from political thought and action. Even Buddha himself on occasion was asked to intervene and help mediate in conflict situations that arose either on micro or macro levels. He functioned thus equivalently to the Druids of the ancient Celtic world, and indeed the word “Druid” comes from a root which means the “one who sees the Dharma”. To see the Dharma in the matter of brexit or not, one would surely wish to avoid brexit at all costs. There is another Buddhist tradition, the more theosophical, that would say it is not up to us to interfere in nations’ karma – that the English seem to have gone mad, but that is their national karma. They have inside them an unpleasant imperialistic jingoism, that thinks it can stick two fingers up the other 26 nations of the EU, walk away from them, and will sail into supreme power status on a global level. It can frighten the Scots into quiescence, the Welsh into similar quiescence, and the Irish, well, who cares about the Irish – let them leave us (I have heard that said by English nationalists). So in the face of such vast ignorance and nationalist jingoism, would say the wise theosophical Buddhists among us, we can do nothing. Just watch as a once great nation goes down in flames, Look at how the English led UK has interfered in Israel and Palestine and the Middle East, helped break up the reasonably moderate Ottoman Empire and replace it with Arab fanatical nationalism. Then it has interfered  in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in conducting anti Russian propaganda fro years and years (since at least the Crimean war and the days of the Great Game and has always put its own imperial interests ahead of morality, ahead of dharma. So now in seeking alliances with Saudi Arabia, with Zionist Israel, with a violently neo-nationalist USA under Trump, ahead of any adherence to basic international morality, it has shown how duplicitous English nationalism can be. So let it sink,. Just watch is go down. There is nothing you can do to help them. All you can do is be a witness from the place of dharma, and watch this morality lesson being played out on our TV screens. The Tory Party which was the descendent of the people who brought us British imperialism at its worst, who brought us slavery and rule Britannia, come what may, who have brought us countless war crimes committed in the name of British imperialism, from Edward the Black Prince’s war crime against the good people of Limoges, to  the burning of Jeanne d’arc, to the deliberate fanning of the flames of world war one behind the scenes, to the refusal to talk peace with Germany and instead to rearm and ignorance Germany’s moral please for peace, and which gave us Suez and countless other imperialistic ventures.. now, theosophical Buddhists might say, sit back and enjoy the show – the real text is “The Imperial  lion is finally outsmarted by a gaggle of mice”. However, I beg to differ. Although something of a theosophical Buddhist myself, and certainly a lover of the eternal dharma, I also think the English people are not all mad, and have not all gone completely bonkers. Some of them are intelligent, kind, loving and compassionate. My own three daughters for example, live in England and my partners and lovers, and my friends and students. And my own parents, indeed were English. So I feel I have a duty to warn these good people, To shout fromt the rooftops about what is about to happen to them. Who knows, perhaps my words will just waken up enough, in time, to turn this Titanic away from the icebergs. I do not think Karma is inexorably fixed. I think that if the English wake up in time and get rid of their jingoistic and ignorant leaders, their petty demagogues spouting hatred and anti European hysteria. Then they just might wake up and find this whole brexit thing has been a bad dream, and actually, we all love each other after all. We can choose enlightenment, and compassion and dharma, right up until the last minute. That’s my counter argument.


  1. JAIN RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: there are also many Jains living in the UK. Particularly around Leicester, and some of these might have voted for brexit, on the same set of arguments as the Buddhists might have done so above. But for the life of me I cannot see how brexit makes any sense from a Jain perspective. Jains love nonviolence, and Europe is still trying to be a force for peace in the world. With a little nudging it might even create the European Union Mediation Service I have argued for since 2013. Likewise there are many Jains living in other parts of Europe, in Belgium and Antwerp, and Paris or Berlin for example, and they are trying to live as dharmically engaged a life as possible, so to wilfully wish the UK to break up with all the horror, chaos and confusion that will bring, is something no right thinking Jain could countenance or approve of. The argument that “we voted in 2016 to leave” would be ridiculous to an intelligent Jain. Like anyone, if we made the wrong decision, and it is obvious now we did, then we have the right, indeed the moral duty to correct it. The Jains more or less invented situation ethics. There is no God “out there” enforcing moral absolutes. Instead, we have the moral duty to choose the path that will result in the least violence and the most true-force for the most people throughout the UK and Europe, and that is undoubtedly having a second referendum and then voting to remain.


  1. HINDU RESPONSES’ to the ETHICS OF BREXIT – there are countless Hindus living in the UK, who have come to settle here from Indian in recent decades and many of these may well have voted for Brexit, Many might be even members of the Tory party, and at least one has served in the UK brexit cabinet under Theresa May, Priti Patel, who was born in London to a Ugandan Indian migrant family. She was educated at Keele University and the University of Essex, and was initially involved with the Referendum Party before switching allegiance to the Conservatives. Priti was born to Sushil and Anjana Patel in Harrow. Her parents were Hindus and originally from Gujarat, India but moved to Uganda. In the 1960s, however, shortly before President Idi Amin announced the expulsion of all Ugandan Asians, they immigrated to the UK and settled in Hertfordshire. They established a chain of newsagents in London and the South East of England and have done very well economically for themselves. So Priti Patel is typical of the Hindu immigrants who have come into the UK, whether from Uganda or from India proper, and who have then voted for brexit. Indeed Patel has been one of the most crass of all Brexiteers and has gone so far as to say the Irish should have food weapons used against them to brown beat them into accepting brexit without insisting on any backstop. What Pastels’ attitude shows is imply fairly typical of an attitude I have myself encountered in my many y ears of teaching in the UK, and by working at the centre for Multicultural Education in London University, and having endless discussion and talks with Hindus both from working class backgrounds and also from the intelligentsia. From a pure informed Hindu theological perspective, Brexit makes no sense whatsoever, as it is against Dharma to break up a country (the UK) and to destabilise a successful union (the EU_) for anticipated selfish gains (more Hindu relatives and immigrants can come to the UK more easily, India can trade more easily with the UK etc. ) But these arguments are all founded on ignorance,. The simple fact is that the UK school system, where most Hindu immigrants have ben educated, even at the upper end of the market in the private schools of the UK, teach virtually nothing about Ireland or Irish history and culture. It is as if Ireland literally does not exist, as far as the English school system is concentrated, So for someone like Priti Patel literally, Ireland has no meaning, It is entirely off their radar, cultural, historically and intellectually. Likewise concerning Europe, most Hindu immigrants settling in the UK are from a certain socio-economic background which means that European holidays and vacations are infrequent, if at all, until quite recently, and so any real knowledge about European culture is simply lacking. Similarly, given the complete silence about European history and cultural in UK schools, the ignorance about the history of European religiousness, the lack of exposure to any real knowledge about the classical sources of modern European (and British) civilisations, such as the Greeks and Romans and their cultural legacies, let alone the Celtic and the Druids, given there is nothing hardily taught about any of this, the average modern UK Hindu immigrant is simply woefully ignorant about Europe. Therefore they can fall easily for brexit lies and propaganda, having no intellectual resources to draw on to combat the lies. If they are told the EU is a fascist Hitlerite organisation, they will simply often enough swallow the story hook line and sinker from the Daily Mail and not dare to ask any meaningful questions. There is a specific psychological issue involved here. Since many Hindus in the modern UK are of fairly recent immigrant origin, they will accept the ruling decisions of the leading political party, the Tory Party as if it is gospel, and set in stone. They will not feel it is their right or duty to oppose it. And they will therefore accept its argument, spouted ad nauseam by Theresa May, that “the people have voted in 2016 so we must leave” as if it were gospel truth. They will feel, as relative newcomers, that if they dare question these lies, they will be being disloyal to their new homeland. Finally, there is another element involved and that is reversed racism. Some Hindus are proud of revisionist Hindu nationalism and the modern ascent to great power status of India, and they are quite enjoying the prospect of seeing the breakup of the UK – they are very happy to actually see the UK go down in flames and break apart. They hate the UK for what it “did to India” and can’t wait for it to get its karmic come-uppance. Some Hindus on the far right of the spectrum and who revel in this kind of dark occultism, and who hate Christians, and who are associated with the Hindu fascist movement, might love seeing the UK self destruct over brexit. They will be positioning themselves to be able to pick over the pieces of the carcass of what used to be called Great Britain later. This attitude I find objectionable. On various grounds. Firstly, what Britain did to India was not always and only objectionable and reprehensible. In fact, the British and the Indians genuinely liked each other and got on well. We built railways, introduced modern engineering and social standards and economic practices, facilitated trade, encouraged archaeological discoveries that gave Indians and Hindus a great sense of pride in their culture, we advanced scholarship such that the common India European courses of Sanskrit, Prakrit, Hindu, Greek, Latin and English were discovered by Sir William Jones; we sent countless honest, impartial and just judges and civil servants to India, and helped make it the great nation that it is today;’ we founded the Royal Asiatic Society and countless museum and centres of scholarship and learning all over the country, and brought to India advanced methods in historical and archaeological research that are still the bedrock of studies to the day, we also brought natural science methods for studying geology, chemistry, physics and mathematics, which, allied with the once great Hindu scientific genius, have enabled Hindu minds to flourish in the modern world and win many Nobel prizes. So much as the average UK citizen loves and respects Indian culture and civilisation, and tries to learn about it (eg in our school system) so the average Hindu immigrant to the UK should also learn about the complexity and depth of the UK’s history and cultural heritage, including Irish history and culture, and European history and culture. This is why the UK education system needs a huge revamp so as to include European and Irish studies, Scottish studies and Welsh studies in the curricula. Instead of being taught narrow minded English history, we need to learn the wider European history of which English history is but one current in a much bigger river. Finally, just as it would be most impolite for me as a UK citizen to emigrate to India and then vote for policies which will result in the breakup of India and seal the independence of Nagaland, Kashmir, Punjab. all as separate states, so it should be considered impolite for Hindu immigrants to come to the UK and then vote for polices which will result in the breakup of the UK. Previously, not knowing the implications, there was perhaps some slight excuse for making this mistake, but now, knowing the real consequences of brexit, and how it will result in the breakup of the UK, there can be no such moral error, if one wishes to remain a serious Hindu practitioner. Lastly, Hindu rishis and yogis are sworn to truth and to uphold dharma and to seek enlightenment, not just for themselves but for all humanity, and to do so using only nonviolence (ahimisa) and meditation and prayer and ritual ceremonies aimed at pleasing the pantheons of gods and goddess that watch over us. So if we truly love the gods, if we have studied the teachings of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, if we love Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva and their consorts equally and devotionally, then we will avoid harm, avoid thoughts words and deeds of harm based on hatred and violence, and we will instead adopt the paths of dharma. Brexit resembles an act of supreme folly much as Yuddhisthira when he gambled away his entire family, fortune, and eventually his devoted wife, all for addiction to a silly dice game. Brexit is Britain’s Yuddhisthira moment, when the most righteous of Hindus, momentarily lost his reason and acted in ways without reason or rationality or dharma. The long terms consequences of this momentary loss of reason were incaluable, and led to the disastrous Mahabharata war in which countless great heroes on both sides died in battle, and many widows were left grieving for their sons and husbands. So too with brexit, Its long term consequences will be catastrophic. But here, now, we have a few months of breathing space in which to undo the actions of our folly. We can step back from the brink of the Yuddhisthira moment we have brought upon ourselves. What if, just before Yuddhisthira finally lost his wife, he had been stopped by the appearance of a  sage who had told him to come to his sense, repent, and forego his madness ? That is why I am writing this journal. This is the moment and this is the opportunity. Any genuine Hindu UK citizens  out there reading this will know what I am talking about and understand.


  1. ISLAMIC RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: But what about Islamic responses you might say ? The same comments as above for Hinduism apply to recent immigrants to the UK of Pakistani or other Islamic background. There is a similar lack of knowledge about Irish history and culture and a similar lack of knowledge about European culture and history in general, and this is caused mainly by the poverty of the English educational curriculum. Children are simply not taught about European history in a way that makes it of any value or interests for the average English child either of Islamic or indeed of any other denomination. There is another slightly more worrying trend I have come across. Some extremist Muslim thinkers and activitists, have taken a deliberately anti EU and anti European position precisely because of its Christian and Pagan history, and because they see it is as far more likely that they will be able to bring about the Islamicisation of England and the UK more quickly than in Europe as a whole. They often hate the Roman Catholic tradition in particular and share with extreme protestant brexiteers a fierce hatred of European mainstream Christianity, such as Roman Catholicism. I have heard literally from exchanges with Islamic thinkers that such people voted for brexit because the Pope if the Anti Christ, and because Christianity is the work of the devil,. So I have heard some Muslims say that they  actually want brexit for two reasons. They know it will weaken the Uk, and most probably lead to its break up, and that is a good thing – because by definition the UK is “little Satan”. Secondly, it will weaken Europe and that us also a good thing because historically, Europe has acted as a major bastion of Christianity in world affairs, and therefore anything that weakens Christianity and Europe is by definition a good thing. The thinking of such extremist Muslims is exactly the same as those Muslims who from time to time run amok in France and end up stabbing innocent tourists  and women sunbathing on the beach, or who seek to blow up European cartoonists or journalists who may have been exercising their right to use satire and humour against Islamists or against any other culture. Some of the Muslims who voted for brexit knowing it would break up the UK and destabilise Europe, I would say they have committed an act of political terrorism and are simply hoping they will get away with it. But there are perhaps other more moderate Muslims who will have voted for brexit innocently, simply out of not knowing hardly anything about European history, or Irish history, or the complex matrix of forces that go to make up the UK. Perhaps they simply liked the idea of having the right to have more relatives coming to live in the UK without any hassle etc. and the possibility for more trade with say Pakistan or other Muslim economies, such as Malaysia, or Indonesia. Perhaps some of these have also joined the conservative party and are lobbying hard for brexit hoping to get a cut of any future trade deals with Islamic countries such as those mentioned. Other more extremist Muslims might have come to the UK from  Saudi Arabian or other gulf countries, and be of a Wahhabist doctrine, in which case they will be fiercely against Russia as an evil country, and also quite anti Europe as a dangerous haven of free thinking intellectuals, atheist and radicals, such as Karl Marx and all his types. They perhaps see Brexit Britain as part of a new bastion of religious conservatism which can stand as a bulwark against the dangerous religious libertinisme of Catholic Secular France, in which people of different religious views are allowed to stand cheek by jowl, and people are treated equally. Some Muslims no doubt believe in the conspiracy theory that is going the rounds that the EU was a plot created by Jews, and is run by rich bankers such as the Rothschild’s and that when the UK is free it, the influence of the Jews will be diminished. There are other shades of Islamic opinion to be found in the UK and I cannot summarise them all here. More Shiia and Iranian Islam might be on the whole wary of Brexit and realise that the UK is best standing with our European neighbours such as France and Germany when it comes to the dangerous waters we are now swimming in as a planet. With the weird behaviour of the USA and its constant barrage of anti-Iranian propaganda, the more nuanced rhetoric and policy of the EU towards Iran is welcome to them. Other more Sufi Muslims might also look on the spiritual yet secular values embraced by the EU, such as peace, tolerance and scientific enlightenment, as perfectly compatible with authentic Sufi Islam and Islamic philosophical teachings. They might be wary of the Anglo-USA alliance with extremist Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, and feel that Syrian’s secularist Alawite Islam is much preferable and they might know that Louis Massignon, the great French Sufi Scholar, helped advise the early formation of modern Syria after world war one.

Let us delve a little further into Louis Massignon’s role in Syria and see what we can learn. My own view is that rather than pursuing Brexit, the UK should have been working with France to bring about peace in Syria. What we need then urgently is  a detailed study of the more esoteric aspects of the wars within Islam. So to this end I have in 2015 already, issued A CALL FOR A PEACE TREATY BETWEEN ESOTERIC AND EXOTERIC UNDERSTANDINGS WITHIN THE COLLECTIVE MUNDUS IMAGINALIS. This was inspired by the tragic killings in Paris on Friday 13 November, 2015. One item which was hardly discussed at all, at least in the English speaking world, is the actual history of Syria and the reason the Alawite government of Bashar al Assad is in power in the first place. We have been brainwashed in the UK and USA into believing that the Assad family are a group of monsters, that all right thinking people should oppose. On the basis of this supposed estimation as to their evil, we are supposed to prevaricate and delay taking firm action against ISIL (KIL). As I explained in my essay on November 16 , 2015, published on my blog, this is due in large part to the obsessions of the Saudi Arabian Wahhabist regime, and their allies, which have been using Western troops as proxies to take out all their own rival powers for hegemony in the Middle East and in the Islamic world, since at least 1991, when they persuaded the USA and UK forces to depose Saddam Hussein, because of his temerity in invading Kuwait. They argued the Iraqi army threatened their own Saudi oil fields, and claimed to have evidence his troops were massing to invade. In fact, this turned out to be bogus intelligence, and Saddam had no intention of invading Saudi Arabia. But he was a socialist, a republican, a secularist, a moderate Sunni Muslim, and was prepared to allow inside Iraq a large degree of intellectual freedom; different faith groups were supported and protected; Sunnis and Shiias alike shared power, Christians were esteemed and their congregations safe to worship in peace. His Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz was himself a Christian. He had Bahais on his staff. All of this was hated by Saudi Arabian hard line Wahhabists who helped persuade the USA and their allies into invading to kick him out of Kuwait. Then, after 9/11/2001, happened, there was a rerun, mark two, with history repeating itself “as farce”. Of course the Neo-cons running the younger Bush regime didn’t take much persuasion. It also suited their own agenda, because, for one thing, Saddam had made some unfortunate anti-Israeli comments (he saw himself as committed to supporting an eventual Palestinian state and believed that more should have been done to help the Palestinians) so the Neo-Conservatives were given a motive for also wanting to end his rule in Iraq. Who were these neo-cons exactly ? Well, they included figures such as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense who was the defense mastermind of the Bush administration; Donald Rumsfeld was an elderly figurehead who held the position of defense secretary only because Wolfowitz himself was too controversial. Other neo-cons included Douglas Feith, No. 3 at the Pentagon; Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a Wolfowitz protégé who was Cheney’s chief of staff; John R. Bolton, a right-winger assigned to the State Department to keep Colin Powell in check; and Elliott Abrams, appointed to head Middle East policy at the National Security Council. One should also mention James R. Woolsey, the former CIA director, who tried repeatedly and falsely to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and Richard Perle, the so called “Prince of Darkness”, who was one of the main theorists behind the neocons, and was involved variously with the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (as a resident fellow), the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). He is still also a member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. One should perhaps mention that the godfathers of the whole Neoconservative movement were Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. All of these had been direct or indirect supporters of The Project for the New American Century and all supported this converging interest in taking out Saddam on the strength of public revulsions following 9/11. It was a brilliant sleight of hand, because it diverted energies from actually investigating the trail of evidence that was beginning to show that 9/11 might have been at least partially orchestrated by forces other than the official list of 19 hijackers, largely of rogue Saudi Arabian origin and Al Quaeda affiliation, yet whose presence on the planes has never actually even been definitely established. As more and more evidence comes out, often in video and film form, pointing to holes in the official story of the 9/11 narrative, as established by the methodologically bankrupt 9/11 commission, it is becoming clear to anyone who truly examines the data objectively, that the truth has still not really come out about 9/11’s causes. Given that very considerable evidence points to Saudi Arabian collusion in the events (witness the rapid exit of all Saudi officials from USA soil, including relatives of Osama Bin Laden, immediately after 9/11) – and prior knowledge of the attacks being almost certainly in Saudi intelligence circles, which they would have almost certainly shared with at least some of their CIA contacts. It looks like a very strange world of inverted meanings, when the USA and UK have been sold the story that Saudi Arabia is our great friend and ally, and Syria, under Assad, a moderate secularist loyal to the dream of Syria, is “in fact” a monster that we ought to destabilise and remove from power. This is a position that my Peace Studies Institute has not been comfortable with from the very beginning. IIPSGP was founded in 1991, the year of the first Gulf War, and we organised one of our earliest meetings in the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London, to discuss the facts and interpretations and likely consequences of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The event was filmed and many speakers all shared their views, which was the whole point of IIPSGP from the beginning. As Director, I have always taken, and continue to take, the view that we (i.e. the UK, Commonwealth, Europe, Russia, USA, NATO, UN and indeed the entire international community) ought to be neutral in the wars between Sunni and Shiias in the Middle East. We should not support exclusively either Shiia or Sunni factions, and we should not intervene in these essentially religiously motivated conflicts, but rather we should encourage, through diplomacy, targeted aid, mediation, scholarship and educational funding, the growth of a whole new generation of young Muslim students and leaders throughout the Middle East who are committed to genuine inclusive and holistic peace, and who see that Islam is at its best a faith to bring about inner and outer peace, rather than violence. Since lecturing at the Muslim College in London back in 1991-1993, I have maintained close friendships with many Muslims students and colleagues throughout the world, and have met many senior Muslim scholars and philosophers, who share my views. In fact, I would say it is an almost open secret in circles of advanced Islamic scholarship that the old labels of enmity such as Sunni, Shiia or Sufi, are outmoded, and that authentic Islamic scholarship embraces, encompasses and transcends them all, in a great living unity of faith and reason, whose orientation is towards peace, wisdom and love.

One of the greatest Western scholars of Islamic history and philosophy in recent times, was Louis Massignon, (25 July 1883 – 31 October 1962) of French origin. I was recently reading a very interesting new history of the Eranos conferences, (Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History Of The 20th century by Hans Thomas Hakl, Equinox, 2013) which took place in Ascona, Switzerland, as a kind of circle for wisdom sharings, with participants including Olga Froebe Kapteyn (the founder), Carl Jung, Rudolf Otto, Count von Keyserling, Helmut Wilhelm, Mircea Eliade, Karl Kerényi, Marie Louise Von Franz, Ernst Benz, Martin Buber, Giles Quispel, Morton Smith, Paul Tillich, Giuseppe Tucci, Erich Neumann, Adolf Portmann Gershom Scholem, Henry Corbin, Mircea Eliade, and many others over many years. Most of these figures I wrote up in my PhD thesis appendix, A Biographical Encyclopaedia of Transpersonal Thought 1945-2001. One of those who spoke at Eranos was Louis Massignon, (he was invited back every year for 18 years in fact) and the book (which is well worth reading) has this to say about him: “Massignon’s circle of acquaintances encompassed virtually the whole elite of France at the time and included Gabriel Marcel, Leon Bloy, Paul Claudel, Jaques Maritain, Louis Aragon, Jean Cocteau, Gaston Bachelard and the Eranos speaker Cardinal jean Danielou. Massignon, who was a professor at both the College de France and the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris, was even honoured on his centenary for his outstanding academic work by a commemorative session and exhibition at UNESCO which also issued a booklet in his honour. He belonged to a dozen or so of the most prestigious academic societies world-wide and was the editor of the Revue des Etudes Islamiques and the Annuaire du Monde Musulman.” This is a small summary of what he achieved as a scholar. Massignon undertook his own PhD research into the life and thought of Al Hallaj, who was one of the greatest Sufis who ever lived, and who had been crucified by the then Islamic Caliph for “heresy”. In fact, All Hallaj had been merely an advanced freethinker and spiritual practioner, who argued that the divine consciousness dwells inside all humanity, much as Plato, Hegel and the entire idealist tradition of Western and Eastern philosophy also does, as Hinduism does likewise, especially in the Vedanta tradition and in the Upanishads, which forms the core of Hindu philosophical thinking. Massignon also became a tertiary of the Franciscan order which is something I also thought of doing in my 20’s) and he later was ordained a priest in the Melchite Greek Catholic church, which follows the Byzantine rite of Christianity. He did this because he had fallen in love and got married, yet still wanted to become a priest. In the Melchite church you are allowed to be married. All the time, as Hakl says “he worked actively to promote an intensive dialogue between the religions, especially between Christianity and Islam. In Italy, he inspired the Catholic priest Giulio Bassetti-Sani to devote his life to this dialogue. The two men had often met each other at Eranos conferences, and Bassetti later wrote a book (which I have here at the castle of the muses) about Massignon, which expresses his deep reverence for the mystical orientalist, whom he describes as an untiring advocate of inter-religious dialogue, justice and peace in the world.” (Hakl, p. 119) In my own PhD thesis on the search for peace from 1945-2001, I also mentioned Massignon’s work and vision in some detail, sine he is a key thinker on peace in recent years. This is what I had to say about him in the appendix to the PhD thesis.

Massignon, Louis (1883-1962) was a French ecumenical Franciscan scholar, who was born at Nogent-sur-Marne, and educated at the local Lycee where he specialised in history of philosophy. Already by 1900 he had become fascinated by the history of Islamic and Christian mysticism, and was interested in Benedictine spirituality. He commenced his work as an Orientalist scholar in Iraq in 1907-1908, and became a member of the French Institute of Archaeology in Cairo; from 1917-1919 he worked as French High commissioner for Palestine and Syria, before becoming a Professor at the College de France, and in 1926 founded the Revue des Etudes Islamiques. His work specialised in the study of the great Sufi mystic of Islam, Al Hallaj, who was martyred in 922 in Baghdad for “heresy”; he published his great biography of Al Hallaj in 1922, one of the first major attempts by a non-Muslim mind to come to terms with the innermost workings of Islamic mysticism. Massignon was attracted to a philosophical understanding of history, in which inspired individuals at various times and places were able to carry with them the force of universal consciousness; in his own time, he was an admirer of Mahatma Gandhi, whom he regarded as one such historical figure. Passionately committed to achieving peace through scholarship and inter-cultural understanding, he sought to build bridges between Islam and the West wherever he could. He supported the rights of Palestinians in the political situation of the Middle East after the independence of Israel, he had considerable influence on Cardinal Montini, who became Pope Paul V1, and who adopted a moderate attitude towards Islam, and in the attempts after Vatican 2 to see common Christian-Muslim dialogue for peace. Massignon was also especially interested in the history of Franciscan-Islamic dialogues, and discovered proof of the actual meeting between St Francis and Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt, which he shared with his great Italian colleague, Father Basetti-Sani, author of Mohammed et St Francis (Ottawa, 1959) which was later transformed into Dialogo Christiano-Mussulmano: Mohammed, Damietta e La Verna (Milan, 1969); In an important study of Louis Massignon, by the same author, he explores how Massignon’s work to prevent problems in the Middle East since 1948 were eventually overwhelmed by the tragic conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Massignon looked to the Abrahamic tradition, and invoked the person of Abraham himself, as the ultimate spiritual mediator to solve the problem of the clash of three monotheistic religions in the Holy Land. Towards the end of his life, he was invited to lecture on Islamic thought at the Universities of Columbia, Harvard, Notre Dame and in The Catholic University of America. He also wrote on Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence as the only way forward to bring peace to earth, based as it was on transpersonal spirituality. He was opposed therefore to all forms of terrorism and violence without question, and argued that the true Saint is someone who is willing to face martyrdom for the sake of the truth of non-violence, not someone who is willing to inflict violence for the sake of their own version of truth.

What I hadn’t realised before reading this book by Hakl was that Massignon had also been involved with French intelligence during World War One, and had even helped give birth to Modern Syria. Here are the crucial sentences from Hakl’s book:

“In 1907 Massignon was imprisoned by the Turks during an archaeological expedition to Mesopotamia (today’s Iraq)… In the First World War, Massignon had not only been awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery at the front, but had also played an important military role in French North Africa. There he came into contact with T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and learned much from his contacts with the Arabian mentality. For details see Albert Hourani “T.E. Lawrence and Louis Massignon”, in the memorial volume marking the centenary of Massignon’s birth, Presence de Louis Massignon. Hommages et Temoinages, ed. Daniel Massignon (Paris, Maisoneuve et Larose, 1987) p. 167-176. This volume contains numerous testimonies from friends as well as studies on particular phases of Massignon’s life. According to Hildegard Nagel’s report, much of Massignon’s knowledge was acquired during long conversations “sitting cross legged over black coffee with his Arab friends.” Through these conversations he came within the orbit of Shiite Islam, which recognises Ali, the cousin and son in law of Mohammed, as the legitimate successor of the prophet; he drew particularly close to those groups which revere Ali not only as a victim of the Sunnis (who do not accord Ali this high position) but also as a divine incarnation and teacher of Islamic esotericism. Among these groups one deserves special mention, namely the Alawis, who are to be equated with the Nusayri, a group famed in the world of occultism.” For anyone interested in the history of esoteric religious groups, the Nusayria and the Alawites, are an especially interesting bunch. They are a genuinely ancient transmission and an amalgamation of elements of Christian, Zoroastrian, Sufi, Islamic and other esoteric teachings. In this respect they are similar to the Druze and the Yezidis, who are also ancient remnants of Middle Eastern spirituality, which have survived into the modern era. In the Summer of 2015 I listened to a book discussion at the Edinburgh Book Festival, by Gerard Russell, on his book Heirs to Forgotten Kingdoms, when the former British and UN diplomat spoke about his several years travelling to remote corners of the Middle East where these obscure faiths hang on. Among many other things, the Nusayri (Alawites) have a kind of tantric wisdom, which believes in the power of love and esoteric sexuality. A famous American teacher of sexual gnosis, Paschal Beverly Randolph (1825-1875) attributed his knowledge of sexual magic to the Nusayri. This is interesting and worth telling as he is largely forgotten today. (Arthur Versluis for example, in his The Secret History of Western Sexual Mysticism (Destiny Books, 2008), dismisses him as a “mere magician”.) Randolph was an African American, and became a famous trance medium, and travelled widely in the Middle East during his career as a merchant seaman. Like many Spiritualists of his era, he lectured in favour of the abolition of slavery; after emancipation, he taught literacy to freed slaves in New Orleans. In addition to his work as a trance medium, Randolph trained as a doctor of medicine and wrote and published both fictional and instructive books based on his theories of health, sexuality, Spiritualism and occultism. He authored more than fifty works on magic and medicine, established an independent publishing company, and was an avid promoter of birth control during a time when it was largely against the law to mention this topic. Having long used the pseudonym “The Rosicrucian” for his Spiritualist and occult writings, Randolph eventually founded the Fraternitas Rosae Crucis, the oldest Rosicrucian organization in the United States, which dates back to the era of the American Civil War. This group is still in existence today. Randolph’s ideas also later influenced the formation of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor. In 1851, Randolph even made the acquaintance of Abraham Lincoln. Their friendship was close enough that, when Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, Randolph accompanied Lincoln’s funeral procession in the famous train ride to Springfield, Illinois. In the biography about Randolph, Paschal Beverly Randolph: A Nineteenth-Century Black American Spiritualist, Rosicrucian, and Sex Magician (SUNY, 1996) by John Patrick Deveney and Franklin Rosemon, hopefully there is more information about the contact Randolph had with the Nusayri group in Syria in the 19th century. H.P Blavatsky was also presumably interested in the Nusayri (Alawites) and surely mentioned them in her esoteric writings (although as yet I cannot locate a reference – but she is known to have travelled widely in the Middle East. There is also a useful article about Randolph in the recent study of sexuality and spirituality Hidden Intercourse: Eros and Sexuality in the history of Western Esotericism ed. By Wouter J Hanegraaff and Jeffrey J. Kripal (Fordham University Press, 2008) called Paschal Beverly Randolph and Sexual Magic, by John Patrick Deveney.  This name of the sect’s followers, Noṣayri, or Nusayri, appears mainly in the non-Noṣayri sources and its precise origin, like much else about them, has been subject to debate, as are the historical circumstances of the sect’s emergence. Some scholars even believe the name to be the diminutive of the word naṣārā (Christians), an allusion to similarities between Noṣayri doctrines and Christianity (see René Dussaud, Histoire et religion des Noṣairîs, Paris, 1900. p. 13; Meir M. Bar-Asher, “Sur les éléments chrétiens de la religion Nuṣayrite-ʿAlawite,” JA 289, 2001, pp. 185–216. If that were true, it would be pretty amazing and fit in with their respect for Christians generally. See also Meir M. Bar-Asher and Aryeh Kofsky, The Nuṣayri-ʿAlawi Religion: An Enquiry into Its Theology and Liturgy, Leiden, 2002.). Another possible origin is the view that it is associated with the name of Abu Šoʿayb Moḥammad b. Noṣayr Namiri (or Nomayri), a disciple of ʿAli al-Hādi (d. 254/868) and Ḥasan al-ʿAskari (d. 260/873–4), the tenth and eleventh Imams of the Twelver Shiʿites. The latter is even said to have named Ibn Noṣayr as the prophet of a new religion, the nucleus of what was to become the Noṣayri religion (see, Abu Moḥammad Ḥasan b. ʿIsā Nowbaḵti, Feraq al-šiʿa, ed. H. Ritter, Istanbul, 1931 p. 78). Original books by Moḥammad b. Noṣayr, which became available recently (Selselat al-torāṯ al-ʿalawi, vol. I), enable us to reconstruct the original doctrines of the Nomayriya/Namiriya. His most important works are the Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya and the Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura. These books were later canonized by Ḵaṣibi (d. 956-57 or 969), the founder of Noṣayrism, and most of the issues dealt with in these two books were developed by him and by other leaders of the sect in the 10th and 11th centuries. The main issues of the Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniyaare: the account of the divine creatures of ranks (ahl al-marāteb), who dwell in heaven (Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya, pp. 40-44, 72, 137-83); the existence of cycles of history (akwār, adwār) before the creation of the material world, in which the deity appears in the world of lights (Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya, pp. 47, 62); the transmigration of the soul as a punishment (Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya, p. 186); and the issue of the mystical meaning of the Iranian celebrations on the days of the vernal and autumnal equinoxes, the Nowruz and the Mehregān (Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya, p. 98). The main theological discussion concerns the relationship between the two main aspects of the divinity, the maʿnā (meaning) and the esm (name), that is, the abstract God and its definition. In Ibn Noṣayr’s writings, which reflect an early stage of development of the sect’s theology, there is no clear concept of a third aspect of the divinity, the bāb (gate), which forms the later Noṣayri’s divine triad of maʿnā-esm-bāb. It was seemingly only after Ibn Noṣayr’s death and his sanctification as Bāb Allāh (Gate of God; see Ṭabarāni, p. 130) that the bāb became clearly the third inferior aspect of the divinity, which serves as mediator between the divine and the human. The Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura develops Gnostic ideas dealt with in Mofażżal b. ʿOmar al-Joʿfi’s Ketāb al-haft wa al-aẓella (Halm, 1978) concerning the heavenly world of light and its creation, before the creation of the inferior material world (Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura, pp. 208-16). It also deals with the akwār and adwār, adding the appearance of divinity also to human history (Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura, pp. 226-27). Besides, the Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura contains a mystical tradition concerning the creation of the world by the 28 letters of the Arabic alphabet (Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura, p. 225), which may have been inspired by the same source as the Jewish Sefer Yetsira. Now this is fascinating to me of course, because I devoted a lot of research energy into my study of The Qabalah Runes (IIPSGP Publications, 2013) in which I posited a link between the ancient Runes of Norse and Anglo-Saxon mysticism and the Hebrew traditions of the Qabalah, going back into Paleolithic times, which I published a couple of years ago. I also referenced the fact that Sufis also say the same thing about the Arabic alphabet. It’s the same core belief. So these Alawites, according to this theory, are the holders of ancient mystical and shamanic traditions that stretch right back to ancient Paleolithic times, whn the ancestors of the Semitic people and the indo-European people had not yet differentiated into separate tribal groupings. A similar idea has also been proposed, independently to my own thesis, by the Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, Prof Michael Witzel, in his important book The Origins of the World’s Mythologies (Oxford University Press, 2012). But does this mean the Alawites are heretics, and it is right for other Muslims to kill them ? Not at all. They are holders of a deeper and more esoteric undertstanding of monotheism, such as Spinoza had, or Hegel, or Ibn Arabi, or Ralph Waldo Emerson, or the American New Thought movement, which in turn has inspired most of what is good about modern new age philosophy. So like the Akwār wa al-adwār al-nurāniya, the Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura repeats the main idea of the ʿelm al-tawḥid (the science of monotheism), which is that God is the one and the only, transcendental and abstract (Ketāb al-meṯāl wa al-ṣura, pp. 208-9). In other, everything we see is actually divine, every person, tree, stone, flower, child.. all are a ray or manifestation of the transcendental unity behind existence. Nowadays of course, the Nusayris prefer to refer to themselves as Alawites, which was adopted at the beginning of the 20th century to underscore their links with the first Imam of the Shiʿites, ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb (who is also the 4th Caliph of Sunni Islam).

Another extraordinary commentator on the inner doctrines of the Nusayri’s was the Austrian magus and orientalist savant, Franz Sattler-Musallam who also describes the Nusayri as guardian of the highest esoteric secrets, including those of an erotic nature. This interesting figure of the history of esotericism, the German esotericist Franz Sättler (1884-c.1942), who often went by the pseudonym of Dr. Musalam, had quite a life story as well, that reads like a cross between a novel and a block-buster movie. He founded a new religion that he called Adonism, after Adonis, its chief deity, the God of love. Although Sättler claimed that it was the continuation of an ancient pagan religion, most sceptical academics say it is instead the single-handed creation of a highly gifted and educated man, this figure being Sättler himself. Adonism is a polytheistic and pagan religion, revolving around a belief that there are five principal gods: Belus, Biltis, Adonis, Dido and Molchos. Adonis is the most prominent of these in the group’s theology, being a benevolent figure that Sättler equated with the Christian figure of Satan. In contrast to Adonis, Molchos is believed by Adonists to be malevolent, equivalent to Yahweh or Allah, and it is he who is responsible for the enslavement of humanity through monotheistic religions e.g. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is an old motif and was a feature of some ancient pseudo-Gnostic sects, and the Cathars, who rejected the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, and argued that Christ’s new teaching of love, totally replaced the old laws of Moses. (In fact the texts don’t seem to support this thesis, and it seems sure that Jesus did identify with the teachings of Abraham and Moses and the entire prophetic tradition that preceded him, not least with the teachings of Enoch, as you will discover if you listen to my Commentary on the Gospel of St Matthew and also the Book of Enoch. Franz Sättler, a typical European esoteric polymath of the kind hated by Brexiteers such as Roger Scruton,  was born into the Bohemian region of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, proved himself to be a talented linguist, gained a doctorate in the subject and published the world’s first Persian-German dictionary. Subsequently travelling across much of Europe, he was imprisoned by the French during the First World War, where he first came across Theosophy and the occult, topics which greatly interested him. Briefly becoming an intelligence agent for the Czechoslovak government, he was again arrested and imprisoned, this time in Germany, and whilst imprisoned here he began formulating some of his esoteric ideas and writing books on the subject. Released in the mid-1920’s, he went on to begin propagating Adonism through the foundation of his Adonistic Society. Sättler would face legal trouble and a public scandal due to his beliefs in the 1930’s, leading to him renaming the Society the Alliance of Orion, before it was eventually shut down by the Nazi government in 1939. Sättler himself disappeared in the early years of the following decade, with some believing that he was executed by the Nazi authorities. It seems he was indeed one of those occultists who were killed off by the Nazis, with their own brand of pseudo-occultism and pseudo-Runic knowledge, who in fact persecuted many authentic occultists and mystics to death, not to mention millions of Jews and Kabbalists, Roma, Slavs, Poles, Greeks, French, Russians, Communists, Socialists and other advanced souls. Quite what Sattler made of the Nusayris or Alawites, and whether he met them, remains to be researched, but probably he would have argued that in their teachings they contained elements of the original pagan religions of the Middle East, such as the worship of Aphrodite and Adonis, and he may well, for all I know as yet, have been initiated into some of their mysteries. Would he have been right in arguing that the Alawites did in fact contain ancient traces of Middle Eastern paganism and the religion of Aphrodite worship ? Probably yes. But what do we actually know about their teachings ? The Alawites have historically kept their beliefs secret from outsiders and non-initiated Alawites, so rumours about them have arisen. Arabic accounts of their beliefs tend to be partisan (either positively or negatively). However, since the early 2000’s, Western scholarship on the Alawite religion has made some significant advances, often using anthropological research methodology of going into the field and studying Alawites in their social contexts. At the core of Alawite belief is a divine triad, comprising three aspects of the one God. These aspects or emanations appear cyclically in human form throughout history. This is a fascinating thesis which is in effect a proposition in transpersonal history. Henry Corbin also studied this idea as it appears in Shi’ite thought in general, in his important work Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis (Routledge, 1983) – the idea that prophets, sages and saints recur in cyclical intervals is a hallmark of this Islamic mystical tradition especially in Shi’ism. Rudolph Steiner and Anthroposophy also makes similar claims as do other forms of Western esoteric tradition, including Druidry, which also believed in reincarnation. The last emanations of the most crucial of these divine triads, according to Alawite belief, were as Ali, Muhammad and Salman the Persian. Alawites were tragically historically persecuted for these beliefs by the Sunni Muslim rulers of the area. Another very interesting area of research that needs to be done is to study the possible influences of the Nusayri on the Knights Templars and the birth of freemasonry in Western Europe. It is very possible that the Templars were indeed influenced by Nusayri ideas, as they are accused of some kind of sexual Gnostic practices, and it is possible therefore that they could have been taught by the Nusayris something of their own beliefs. What if the worship of Aphrodite and Adonis was indeed somehow transmitted as part of the innermost secret rituals that the Templars adopted ? And what if, as many historians of the occult allege, this transmission was then taken to Scotland, when the French order of Templars were destroyed on Friday 13th of October 1307, and then subjected to years of torture, before the grand Master, Jacques de Molay was killed by burning in Paris on March 18, 1314 ? But hold on a minute – if this is true, and the whole history of modern freemasonry owes something to this crucial link between the Nusayris (Alawites) and the Templars, shouldn’t the people of Europe, who owe a great deal of their intellectual enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries to the rise and progress of freemasonry, actually be thanking their Alawite brethren rather than helping to destroy them ? Among important freemasons, for those not familiar with their history, one can mention Goethe, Newton, Locke, Elias Ashmole (founder of the Ashmolean Museum, at Oxford), George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Sir Winston Churchill and many more. Syria has traditionally been a country where freemasonry flourished and many famous Syrian intellectuals have also been freemasons, proud of their ancient history. 1936 for example Master Mason Hanna Malek, was the secretary-general of the Syrian premiership. Grand Master Ata al-Ayyubi was also the Prime Minister of Syria and he was a key figure in the ending of French colonel rule of Syria and who served as Prime Minister of Syria twice. Back in 1908, when Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire, Ata al-Ayyubi became Governor of Latakia, a city on the Syrian coast and a centre of the Alawite community. He took no part in the Ottoman-Arab conflict during the years 1916-1918, but returned to live in Damascus when the Ottoman Empire was defeated in October 1918. In the four-day interlude between the departure of the Turks and the arrival of the Arab army, he created a preliminary government with a group of Syrian notables in Damascus, headed by Prince Said al-Jazairi, an Algerian notable who was living in Damascus. In other words, when T E Lawrence turned up in Damascus, in the famous scenes depicted in the movie Lawrence of Arabia, it was Ayyubi who had organised the meeting. In March 1943, during World War II, the French General Charles de Gaulle led an Allied offensive into Syria to defeat the Vichy forces stationed in Damascus. Ayyubi then became prime minister for a transition period and also appointed himself Minister of Foreign Affairs, Defense and the Interior. He supervised presidential elections and left office in August 1943 when President Shukri al-Quwatli came to power. He resigned from political life but was honoured by the National Bloc when independence was achieved in April 1946. He was hailed as a moderate and a dedicated nationalist. He is most remembered in Damascus today because of his great palace in the Afif neighbourhood and has a street named in his honour. Theologically, Alawites today claim to be Twelver Shiites, but traditionally they have been designated as “extremists – ghulat” and outside the bounds of Islam by the Muslim mainstream for their deification of Ali. Until recently, only one holy book of the Alawites, Kitab al Majmu`, has been translated into French and printed. This was done in Beirut in the mid-nineteenth century by an Alawite convert to Christianity, who was later killed by a fellow Alawite for his disloyalty. The Alawite religion has indeed many similarities to Isma’ilism. Like Ismaili Shi`as, Alawis believe in a system of divine incarnations as well as an esoteric reading of the Qur’an. Unlike Ismailis, Alawis regard Ali as the incarnation of the deity in the divine triad. As such, Ali is the “Meaning;” Muhammad, is the “Name;” and Salman the Persian is the “Gate.” Alawi catechism is expressed in the formula: “I turn to the Gate; I bow before the Name; I adore the Meaning.” Alawites believe that they are the true and best Muslims. The Alawite religion is secret and Alawites do not accept converts or the publication of their sacred texts. The vast majority of Alawites know precious little about the contents of their sacred texts or theology which is jealously guarded by a small class of male initiates. At the age of 15 or 16 all Alawite men are given a few hours of initiation classes, but from then on, it is up to them to decide whether they want to become students of the religion, attach themselves to a Sheikh, and begin the lengthy initiation process and a course of study in the religion. Because only one book has been translated, outsiders know little about Alawite theology. Hanna Batatu’s last book has a short but reliable section on Alawite doctrine, theology and recent debates within the community. Hanna Batatu was a remarkable historian of Palestine origin, who utilised Marxist class analysis in his historical studies, much as Eric Hobsbawm did in the UK. He was an expert on the history of the Iraqi Communist Party, and travelled inside Iraq, and interviewed many prisoners and Communists being held in jail, and managed to reconstruct the grand narrative of the Communist movement inside the country. Born in Jerusalem in 1926, Hanna Batatu emigrated to the United States in 1948, the year of the Nakba – the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. From 1951 to 1953, he studied at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. He gained his doctorate at political science in Harvard University in 1960, with a dissertation entitled The Shaykh and the Peasant in Iraq, 1917-1958. From 1962 to 1982 he taught at the American University of Beirut, then from 1982 until his retirement in 1994 at Georgetown University in the United States. Batatu started studying Iraqi history in the 1950’s, taking a particular interest in the revolutionary movements which were then prominent in that country and especially in the Iraqi Communist Party. From the late 1950s on he travelled to Iraq several times, and succeeded in having access to communist political prisoners and secret police files before the revolution of 1958. He was allowed access to security service archives from various periods of Iraqi history, up until the 1970s, and used this and his considerable range of personal contacts with figures from different political movements to compose his study of political change in Iraq, The Old Social Classes and New Revolutionary Movements of Iraq (published in 1978). This work, although largely focusing on the Iraqi Communist Party, also provides a wealth of information about the other revolutionary movements in the country as well as the ruling classes prior to 1958, and is considered one of the fundamental works on modern Iraqi history. Batatu’s methodology is grounded in political sociology and considers in detail the social factors for the developments he covers, and even more so the social composition of the movements in question. It was his last work, when he also undertook a similar study of Syria, Syria’s Peasantry, the Descendants of Its Lesser Rural Notables, and Their Politics (published in 1999) that carried some useful information about the Alawite movement.

From a peace studies perspective, and from the Brexit debate point of view, the war between mainstream Muslim Sunnis and Alawites is a tragic example of inter-religious miscomprehension. Rather than taking sides and going against the Alawites, as the USA and UK Foreign Office keep insisting we should do, even to the extent that hitherto it has turned a blind eye against extreme ISIS butchery, in my considered opinion, we should be working to mediate and heal these splits, with any rational party that is prepared to sit around the negotiating table, We need a metaphysical and spiritual disarmament process to parallel the political process. We need senior Muslim scholars to sit down with Alawite sages, and with Syrian Christians and come up with a formula for interfaith harmony in the new Syria that can hopefully arise from the ruins. The EU could do this with some authority and that is why I have proposed setting up the European Union Mediation Service, and have been calling for this since 2013.  The French tried to pressure leading Alawite Shaykhs to declare the Alawite religion a separate, non-Muslim religion during the early 1920s but they lost their battle because many religious leaders refused to do so. After all, Alawites declare themselves to be Muslims in their catechism and believe that Muhammad is God’s messenger. The Alawite religion seems to be based on Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism. According to Alawi belief, all persons at first were stars in the world of light but fell from the firmament through disobedience. The material world is a place of danger, enemies and impurity. The essential evil of this present existence can be escaped by the help of the divine creator. Every Alawite has within his soul a bit of the light of the divine creator, which can be accessed and lead him on the right path and salvation. Faithful Alawis believe they must be transformed or reborn seven times before returning to take a place among the stars, where Ali is their prince. If blameworthy, they are sometimes reborn as Christians or Jews, among whom they remain until atonement is complete. Because of the highly syncretistic nature of the religion, scholars have claimed that Alawism is related to Christianity because they have a trinity, drink wine as a possible form of communion, and recognize Christmas. Various sources claim that their rites include remnants of Phoenician rituals dating from ancient pagan times of worship, as we have seen was claimed by the German esotericist Franz Sättler. Although Alawites recognize the five pillars of Islam, they consider them as symbolic duties and few perform them. But so too probably most Anglicans would interpret quite a lot of the 39 articles as “symbolic statements” and many Roman Catholic theologians would likewise probably interpret a great deal of traditional catholic dogmatic assertions as falling under the same rubric. Hafiz al-Assad’s efforts to bring his people into the main-stream of Islam included building mosques in major Alawite towns. Reforming clerics have encouraged fellow Alawites to pray regularly and perform the basic tenets of mainstream Islam. Bashar has also followed his father’s lead in pushing his community to shed their idiosyncratic rituals and theology. So the religious dimension of the revolt against Bashar al Assad is doubly tragic and based on a total misunderstanding. The imported brand of extreme Wahhabi doctrine that fuels KIL (ISIL) is something utterly alien to Syrian spiritual traditions. After all in Damascus the grave of Ibn Arabi is to be found, the greatest of all Sufi sheiks, the brain, so to speak, to Rumi’s heart. Here’s a section from one of the only books of the Alawites so far translated into any Western language:

Je t’implore, ô Possesseur du pouvoir, ô Émir des abeilles, ô ‘Alî, ô Généreux, ô Préexistant, ô toi qui pardonnes, qui as poussé la Porte, Je t’implore par les cinq Élus, par les six Révélations, par les sept astres brillants, par les huit robustes porteurs du trône, par les neuf Mohammédiens, par les dix coqs purs, par les onze tours de la Porte, et par les douze personnages de l’Imâmah, par leur foi en toi, ô Limite du Tout, ô Émir des abeilles, ô maître de la puissance suprême, ô toi le Un, dont le Nom est unique, dont la Porte est l’unité, ô toi qui es apparu dans les sept tabernacles essentiels, je t’implore de rendre fermes nos cœurs et nos membres dans ta sainte connaissance.

This seems to me to be an entirely innocent and pure text, and shows a genuine piety that one could hardly call heretical. Useful footnotes which explain this complex text are given here: http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/arabe/kitab/nosairis.htm#_ftn26

Now back to Massignon. His PhD thesis was on al Hallaj, and it was Al Hallaj who had likewise argued, like the Gnostics and Sufis of all the ages, that the official version of history as presented in the Koran or the Bible has to be supplemented by other, oral and esoteric teachings. Massignon devoted his academic career to pursuing his deep, personal interest in Ḥallāj, completing the edition of manuscripts of his works as well as numerous studies based on a wide variety of primary sources. The most famous of the latter is his four-volume study of the life, works and legacy of Ḥallāj, entitled La Passion de Husayn Ibn Mansûr al-Hallâj (Paris, 2nd ed., 1975). Although highly interpretative in parts, it is a result of the importance of the subject for Massignon’s own spiritual odyssey, during which he first converted to Roman Catholicism, then converted to Islam, and then converted back to Roman Catholic Christianity. All Hallaj wrote a pioneering work of philosophy and exegesis, called Ṭawāsin, his most important. Sadly, he left a relatively small body of works. His main work, the Ṭawāsin (ed. Massignon, 1913), consists of eleven reflective essays, in which he frequently employs line diagrams and cabbalistic symbols, in what seems to be a determined struggle to convey profound mystical experiences which he could not express in words. A small collection of poetry has also been attributed to him (Diwān al-Ḥallāj, ed. Massignon, Paris, 1931), and there is a collection of biographical reports which transmit anecdotes about him and his recorded utterances (Aḵbār al-Ḥallāj, ed. Massignon, 3rd ed., Paris, 1957). Ḥallāj is renowned for having identified closely with and glorified Iblis.In by far the longest essay of the Ṭawāsin, the “Ṭā-sin al-azal wa’l-eltebās,”he depicts Iblis as the most sincere and uncompromising of monotheists for refusing to bow in obeisance to anyone but God, even when ordered by Him to do so before Adam with the threat that he would be cursed as punishment for disobedience (Ṭawāsin, pp. 41-55). This glorification of Iblis became popular among many Persian Sufi authors influenced by Ḥallāj, including most famously Aḥmad Ḡazāli, ʿAyn-al-Qożāt Hamadāni and Ruzbehān Baqli (qq.v.; see EBLĪS II; Awn, 1983). Al Hallaj argued that Iblis, the devil figure in Islam, was apparently according to exoteric Islam was thrown out of heaven, like Lucifer, for refusing to bow down and worship Adam, Allah’s latest creation, as all the other angels did. And that’s the reason most Muslims hate Iblis and call the West “The great Satan” etc. That why during the pilgrimage to Mecca, orthodox Muslims throw stones at a pillar representing Iblis. The Koran is full of reasons why Iblis is nasty and not nice at all. Mostly it goes back to the refusing to bow down story, as in:

And surely, We created you (your father Adam) and then gave you shape (the noble shape of a human being), then We told the angels, “Prostrate to Adam”, and they prostrated, except Iblis, he refused to be of those who prostrate. (Allah) said: “What prevented you (O Iblis) that you did not prostrate, when I commanded you?” Iblis said: “I am better than him (Adam), You created me from fire, and him You created from clay.” Sura 7:11-12

I give a fuller interpretation of this passage in my long and detailed commentary on the Quran (now available as a talking book). Now this hatred of Iblis, is in fact a kind of mental hubris, since the story is really about why mankind is amazing, important and superb, so that an angel, and indeed the noblest and wisest and most powerful of all the angels, created long long before mankind, and created from fire and not from clay, should have dared to remain faithful to God rather than be seduced into worshipping the newly created anthropos. Actually, when you look around the world as it is, doesn’t the angel have a point ? Are the idiots behind brexit, who think it is a good idea to break up the UK, a most beautiful and historical nation, really something we should bow down to and worship and say to God “Thank you Oh God for Farage, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, May and the others”. I don’t think so. I am with Iblis on this one. Of course, it may all just be a myth, a psycho-drama, in which people get to let off steam against the “enemy”. The trouble is that the killers who work for KIL (Isil) and also maybe some who work for other similar terrorist groups around the planet, believe the story literally, and see their barbarous acts as ok because they are only committed against agents of Iblis (i.e. the West). This is why in Nigeria, education is Haram (hence Boko Haram) because it comes from Iblis. This is also why Muslims don’t (on the whole, apart from liberal ones) like freemasons, because they are also devil worshippers. And its why Muslims, on the whole don’t like pagans, and would, if they could, blow up every single “pagan temple” on the planet. Well, as an Archdruid and founder of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Stonehenge, I can’t say that exactly warms the cockles of my heart. The key problem, the real theological sticking point, seems to be this myth about the devil (which most pagans don’t believe in as such – there is no devil in Druidry for example). Indeed, in a recent lecture at the University of London and Oxford Brookes University, in which I called for the launching of a new academic discipline, Comparative Diabology (on our You Tube Channel at IIPSGP1) I described Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam as essentially the Satanic religions because each of them, in their own way, propagates the myth of the Devil, as a character who is absolutely essential to their grand narratives of history, including salvation history. This is why Christ, it would seem, is always going on about the Devil, because without the Devil, there’s no need for the Messiah. It’s a double bill, so to speak – buy one get one free, you get Messiah plus Devil in the same movie any which way you edit the reels. (Same for Zoroaster, Muhammad, Moses etc.)

But just to realise all this doesn’t solve the problem. There deranged agents of misconstrued ancient mythologies out there who are still running around projecting Devils onto the Illuminati, or the freemasons, or the Zionists, or the CIA or the Tories or the Capitalists or the Communists, or the Jews or the Muslims or the whatever else you care to name..  Now these deranged conspiratorialists are projecting this same devil myth on the EU. The EU of all things ? How boring a bland a devil can you pick !  But unfortunately they have become very influential in both UK and USA foreign policy formation. Its why Trump and May and Saudi Arabia think its ok to cut up journalists in Embassies – because, well “they are working for the devil right” (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood) ? That’s what the Saudis seem to think. Anyone who opposes them is working for the devil. That is literally what Wahhabi ideology says, period. Obviously they haven’t read their Jung, they haven’t read my doctoral thesis, and they don’t believe a word of what I am saying, if they could be bothered to read it. Because for them the Devil has to be literal, has to be true, or else the whole edifice of their rage, their justification for killing, goes away. It was the same with Hitler, he had to honestly believe the Jews were literally a demonic force, as various occult groups in Germany at the time also did, (studied by my late friend and colleague Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke for his own PhD at Oxford University), and were therefore deserving to be wiped out, for him to justify mentally to himself (and his accomplices) his extermination projects. What I am calling for therefore, as a peace academic, is a peace treaty, a breathing space, an agreement to differ, rather than continuing to fight this war of literalism right through to the end. | am also calling for the annulment, the cancelling, the revoking of brexit – and hopefully an end to it. There is no reason the UK has to leave now, in 2018. We can leave anytime we want in the future, when we are more united about it. When a proper referendum has been held in which the young and all the separate nations that make up the UK all agree they want to leave,. To leave now is intemperate. Tolstoy said, whenever anyone forces things to be done in  a hurry, they are working under the Devils  Orders. True wisdom takes time, it is patient, like true love. Rape is violent, forced and in a hurry. Brexit is like the imaginary rape of the UK by a false God, a demonic idol that has been erected in conspiratorialists diseased imaginations called “The hated horrible EU”. What they forget that in fact Europa herself was the victim of rape, and still is, as continual attacks are being made on Europe by people with fanatical anti-liberal, and anti-European imaginations The recent attacks in Strasbourg Christmas market in December 2018 are yet the latest such example. These are being done by pseudo Muslims who have been brainwashed into thinking Europe and liberal democracy is the enemy. Not realising that true submission to the true God, the God of all nations and all peoples, of all times and all places, of all religions, can only be done in peace and spiritual surrender through love, and not through violence. But let us stay with Syria and Islam for a minute: what happened eventually to the great Sufi Al Hallaj might have been a tragic foretaste of what Kil (ISIL) have been doing to their opponents in both Syria and Iraq. On 24 Ḏu’l-qaʿda, after 9 years imprisonment in Baghdad, Ḥallāj received a thousand lashes, had his feet and hands cut off, and was eventually was hanged to death on the gibbet. His corpse was burned and the ashes poured into the Tigris. His students apparently fled eastwards to Khorasan. Some of them ended up in Scotland ! (Joke that, to see if anyone  reading this is still awake).  In order to get right down to the bottom of the Devil myths and fallen angel myths that haunt our collective psyches, I also worked on a commentary on the Book of Enoch, which appears to be a later recension (2nd to 1st century BC) of an ancient set of spiritual esoteric teachings that were “given to Adam at the moment of first creation”, and which were passed down to Enoch, who treasured them and studied them intently. Enoch has been sacred to Jewish tradition, Islamic teachings (where he is known as Idris, and regarded as the first philosopher) and in Christianity. There is a growing agreement among close students of the intertestamental period of history and the sources of Christianity, that Jesus and his close circle of students not only had copies of the Book of Enoch, but to some extent modelled their agenda according to its teachings. Certainly the Alawites likewise honour Enoch (Idris) – and so does the Quran itself. My reason for working on a detailed Commentary on the Book of Enoch for our times (nothing has really been attempted before in this comprehensive direction) is to try and provide a theological bridge between all the religious communities of the Middle East (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, Paganism, Baha’ism, Zoroastrianism etc.) and also wherever their adherents have spread. Enoch is thought most likely to have been modelled on ancient Sumerian sages, and his appearance in Genesis coincides with the founding of the first cities in Sumeria. What is really at stake then in these wars that have bedevilled this crucial region, is whether human civilisation itself is viable. We invented writing (actually, archetypally Enoch invented writing, or Idris, or Hermes, or Thoth – they are all said by esotericists to be the same person, the archetypal sage or Merlin figure) – and yet now writing is driving us all apart, as those of us with different sacred books and holy scriptures can’t get on with each other, and we are determined to blow each other to bits rather than sit down and have a nice cup of tea ! The questions facing us in Syria and Iraq therefore, following on from the disastrous attacks in France in recent years and elsewhere in Europe and the UK, is whether we in the UK or Europe should continue to support the failed policies of neo-cons of the USA, who have dominated American foreign policy in alliance with Saudi Arabia, basically since the time of the election of Bush in the debacle of the hanging chads (when the election was actually stolen from the American people it would appear, in November 2000) followed immediately, disastrously and most suspiciously by the events of 9/11 the following year, which Saudi and USA foreign policy and military advisers then seized on as a great opportunity to invade Iraq. There are huge historical questions to be answered about all this, and as chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Middle East, I would still like to see them answered. I have also written a whole book about the History of 9/11 which has taken two years to complete and which is due to be published shortly. The USA-Saudi desire to bring down Assad, seems philosophically speaking like yet a further revivification of a zombie which failed last time, led to endless suffering and misery in Iraq, and yet is being played again in Syria. Has there been no learning at all since 2003 ? Has there been no learning since 1979 when the USA and Saudi Arabia together armed militant Jihadists to bring down its political enemies (then the USSR) ? It seems to the philosophers among us that the USA-Saudi-UK alliance is still playing basically the same tune – arming militant jihadists to bring down its political enemies. I was told as much directly, openly, by the Foreign office head of Syria desk when I spoke to them by phone some in 2012 and offered to help with the interfaith mediation of the war developing in Syria. Marx rightly said that history comes in cycles of repetition – and history tends to repeat itself the second time round in farcical form. The stupidity and ignorance of Western policy towards Syria, in permitting KIL(Isil) to get a bridgehead there, and to terrorise first the indigenous populations, to act brutally towards all Muslims they disagree with (especially Shiia) and then to terrorise the Yezidis etc; to then attack and seek to destroy the ancient pagan remnants of an advanced Hellenistic Arab civilisation, as at Palmyra and their beheading of the archaeologist who refused to help them (brave and good man that) – this truly shows us what these people are like. And it is to the utter shame and discredit of Western policy leaders, foreign office officials, and politicians, of all parties, throughout the UK and the USA, that they have sat back and not only done nothing about it, but also supported and encouraged it. John McCain for example, seems to have gone and met with KIL leaders early on and pledged them support. The governing mantra or meme behind all of this has been the driving idea – “we must do all we can to bring about the downfall of Assad”. Are they really saying “we cannot do anything to upset the Saudis” ? If so, let it be said in public and let us have this debate in public, on the floor of the House Of Commons and in the learned journals and newspapers of the UK. Are we really that afraid of the Saudi’s ? According to what scale of ethical values is Saudi Arabia a better ally and partner for the UK (and the USA) than, say, Russia ? But this is to practice what Dick Cheney has called “working through the dark side”. Alastair Crooke, a former MI6 operative, EU special rapporteur, BBC foreign policy consultant and an old friend of Yasser Arafat, has stated in print that US and UK foreign policy has indeed been disastrous in this respect, ever since 1979, when Brzezinski decided to do a deal with extremist Islamic fighters to lure the then USSR into invading Afghanistan. As I said in my blog of 16 November 2015, the West have ever since then summoned up a cloud of dark spirits, extremist Muslim terrorist fighters, who have a simple monochrome ideology, and who, while we could turn them in the direction of Anti Soviet shock troops, were useful to the interests of the west, but in the person of Osama Bin Laden, they turned against us in a series of spectacular attacks, culminating in the attacks of 9/11 (probably helped along a little from the inside so to speak, from Cheney’s dark side). Now these same failed Western policy blunderers have led us directly to the mass shootings on the streets of Paris on November 13,  2015. You don’t have to invoke conspiracy theories apart from the general conspiracy of ignorance to explain this progression. What would Massignon have made of this ? A man who loved France and also Islam, Christianity and world spirituality – an advanced soul if ever there was one? Let us return to the book of Thomas Hakl, that has inspired largely this essay, and see what he says about this. “Amongst these esoteric groups one deserves special mention, namely the Alawis, who are to be equated with the Nusayri, a group famed in the world of occultism. In Syria, where France held dominion from 1920- to 1945 following the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, the Alawis, with their alleged friendly disposition towards the French, came to be the ruling group, and reportedly it was Massignon who helped them to power. Indeed, the Alawis remain the rulers to this day. With its power base residing primarily in the armed forces, the leading Baath party is a predominantly Alawite movement. After many years of struggle, its leader Hafez al Assad came to power in 1070 via the military, and the office of president was assumed after his death by his son Bashar al Assad, who still governs today. The future outcome of the unrest that broke out in Syria in 2011 remains unclear”. (Eranos: An Alternative Intellectual History Of The 20th century by Hans Thomas Hakl, Equinox, 2013, p. 118). This is what Hakl explains, and I would ask the reader to assimilate this information slowly, as it came as something of a shock, or an “aha” moment when I read it a couple of days ago. Massignon actually helped the Alawites get to power in Syria, back when Syria was a French mandate. What an amazing, interesting and extraordinary piece of information. One of the greatest mystical commentators and thinkers of the 20th century, one who had done their PhD on Al Hallaj, someone who called himself an “interiorist for whom inspiration and an attitude of belief and sympathy were necessary in order to reveal the pure divine transcendence in the sacred writings”.. Who knew and practiced regularly the prayer rituals of all the three Abrahamic religions, that such a man should have “helped the Alawites into power in Syria” to my way of thinking establishes an important covenant with history. Not knowing the details behind this statement (perhaps someone at SOAS or the Sorbonne has done a PhD on the events and ideas hiding behind this simple phrase ?) – but the meaning for us is I think clear. We should not tinker around with constitutions, governments and states, simply on the whim of deranged crazy Wahhabi fighters who have been brainwashed into thinking that everyone who doesn’t follow their narrow minded and bigoted version of Islamism can be killed, executed, tortured and persecuted, raped and humiliated. Are we really to follow and ally with such people ? Yet it is not only Syria that is at stake here now from the crazy Wahhabists, it is also the UK. My contention is that secret and dark forces have been Behind brexit from the beginning and that they were ultimately funded and put into place by the same dark alliance of USA-UK-Saudi money and power that brought us 9./11 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The dots are plain to see for anyone who cares to study history, as I have done for 40 years.

These are also the people who are behind the massacres on the streets of Paris in November 2015. These are the people who are behind the massacre in Beirut a few days before that, and so on, in a sad dim spectacle stretching back in time in an endless succession of crazy self-and-other immolations. You can trace the line, if you want, all the way back to the killing of Imam Ali, who, on January 25/26, 661 CE, while praying in the Great Mosque of Kufa, was attacked by the Kharijite Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam. He was wounded by ibn Muljam’s poison-coated sword while prostrating in the Fajr prayer. Ali ordered his sons not to attack the Kharijites, instead stipulating that if he survived, ibn Muljam would be pardoned whereas if he died, ibn Muljam should be given only one equal hit (regardless of whether or not he died from the hit). Ali died a few days later on January 31, 661 CE (21 Ramadan 40 A.H). Hasan fulfilled Qisas and gave equal punishment to ibn Muljam upon Ali’s death. ʿAlī died at the age of sixty-three and was buried near Kūfa. The burial was kept secret, but in the time of Hārūn al-Rašīd his tomb was identified a few miles from Kūfa and a sanctuary was established around which a town called Naǰaf grew up. Of his fourteen sons and nineteen daughters by nine wives and several concubines, Ḥasan, Ḥosayn, and Moḥammad b. Ḥanafīya are well known (busy man, that). ʿAlī’s political discourses, sermons, letters, and sayings were collected by Šarīf Rażī in a book entitled Nahī al-balāḡa (“The road of eloquence”), and are well known in Arabic literature (we have a copy in the IIPSGP Library). Or you can trace the line of violence back to the killing of Ali’s son, Hasan, who made a peace treaty with Mo’awiya after Ali’s death, and tried to live a peaceful life, having 15 sons and 9 daughters from six wives and three named concubines (another busy man). Ḥasan died, according to the most reliable reports, on 2 April 670. The early sources are nearly unanimous that he was poisoned. While most accuse his wife Jaʿda, daughter of the Kinda chief al-Ašʿaṯ b. Qays, of the crime, others mention his wife Hind bt. Sohayl b. ʿAmr of ʿĀmer Qorayš. Usually Moʿāwiya is identified as the instigator. In other words, poor Hasan was murdered by one of his wives at the instigation of his mortal enemy. It all begins to sound like the days of Nero and Caligula in Rome, and further evidence for Lord Acton’s adage that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Hasan was eventually buried next to his mother Fatima in Medina, and Ḥasan’s tomb became a pilgrimage site, especially for Shiʿites, and later a dome was built over it, one of the highest in the cemetery. It was twice, in 1806 and 1927, destroyed by the Wahhābis, which of course is one of the complaints the Shiite Muslims and the Alawites have against the Wahhabis, who have on innumerable times desecrated the tombs of spiritual figures important to the history of Islam. This is why the Kil (Isil) forces desecrate all the tombs they can that fall within their own control, such as that of the prophet Jonah, which was agreed by all to be in Mosul in Iraq. In 2014 Kil (Isil) took control of Mosul and a disturbing wave of violence ensued, in which the Kil (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham – ISIS) terrorist group destroyed churches, monasteries, and statues, and disturbed the grave of the biblical prophet Jonah. A video posted on YouTube July 9 2014 showed the tomb being destroyed with a sledgehammer, and Nineveh officials said the grave is that of Jonah. Kil (ISIL) control of Mosul on June 10 2014, and they also took control the Iraqi cities of Baiji and Fallujah, and parts of Syria. The Sunni Muslim extremists have persecuted, raped and killed thousands of Christians and Shiite Muslims across the two countries. Churches and Shiite shrines have been bombed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled the area because of the violence. The latest acts of terrorism, according to Nineveh Police spokesman Major Ahmed al Obaidi, occurred on a single day. “They torched 11 churches and monasteries out of 35 scattered across the city of Mosul, and hours later destroyed statues of poets, literary and historical figures of which Mosul has long been proud.” The mosque containing Jonah’s tomb has been under the terrorist group’s control since they took over the city, local official Zuhair al-Chalabi said. “There is almost certain information stating the fact that the elements of ISIL dug up the grave of the Prophet Younis (Jonah).” The grave of biblical prophet Seth was also destroyed, according to Major al Obaidi. Three Sunni clerics, Khattab Hassan, 43, Riyadh al-Wandi, 39, and Abdul Ghafoor Salman, 48, rejected ISIS and refused to flee Mosul. They were killed by the terrorists in separate parts of the city. These were brave men and authentic Sunni Muslims who could see through the fanaticism of Kil and realised they were not dealing with any normal Sunni group, but a maverick, heretical and extremist group that is in fact outside authentic Islam. The whole history of Islam’s birth and then its early evolution after the death of Muhammad is littered with violence and in many ways you can argue that the Sunni and Shia split inside Islam is an overblown family dispute between Ali and Khadijah, that has not gone away, and over 1400 years later is threatening the safety and stability of the entire Middle Eastern region. As an expert in religious dispute resolution, this is why I am calling for the West not to take sides in this dispute, but to do all they can to work with reputable and learned Islamic scholars, academics and philosophers, both Sunni and Shiia and Sufi, and try to heal and resolve the dispute. A special peace commission should be established at the highest levels of Shiia and Sunni theological debate and research, and intensive energy should be devoted towards finding a solution. What is it that all Muslims can agree on? What are the absolute common bedrocks of their faith ? I would argue that it is a commitment to peace and harmony in society and in the spiritual worlds, and have explained this position in full in my commentary on the Koran. I would ask Muslim scholars and philosophers around the world to study this commentary and to join in this work. Imam Hussein, to the Shi’ah the 4th Imam, also died a violent death, at the Battle of Karbala in Iraq. The battle of Karbalāʾ lasted from morning till sunset on 10 October 680. ʿOmar b. Saʿd, who had been sent out from Kufa to attack Hussein, who had been marching towards Kufa with a small group of loyal followers. Hussein had been invited to go there by some of the leading people of Kufa, but since the invitation had been issued, a political change had overtaken Kufa. Now a Kufan army of 4,000 men arrived under the command of ʿOmar b. Saʿd b. Abi Waqqāṣ arrived, who had been appointed by ʿObayd-Allāh governor of Rayy to lead the army against Ḥosayn. As the son of one of the most eminent early Companions of Moḥammad, he was at first loath to use force against the Prophet’s grandson, but had been bullied into accepting the command. And the governor ʿObayd-Allāh had been appointed by Yazd, the son and successor to Moawiyah, with strict instructions to “get tough on Hussein”. Yazd was not recognised as the genuine successor Caliph by Hussein, or by all those others who would in time become known as the Shi’ah party of Islam. All these events are still subject to disputed interpretations by historians, depending on whether they are Sunni or Shi’ia in orientation. At first ʿOmar b. Saʿd hoped to isolate Hussein and force him to surrender, and did not order a general attack that would inevitably have resulted in a quick massacre. The reports rather describe numerous incidents of single combat, skirmishes, assaults, and retreat. Ḥussein ordered heaps of wood and reeds to be burnt in a ditch behind the tents to prevent an attack from the rear. From the front he was protected by his men, and he was not involved in actual fighting until close to the end. As the Kufans also suffered losses because of the self-sacrificing bravery of Ḥussein’s followers, the fighting gradually became more brutal. In one attack the enemy set the tents on fire, but the flames at first hindered their own advance. Šamer (Šemr) b. Ḏi’l-Jawšan is mostly described as the moving spirit, viciously driving on the assault. Ḥussein was first wounded by an arrow hitting his mouth or throat as he was trying to reach the Euphrates to drink. After receiving further wounds, he eventually was stabbed with a spear by Senān b. Anas Naḵaʿi. As he fell, Senān and Ḵawali b. Yazid Aṣbaḥi joined to cut his head off. In accordance with ʿObayd-Allāh b. Ziād’s instructions, ʿOmar ordered his body to be trampled by horses. Later he was buried by the Banu Asad of the nearby village of Ḡāżeriya in the spot where the sanctuary of Ḥosayn arose. His head was carried to ʿObayd-Allāh b. Ziād in Kufa and then to Yazid in Damascus. Later there were claims in regard to several locations to be its burial place.

The dead on the side of Ḥussein are said to have numbered seventy or seventy-two. At least twenty descendants of Abu Ṭāleb were among them. The first one of these to be killed was Ḥussein’s own son ʿAli Akbar. As a nephew of the caliph Yazid he was offered a safe-conduct, but he refused it, proudly proclaiming that he valued his descent from the Prophet more highly (Ibn Saʿd, p. 73; Zobayri, p. 58). Ḥussein’s son ʿAbd-Allāh was still a child and is described as having been killed by an arrow while placed on his father’s knees. Six of Ḥosayn’s paternal brothers, sons of ʿAli, fell. Four of them were sons of Omm Banin bt. Ḥezām of the Banu Kelāb. Her brother’s son, ʿAbd-Allāh b. Abi Moḥell b. Ḥezām, obtained a letter of safety for them from ʿObayd-Allāh b. Ziād, but they rejected it. Three sons of Ḥasan and three sons of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Jaʿfar were killed, as well as three sons and three grandsons of ʿAqil b. Abi Ṭāleb. Ibn Saʿd lists among the dead two other Hashemites, a descendent of Abu Lahab, and a descendent of Abu Sofyān b. Ḥāreṯ b. ʿAbd-al-Moṭṭaleb. Among the survivors of the Prophet’s family, being led off as captives, he mentions two sons of Ḥasan, a son of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Jaʿfar, a son of ʿAqil, and five women. According to Abu’l-Faraj Eṣfahāni (Maqātel, p. 119), three sons of Ḥasan survived, among them Ḥasan b. Ḥasan, who was severely wounded. Ḥussein’s other son named ʿAli survived because he was sick and unable to fight on the battle day. He was brought as a captive before ʿObayd-Allāh b. Ziād and then before Yazid in Damascus. The latter treated him well and sent him with the women to Medina. He eventually became recognized as the fourth Imam of the Shiʿites.

What happened to ʿObayd-Allāh (b. ca. 28/648), the Omayyad governor responsible for the death of the Imam Ḥosayn b. ʿAlī ? He was the son of Zīād b. Abīh, a favorite of Moʿāwīyah, and a Persian slave called Marjāna. He was given the governorship of Khorasan in 54/673 at the age of twenty-five, and soon afterward, he was appointed governor of Baṣra, where he subdued Kharijite unrest (Ṭabarī, II, pp. 168, 172, 185-87). At the accession of Yazīd I (r. 60-64/680-83), he forestalled the planned Shiʿite rebellion in Kūfa by intimidating the chiefs of the main tribes and publicly executing known agents of Imam Ḥosayn. When Ḥosayn and his family reached Iraq, Ibn Zīād sent the army of Ibn Saʿd against him; Ḥosayn was killed with his followers and most of the men of his family at Karbalāʾ on 10 Moḥarram 61/10 October 680. After Yazīd’s death in 64/683, Ibn Zīād claimed the caliphate for himself, but finding little support in Kūfa and Baṣra, he fled to Syria, supporting the claim of Marwān b. Ḥakam after the death of Moʿāwīa II (64/684; Ṭabarī, II, pp. 433 ff.). Under Marwān and his son ʿAbd-al-Malek, he fought to maintain control of Iraq, destroying thetawwābūn (repentants, i.e., those who repented for having left Ḥosayn to meet his fate) at the battle of ʿAyn-al-Warda (65/685). The Kufan Shiʿites revolted again under Moḵtār, who organized the mawālī (freed slaves and non-Arab freemen, mostly Persians), overwhelmed the Arab opposition, and sought revenge on those responsible for Ḥosayn’s death. Moḵtār’s general, Ebrāhīm b. Mālek Aštar, defeated the Syrian army near Mosul and killed Ibn Zīād (on the day of ʿĀšūrāʾ 67/6 August 686), sending his head to Moḵtār, who dispatched it to ʿAlī Zayn-al-ʿĀbedīn, the son of Imam Hussein (who it is said smiled for the first time since his father’s death; Yaʿqūbī, II, p. 309).

The above account has been given in some detail just to explain how steeped in blood this entire history is, and particularly the tragic split between Shiia and Sunni Islam. To tell the whole story in detail would require a book rather than an essay, and interested readers can do their own research on this matter. Suffice it say here, that this split is ultimately the cause (along with a myriad of other factors, mostly involving human ignorance) of the violence that has spilled out finally onto the streets of Paris in November 2015, and that has prompted and caused the bitter conflicts inside Iraq and Syria that are still ongoing. When computers malfunction, one can reboot them back to a previous start point, the last time they actually functioned correctly. If one were to reboot history, where would one reboot it to ? To just prior to 9/11 ? To just prior to the USA/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 ? To just before the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that triggered World War One ? To just prior to the Battle of Karbala ? To just before the crucifixion of Jesus ? To just prior to the fall of the angels as recounted in the Book of Enoch ? For the time being I would be content to reboot it back just before June 2016 and the fatal Brexit referendum. Not having that option, at least we can re-run it. Transpersonal historians can go back in time and examine in depth these tragedies from all sides. They can try and remain impartial. They can look at the sad stories of wars, violence, cruelties, murders and so on, and try and heal, retrospectively the pain of all those involved, on all sides. They can be like something of an intellectual red cross, criss crossing the battlefields of history and trying to bring healing and succour to the dead of all sides. This is what I have done with brexit and why I am calling for a second referendum.

Both Shiias and Sunnis are full of accusations against each other. But genuine Islamic scholars and philosophers are not, and it has been my own good fortune to meet some of these and to work with them. The Shi’ia (including the Alawites) have been saying for 1400 years that the violence inherited by some groups of Sunnis is actually arising from their ignorance of the real meaning and purpose of esoteric or spiritual Islam. These Shiias say these Sunnis have as much link to Islam as Christians who just observe Christmas because they like the presents. So for them, they see an Islam that has been instead turned into a kind of shopping trip to the Meccan malls and the performance of a few antiquated rituals whose meaning is lost (like throwing stones at the devil pillar) etc. Likewise, the Sunni accuse the Shiia of constructing an elaborate theology of projected elements, in which Ali and the other Imams, and Fatima, Ali’s wife, are all overlaid with a kind of elaborate superimposition of Zoroastrian and Gnostic elements, that may make sense to an overblown theosophical imagination, but are hardly understandable in ethereal world. For example,. In Shi’ism much is made of the theosophical glory of Fatima, daughter of Muhammad and wife of Imam Ali. Fāṭima was counted among the Prophet’s house (ahl al-bayt) the five people of the mantle (ahl al-kesāʾ), and the people of the ordeal (mobāhala) and thus occupies a central place in the pleroma of the immaculate ones, enjoying ontological, initiatory, and eschatological privileges of the same order as those attributed to the Prophet and the Imams. Her luminous pre-existential entity, issuing from the divine light thousands of years before the creation of the world, devoted itself to the praise of God while circumambulating the divine throne. Her name, like those of all the people of the mantle, was derived from a divine name (al-Fāṭer “the Creator”). She was present in the light of the fourteen impeccable ones when it was placed in Adam’s loins (ṣolb). It was because of this light that angels were ordered to prostrate themselves before him (Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, pp. 219 ff.; Ibn Bābūya, 1385/1966, pp. 6, 209; idem, 1405/1985, p. 255). Among the names God taught to Adam (Koran 2:31-33) were those of the people of the mantle, including that of Fāṭima (Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, p. 217; Forāt, p. 56). Her conception and birth were miraculous. Her origin was in a fruit from paradise, often identified as an apple or a date, that Moḥammad had eaten during one of his ascensions and that had become “the water of his loins” (Forāt, pp. 75-76; Ibn Bābūya, 1385/1966, pp. 183-84). According to one tradition, this fruit had previously been touched by the sweat and a plume from the wing of the angel Gabriel (Forāt, pp. 321-22). It was for this reason that the Prophet always said that Fāṭima was a celestial being in human form (ḥūrāʾ ensīya), that she emitted the perfume of paradise, and that she had a name in heaven (usually Manṣūra). Fāṭima spoke with her mother while still in the womb. All the most pious women recognized from pre-Islamic religions were present at her birth, namely, Sarah (Sārā), Āsīa, Sephora (Ṣafūrāʾ), and especially Mary the mother of Jesus (Ibn Rostam, p. 9; Ḥosayn, pp. 48 ff.). These names are often linked with that of Fāṭima, and parallels with Mary are particularly frequent, parallels emphasized by Massignon in all his works on Fāṭima (cf. Ayoub, 1976, pp. 165 ff.; idem, 1978, s.v.; McAuliffe, 1981). Yet Fāṭima’s superiority to other women is always underscored. She is given the epithet “the Great Lady/the Best of Free Women” (sayyedat/ḵīārat al-nesāʾ/al-ḥarāʾer; cf. the epithet of the mother of the qāʾem “the Great Lady/the Best of Slave Women [al-emāʾ]; Noʿmānī, pp. 331 ff.; Ibn Qūlūya, pp. 54, 78, 123-24). At her birth Fāṭima pronounced sacred formulas and announced future events; the world was bathed in light (Ibn Šahrāšūb, pp. 119 ff.) And so on. Well, it sounds to me like Muhammad was truly delighted with his daughter. As a father of three girls myself, I know well that every father thinks his daughter is something magical and special, around whom the entire universe should revolve. So I recognise the source of these theosophical imaginings for what they are – the loving adoration of a fond father for his “special girl”. They are poetry. Indeed, it was Louis Massignon, is his study of the Alawites, who opened up to Western scholarship for the first real time, the in depth understanding of the full extent of adoration that Shiia mysticism places on Fatima and the other members of the Prophet’s household. Is there a problem here ? If we recognise that Shiia imaginings arise from love, why is that a threat worthy of death and persecution? The more you persecute a tradition, the more it picks up energy from the mystical Mundus Imaginalis, as Henry Corbin called it.

The challenge to peace historians and transpersonal peace historians especially, is how to find places of common confluence and agreement within the collective Mundus Imaginalis of humanity, so that these ancient wars can be put into museums of the imagination, where they belong, and we can all work together to repair, heal and reconcile the fractured tribes and peoples of actual humanity.

Another key question everyone is asking: is there a moderate Sunni opposition in Syria ? Yes of course there are large numbers of moderate Sunni Syrians who are fed up with the war, fed up with violence, and who want nothing more than to get Syria back to living in peace. The way forward is for this moderate Sunni population to become part of a ceasefire process, and to agree to vent their political ambitions in a democratic direction rather than to continue with armed struggle, which simply plays into the hands of the extremist Wahhabi and externally funded Al Quaeda and KIL (Isil) armed opposition groups. Likewise the West must stop absolutely and irrevocably from funding and supporting these extremist Sunni rebel groups. The only truly “moderate” Sunni groups are those willing to stop fighting and join an actual ceasefire, to sit round the table politically in Damascus, and to work out a road map to peace. Nor should there be preconditions that Assad should go, as the USA demands constantly. It is not up to the USA to dictate the political map of Syria, and it never has been. Imagine if such a situation had happened inside the USA. Imagine a group of extreme terrorist Christian right wing Catholic fanatics had declared Texas an independent state and were smuggling in arms from all over Latin America to support their cause. They were now also blowing up buildings all over California with the help of foreign powers. Imagine Italy, Spain and France started sending huge amounts of weapons to support their cause, through covert means. Then France declares the USA President has to step down before peace talks can begin. Crazy, right? But that is exactly what the USA has been doing in Syria. Yes, crazy indeed.

So in Syria the absolutely priority is a ceasefire. The normalisation of political relationships back to a peaceful mode of discourse. The return of democratic faith in institutions which can be restored, and rebuilt. A date should be set for national elections, in which all Syrians, including those living in temporary exile, can be registered. Foreign fighters in the country should leave, and disband their arsenals and factions. Kil (ISIL) probably won’t do this voluntarily. They can be reasoned with and senior Muslim scholars can point out the theological error of their whole Caliphate project and the fact that what they are doing is anti Islamic, and has no sanction whatsoever from Sunni theological or legal opinion. Their funding sources can be shut down and all Middle Eastern states can agree to work jointly on this. The authentic voice of Sunni theologians and jurists can speak loud and clear against the Kil (Isil) vision. Syrian Sunni leaders can agree to a formula, as in Lebanon, whereby constitutionally all the factions and layers of Syria’s complex cultural and religious and political mosaic can work together. Constitutional experts and political scientists can assist them, to come up with a formula such as De Hondt advised for the solution of Northern Ireland’s complex political fracture lines, whereby each different cultural faction is guaranteed representation in parliament. Shiias, Sunnis and Alawites, Druze, Christians – all can sign a peace pact agreeing to work together for the good of Syria and for the rebuilding of the country. Once Kil (Isil) is sent packing (either through theological reasoning or through military reasoning) the international community can help rebuild Syrian society as the mosaic of elements living in harmony that it once was. Schools can reopen, hospitals get going again, power plants be rebuilt, shops and businesses restart, and the refugees living abroad, in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Europe and elsewhere can return and play a part in the rebuilding of this ancient and beautiful nation.

For this to happen, there has to be above all a ceasefire and a peace treaty between esoteric (Alawite, Sufi, Shiia) interpretations of religion, and exoteric interpretations of religion (Sunni). The scholars representing the different parts of the complex equation that is Islam need to sit down, and as it were remember what it is truly to be a Muslim. Personally, I think this has been long lost sight of in the fog and miasmas of a thousand battlefields. It is easier, I think to say what it is to not be a Muslim, and I think we can all agree that the terrorists who killed 129 people and wounded hundreds more in Paris the other day, are not Muslims in any way shape or form, except perhaps in their own diseased imaginations. Nor are the forces of Kil (Isis) who are rampaging in Syria and Iraq, raping, killing, looting, and terrorising. If any Western policy makers or intelligence operatives have helped and assisted the rise of Kil (Isis) then I would ask frankly, is that really where 10,000 years of European and Middle Eastern history have brought us? Is that where the quintessence of the European enlightenment has led us, to support such primitive and violent ideas and to allow them to nearly overwhelm one of the last bastions of esoteric secularism (Syria) that still exists in the middle east ? Or should we not perhaps give a sigh of relief that at least our Slavic neighbours in Russia have intervened realising what is indeed at stake, and taken up the baton that the old Templars dropped long ago, knowing that sometimes, some causes actually need the strength of steel to protect the gentle interior of the heart. But the military and intellectual defeat of Kil (Isis) is only part of the work that is needed – the really difficult work will be the reconstruction of Syria after they are gone, and the reconstruction of Iraq – the repairing of the wounds between Shiia and Sunnis, the repairing of the long conflict between exoteric and esoteric Islam, the establishment of a genuine peace treaty between Shia and Sunni and Sufi Muslims, not in a way which threatens non-Muslims, but in a way which once again declares that Islam, truly and genuinely, wants to become a religion, a path, a sunna, towards an holistic, integral, authentic and spiritually empowering peace.

Such an Islam could sign peace treaties with all other religions (as in the Interfaith Peace Treaty – https://interfaithpeacetreaty.wordpress.com/) and such an Islam could work with Judaism and Christianity and all other faiths, in rebuilding this planet away from war and violence, and back towards the pristine divinely authored world that it is meant to be from the beginning. Such an Islam could help us collectively reopen the Golden Gate in the eastern wall of the old city of Jerusalem and see a peace tent on the temple mount where peace pilgrims from all over the world can join together in common pilgrimage and prayer, discussion and debates, aimed towards peace and joyism, not war and terrorism.

Such is the vision that IIPSGP stands for, and that our work is intended to facilitate. Our Commentaries on the Jewish, Christian and Muslim scriptures are intended to provide something of the detailed scholarship that will be needed for such an interfaith peace breakthrough. The proposal of transpersonal historiography provides the scientific underpinning for this venture in theological reconciliation. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Middle East can provide the structural architectonic that can help to make such as rebuilding process possible. The Centre for Peace Policy Research based here at the Castle of the Muses can help persuade Western diplomats, and foreign and defence policy experts that the prioritisation of peace is now an absolute moral imperative for mankind. Instead of just funding increases in military expenditure and intelligence and security spending, all countries also have a duty, in our view, to spend at least one percent of the total defence budget on active and proactive peace policy proposals and initiatives. Please join us in this work, and together we can succeed. Rather than cursing the darkness, let us light the candles in our hands, as Rumi said. So the above text has been necessary to explain depth what I personally, and what IIPSGP stands for in relation to Islamic conflict resolution, and the philosophical tensions that Islam has brought into the world. We must not let Brexit go ahead, or that will go down in history as yet another tragedy where an entire noble nation (the UK) has been torn apart from within over a totally stupid and ignorant cause (“We hate the fascist EU”). Europe is not the problem, from a genuine Islamic perspective.

Indeed, other great European Islamic and Sufi intellectuals like René Guenon, Fritjhof Schuon and many others, stand for a far more intelligent, and philosophically sensitive form of Islam than the disastrous Wahhabist doctrines which seem to be pulling the strings in Washington DC and London, and partly, if you look carefully, to have been funding the brexit vote campaign. Such more philosophical Muslims might also ask questions about 9./11 and wondering how it is on earth possible that Al Qaeda could have pulled off such an attack without inside help that brought the buildings down from integral demolition. So rather than wanting to break up the UK, such thinkers would much rather see the documents sorted in the Foreign and Commonwealth office, revealing how much the UK state knew about 9/11 being a false flag operation, for example, when we participated in invading Iraq in 2003, against all international legal norms. If Scotland breaks away we will lose the right to see these documents and they will be shredded. Truth will never come out. It looks decidedly as if the same forces that engineered 9/11 behind the scenes have also engineered Brexit and for very similar reasons. The fig leaf excuse that it is the will of the people is so blatantly false, given that the vote was fiddled by fraudulent and illegal data manipulation and overspent leaver budgets. The hue and cry to blame all of this on Russian looks like a simple blind to take the eye of the real ball. Authentic Islam is about courtesy, wisdom and the love of truth. The true Sunna of Islam is to find truth by whatever means and to fight sand struggle for truth. To stay inside the EU gives more leverage of the average UK citizen to be able to find out truth and to resist the malign ever watchful surveillance state that is sorting up in what used to be the UK. An Islamophobic and surveillance state which is anti terrorist, have popped up, which denigrates Islam at every possible opportunity – yet what if this is all based on a lie ? Queen Victoria’s last close friend was Abdul  Karim, a Muslim from Agra in India. He was both loyal and devoted to her personally, and he even taught her Hindustani (as it was called) a task which she greatly enjoyed in her later years. Victoria would certainly have looked askance at a policy which was now threatening the survival of the very United Kingdom over which she presided, and whose break up would have huge implications for the nature of the Commonwealth. So my argument is that authentic and intelligent Muslims who are not traitors to the existence of the UK, would in fact like Abdul Karim, be opposing Brexit with every breath  of their reserves of energy.  Instead of wasting our breath in endless arguments and future battles over brexit and its consequences, the truly Islamic thing to do here is to submit to God, the Absolute, not a fake referendum held under bogus terms back in 2016, and to try to work for peace in the Middle East, for a just and moderate end to the tragic conflict in Syria, for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict, to find out who actually did 9/11 as the federal grand jury in New York will be investigating over coming months. Suspend Brexit. It’s a complete red herring meant to take our minds of all these other truly important things. Above all it is a divisive script meant to break up the UK and destroy our spiritual and moral unity as a nation. To retain our unity we have to stay inside the EU, and work to reform it from within. Any other option is going to lead to disunity and destruction. And since Islam is about praising and celebrating the divine unity of being itself, and is effectively an applied ontology, so too Muslims throughout Europe as well as all other religious followers, should welcome the work the EU is doing for peace and not seek to undermine it.


JEWISH RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: What about the Jewish perspective on brexit ? Judaism is a very ancient religion, and was already old when its scriptures were translated into greek in the Musaeon of Alexandria. It has a continuous history of speculation about ethics since at least the time of the Book of Job, which wondered in poetry about the fairness, justice and injustice of the world. In the teachings of the sages enshrined in the Pirke Abboth the golden rule prevailed. To do good is the essnce of the Jewish faith. Enshrined in the works of Maimonides Jewish ethics likewise teaches that Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean can be squared with the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. The Qabalah gives even more detailed teachings about he metaphysical basis underlying ethics, and reveals that the historical narratives of Genesis and Exodus are essentially teaching stories that enable intelligent Jewish thinkers to understand how and why God acts in and through history. Many Jews have become in the context of European history, deep scientists, such as Marx or Freud or Einstein, who are impatient with waiting for God to act, and felt that it is necessary for man to seize the reins of history and act directly, whether or not God is going to make some new manifestation or not – we simply cannot wait any longer for justice. Therefore to deliberately set about creating economic and political situation whereby the UK would break up, and Scotland seek separation sand Ireland seek reunification and the UK go down in history as yet another failed Hubristic enterprise, would not be something that any Jewish intellectuals of distinction would countenance, The UK has on the whole been kind to the Jewish community, and given them sanctuary when many other states were pursuing anti semitic policies. After King James bought about the union of Scotland, England and Wales and launched Great Britain and indeed Northern Ireland on its long history, esoteric forces were at work which saw in Judaism a sister faith to the traditional Christianity that mainstream populations upheld. Out of this Jewish-Christian ensemble, after the readmittance of the Jews under Cromwell, freemasonry developed as a universalising context of pansophist aspiration, with the long term goal of universal peace and well being, through the advancement of science, as the goal to which the UK was pledged. John Dee, who coined the phase the British Empire, also bequeathed this vision to his protégé Suir Francis Bacon and so the British scientific enlightenment was launched. John Selden, known as the Rabbi of England, likewise helped steer this project forwards. How would it possibly then for the Jewish people living in the UK to wilfully seek to break up the UK, in the hope of making some quick profits out of the disaster capitalism that might ensue. Some people would say that brexit is indeed a conspiracy, but personally speaking, I cannot believe that any believing Jews would have participated consciously in such a monstrous deception of the British and Irish people. However that said, there might be some secularised, legalistic or extremist Zionist factions who have felt that the UK deserves to go like Israel into the wilderness, and to be humbled among the nations, and to fall from its arrogant heights of once imperial glory, and to watch like Job its former glory be stripped away. Is it possible that such extreme Zionists would take pride and pleasure in watching the UK break apart and Scotland slip away, and in seeing Europe filled with conflict and suffering as a result of all the uncertainty arising from Brexit ? I have heard some extremist Rabbis even say that Europe deserves its sufferings because after all “Hitler was European and the Nazis were all inspired by a kind of pan-European racism” and therefore all the massive disruptive waves of immigration into Europe and the rise of Islamic terrorism in Europe, and even brexit and the rise of neo-popularism, all these are resulting from the fact that the God of Israel is angry with Europe and has marked Europe down for destruction. The UK however, as a righteous nation, can still escape in turn if it leaves Europe and the coming slaughter of Europe and Europeans will pass them over. Some Jews actually seem to believe this, and some may well have campaigned for brexit as a result. In this scenario Britain goes like Moses into the promised land of Brexit to live in the desert  of poverty and international humiliation, a laughing stock among nations – but it is all worth it, because Europe is the new Egypt. Such sentiments however, are difficult to square with actual authentic Jewish ethics, and seem rather the remains, of demented settlers and extreme religious Zionists who feel they are fighting everyday on the front line of history, and that whoever is not with them is against them. Personally I cannot believe in a God who wants the destruction of every other nation on earth except Israel, including all European nations and the entire UK, and the entire Islamic world. Some extremist Zionists seem to olive in a crazed ethical world where because of the holocaust, God intends every other nation on earth to perish, starting with the Palestinians and Europeans, and all Muslim nations, and only Israel will survive. Some extreme American Christian Zionists also seem to believe this.  These forces were certainly behind Trump and largely behind the brexit vote in both demonstrable and covert ways. But it is a false theology, with an image of God as a barbaric destroyer of nations. It is the Old Testament at its nightmarish worst, when all the pagans are simply to be destroyed. Merlin Stone’s The Paradise Papers, which I read at the age of 26, cured me of that fake way of thinking.  It is also demonstrably unfactual to blame the European Union for Hitlerism, when in fact the EU came into being out of the ashes and fires of the defeat of Hitlerism and all it stood for, and as a way of ensuring that such tragedies should never again happen on the soil of Europe. One of the greatest European leaders was also Simone Weil, a French Jewess who survived the war years and became a great liberal politician and President of the European Parliament. The genuine French Jewish intellectual community, which has given many savants and thinkers to the world, is 100% behind the European Union and its mission of creating a haven of civilised values in a turbulent world. So too, the Jewish intellectuals of London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow, are also largely behind the EU and the UK remaining as a honest and good member thereof. Brexit has come also to them as a total shock, since it brings instability and chaos and the rise of neo-popularism and nationalism in its train. Even Jewish members of the Labour Party are by and large in favour of the EU and this is why they have found the silence of Jeremy Corbyn so bewildering – why on earth does he seem to combine disaster socialism with a blatant disregard f the genuine labour internationalist traditions of the British Jewish community ? Whereas Tony Blair form of democratic socialism was able to attract many positive Jewish intellectuals to help in that project, Corbyn seems less able. This would surely be reversed if only they would come out squarely in favour of a second referendum and campaigning to remain.


  1. SIKH RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: The same applies as above regarding Hindu and Muslim immigrants who have arrived in the UK in recent decades, and who have adapted to UK life admirably. The ethics of Guru Nanak and the 10 Gurus require one to pursue dharma and avoid dishonourable actions, and to adhere to strict standards of truthfulness, morality and kindness. Many Sikhs live throughout Europe, although the vast majority are in the UK. Many Sikhs live also in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and so the prospect of the UK breaking up over brexit must be abhorrent to right thinking Sikhs as to any other UK citizens. What is to be gained from leaving the EU ? Not a lot, apart from abstract and meaningless slogans like “sovereignty”, or “the will of the people”. What is to be lost ? Perhaps the very fabric and structure of the UK itself, a nation which has existed since 1603. There may be one or two fanatical Sikhs who are anti British and who would relish the thought of the break up of the UK, and see it as final revenge for the Anglo Sikh wars in which the British conquered the once independent Sikh state of the Punjab. Some Sikh warriors might chuckle and say that the wheel of karma has now turned full circle, and by helping brexit go ahead, if they can push in the final twist of the knife blade of karma, so be it. But this would be contrary to actual Sikh teachings in fact. There is now war ongoing between the Sikhs and Britain and in fact the great majority of Sikhs have become thoroughly law abiding and decent UK citizens. Some might have even joined the conservative party thinking this is a sign of their own loyalty and affection for the their adopted new country. In this matter they might feel therefore duty bound to support the prime Minister and leader of the Tory Party in pushing Brexit, so as not to show disloyalty. But the ethical duty of loyalty is over-ridden by the ethical duty of preventing the break up itself of one’s own country. Nor does a state of war exist between the UK and Europe, except what has been created in the minds of right wing politicians. If Sikhs study the spiritual traditions of European culture and history, as well as Irish and British and Scottish history, they will find it is very much in Britain’s interests to remain a member of the EU. Sikhs are famous as good shopkeepers and so appreciate economical arguments – the economic arguments for remaining in the EU are overwhelming, as a little study will confirm.


  1. ZOROASTRIAN RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: There is a small but influential community of Zoroastrians living in the UK, many of who came from Bombay. Mumbai and who have settled here over the recent decades. One of the first Zoroastrians to enter Parliament was a liberal MP in the time of Queen Victoria. His descendent is current a Liberal Democratic activist who used to live in Harrow and now runs a spiritual peace retreat centre in the Forest of Dean. Zoroastrians have always known that sometimes one has to make a choice between good and evil, and you cannot sit on the fence. Brexit has ben an agonising decision facing the UK, and during the first referendum in 2016, not all the facts were known, the politicians leading the leave campaign deliberately lied to win votes, and they also overspent the agreed limits, which bought crucial votes at he last minutes and so swung the campaign,. These facts have only come out recently and gave been released in court. Since Zoroastrians are taught to cultivate good thoughts, good words and good deeds, in no sense can confirming to the mistaken and illegal decision of the 2016 referendum result be said to be confirming to the teachings of Zoroaster. On the contrary, and given the huge negative impact Brexit will have on the UK, including almost certainly its break up, Zoroastrians have a certain moral duty to fight against Brexit and to campaign to have it rescinded. The most famous recent British Zoroastrian, Freddie mercury the lead singer of the pop group Queen, about whom a great film has just been made, and who lived in Germany for a time, would certainly have been in favour of the UK remaining in the EU.


  1. HUMANIST RESPONSES TO THE ETHICS OF BREXIT: But what about non spiritual people in the UK ? Al the above arguments for followers of different spiritual faiths might be well and god, but the vast majority of UK citizens and voters are actually “non-religious”. So it follows that the vast majority of leave voters are likewise non-religious, and let us therefore use the term “humanist” to describe their belief system. Humanists do not believe in any external deity or pantheon of Gods; they tend not to believe in any moral or ethical values apart from what their own conscience or reason or desires indicate to be true. A humanist believes that we human beings have a duty to set and navigate our own moral values and then try and live in accord with them. A humanist might also live in a world of total moral relativism in which there are no fixed absolutes such as right and wrong, and there is simply ”what they feel like doing at any one time”. On the dark spectrum of humanism is what is called moral nihilism, and this was addressed by Dostoevsky in his book Crime and Punishment. If there is no God, as Nietzsche said, and if there is no good and evil, and there is no moral arbiter to decide what is right or wrong, then only power matters. What is right is what brings me personally more power and happiness and pleasure. But even on this criteria Brexit fails, since it will most certainly no bring greater power , pleasure or happiness to the people of the UK. Indeed, it is almost certainly going to bring the total opposite, and indeed, already has. The very few it will being happiness to are the extreme Brexiteers who will personally profit from it, for example by not having their offshore bank accounts monitored or taxed, or by having their weapons sales clipped and limited. There is also a humanism on the left that argues for forms of Marxism and socialism, and Jeremy Corbyn and his coterie seem to believe in this path, and they seem to be waiting to enact a form of disaster socialism. They will not oppose brexit, because they know it will bring disaster to the UK, but they hope that in the wake of the chaos and collapse that will take over, they will then get into power and enact their utopian socialism. This seems a thoroughly misguided and morally bankrupt form of pseudo-socialism in practice. Socialist humanism is in fact a pan-European tradition and thus the Labour party should be showing its solidarity with working class and socialist movements right across Europe, including with France, where a new generation of youth are protesting the difficult living conditions that French people now find themselves in. So humanism is in fact a European phenomenon – it was the renaissance in Italy that gave birth to the intellectual tools with which the challenge the hegemony of the mediaeval church, by encouraging scholarship, philology, the study of original greek and Latin Texts, the rediscovery of Platos writings and the works of the hermetic scriptures, all these contributed to the realisation that any kind of absolutist hierarchy of power is not an intelligent way to organise society. That democracy, the rule of law, liberal values, stemming from the Ancient greek democrat miracle, as well as similar democratic practices among the Romans, Norse, Slavs and Celtics are what actually gives Europe it beating heart. It was the republic of Florence that created a democratic milieu in which intellectual freedom flourished enough to give rise to the European renaissance. In which the rebirth of humanistic values enabled us to think in ethical and metaphysical conundrums out for ourselves once again. For humanist thinkers to therefore argue against Europe, and the European Union, which is richly impregnated with the humanist renaissance and enlightenment, would be for the UK to cut itself off from the very sources that powered our own Elizabethan renaissance in the first place. Scotland likewise had an important renaissance period and Mary Queen of Scots was steeped in renaissance culture from both French, Italian and Scottish traditions. Later the Jacobite renaissance under James 6th of Scotland briefly sought to prevent wars breaking out in Europe between extreme Catholic and extreme protestants, and he married of his children into both Catholic and Protestant royal families try to bind Europe together into a continent of peace, and prevent its self-destruction. James inspired Francis Bacon and the entire Scientific renaissance of British histyory, as well as the works of Shakespeare, continuing on from Queen Elizabeth. Shakespeare was a typical renaissance genius of the times who set many of his plays in Europe and drew on a wide fund of European literature, as well as Scottish and Celtic themes for his plays., and has been called the first European humanist playwright because he knew the sources of human tragedy lies in our own moral shortcomings. Brexit is a tragedy which Shakespeare would well wish us to be liberated from, and like all good humanists, he would have been appalled at the incredibly folly of human nature that engineers its own self destruction, time and time again, even entire nations, from failings of hubris, pride and arrogance, which is the brexit temptation. Britain’s true greatness lies in a sense of fair play, a sense of moral limitations and humility, a sense of love and solidarity and compassion for all classes and walks of society. Brexit on the contrary is monstrous aberration on the British people whose essential theme is arrogance, hatred, fear and hybris. The true humanist tradition in the UK represented by Shakespeare, Bacon, Coleridge, and today’s Bards, poets and philosophers like A.C Grayling, are all diametrically opposed to Brexit as a ridiculous folly, worthy of one of Shakespeare comedies perhaps, peopled by fools.


  1. ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITIES, NEW AGE AND BREXIT: There is another tradition active in the UK and these practioners could be called generally speaking followers of alternative spirituality. This is a popular tradition in Britain and includes many diverse forms and beliefs. Generally speaking, these are people who revere Glastonbury as the heartland of ancient Goddess culture, who go to Findhorn, who often go to Stonehenge and Avebury for mystical or transcendental adventures, and who could be said to be the latter day descendents of the hippy culture of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Often they have been involved in the rave scene of the 1990’s and they love organising dance parties with psy-trance or 5 rhythms music playing. They have tried various different drugs for achieving states of transcendental consciousness, and sometimes go to events like the great Psychedelic academic conference at Greenwich University. The European Transpersonal Association is keyed in to all these networks with members and practioners in every European country including the UK. No one country has greater access to the Transpersonal dimensions of being than any other. We are all equidistant from eternity. Others are into dowsing or ley lines or UFO’s. Many are followers of different musical traditions pioneered in the UK including rock and psychedelic music – their heroes are Bob Dylan, the Grateful Dead, the Incredible String Band, Van Morrison, the Beatles, Leonard Cohen, and many more recent heroes and heroines of the pop music world. Many of these followers of alternative spirituality will go the Glastonbury Music festival and many lf the other festivals that pop up in the UK during the summer months: Buddha filed, Doun the Rabbit Hole in Scotland and so on. This alternative spiritual scene in the UK is old and has been going since at least the 1920’s when Glastonbury was already seen as a significant mystical place, and Wellesley Tudor Pole started the Lamplighter movement, and got Chalice Well rebuilt as a sacred site. Then Sir George Trevelyan started the Wrekin Trust movement in the 1970s and inspired a whole new generation of alterative spiritual seekers to explore the fields of inner consciousness. The vast majority of such practioners and explores, of what can be loosely called New Age consciousness, would have backed remain, but a very small number might have succumbed to what can be called the argument of spiritual exceptionalism. This argues that the UK is a pioneer of religious freedom, and that the UK landscape has given birth to some vitally important spiritual movements in modern times, including not just the rebirth of the Druids and Wiccan movement, who speak up for pagan rights in a way that is very principled and powerful, but also all kinds of alterative and new age and spiritual movements, that arise from the realisation that reality is not merely or only a material manifestation, but also a psychic reality in which our mission and work is to develop as spiritual beings in incarnational cycles. We need therefore a political system that assists and enables this level of reality to become easier and not more and more difficult. Now some people connected to the alternative movement might say that leaving the EU is a good idea because British culture is light years ahead of Europe culture when it comes to alterative society (I have heard this said). However I find it hard to believe this argument, which can be called a form of spiritual exceptionalism. It is also demonstrably simply untrue. Many, indeed most European countries inside the EU, are also welcoming to this kind of alternative culture, and large parts of France, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc. have pockets and indeed large swathes of their culture which have embraced firmly the kind of hippie alterative philosophies that California in the 1960’s and Glastonbury in the 2000’s have so eagerly embraced. The difference is that in Europe these values are almost mainstream. In Germany and Denmark and Sweden and France and Finland and Slovenia and many other European countries, alternative medicine is widely available, and you are not thought weird if you have a long hair and like to smoke roll ups (or something stronger). If you go into pharmacies you find homeopathic medicines generally available as regarded as mainstream, not alternative at all. Large numbers of alternative festivals, for music and spiritual healing and mini-glastonbury type experiences take place all over Europe in the Summer months. In Portugal festivals such as Boom, Andances, Frequency etc. are often full of British people and others from all over Europe enjoying the music and the “alternative vibes”. The same with festivals in Germany, Holland, France, Sweden, Czech republic etc. all Summer long. (Incidentally, the same kind of alternative culture is going strong in Israel, where French is the third most common language spoken after Hebrew and English, such that Israel is almost culturally like an offshoot of Europe in the Middle East, but that is a whole other story). Likewise the values that the alternative culture of the UK has embraced are far more widespread and mainstream in European society than people realise, including belief in reincarnation, vegetarianism, non-violence, “free love”, musical experimentalism, a certain bohemian life style etc. Indeed, these things were going on in Germany and France over a hundred years ago, and Europe was already the world centre of Bohemian culture when California had hardly even come into existence.  The enlightenment was already in full swing in Europe with thinkers such as Leibnitz and Descartes, Swedenborg, William Blake, Herbert of Chirbury,  working out the nature of ultimate reality, when California only consisted of a few mission stations. So rather than arguing for an exceptionalism tradition, that the UK is so advanced spiritually and so “new age” that we ought to leave the horrible European Union to go and pioneer a new age of freedom from rules and a hippie paradise, we ought to grow up and realise that Europe as a continent has been a bulwark of freedom for centuries, and has been pioneering experimental thought and ideas ever since Plato founded the first Academy in 387 BC. Instead, if we are to talk about exceptionalism, it is really European exceptionalism we should talk about. Europe has been a haven of freedom and democracy and enlightenment since the times of ancient Greek and Latin Classical culture, and before them the prior Etruscans, and  Celtic Druids,  all of which more or less invented the norms and values of modern European civilisation, and which arose out of our indigenous pagan and ancient historical roots. The people of the British Isles have always been part of this culture, and now is not the time to be breaking ourselves adrift from this general continent-wide experiment in liberal democracy and intellectual enlightenment. European values of tolerance, harmony, moderation and peace, which are written into the foundational documents of the EU, need perfecting and developing and honouring. We need to increase the peace level of European states. We need to solve the civil conflicts that are raging inside a few European nations. We need to end the fear and the class war that is going on between rich and poor, including information rich and information poor. The real struggle now is for knowledge, liberation and intellectual enlightenment. In this the UK and the EU should be working together, not as rivals, and not as enemies. If we do brexit, suspicion will naturally arise, and inevitably, rivalry and conflict. Especially as Scotland and Ireland leave the UK, and the UK nongovernment propaganda machine starts trying to blame the EU for “meddling in UK affairs”. There will be a determined push to silence the voices of Scottish independence, and likewise those  voices in Northern Ireland who wish to rejoin the Republic of Ireland rather than leave the EU in as brexit Britain. Fighting and conflict may well result. Instead of this nightmare scenario, we should be mature and wise and have the foresight to realise that Brexit is a dangerous game, and that far from alterative spirituality practioners supporting it, we should opposing it and seeing through its lies. If practioners of alternative spirituality, who include psychics, clairvoyants and mystic—scientists of all types, who often attend the Mind Body Spirit events that now take place all over Britain and Europe, and which were pioneered in the UK in the early 1980’s – if they have such powers of foresight, let them use it, and see how to find a way for the UK to remain in the EU and in such a way that all the people of the UK and Europe feel happy about this. The only way I can see would be by a second fair and honest referendum. There are of course some spiritual practioners of meditation and psychic disciplines who say one should be above politics, and simply one should not speak out about such things. “£If brexit was voted for by the majority in 2016, then one should just accept this result and get on with it. It must be the will of the heavenly hierarchy of the Hidden Masters to see Brexit pushed through and to oppose it is wrong. One must just accept it.” But this argument is as specious as it is ill informed. The mathematics of the 2016 advisory referendum was not such as would give this confidence in implementing it, given the hugely destructive implications that will arise from brexit. Therefore to NOT speak out against it, would be an act of treason, and an act of intellectual betrayal, just as not speaking out against the Nazis as the first persecutions of the Jews and Communist and Gypsies began to pick up speed in Germany. The fact that the mob are baying for Jewish blood (or anti brexit blood) only makes our duty to speak up even clearer. Another point sometimes made by some of my new age friends, is that “Brexit is a terrible fire we have to go through, it is something that the Fates have ordained for the UK as their special duty and we must just grin and bear it and get on with it, stoically”. They say the way will be difficult, but like Moses promising a Promised land eventually, the Uk will eventually, after much trial and tribulation, reach a promised land of freedom, peace and plenty. Again, with all due respect, this seems to be an entirely false argument, based on complete ignorance about UK history, politics and spirituality. Only someone who believed in active self-harming as a spiritual duty (adn there are masochistic types who like to stick knives into themselves, or to flagellate with hard whips – interesting self-harming among adolescent girls in the UK is higher than any other country in Europe – a veritable outbreak – the canaries in the mine ?) could possibly argue that BECAUSE something is dangerous, self-destructive, actively harmful, and bound to end in chaos, suffering and harm to millions of people, THEREFORE it is a good thing. The flaw in this argument is so patently obvious that it is hard to know how to counter it, but unfortunately some people do confuse self-inflicted suffering with “spirituality” and not all new age spiritualities re beneficent. Some are literally suicide cults, like the Jonestown mass suicide, or the Solar Temple cult. Some people have argued that brexit does indeed bear the hallmarks of a religious cult, but if so, it would decidedly seem to be a cult based on self-harming since in the end it will be for the best. But this is always the argument of intellectually challenged and delusional cults – follow me, and I will make you suffer. But from where I am sitting, this is delusional and dangerous. Perhaps my colleague Prof Eileen Barker of the LSE, Europe and the UK’s leading academic expert on new religious movements, should add brexit to her list of cults as a dangerous and delusional new age cult which demonizes the European Union and expects members to do the same as the price of entry.  Sorry, I don’t support this delusion. Polly Toynbee, descendent of the great historian A.J Toynbee (who would be bending every sinew of the Royal Institute of International Affairs to prevent Brexit happening, whereas Chatham House is simply a supine accomplice in the brexiteers coup and seem to have sacked all their actual intellectuals and instead trumpets “ah we are a charity so can’t do politics” argument – whereas the Institute of Statecraft does so much blatant dark politics yet gets away with it – perhaps if you are doing right wing politics its ok, but anything left of Mussolini is outlawed ?)  of the Guardian has realised this finally and writes: A revolutionary cult has captured the Conservative party, whose crystal-clear agenda they never dare reveal when broadcasting. You have to read their outriders to understand their project. But unfortunately no one has really gone deep into what exactly this Brexit cult is and where it came from. But we can tell one thing – it is dangerous bad news. If something is dangerous and involves massive self-harm, avoid it. Wake up in time. Otherwise it is literally a suicide cult. I have noticed also that the more you tell Brexiteers things are going to get very very bad, the more they seem to get a steely look in their eye and say “lets press ahead full speed”. I seriously worry for the mental health of the UK politicians who are peddling these brexit delusory self-harm antics. So I would say – not all new age or alternative spirituality traditions are healthful. As Saint Paul said, we have to “test the spirits”. It seems to me as a philosopher of comparative spirituality and peace, that brexit does not pass this test.

Another point I would make against British spiritual exceptionalism, is that Europe is every bit as vibrant as the UK when it comes to esoteric movement and currents. Freemasonry flourishes in European countries, and esoteric groups, Christian, new Age, and esoteric, are in all European countries to a high degree of perfection and art. It is not only the UK that has its Glastonbury of its Totnes or its Brighton. Every Europe country is full of mysteries and wonder. So let us share all this with love and generosity together. Let us visit and travel in each other countries and find the magic everywhere, within and without. Other people who follow alternative spiritualities may say “well there’s nothing we can do – brexit is going to happen. We have no power. We are only little people. The Big powers that run the world have decided and we just have to get by in the shadows as usual. Once again Wisdom is losing the battle and the visionaries are being marginalized and written out of history. New age spirituality will provide a way of dealing with this, a kind of laissez faire acceptivity – a resignation to “whatever” with a shrug of the shoulders. To this I would say: this struggle is not over, it is still ongoing. Even if we can by our writing, our teaching, our thinking, our networking, and on research, make it even slightly less likely that the UK will go down all the way over the brexit cliff, then we have to struggle on and one until that happens. Others may say hat well, brexit doesn’t matter in the scheme of things, its only the environment that matters –its peak oil, or its feminism, or its ecology, or its vegetarianism or veganism, or its taking the right kinds of drugs etc. – people in alternative spiritually say all these kinds of things. Many of them are being silent and not  speaking out. They are just hoping it will all go away (which of course it won’t). Against this kind of laissez faire cynicism I would say: if you see a child stepping towards a cliff, about to –plummet to their death, you have moral and ethical and spiritual duty to prevent this happening. You have to stretch out a hand and try to warn them. That is why I have written this Journal, from a place of love for truth, peace and wisdom. Any genuine philosopher who loves the British and European philosophical tradition who is alive at this time would have done the same, whatever their political views. Many attempts have been made to identity what is unique and beautiful about European civilisation – but the fundamental insight is that of unity in diversity. Greek, Roman, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Finno-Ugric, Magyar, Basque and Slavic cultures all had pantheons of deities, first principles, Gods or archetypes, which cohered in a greater unity. European civilisation was one that embraced the many and the one simultaneously. The Hamito-Semitic Peoples, (Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, Egyptians, Canaanites) all of whom have also greatly influenced European civilisation over the millennia, also had their own pantheons, which finally found distillation in  the knowledge of the Qabalah, which influenced European intellectual rebirth of the Renaissance through the work of Cardinal Egidio and many others. The Celtic Druids thought in threes, everything is both one and three, and that underlay the Christian idea of the Trinity, which became Europe’s agreed common language for discourse about universal truths. But this idea is at root a pagan and primal concept, going back to the depths of European number mysticism. So it is with European nations and peoples – we are all slightly different and unique, a Finn is not the same as a Russian or a Slovene, or a Scot, or a French person etc. One writer who attempted to understand the spiritual meaning behind the diverse Europe nations was Maris Schindler, author of Europe a Cosmic Picture (New Knowledge Books, Sussex, 1975) who gave detailed histories of the different esoteric and soul currents of each different European nations and cultures, and explained how each was representing a different and parallel spiritual soul-essence, which were, in spite of their diversity, complementary and united-in-diversity. Maria came to the UK from Germany in 1938, authored books on Wagner and St Columba, and another one on painting called Pure Colour (1943), and founded the New School of Painting. She was a lover of the arts of Europe and somehow could commune with the inner work of the great artists, poets, visionaries, mystics and scientists of all European nations. Maria Schindler’s work was influenced by Dr Rudolf Steiner, Dr Walter Johannes Stein, and Dr Eugen Kolisko and Willi Sucher. Using this spiritual and Anthroposophical perspective as her baseline, Maria Schindler then explains in detail how the marvelous diversity of European cultures have kept alive ancient impulses and wisdom teachings, which are complementary and parallel to one another, but not identical. She explains how the Holy Grail myth was a symbolic way of explaining this teaching on a pan European basis, in which each individual order of Knighthood had a valuable and vital role to play in contributing to the overall Quest. One of the many insights in her marvelous book is that in the traditions of the Holy Grail there were 12 great transforming virtues, related to the course of the Sun as it moves in the year through the 12 signs of the Zodiac. A study of the character of the 12 distinct groups among the peoples of Europe reveals a connection of each group with the forces from one starry region. Britain, for example, has a special connection to the Scorpion and as is shown by the basic quality growing in the British people which is a  tolerance that is revealed in their historical patience. The 12 Signs and their respective virtues are as follows: January (Capricorn) Courage, February (Pisces) Silence and discretion, March (Aquarius) Magnanimity, April – Aries – devotion; May, Tauris, Equilibrium; June – Perseverance – Cancer;  July, Gemini, Selflessness; August, compassion, Leo; September, Virgo, Politeness; October, Libra, Contentedness; November, Scorpio, Patience; December, Control of the Tongue, Sagittarius. Each of the European nations then according to Schindler is working on developing one or more of these primary virtues according to their spiritual essence nature. It is interesting that here Britain is associated with Scorpio. Even the great Maharishi, Guru to the Beatles and founder of the Transcendental Meditation Movement, and who has inspired many spiritual teachings into our age, not least the most recent work of Buddha at the Gas Pump” a series of interviews with “awakeneing people”, pulled all his teachers out of the UK in the last years of his life, as he said that the UK was “a Scorpio nation and impossible to teach”. At that precise time I was working as secondary school religious studies teacher in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, where I served as head of religious studies and humanities, and I felt a bit saddened at this decision. I don’t think Maharishi actually understood the British character. Yes we are a stubborn and willful and sometimes rude people, somewhat eccentric and quirky, but that is because we are working on taming and humanizing the very energy of death and sex, the Scorpion energy, which is at once the most transcendental and the most profane of all the signs of the Zodiac. It is not surprising that the UK helped bring the Atomic bomb into existence. Brexit is a very Scorpion gesture, magnificent in its grandiloquent self-destructivity, yet having posed it as a possibility of the self-destruction of a nation, which is a very Scorpionic act, if we now choose to transmute that act of self-destruction into a transcendental death and rebirth experience, and become the elevated Eagle consciousness associated with the higher energies of Scorpio, and learn patience and tolerance, which is our fundamental duty as a country, then all will be well. We will take our place as one among the many honored stars of all the European nations, and continue to serve the universal Christ light that binds us all into an invisible unity, a Triune-in-One miracle of identity-in-difference. (See Schindler, p. 214). In the European renaissance the great Benedictine mystic Abbot Trithemius also said that each European nation has a special angel guiding its destiny, and he wrote an important book De Septem Secundeis (1508) in which he explained how different angels not only guide and steer different nations destiny, but also guide and steer different historical epochs. This idea is similar to my idea of transpersonal history, which however is a purely scientific hypothesis based on transpersonal psychology applied to historical science. Trithemius inspired Dr John Dee, magus to the Elizabethan renaissance and this aspect of the esoteric role that Britain has played with in the wider work of European esotericism, is important as explained in the important work by Mari Schindler, published way back in 1975 just after the UK had joined the European Union. From an esoteric perspective, to take Britain out of the EU, and to risk its own self-destruction is the act of lesser Scorpion intelligence, or what could be called Demonic or Draconic intelligence. One can see in fact that the voices most stridently calling for brexit in the UK political and cultural scene, evidence a form of egotism which is quite revealing,. They exhibit traits such as racism, xenophobia, hatred of others, anger, even violence, which sums up the worst traits of Scorpio. And their only response when warned of the lack of virtue in what they are doing, is to threaten self-harm. This is the psychological strategy of the Scorpio to a T. But the only antidote to this, is education, philosophy, transcendence, love. Scorpio has to realise it is not the only sign in the Zodiac and learn to allow the wisdom of other peoples, nations, cultures and signs to resonate. The people of England, in particular, have to realise they are only one more star nation on the bloc, and have to learn to live in harmony and peace with all the others, starting with the other nations existing in the British Isles, and then the other nations in the marvelous riches of the European continent. But in the alternative spiritual traditions of the UK, there are signs that this magnaminity is slowly being born,. The Rainbow nation of people who come together in Summer camps throughout the UK and now across Europe and the wider world, were stimulated by the Hippy vision of the 1960s and 1970’s in the UK, and have learned how to pioneer equality love and visionary-in action. Fromt the Rainbow nation perspective Brexit is an absurd anomaly that will make the coming together of younger rainbow people throughout Europe more difficult due to visas and border controls., not to mention all round impoverishment. It is also worth pointing out that particularly the younger generation are drawn to alterative spiritualities; the youth of the UK and Europe love to go on alternative music and spiritually and dance camps all summer long, just as they love to go to Ibiza and dance away into the wee small hours. Ecstasy of music and dance, ecstasy of consciousness and insight, a return to the ancient Shamanic roots of European culture stemming from the Magdalenian cultures of Europe 20,00 BC – all this is one continual wisdom stream of joy and dance and music and drumming. A flute has been found in Slovenia dating from 50,000 years ago, and nowadays Slovenian young pagans are making music in the ancient caves of the Karst region. The young people of the UK overwhelmingly voted in favour of the UK staying inside the EU. They want to continue to explore, to dance, to make music, to make love, to travel – all over Europe. To each, to work and to learn and to study, without visas and controls and political obstructions. Yet the old people of the UK who are seeking to impose Brexit on the youth of the UK will be held in contempt by future generations for ages to come. Brexit is an act of intergenerational warfare. One powerful group pushing brexit in England is the English Lodges of freemasons, probably – but they have fallen into the wrong hands. True freemasonry is pan-european phenomenon, and the Scottish, Welsh and Irish lodges need to reconsider whether brexit is actually in anyone interests whatsoever. Freemasonry has been a progressive force for alternative spirituality in modern European history and has inspired groups like the Theosophical Society, the Golden Dawn, the Anthroposophical Society and so on. (The Anthroposophical Society is very European in flavour and was founded by Dr Rudolf Steiner).  Some English freemasons practice a form of “English exceptionalism” arguing they are the best and only freemasons and they refuse to talk to or recognize their European colleagues, or even to Scottish freemasons. But this is ridiculous and a form of arrogance. Freemasonry is truly a pan-European phenomenon, and the museum in the headquarters of the Grand Orient in Paris documents the history of freemasonry in France as being something which was a kind of UNESCO club for intellectuals in the 18th century (especially the Lodge of the 9 Sisters)  and which gave birth to the very modern, democratic and liberal values and ideals on which the European Union itself is based. From the perspective of a historian of freemasonry then, brexit make absolutely no sense. There are Museums of Freemasonry in London (Great Queen Street), Paris (Rue Cadet), Brussels (Rue de Laeken),  Edinburgh (George Street). There are so many other excellent museums of freemasons across Europe it is worth listing them:  AUSTRIA “Schloss Rosenau” the Austrian Freemasons Museum Freimaurermuseum  –  Rosenau Castle, Zwettl, www.freimaurermuseum.at  http://wolfs.org/masonry/rosenau.html

BELGIUM – The Belgian Freemasonry Museum

www.museummacionicum.be/ http://www.mason.be/en/mus.htm



Musée du Grand Orient de France  –  Paris


Musée de la Grande Loge de France  –  Paris


Musée de la Grande Loge Nationale de Française  –  Paris, French National Grand Lodge


GERMANY – German Masonic Museum  –  Bayreuth, Deutsches Freimaurermuseum



GREECE – Masonic Museum of the Lodge ‘Phoenix of Corfu’ – National Grand Lodge of Greece


IRELAND – Grand Lodge of Ireland Museum – Freemasons’ Hall, 17 Molesworth Street, Dublin

The museum chronicles the origins, history and development of the Freemasons.  It was only recently opened to the public and exhibit highlights include masonic jewels, sketches, items of 18th century regalia and a reconstruction of a lodge meeting. The museum is open from June to August for pre-arranged guided tours.


ITALY – Compiano Masonic Museum – International Masonic Museum “Orizzonti Massonici”  –  Compiano, Parma



Masonic Library and Museum of the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy – http://www.glri.it/en/library.html

NETHERLANDS – ‘Prins Frederik’ Cultural Masonic Centre – The Hague, http://www.vrijmetselarij.net/GL/Start_E/cmc/tour/CMC1e.htm

PORTUGAL: Museu Maçónico Português, Rua do Grémio Lusitano, 25, 1200-211 – Lisboa, www.gremiolusitano.pt


Biblioteca Pública Arús


SWEDEN : Svenska Frimurare Orden Museum



Bibliotheca Masonica August Belz

Impresive resources. In german .


DENMARK: (The Grand Lodge of Denmark) is located on Blegdamsvej in the Østerbro area of Copenhagen; Blegdamsvej 23, 2100 København


UNITED KINgDOM: London, United Grande Lodge, Freemasonic Museum and library (Great Queen Street),

For details of freemasonry in all of Europe, including Russia, Switzerland Norway etc. see http://www.masonic-lodge.info/mli/mli1.htm

Given all this richness of shared Masonic culture it makes sense whatsoever from a freemasonic sense to be proposing Brexit on the basis of British “masonic exceptionalism”. In fact, it is a total betrayal of the oaths of loyalty, love and fraternity we owe to our European friends and neighbors, in concert with whom we have grown together over many years and centuries of common struggle and development. Freemasonry was brought to Britain by wandering Mediaeval masons (and before them ancient Classical mystery traditions), and then given back to Europe in the 18th century Golden Age of freemasonry. The UK inherited these mysteries and served as their guardian in dark times. Then we retransmitted them.  Now it is a common shared heritage of all European cultures.  Now we are poised on the edge of sharing a golden age of peace, and yet find our continent and our island under threat from strange threats, some known and others unknown or unidentified. The USA, which boasts many freemasonic rivers of influence, should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the EU and not fomenting Brexit. Likewise Russia, which now has total freedom for freemasonry again, so vibrant a part of 18th and 19th century Russian intellectual culture, with figures such as Novikov and Tolstoy and many others being freemasons. Now is not the time to cut and run, but now is the time to stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters across the whole continent. In the immortal words of Kant, who was very involved with freemasonry, now is the time to “Dare to Be Wise” (Sapere Aude).

The final point to observe, is that so much of modern alterative spirituality in the UK and European as a whole owes a great debt to the freemasonic traditions, whether it is known or not, since most of the occult and esoteric organisation of modern UK and Europe were founded by freemasons, such as Wicca, by Gerald Gardner, or The Theosophical Society, or many modern Druids Orders,  or the Golden Dawn. The fact that under Nazi and fascist racist persecution, countless freemasons were persecuted to death, and rounded up in Czechoslovakia, in France, and wherever Nazi and Fascist ideology took power, means we should not abandon the hard won unity and peace we have created on the continent of Europe in the aftermath of world war two. Even socialism and communism owed something to the masonic milieu in which they grew up, as I have documented in some of my published works including Towards a history of The Interrelations of Marxism and Esotericism: On the  Influence of Freemasonry on Marxist Intellectual History (1992). The anti Masonic propaganda of ignorant elitist-hating mobs are also exactly the same kind of mobs who are out to destroy the EU and being whipped up not just by the ignoranti supporting brexit but also by populist anti-intellectuals such as Steve Bannon, Nigel Farage, Marine le Pen and all their neo-nationalist and Fascist ilk. Fascism has always hated the freedom in freemasonry and will stop at nothing to destroy the EU if it can, since it has always hated peace, fraternity and international collaboration, preferring nationalism, conflict, war and racism. But alternative spirituality stands squarely against such reversals and set-backs to the spirit of freedom and love which the genuine democratic, liberal and visionary people of Europe believe in. We are trying to build a temple of wisdom here, for the sake of all mankind. Europe is a microcosm of all humanity and a great experiment is underway to see if we can build peace on earth once more, as we are actually all supposed to be doing. We ask Russia, the USA, the Middle East, Israel, the Islamic world, Iran, Africa, China, all  to join us and not try to destroy the EU which is our flagship enterprise on the choppy waters of history.

A final point in his section: many practioners of alternative spirituality like the work of J.R.R. Tolkein and his Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Hobbit, which introduces many young people to magical consciousness and the possibility of alternative realities. Tolkein was a member of the Inklings and a friend of C.S. Lewis and Owen Barfield, two other great magical writes and thinkers. IN Tolkien’s work Gollum (or Sméagol) plays a pivotal role and the actor who has portrayed this complex character, Andy Serkis, has made a brilliant spoof film about Theresa May and her fascination to Brexit, drawing on the additive nature of power. Serkis himself has very interesting background, born Andrew Clement Serkis in 1964, he is an English actor and film director. He is best known for his performance capture roles comprising motion capture acting, animation and voice work for such computer-generated characters as Gollum in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (2001–2003) and The Hobbit trilogy. In fact Serkis was born and brought up in Ruislip Manor in Middlesex. His mother, Lylie (born Weech), was English and taught disabled children while his father, Clement Serkis, was an Iraqi-born gynaecologist of Armenian descent. His ancestors’ original surname was “Sarkisian” which is a typical Armenian name. His father often worked away in the Middle East, while Serkis and his siblings were raised in Britain, with regular holidays in the Middle East including to Tyre, Sidon, Damascus and Baghdad. So Serkis is typical of the amazing richness of both British and European culture at its best, and our ancient links to the Middle East. The World Intellectual Forum has a coordinator for WIF in Armenia, Gevork Manoukian, who attended our WIDF European meeting in September 2018, and who likewise could not understand why brexit Britain is committing national suicide. But not only is this Lord of the Rings actor against brexit, but so too is the actor who played Gaius,  Richard Wilson, the teacher of Merlin, in the popular TV Series of Merlin, who has also come out publicly in favour of the UK remaining in the EU. Like any proper Wizard he knows how much of British Wizarding owes to our European fellow wizards. We have been going back and forth and studying in each other’s wizarding schools for literally millennia, and the EU has been making that even easier of late. So we like it. Also against Brexit was the actor Sir John Hurt (1940-2017) who was the voice of the dragon in the wonderful Merlin TV series. In addition J.K. Rowling, who gave the world Harry Potter,  has come out dead against brexit with some brilliant tweats. So when you see the entire wizarding world in general coming out against the dangers of brexit, you need to sit up and take notice. Likewise, in my capacity as Archdruid of Britain’s Peace Druids and European Council of Druids convener, I am likewise sounding the alarm bell by writing  this Journal.



  1. EXPOSING THE USA’S ROLE IN BREXIT: A lot of this is due to influences from the USA which started in the 1960’s with the hippie generation and the generation that grew up listening to Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, and the Eagles etc. who are simply free spirits, who cannot sit nicely alongside with what the EU represents. So the laid back hippie too stoned to do any political activism, simply says “whatever, man; Brexit is just another weird trip, what do I know ?” This is what some of them say, perhaps millions of UK people who abstained from the first EU referendum in 2016. The troubles with this “argument” are diverse: firstly, the USA also brings with it, cloaked in the nice hippie flower power generational influences, a much harder and darker underbelly, of CIA, extreme anti Communist, anti consciousness-expansion, and horrific military expenditure. The puritanical downside of the Playboy pot-smoking hippie loving California culture is the assassination squad who killed Kennedy, and his girlfriend Mary Meyer (who had turned him on to LSD just before he died). Imagine how world history would have been different had he lived ! The same dark US forces that brought us the murder of Kennedy and Mary Meyer have also helped bring us Brexit. You need to join up all the dots to see this. They also brought us the Vietnam war and a hundred other military interventions, and brought us the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and also probably, possibly, maybe,  engineered the events of 9/11 to hoodwink humanity into an anti-Islamic feeding frenzy. And that was after they had already whipped up Islamic extremists to bring down a socialist government in Afghanistan who had the temerity to suggest that women and girls might like to get an education, and that perhaps the versions of Islamic philosophy being touted by the Mullahs needed a bit of an upgrade. So the violent and interventionist USA culture remains the complete opposite of the laid back hippie-pot smoking alternative culture that the alternative spiritual circle of the UK enjoyed learning from. Instead, the darker side of exploitation, subversion and infiltration carried out by USA intelligence teams over the decades, have usually positioned themselves in a way that can advance American foreign policy objectives, as they understand them to be, but by this they mean the advancement of the interests of the almighty dollar, and the American arms industry, including its nuclear weapons industry, and the chemical and biological weapons industry that the USA has developed in secret since the 1940’s and 1950’s. If you don’t believe me, read some detailed histories of the cold war armaments and secret covert wars being fought by the USA worldwide since the end of the second world war. Another spin off of this covert secret war has been the development of the USA surveillance state and the kind of blanket surveillance of the world’s communications systems exposed by Edward Snowden, who was horrified when he learned up real close  what the USA intelligence agencies are actually doing behind the scenes. This surveillance state has even been listening in to independent European political leaders such as Angela Merkel and others. To them, everyone who is not with them, Is a potential enemy.  Is it possible that the USA has deliberately engineered Brexit so as to remove what it saw as a potential rival in world power terms i.e. a growing European Union, with major powers such as France, Germany and the UK involved ?  To counter that, is it possible that the darkest forces inside the USA intelligence apparatus felt that the EU should be broken apart and that Brexit was the perfect tool for that ? I do not mean the nice fluffy CIA agents like Snowden who generally speaking try and do good, but I mean the really dark agents who have done deals with the World Anti Communist League, and who regard anything left of hard rightist ideology as a dangerous Communist socialism which needs to be opposed by all means, fair and foul. This kind of thinking in American history, which is due to the fact that the USA never really had a left wing political movement which grew to maturity as it did in European history, and which therefore never had a really progressive social democratic tradition, is somewhat behind European thinking. They don’t even have a proper medical or social insurance system, and attack Scandinavian welfare programmes as “socialism”. A lot of the rhetoric of  anti EU propaganda churned out from right wing propaganda machines in the UK, including now sadly the BBC, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, and even The Times – has spouted this same anti socialist and anti social democratic reason for brexit. The Tory party machine has been hijacked by this fanatical anti European propaganda cliques and demagogues, and they are swiftly heading the ship of state towards self destruction. The fact that Scotland and Ireland will leave the UK over this doesn’t matter to them, since as far as they are concerned, after brexit, they will be able to bribe, blackmail and browbeat Scotland into acquiescence. The degree of propaganda that will be hurled against the Scottish National Party post brexit will make the first referendum campaign a storm in a tea cup, and that was very difficult to live through. If you look at what type of Americans have been singing in favour of brexit, you come to Steve Bannon and his cronies. Bannon is ill educated, lacks any true intellectual finesse, is an apologist for nationalism and represents the worst aspects of USA interference in European culture. What is incredible is that whereas in former ages interference was conducted covertly, as in the days of the CIA attempts to stop left wing movements in Europe in the 1960’s, now Steve Bannon peddles his blatantly anti Russian and anti EU sentiments in broad daylight and wins an audience in populist and anti-establishment circles throughout the UK and parts of Europe. It is as if the USA in people like Bannon is deliberately trying to destabilise the EU and whip up the storm of nationalism and racism. Bannon is wholeheartedly anti Islam also and argues that Islam needs attacking and destroying and opposing. Yet ironically he doesn’t realise that the EU is a bulwark and guarantor of a moderate and intelligent European polity, as is the UK, and that the very things his rhetoric is helping to destabilize, the UK and the EU, if they go down, then Islam is going to have a field day destroying what is left. Bannon needs a St Paul experience on the road to Damascus. The very things he is ranting against are the very things he needs to be supporting. Sadly however, he isn’t an actual intellectual and so there is little chance of him working all this out. Although the Oxford Union invited him to speak, he was not actually exposed to any authentic counter-arguments to his paranoid world view. A final point to make here: nothing in the above should give the impression I am anti American or US Phobic. On the contrary, there are some things about the USA people and culture and landscapes that I love. Mostly the alternative community, it is true. And the idealistic political leaders like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and his amazing wife Eleanor Roosevelt, who was the first Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission. I love the legacy of Harlow Shapley, who helped found UNESCO, the legacy of President Kennedy, of Robert Kennedy his brother, of Martin Luther King, of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, and so many others. I have had innumerable academic and personal friends from the USA who have inspired me over the years to set up my International Institute of Peace Studies, too many to mention. So far from being anti American, I would say that the European Union as a whole should sign a trade deal with the USA once we get brexit stopped and annulled and that the EU and the USA should find a way to conduct our trade relations in honest and truthful ways, such as the EU has done with Japan and with  Canada. But I also think that simultaneously, the EU should also sign a trade treaty with Russia. For this to happen we will have to end the trouble over the Ukraine and mediate a resolution to that problem. And furthermore, as we sign a trade deal with Russia and the USA at the same time, we can insist that they also sign a peace treaty with each other and stop their ridiculous and stupid posturing against each other. They need to grow up and make real peace, and cement and finish off the work that was made in 1990 with the signing of the Paris Peace Treaty. The ridiculous anti Russian posturing of USA covert agents and pseudo intellectuals like Steve Bannon, and the ridiculous anti Russian rhetoric of the UK – all of this has to be transcended in a genuine new era of peace. The cold war has to actually come to an end at last. A final point to mention: some brexiteers masterminds are dangerous right wing in their occultish world-views. Steve Bannon particularly. They practice an alternative spirituality based on esotericism, and the occult, yet draw from that worldwide the conclusion that brexit is a good, beneficent and healthful enterprise. Firstly, it is hardly for the Uk and Europe to be lectured by a right wing maverick of occultish views like Bannon about what is good for us, and given we now know he was involved in Cambridge Analytica and stealing the 2016 referendum for leave, it is actually scandalous that the result is being allowed to stand and used to implement the Brexit cult’s delusion. Obviously Theresa May has been captured lock stock and barrel. She needs de=programming. But what about Bannon ? The American historian Mitch Horovitz and author of Occult America (2009) has written about Steve Bannon and the occult and The right wing’s long, strange love affair with New Age mysticism. He argues correctly that if you think New Age alternative spirituality is solely the domain of lefty hippies, you don’t know your history. He goes on to explain that when his  book “Occult America,” a history of supernatural religions in the U.S., appeared in 2009, he  received an admiring phone call from Steve Bannon, whom he did not know then, who professed deep interest in the book’s themes, and encouraged him in my next work, “One Simple Idea,” which was to be an exploration of positive-mind metaphysics in American life. Horowitz argues that although the media have characterized Bannon as the Disraeli of the dark side following his rise to power in the Trump administration, I knew him, and still do, as a deeply read and erudite observer of the American religious scene, with a keen appetite for mystical thought. Horovitz explains that Ronald Reagan, a hero of Bannon, his, was not dissimilar. He tells us how  Reagan, from the start of his political career in the 1950s up through the first term of his presidency, adopted phrasing and ideas from the writings of a Los Angeles-based occult scholar named Manly P. Hall (1901-1990), whose 1928 encyclopedia arcana “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” is among the most influential underground books in American culture. I myself have had a treasured copy of this work for many years, and have always enjoyed dipping into its extraordinary pages. Even President Trump says Horovitz  himself has admiringly recalled his lessons in the mystic art of “positive thinking” from the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, the Trump family’s longtime pastor, who popularized metaphysical mind-power themes in his 1952 mega-seller “The Power of Positive Thinking.” Horovitz explains there is a long-standing intersection between mysticism and conservatism in America. This marriage extends back to the late 19th century when globetrotting occultist and Russian noblewoman Madame H.P. Blavatsky depicted America as the catalyst for a revolution in human potential in her 1888 opus “The Secret Doctrine.” “It is in America that the transformation will take place,” Blavatsky wrote, “and has already silently commenced.” Generations of occult writers echoed Blavatsky’s theme of America as a Holy Grail among nations, possessed of a “secret destiny,” as Manly P. Hall put it, and thus married esoteric spirituality to patriotic ideals. This partnership has flourished out of view of most mainstream observers—but significantly impacted American culture. In my own PhD thesis I explored all this in detail, and developed the whole field of transpersonal history to study it. Focusing on the cold war, I revealed that this triumphalist militant new ageism of American consciousness was dangerous when it came into clash with Soviet Marxist “New Age “ triumphalism, which had its own humanist version of the same, only with Russian instead of the USA written in as “top nation”. Likewise Germany and other European nations all took their turns at playing “top nation” in their own esoteric self-written historical narratives. These ideas arose as early as the Renaissance, when historians in Tudor Britain and Renaissance France competed for who’s ancestors were the more important refugees from Troy. Russia too used occult mysticism to bolster is rise ot power, as Elizabeth 1st did with John Dee. Ivan the Terrible has gone down in Russian folklore as having a huge library of occult books in a cave hidden under the Kremlin Hill, as I was told by my Russian host as I went around they incredible churches on display to the public. So American new age exceptionalism, as promulgated by Steve Bannon and his rightish occultists who have resonated with his brexit trumpet song, turns out in fact to be not exceptional at all, but merely human, commonplace, universal. Horovitz also explains how in 1935, then-Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace, a former Republican and mystical seeker who went on to become Franklin Roosevelt’s second vice president, approached FDR with a novel idea: mint a coin with the mysterious reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States—the eye-and-pyramid surrounded by the Latin maxim “God Smiles on Our New Order of the Ages.” Both men were Freemasons with a taste for portentous imagery—and were on the lookout for epic, unifying symbols for the recovering nation. (Wallace had spoken of the need for a “New Deal of the Ages.”) Roosevelt was so taken with the 1782 image, with its Masonic undertones and its message that worldly achievement is incomplete without higher ethics, that he personally supervised its installation on the back of the dollar bill, making a previously arcane insignia into an indelible symbol of the republic. So thanks to Roosevelt this image is now circulating in the pockets of everyone with a dollar bill anywhere int the world. But FD Roosevelt (and his wonderful wife Eleanor-0 and Henry Wallace belonged to what could be called “Left esotericism”. They believed in the well being of the common man and the advancement of the working class in dignity, equal right and social prospects. They rejected the right occultist of those esoteric elites who want to keep wisdom for their own personal use, and deny it to the masses. Esotericists like Roosevelt and Wallace wanted wisdom to be given away to the masses, as do all left esotericists,. But this is in harmony with he great universal wisdom lineage of authentic mysticism. But this too is exactly what is at stake int the Brexit versus remain int the EU campaign –the Brexit occult and esoteric right wing elitists, schooled by Bannon, want to preserve their hierarchy of secret power, their fund of control, by shutting down the life options for the mass of the UK population, by causing mayhem and chaos to the people of the UK as it breaks up, and yet they will be fine, living in their offshore mansions in Jersey like the Barclay Brothers and all their ilk, still publishing their Daily Telegraphs etc. while Britain burns, and whilst the poor go to the wall. This is not what Wallace, and the Roosevelts wanted for the world when they defeated the Hitlerist and Fascist dreams for Europe in 1945. This is not what countless heroic people gave their lives for in world war two, in fighting for a free and liberal and democratic Europe after the war. This precious heritage is  now symbolized and preserved int the architecture of the European Union, and this is why genuine esoteric thinks and practioners of alterative spirituality should in fact be supporting and defending it. Fundamentally, it is not about right or left wing occultists, it is about those who work for peace and believe we can make our soul advancement on planet earth through peace, most fortuitously and most effectively, and those who believe in struggle, violence, war and conflict as the best means for soul advancement and development. Right occultists like Bannon although they have studied deeply tine h well of esoteric and alternative spiritual traditions, have never thought to apply these ideas to the study and promotion of peace. The USA esoteric agenda has instead sought to advance its world view as the exceptionalism “kingdom of manifest destiny” but violence, war and conflict, ever since the first expansion of settlers waging war on the native American Indian tribes. 2 centuries of wars against he Native Indians were followed by wars of conquest against Spain, Mexico, California, Texas and so on as all these territories were absorbed into the USA, and against France over who should control Baton Rouge and Louisiana. The USA is the nation on earth which has always argued that war is good for you, makes you a man, and this ideology was then exported to hundreds of military interventions around the planet ever since it was founded as a break-away rogue nation fromt the UK. It is time that American esoteric thinkers like Bannon and all the flourishing new age spiritualities which fill the USA, paid attention to thinking through how this wisdom can be applied to peacemaking, justice, social needs provision, ending poverty and unemployment, tackling environmental challenges, living in harmony between man and nature, and ending racial warfare and ethnic conflicts not only int the USA but worldwide. This is why I have proposed there be a top floor built on the Pentagon to house the USA Department of Peace, the original pentagon having been authorized and supervised by Roosevelt. Now is time to get the USA alterative spirituality movement thinking about peace in a deep and constructive manner. But this should be done in concert with the European Union and all 27 European Union member nations, including the UK. Each nation should be thinking through how best to use our own genius and to draw on the wealth of ideas, cultural, science, art, engineers, literature, education, medicine and soon – to be applied to peacemaking throughout Europe. There is a right wing esotericism in the USA, followed by people like Regan, Bannon, Trump, Richard Nixon, George Bush, etc. and there is a left wing esotericism followed by people like the Clintons. IN the first Clinton Presidency, then first lady Hillary Clinton was accused of holding “séances” in the White House—a term misapplied to her visioning sessions with New Age teacher Jean Houston, a pioneer of the human-potential movement. Houston, whom I have met and done workshops with, didn’t quite know how to explain to reporters that when she guided the first lady in dialogues with her political hero Eleanor Roosevelt, they were not summoning spirits but rather conducting creativity and value-defining exercises. President Clinton was cool toward these tête-à-têtes. Houston reported that when the president once sat in on one of their sessions, she told him he was an “undeveloped shaman,” and his response was to stand up and leave the room. Actually Bill Clinton took a similarly dim view of parapsychology. During a period of post-Cold War cost cutting in 1995, he eliminated the CIA’s budget for its psychic-spying program. Jimmy Carter, by contrast, admired the “remote viewing” operation. The year of Clinton’s cuts, Carter told a group of Emory University students that during his presidency, clairvoyant spies helped identify the coordinates of a crashed Soviet spy plane in Central Africa, netting a significant intelligence gain. Personally speaking, I am sure these powers do exist, but I d not think they should be used for military purposes, but for peace. Perhaps it is her fond memories for these new age White House sessions that prompts Hilary Clinton to still think she ought to have another go at running for the Presidency. Even President Lincoln’s wife use to hold actual séances in the White House during the civil war, to rally the spirits for the cause of the Union. On the right wing, one of Richard Nixon’s confidants — in addition to the Rev. Peale, whose church he also attended—was insurance magnate W. Clement Stone, a right-wing activist, who was benefactor of the famous ESP lab at Duke University, and collaborator to Napoleon Hill, author of the mind-metaphysics classic “Think and Grow Rich.” Why does the media never mention this occult dimension of politics, and or brexit ? Vice President Dan Quayle once said “people that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history.” Quayle was in fact yet another “esoteric right wing activist”. Sadly the American exceptionalism practiced by the Right wing int the USA, produces fatal miscalculations, such as President George W. Bush’s tragic rush into Iraq, based on the cynical calculus that a quick and tidy war would net a political victory. However, once again American spiritual exceptionalism didn’t realize it was running full throttle into Arabic social Baath spiritual exceptionalism, according to which Iraq under Saddam Hussein was the messiah nation of history, saving the Arab world for socialism and democracy and the royalist corruptions of the Saudi elites. As I explored in my PhD thesis, behind the history of warfare we have these kinds of esoteric or occult conflicts going on. And Brexit is no exception. But what I argued in designing the concept of transpersonal history, is that it is subject to rational analysis, and it is possible to mediate between such rival and conflicting exceptionalism. The USA’s right wing  however presents a very strong challenge in that being gifted with very great material, economic and intellectual power, it has the temptation of all great nations, which is to actually believe its own exceptionalism as a unique case, and that it genuinely is the top nation in all of history and therefore normal rules of morality and international law do not apply to it. It is literally above the law, which is exactly what Nazi lawyer Carl Schmidt told the Hitlerite generals as they invaded the USSR. Since the Bolsheviks were sub-humans, the Germans didn’t have to stick to the normal rules of war. (Kant would have demolished this argument in 30 seconds – you cannot have a categorical imperative not to kill, and then say “there are exceptions”) Not surprisingly Carl Schmidt has become very popular and influential among USA right wing circles and the entire Neo-Con brigade who brought us the Iraq war in 2003 and the never ending Saga of Guantanamo, all swear by Carl Schmidt, starting with Leo Strauss, Kissinger etc. and incredibly, many of these Schmidtians are of Jewish origin.  But this “I am beyond the law” is exactly what the Persian Empire used to think, or Caesar, as have all the great empires and emperors in history, and they have all fallen, every one, unless they learn the bitter lesson of humility. Nowadays in the U.S. military, religiously observant service members and veterans can  choose among more than 65 “emblems of belief,” including pentagrams, druidic symbols and every variety of mystical insignia. As a Druid I obviously approve.  So religiosity and spiritual is now recognised as a right in the USA military. But when we will get a peace service as dedicated and as professional ? After all Druids were sworn to non-violence. When will we get a Nonagon built atop the Pentagon ? When will we get a USA in the hands of leaders who love Europe and want to live in peace with us, and who love Russia, China, Japan and every other nation under the sun and cease from trying to outspend them in militarism and rather try to outspend them in human investment and social development ?  Perhaps when Bernie Sanders becomes president, ot one of the liberal democratic Congresswoman  recently elected to Congress ? Or perhaps when Thomas Jefferson is reincarnated and comes back home ?



  1. EUROPEAN POETS FOR PEACE: one voice which is often not heard enough in the shrill clamour of brexit propaganda is the voice of poets. Poets are as it has been said the true legislators of the world. The British poetic tradition shares a common heritage with the European poetic traditions. Chaucer would not have ben able to invent English poetic literature unless he had been exposed the French and Italian high culture by his trips abroad. Likewise Shakespeare and the Elizabethan and Jacobean renaissance would not have been possible without the European influences on them. But the links go right back to ether early Celtic and Bardic times, in the days of Amergin and Taliesin and beyond. The Celtic and proto people who built the innumerable temples and stone circles which dot the landscapes of Northern and Central and Western Europe, lived in an oral tradition. They passed on their legends, myths, theology and spirituality through poetry, storytelling and mythic and epic drama. It was this same tradition that gave us Homer and which the Greeks also stem from the great Indo European poetic traditions of Greece, German, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Rome, the Slavic world and all the others, are one tradition, growing out of a deep and ancient unity and reverence for nature and for the Gods and Goddesses who direct and determine our destinies as peoples, tribes and nations. As coordinator of European Poets for Peace, who has lived and walked and written poetry in innumerable European countries, who has taken part as a guest in the amazing Struga Poetry Festival in Macedonia on three occasions, and who has published some 6 volumes of poetry, I would say on behalf of my poetic colleagues and fellow bards and initiates, whether in Britain or in any of the 27 European Union countries, or in other European Union countries not yet members, that we need to inject a greater degree of mystical vision and stimulation into the overall economic and legalistic vision of the European Union as its public voice is too often presented. We need to recover the poetic soul of Europe and Britain, Ireland and Scotland and Wales, working harmony, making music and epic poetic enchantments for peace. The purpose of poetry is not primarily to excite warriors for war, but to excite lovers to love, and peace lovers to make peace. IN fact the European Union has done quite a lot to promote literature and poetry and peace, and so we should be affirming that and looking forward to more. Lets the poets of Europe and the UK take up our pens and write a future based on love and amity, not fear and hatred. All the poets of Europe could not stop World War one, and many of the greatest of that generation died in pointless battles over a few feet of mud. I was brought up reading these “war poets” such as Wilfred Owen, little realising that every European country had its war poets who died. My mother was born on January 1 10154 before world war one even started. I was brought up and educated in England to think that World War One was a tragedy that we tried to avoid as long as possible and then very reluctantly went into the war to fight for what was right. Later, I learned that in fact Britain certainly helped engineer the war every bit as much as the Kaiser did, and that the Kaiser in fact was trying to stop the war right up to last minute. So the poets of Europe and the UK need to come together and work to prevent world war three, and first off, we can prevent the break up of the EU and the withdrawal of the UK from this marvelous peace experiment.


  1. UN REPORT SLAMS BRITAIN’S INCREASING POVERTY: The real problem facing the UK are not caused by the EU. On the contrary, the EU has helped the UK in many ways over the years, and has brought a vibrant and successful economic and cultural ambience to the UK which before we became a member in 1973, was sadly lacking. The tragedy is that all this is about to go down. The hubris of the Brexiteers in thinking we can somehow sail back to Victorian days of British imperial sovereignty, is about to be exposed as idiotic and ill informed. The UN has now sent some fact finding missions into the UK and discovered that poverty is increasing inside the UK in alarming ways. It is obvious that brexit is going to have a hugely negative impact on Britain’s collective wealth and already has. The numbers of homeless people on the streets is frightening, and people are also dying from poverty having their benefits withdrawn and removed. The Tory Government’s general policy of austerity seems to have been behind this entire downward spiral and the evidence is that this whole altitude of poverty as somehow something which is personally shameful and that the poor ought to be published of it, which is a return to pre Victorian values, is part of the overall package of ideas that the Tory Party actually believes in, in hits hard right wing, which are the actual people who have tried to foist brexit on the UK against its actual wishes. Philip Alston, the UN’s rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, ended a two-week fact-finding mission to the UK with a stinging declaration that levels of child poverty were “not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster”, even though the UK is the world’s fifth largest economy. About 14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty and 1.5 million are destitute, being unable to afford basic essentials, he said, citing figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. He highlighted predictions that child poverty could rise by 7 percentage points between 2015 and 2022, possibly up to a rate of 40%. “It is patently unjust and contrary to British values that so many people are living in poverty,” he said, adding that compassion had been abandoned during almost a decade of austerity policies that had been so profound that key elements of the postwar social contract, devised by William Beveridge more than 70 years ago, had been swept away. In an excoriating 24-page report, which will be presented to the UN human rights council in Geneva in 2019, the eminent human rights lawyer said that in the UK “poverty is a political choice”. Austerity Britain Tory style was in breach of four UN human rights agreements relating to women, children, disabled people and economic and social rights. “If you got a group of misogynists in a room and said how can we make this system work for men and not for women they would not have come up with too many ideas that are not already in place,” he said. The limit on benefits payments to only the first two children in a family was “in the same ballpark” as China’s one-child policy because it punished people who had a third child. Cuts of 50% to council budgets were slashing at Britain’s “culture of local concern” and “damaging the fabric” of society. The middle classes would “find themselves living in an increasingly hostile and unwelcoming society because community roots are being broken”. After visiting towns and cities including London, Oxford, Cardiff, Newcastle, Glasgow and Belfast, Alston said that “obvious to anyone who opens their eyes to see the immense growth in food banks and the queues waiting outside them, the people sleeping rough in the streets, the growth of homelessness, the sense of deep despair that leads even the government to appoint a minister for suicide prevention and civil society to report in depth on unheard-of levels of loneliness and isolation”. He called for the elimination of the five-week delay in receiving benefits under the universal credit system, which has plunged many into destitution. Flaws in its design and implementation harmed claimants’ mental health, finances and work prospects, and benefits sanctions were “harsh and arbitrary”. Vulnerable claimants “struggled to survive”, he said. Alston said the government was in a state of denial and there was a “striking disconnect” between what ministers said and the testimonies he heard from ordinary people. “Even while devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are frantically trying to devise ways to ‘mitigate’, or in other words counteract, at least the worst features of the government’s benefits policy, ministers insisted to me that all is well and running according to plan.” He said he had met people who did not have a safe place for their children to sleep, people who had sold sex for money or shelter, young people who felt gangs were the only way out of destitution, and people with disabilities who were being told they needed to go back to work or lose support, against their doctors’ orders. He described how town hall budgets had been “gutted” in England resulting in a record sell-off of libraries and parks and closures of youth centres. “I have also seen tremendous resilience, strength and generosity, with neighbours supporting one another, councils seeking creative solutions and charities stepping in to fill holes in government services,” he said. On food banks, he said: “I was struck by how much their mobilisation resembled the sort of activity you might expect for a natural disaster or health epidemic.” A common theme of the testimonies he heard was the impact on people’s mental health and feelings of loneliness and fear. “I was surprised by the talk of suicide, by the people I met who said they had considered suicide … There are some pretty serious mental health dimensions.” In his conclusion, Alston called for “the legislative recognition of social rights” in the UK, a move that has long been resisted by UK governments but which is the status quo in countries such as Sweden and Germany. What is perhaps particularly shocking about Philip Alston’s report is that it exposes the reality behdin the rhetoric of “Sunny upbeat brexit Britain”. It reveals that the same crew who are steamrollering Brexit against the democratic will and best interests of the UK population, are also denying them basic social democratic rights that other European countries have already put on the statute book. TH opt out of the UK fromt the EU’s Social Chapter is beginning to look like a deliberate attempt to circumvent the basic moral values and principles that Europe has long ago decided we need to set ourselves as civilised countries – the ending of poverty, ten ending of homelessness, and the ending of mental despair and illness brought on by poverty and unemployment. When I attended the UN World Summit for Social Development, in Copenhagen back in 1994, there as a feeling that eventually the collective leadership of the world would conquer poverty, unemployment and a lack of social cohesion (the three planks of the Summit, instituted by Chile’s Juan Somavia). I remember listening as an NGO leader to speeches by the assembled world heads of State including Chancellor Kohl, Hilary Clinton and Fidel Castro. Only the UK sent a junior minister of overseas development (Linda Chalker) and the Prime Minister did not show. This arrogance and rudeness, and disconnect between the Uk as a nation and the UN and the EU and other civilised and international agencies is indicative of a backward mindset, which is now beginning to show up in the increased poverty levels in the UK. But it need not be like his, says Philip Alston; poverty is a policy choice, and it one that is always consistently and deliberately chosen by Tory Governments int the UK. When Priti Patel suggests using starvation as a food weapon against het Republic of Ireland to scare them into not rocking the boat over he famous “back stop” she is following a long line of similar policy ideas. Basically, poverty is being used by the Brexit elites, in order to keep the UK population depressed, demoralised, and literally unable to think straight or reason things out enough to see through eth nonsense that Brexit really represents. The current author however has had long years of academic training, philosophical initiations and spiritual training, sufficient to see through these obvious ploys. It is time to change the way we see poverty in the UK, and to realise that we need to work with the EU to end it, and not just in the UK but throughout the EU, and the only way we can do that finally is by ending all wars, civil wars, covert wars and ethnic and religious conflicts. All the spare money and capital of the world is currently being burned up on “security” “surveillance”, “espionage” covert propaganda and disinformation, as well as weapons building, R & D and the gradual militarisation of conflicts that ought to be solved diplomatically and politically. The linkage between poverty on the streets of the UK, the vast expenditures that the UK is making towards its military budget (to fight whom ? Europe ? Russia ? ) – all these are interconnected issues. Time for an end to poverty and time to cancel Brexit, the most expensive and self destructive folly the UK has ever embarked on. Philip Alston deserves to be congratulated on his important report. He is an Australian international law scholar and human rights practitioner. He is John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and co-Chair of the law school’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. In human rights law, Alston has held a range of senior UN appointments for over two decades, including United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, a position he held from August 2004 to July 2010. It was in 2014 that he was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and it is in the is capacity that he has made his fact finding trip to the UK and has presented his report in 2018. He does not personally make any links to Brexit in his report, but we can and must.




  1. ETHICAL RESPONSES TO CLAIMS OF RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN BREXIT VOTE: Some voices int the UK have raised the view that Russian interfered in the Brexit vote and helped bring it about. This is based on several facts, including he fact that Aaron Banks, one of the leading Brexit campaigners and funders, had proven contacts with the Russia. Another is that Nigel Farage has occasionally made friendly noises about Vladimir Putin. Another line of argument is that Russian helped indirectly to bank-roll trump coming to power int the USA, and thus indirectly helped Steve Bannon get into positions of power, and thus indirectly helped set up Data Analytica, which we now know helped win the Brexit election for the leave campaign. So this, the argument goes, proves that Russia interfered with the UK referendum, and thus, managed to swing brexit. Why did they do this ? The argument goes that since Russian is fighting an internet and dark underground war absent both the UK and against Europe, naturally they want to destabilise the UK, help it to break up (by encouraging Brexit and thus Scottish independence and thus the UK will lose if nice cosy nuclear submarine storage bases in Argyll, and be right royally screwed when it comes to being a major nuclear weapons power capable of fighting off a Russian attack on Europe. So this is why Russian has engineered Brexit. Meanwhile, not only that, but Russia has also been up to no good in Salisbury, by poisoning with Novichuk a dissident who had been allowed to leave Russian already in a spy swop, namely the Skripals, father and daughter who were taken very ill but didn’t actually die. Later, a totally innocent Amesbury woman did in fact die, apparently also due to Russian Novichuk poisoning. More recently, Russian has been accused int the house of commons of hacking into an innocent website of a bona fide policy studies institute (The Institute of Statecraft) based in Scotland, and the reason this body was using UK government FCO money to smear Jeremy Corbyn and other left of centre politicians, was all because “it had been hacked by Russian dark intelligence artists” as was claimed in a heated exchange int the House of Commons on December 14 in the House of Commons in Parliament. Finally, we must not forget that the UK and USA military machine went into war mode when it decided to bomb Syrian installations, including a foremost scientific research institute outside of Damascus, a kind of Weizmann Institute Syria style, which was doing a lot of important scientific research, all because of never proven allegations that “Assad was gassing his own people”. NO credible independent or reliable agency, including the UN, ever corroborated these claims. Likewise teeth he Salisbury claims, nothing has been coming out from the actual laboratory or from the Organization for the Prevention of chemical Warfare to prove or in any way indicate that the Russian government or its intelligence wing had anything whatsoever to do with the attacks in Salisbury. Likewise, the claim that Russia was behind the Brexit vote, or was determined to push through a brexit victory, seems to this author at least a little farfetched. It is of course faintly possible that Putin might just be that stupid, but from my knowledge of Russian intellectuals, it is highly unlikely. There are rumours Putin was a fan of Jim Morrison of the Doors when younger, and was apparently quite a liberal lover of Western alternative culture. He may have aged in a more conservative direction, and no follows the Russian orthodox Christian faith, but that would mean he is subject to the moral structures and ethical claims of Christianity. This would explain why he went into Syria to help the Assad government of Moderate Allawaite Muslims defeat the fanatical extremist Sunni Wahhabi alliance that the CIA and MI6 had organized against Assad to try and bring him down. Putin, as a good Christian, listed to the appeals of the Orthodox Christian community in Russia who were being told by their Orthodox colleagues in Syria, who were being literally tortured to death by extremist Isil types, to intervene on humanitarian grounds. That was the action of a moral leader not a madman. But for him to have sanctioned killings on the streets of Salisbury seems about a likely as an alien form the UFO base on mars as having been behind it. Likewise, therefore, the claim that Putin would have deliberately engineered an intervention in the UK to bring about brexit seems very farfetched. But let us for one second grant that perhaps, just perhaps, it is true. No he wasn’t behind Novichuk, by maybe, just maybe, he is delighted at Brexit. The old enemy, the leader of the “free world” in the great game which has been waging between Russia and the UK ever since 1853, when Queen Victoria personally ordered Palmerston to pursue an anti-Russian policy (with disastrous consequences) has finally been won by Russia. The consequence of brexit, and the breakup of the UK, which will follow, means that Russian will have finally won the great game lock stock and barrel, and as the nuclear powered submarines arte forced to steam south of the border, and as Scotland takes control of its share of the oil fields in the North Sea, and as Scotland declares itself a nuclear weapons free power, and as Scotland rejoins the EU (all of which will happen in a the first few months after brexit) will mean that the dear old UK has just committed a total own goal, and lost the great game, zero set and match. So if any readers actually believe this, (which I don’t) why on earth would one give Russia the satisfaction of such a victory ? I happen to love Russian culture, literature philosophy and poetry; I greatly respect Russian science, I love Russian history, which I studied for my history degree at the University of London (Under many of the UK’s great Russian experts) but I am also award of the dark, and tragic side of Russian history – the long sufferings under Stalinism, the anti Semitism of the earlier times. Do I want to hand final victory to Russia over the UK ? No, actually, I would rather we made a peace treaty. I would rather the UK stopped it is ridiculous anti Russian propaganda. I would rather that both the EU and Russia signed a comprehensive peace treaty including detailed trade arrangements, and one of the key clauses would be: no internet propaganda against each others peoples or nations i.e. it would be a genuine peace treaty, like the Treaty of Paris should have been. And since we (the EU) would also sign a parallel treaty with the USA, then the USA and Russia would in effect also sign the same peace treaty as well. So in future, no fake propaganda about Novichuk attacks in Balham, or wherever. There are signs also that Russia would actually quite like such a development, as the Cyber Peace Treaty that I suggested following the Salisbury incident was mentioned by no less a person than Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia in his annual speech before the UN to mark the start of the General Assembly of the UN for 2018. His speech was a masterpiece of understatement and peace thinking. He proposed that Russia and the other great powers of the world should indeed sign a Cyber Peace treaty, exactly as I had suggested in a Declaration which I authored back in April after the disastrous bombing campaign in Syria and the Novichuk incident which mysteriously happened just before it. This looked to me (and many other commentators) like it was so obviously the work of the UK intelligence agencies, probably helped by other intelligence agencies, that it was almost laughable. But to try and make sense of all this is very difficult, to see though this is like trying to peer though a fog that sometimes descends here in Winter on the northern Slopes of the Massive central in Berry. Personally speaking I do not believe that Russian engineered brexit, and if one had the slightest thought that it might have done, then it would be yet more evidence if more was needed to oppose and suspend it, and to put the matter before our people in a second referendum. But I would also argue we need to sing the Cyber Peace treaty, which would outlaw interference in each other’s democratic referenda and elections, first. Otherwise, who knows, maybe the USA and Russia will either or both of them try and swing it for Brexit yet again, for their own mistaken and ignorant purposes. Here then, is the text of the Cyber Peace treaty as proposed back in April 2018 by this author. It is open for signature. Rather than ranting on about Russians under the bed, I suggest that the Tory MP’s in parliament who have hijacked what used to be an intelligent, liberal and human nation state (the country formerly known as the UK), and who spout their Russophobic propaganda day by day, should all sign the Cyber Peace treaty and get the FCO to work on drafting and agreeing a text that USA, Russia, Israel, EU, Turkey, India, China and all other powers can all sign up to. What may be going on here sociologically speaking is simply the Tory Party trying to whip up anti Russian propaganda as a diversionary tactic to keep our eyes of f the true catastrophe that is brexit and to try to brainwash the people of the UK into thinking that the Russians really are the big bad wolf. No doubt, this will then be used as an argument to force the Scots into staying inside a crumbling and irrelevant UK. I wouldn’t even be surprised, to be honest, if this Tory elite wouldn’t even drum up world war three and launch a nuclear attack on Russia rather than let Scotland go independent. The sooner we get their finger off the UK nuclear trigger the better. They are a danger to humanity. And brexit is the lynch pin of their plans. What they want is to put themselves beyond all morality, all independent monitoring and what they mean by sovereignty is to be entirely beyond the law.


  1. CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT: On 4 December 2018, The House of Commons voted in favour of a motion finding Ministers in contempt for their failure to publish full legal advice concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement. The House of Commons voted 311 to 293 (Division 273) to approve the motion, finding Ministers in contempt and ordering the immediate publication of the full legal advice on the Brexit deal. MPs had previously rejected the Government’s amendment to the motion by 307 votes to 311 (Division 272).The Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom announced that the legal advice would be made available to MPs tomorrow to inform their vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on Tuesday 11 December. The Motion read as follows:

That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.

On 13 November 2018 MPs voted in favour of a motion that the Government should publish the final and full legal advice that the Attorney General provided to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement. This motion took the form of a ‘humble address’ which is considered binding in terms of Parliamentary procedure. The Legal Advice which was finally published mainly revealed that the Attorney General had advised that once the Deal was signed, there would be no legal way out of the Northern Ireland “backstop” and therefore the Uk could be possibly locked into this two-state solution, one deal for the Northern Ireland one for the rest of the Uk, for eternity. The reason the government wanted to hush this up was because it didn’t think this would go down well with the DUP voters or MP’s, as of course they were right. The DUP have made clear they will not accept the Brexit deal as tabled by the Prime Minister.


  1. POSTPONEMENT AND DELAY FOR BREXIT DEAL VOTE IN UK PARLIAMENT: Originally the vote was scheduled, according to an agreement between the Government and the Opposition, and indeed by all MP’s to take place on December 11, 2018, after a full 5 days of debates. The debates proceeded and some excellent speeches were given. Particularly memorable against Brexit were speeches from Dominic Grieve MP, Hilary Benn, Margaret Beckett, David Lammy, Dr Philipa Whitford, Nigel Dodds and many others. It became obvious to everyone that the government would not get this deal through the house and it would be voted down on December 11. So the response of the government ? To simply cancel the last two days of the debates and to cancel the vote int the Commons. This is unprecedented and unparliamentarily behaviour. I cannot remember anything similar in my lifetime. It shows a blatant disregard for the democratic engineer of the UK, and for parliamentary procedure. Theresa May then went on a lightening tour of European leaders, including the Dutch and German, hoping to find some form of words that would satisfy her DUP erstwhile allies that the Northern Ireland backstop would be temporary, but no such form of words could be found. She had no fresh ideas to propose, nor did her European colleagues. They had been clear – either accept the deal, or rescind brexit. We obviously believe the only way out of this mess, this democratic deficit, is to return to the democratic process that kick-started it all, and have a second referendum on whether the UK actually wants to accept the Theresa May deal, or leave with no deal (a true suicide option) or to remain in the EU. The current situation leaves us all in limbo. This deal has to be put either before parliament or before the UK public in a second referendum. The option of no deal brexit has to be avoided at all costs as it is the worst possible option and even Theresa May hopefully realises this.


  1. VOTE OF NON CONFIDENCE IN THERESA MAY BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY MP’S: On December 11 Theresa May was challenged by her fellow Tory MP’s for leadership of the Tory Party, after the requisite 48 letters were received by Sir Graham Brady the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. An election duly took place according to democratic procedure on December 13, 2018 and as a result Theresa May retained her seat as leader of the Conservative Party by a majority of 84 votes (200 – 117) However, 117 Tory MP’s voted against her as leader. This is a significant number and means that these 117 MP’s can no longer be counted on to guarantee her the automatic passage of any bills that she puts before the house, including most importantly her long awaited Brexit Bill. What is extraordinary about this whole process is that Theresa May has spent 2 years negotiating a Brexit deal which, in the end, if implemented, is going to make the UK demonstrably poorer, more disunited and less pleasant as a place to live in, and all for what ? To appease elements on the right wing of her party, who are more at home in the arms of UKIP or extreme English nationalist party affiliations ? This is shocking and disgraceful, and that the once great Conservative Party should have been hijacked and sidelined into a cul de sac of wasted time in this fashion, chasing a chimera called brexit, shows that true light weights without substantial intellectual capital have literally hijacked the party of Edmund Burke and Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Walter Scott and John Croker,  who would never have countenanced actions that would see the self-destruction  of the Uk in a Scorpionic act of self-suicide, engineered by Hybris. The sooner we see her deal voted down and then a second referendum called, the better. The one good thing is that Theresa May who has proved as obstinate as she is unintelligent and rude (she mocks at Jeremy Corbyn in a most unparliamentary manner as if defeating him verbally were a mark of her own stature) has declared she will not lead the Tory Party into the next General Election, whenever that is. So there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel as her self-righteous, rude, smug, obstinate and un-self-reflective reign seems within sight of ending.


  1. TRUMP ON THE VERGE OF SELF-DESTRUCTION THROUGH ARROGANCE: It is certain that Trump not only favours brexit, but that some of his staff, notably Steve Bannon, actively conspired and acted to help bring it about behind the scenes. But what does trump represent in Usa politics ? Everything that is brash, arrogant, uncouth and ill educated. He mocks intellectuals and anyone with an intellect. He thinks he can braze =n out every attack on his credibility as “fake news”. But the signs are this mad reign of arrogant hubris is about to come to an end. His own private and personal lawyer Michael Cohen has just been sentenced on 12 December 2018 to 3 years in Prison of federal crimes committed on behalf of trump. It turns out that Cohen was ordered by Trump to make substantial payments to several former models and pornographic film stars, (Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal) who had sexual relations with Trump (while he was married) in order to buy their silence at the time of the Presidential election campaign in 2016. On 14 December on the ABC news, Cohen said live that Trump was lying when he said “he didn’t authorise this”. Cohen pointed out that Trump kept a very tight ship among his staff, and that it would be unthinkable for him to have taken it his initiative, involving lots of money (103 million dollars i.e. 91 million Euros) without Trump being aware, being consulted and authorising it. Obviously Trump cannot expect us to believe that he didn’t know when 91 million Euros vanished from his bank account. A jury believes Cohen has committed a serious crime and has put him away for 3 years. Cohen is not going quietly. Cohen has now turned against Trump in strength. Nor is Cohen the only person to have turned against Trump. Tony Schwartz who ghost write Trump’s book called which detailed his rise to power and his business practice. Tony spoke about his realisation that Trump was actually a dangerous, ignorant and malevolent person at the Oxford Union back in 2016 which talk is on youtube. But Cohen knows much more about the actual dirt on Trump. Responding to speculation that President Trump might issue a pardon for Cohen, lawyer Davis said on NPR, “I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person in the oval office. And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump.” In his interview to Sky News, Davis said the turning point for his client’s attitude toward Trump was the Helsinki summit in July 2018, which caused him to doubt Trump’s loyalty to the U.S.A. Cohen was a vice-president of The Trump Organization and a former counsel to Trump. He previously served as co-president of Trump Entertainment and was a board member of the Eric Trump Foundation, a children’s health charity. From 2017 to 2018, Cohen was deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee. Trump employed him until May 2018, a month after a federal investigation began. The investigation led to him pleading guilty on August 21, 2018, to eight counts of campaign finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud. In his statement before the court, Cohen said he violated campaign finance laws “in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office”, meaning Trump, “for the principal purpose of influencing the election” for president in 2016. On November 29, 2018, Cohen made a second guilty plea for lying to a Senate committee about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.  There will be more revelations to come. The wolves are gathering. Trump is slowly going to go down, and possibly to impeachment. What can we in Europe learn about watching these events unravel ? The first is that because the Democrats have regained control of the USA Congress, the Republicans can no long get away with simply covering the tracks of their man Trump in every regard. The investigations of Robert Mueller, former CIA director, will bear fruit and Trump and his organisation will be shown to have been mixing in some very murky waters. The Congress is already opposing Trump’s desire to see Muhammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia’s guilt over involvement in the murder of Kashoggi swept under the carpet, and will be pushing forward with its own investigations. The CIA has also said absolutely that it has proof that Bin Salman was involved with the murder of Kashoggi, and yet Trump actually thinks he is above international law, like some kind of potentate or prince. We are witnessing something out of Roman tragedy as Hubris (Sulla, Trump, Caesar) meets Democracy, law and righteousness (the newly elected Congressmen and women of the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer (Democratic leader in the Senate) etc. Meanwhile Trump’s response is to threaten to shut down government, because the new congress has also refused to vote the payments needed to build his fantasy wall against Mexico along a vast frontier. Politics is really war by other means, as Von Clausewitz pointed out, but the signs are that the Trump gang has finally been caught up with by the Sherriff’s posse. IN all probability Trump is going to end up behind bars the minute he leaves the White House. So how does this look for his Brexiteer followers ? For  Farage and Bannon and co, who have been co-generated by the Trump phenomenon ? What we are actually dealing with here, it turns out, are genuine criminals. These people have subverted and attempted to undermine genuine democracy (let alone social democracy) not only in the USA but also in the UK and Indeed in Europe. Bannon has been leading a one man crusade to bring back right wing nationalism, and fascism across Europe and to utterly destroy and destabilised the EU. In One interview with the Guardian he talked about “putting a stake through the heart of the EU”. In other words, he is practising a typical form of illuminated politics, like so many before him on the extreme right and extreme left, who believe they are the heroes of history, and that everyone else is wrong, evil or working for the devil. This was exactly the world view that Hitler had, and look at how much damage it cased first time round. Trump is founded on the same delusion and so is brexit, with its anti-European propaganda and alarmist rhetoric. But as this Journal has tried to explain slowly and carefully, the facts speak otherwise. The facts speak that Trump has encouraged and endorsed criminal behaviour and also that the Brexit campaign of 2016 was built on criminal behaviours as well. The reason these people felt above the law is because they are so far lost in their own paranoid conspiracy theories in which Europe is the big bad wolf of history, that any action they can undertake to bring it down is justified. But that is how all dictators justify their actions. That is no doubt how the Brexiteers justify to themselves their contempt of Parliament, and their ongoing contempt for the intelligence of the British people, and not least the Scottish, Welsh and Irish people, since they hope to get their Brexit coup pushed through before anyone actually notices its shocking implications. One of the arguments you sometimes hear in favour of brexit is that if the 2016 referendum result is questioned, or another referendum is held, there will be a coup, there will be armed bands marching on the streets. Nigel Farage has said he will take out his rifles.  This was exactly the same climate at the time in Munich of the Beer Hall Putsch, when Hitler attempted to take power by an armed coup in 1922. He later spent time in jail for his stupidity. If Farage and his ilk literally want to foment riot and armed counter-revolution against a second referendum, or another parliamentary and democratic overturning of the 2016 referendum result, then they also should go behind bars. The anti-Brexit opposition, which is gathering momentum, and which this Journal is part of, must conduct our campaigns reasonably, within the law and by using democracy, and by working to change public opinion on this most vital of issues throughout the UK.  Those who want to cause chaos, are the ones who are using violence and fear tactics. Our response must be to base our arguments on reason, love, patience, kindness, compassion, good heartedness, truth, justice and good will. Brexit is the path of darkness, invented and devised by criminals. The UK deserves something far better than this coup by criminals which we have been watching. Enough is enough, in the UK as in the USA. Time to put the lights back on folks…


  1. PHILIP ALLOT ON BREXIT: one of the UK’s most intelligent political theorists is Prof Philip Allot of Cambridge University, who was an FCO legal adviser and who was the first Legal Counsellor in the UK Permanent Representation to the European Communities in 1972. He is now Professor Emeritus of International Public Law at Cambridge. Among his many books are Eutopia: New Philosophy and New Law for a Troubled World; Eunomia. New Order for a New World (1990/2001); The Health of Nations. Society and Law beyond the State (2002); and Towards the International Rule of Law. Essays in Integrated Constitutional Theory (2005). He is also a Fellow of the British Academy. On Brexit he has argued (in Prospect Magazine in September 2018)  that “Liberal democracy cannot bear very much chaos. The wonderful achievement of a good liberal democratic society is that it is able to combine stability and progress using immensely sophisticated homeostatic mechanisms designed to manage change, systems developed over centuries of trial and error, a process reminiscent of evolution by natural selection. Britain does not have much experience of revolutions. In the 19th century, Britain was the only major European power that avoided violent revolution. The British parliament became a “revolutionary body,” said Engels. According to the Duke of Wellington, as prime minister, it was “revolution by due process of law.” Breakdown in the rule of law after a “no deal” withdrawal from the EU could cause a general breakdown in our constitutional systems. If, in the run-up to 29th March, no agreement is struck, the UK could withdraw its notification of intention to withdraw, telling the European Council that it had changed its mind. It could work to get the two-year time-limit extended, given that the time-limit is manifestly absurd in the case of the UK. Or it could decide to withdraw without an agreement. Whose decision would that be? The executive branch of government (HMG)? HMG with the approval of parliament? HMG with the approval of the people? Or a joint and several act of omission? Given that the decision could produce catastrophic effects, it is quite important to know who would be responsible for it. We all have a responsibility to try to foresee its hopelessly unforeseeable consequences. The first level of chaos in the event of no deal would be at the level of everyday law. When the UK joined the European Communities in 1973, Lord Denning, a then famous judge, said that EU law is an incoming tide. It seeps into everywhere. It is difficult to sweep back. So long as the EU itself survives, we in the UK will always be subject to EU law, if we want to trade with states that are ruled by EU law or to do anything else within the EU which is subject to EU law. On no deal B-Day people would have to start renegotiating millions of existing legal acts and situations involving EU law, leading to a tsunami of legal proceedings in this country and across the world, lasting for many years. The second level of chaos would be institutional. On no deal B-Day the UK would lose its power over the making of EU law and its interpretation and application. That might be softened temporarily by the terms of a Brexit agreement. A no-deal withdrawal would be a cliff-edge. So long as the EU survives, we will always be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which has the last word on what EU law means. EU law is implemented through countless subordinate organisations, agencies and committees: for example, relating to medicines or the movement of capital or anti-trust or the environment. The UK would cease to take part in that work. We would also have lost a second nationality. We would have to set about re-organising ourselves to satisfy two legal systems. The third level of chaos would be international. The EU has hundreds of agreements with non-member states, including “mixed agreements” to which EU member states are also parties. It could take years to sort out the position of the UK in relation to those agreements after a no deal withdrawal. The World Trade Organization Agreement is a mixed agreement.

There is a collective fantasy that the UK could rapidly conclude trade agreements with other countries. Those agreements would have to satisfy the essential principle of the WTO system. A trade preference given to one country must be given to all WTO members, unless the two countries are members of a customs union or a free trade area. The task could last for years. It is at the highest international level that there may be greatest cause for concern about a chaotic British future. In a world that threatens our national flourishing, we would, overnight, have lost our place as a dominant member of a potential world-power of more than 500m people. It is tragic that successive British governments have failed to make good use of that power, in the new role in Europe that US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in 1962, had encouraged us to assume.” In other words, what Allot is saying is that brexit is a very silly idea, and above all, that a hard Brexit would be absolutely catastrophic. You don’t have to be a Prof at Cambridge to work that out. What is incredible however, is that HM Government simply cannot work this out and the Tory Party institutionally cannot work this out. There seems to this author at least to be a very good case for in future requiring intelligence  tests for prospective politicians, and insisting that they pass certain basic exams in moral and political theory, before being given a Politicians Licence. After all, drivers are required to have a licence to drive a vehicle on public roads and nobody questions that, in both theory and practice of driving. Yet politicians can drive the ship of state without any licence at all simply because their corrupt cronies in their favoured political a party like them. So we can get all manner of criminals, gangsters, liars and dangerous people active in politics. Time to bring in a “Politicians licence” – it is one of the long term implications of this whole Brexit fiasco. And one of the key elements of the Politicians Licence is the Parliamentary Duty of veracity. You have simply to tell the truth when asked questions about official political matters. If you lie, you lose the licence, simple as that. You can say – well in that case most of the Members of the House of Commons would lose their licence on day one. So be it. We can always get a more virtuous and moral crop to replace them. And great teachers and thinkers like Philip Allot can help devise the curriculum of studies that would needed to get a “Politicians Licence” perhaps. Philip Allot has also argued that “The UK’s scheduled withdrawal from the EU next March – quite possibly without a deal – has led to general legal confusion. It may be useful to identify legal aspects of the situation which are, in my opinion, beyond reasonable doubt. The underlying legal situation might now be irremediably corrupted, but it may still be worth setting out a legal opinion that could have been given at any time during the Article 50 process and which, in my view, still applies. One purpose of a framework legal opinion of this kind is to allow other people to express their own opinion on the same matters as precisely as possible.” He has argued that the deadline of March 29 should and could be extended, and he gives detailed reasons why this is the case. The European Court of Justice has also in December 2018 given a ruling that the UK can in fact unilaterally rescind (i.e. cancel) the notification to leave at any time up to March 2019 if the political will to do so manifests in the British people and parliament. Let us hope that either a second referendum takes place before March 2019, or that the notification to leave the EU is withdrawn long enough for the second referendum to take place. It is possible that Theresa May will have to step down for this to take place as she seems to have become possessed by fanatical determination to stick to her March 29. 2019 deadline. If she gets a sudden attack of rationality, there is no reason she couldn’t help oversee as Prime Minister a second referendum, perhaps as part of a government of national unity. But given how rude she has been in office, perhaps she should just resign and let someone with more intelligence take over. Philip Allot explains how the period of notification can be extended: “The UK notification of intention to withdraw from the EU may be withdrawn at any time. It is a notification of intention to withdraw. It is not a notification of withdrawal, notwithstanding the erroneous title of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. (Section 1(1) of the Act is correct.) If the intention changes, the European Council could be so informed and the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement could cease. Many treaties contain a provision allowing for ‘notification of withdrawal’ by a contracting party (not including the word ‘intention’). http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2018/09/08/article-50-is-flawed-could-the-ecj-extend-the-two-year-withdrawal-period/


  1. IS THE EU REALLY UNDEMOCRATIC ? Here is a very important short essay by an academic, Prof. Simon Hix who is the Harold Laski Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He argues that a popular claim by many supporters of the Leave campaign is that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’. How much truth is there behind that claim? This claim mainly refers to the EU Commission: the EU’s executive body. It is true that the Commission President and the individual Commissioners are not directly elected by the peoples of Europe. So, in that sense, we cannot “throw the scoundrels out”. It is also true that under the provisions of the EU treaty, the Commission has the sole right to propose EU legislation, which, if passed, is then binding on all the EU member states and the citizens of these member states. But, that’s not the end of the story. First, the Commission’s power to propose legislation is much weaker than it at first seems. The Commission can only propose laws in those areas where the EU governments have unanimously agreed to allow it to do under the EU treaty. Put another way, the Commission can only propose EU laws in areas where the UK government and the House of Commons has allowed it to do so. Also, ‘proposing’ is not the same as ‘deciding’. A Commission proposal only becomes law if it is approved by both a qualified-majority in the EU Council (unanimity in many sensitive areas) and a simple majority in the European Parliament. In practice this means that after the amendments adopted by the governments and the MEPs, the legislation usually looks very different to what the Commission originally proposed. In this sense, the Commission is much weaker than it was in the 1980s, when it was harder to amend its proposals in the Council and when the European Parliament did not have amendment and veto power.Part of the misunderstanding about the power of the Commission perhaps stems from a comparison with the British system of government. Unlike the British government, which commands a majority in the House of Commons, the Commission does not command an in-built majority in the EU Council or the European Parliament, and so has to build a coalition issue-by-issue. This puts the Commission in a much weaker position in the EU system than the British government in the UK system.Second, the Commission President and the Commissioners are indirectly elected. Under Article 17 of the EU treaty, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission President is formally proposed by the European Council (the 28 heads of government of the EU member states), by a qualified-majority vote, and is then ‘elected’ by a majority vote in the European Parliament. In an effort to inject a bit more democracy into this process, the main European party families proposed rival candidates for the Commission President before the 2014 European Parliament elections. Then, after the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) won the most seats in the new Parliament, the European Council agreed to propose the EPP’s candidate: Jean-Claude Juncker.The problem in Britain, though, is that this new way of ‘electing’ the Commission President did not feel very democratic. None of the main British parties are in the EPP (the Conservatives left the EPP in 2009), and so British voters were not able to vote for Juncker (although they could vote against him). There was also very little media coverage in the UK of the campaigns between the various candidates for the Commission President, so few British people understand how the process worked (unlike in some other member states). But, we can hardly blame the EU for the Conservatives leaving the EPP or for our media failing to cover the Commission President election campaign! Then, once the Commission President is chosen, each EU member state nominates a Commissioner, and each Commissioner is then subject to a hearing in one of the committees of the European Parliament (modelled on US Senate hearings of US Presidential nominees to the US cabinet). If a committee issues a ‘negative opinion’ the candidate is usually withdrawn by the government concerned. After the hearings, the team of 28 is then subject to an up/down ‘investiture vote’ by a simple majority of the MEPs.Finally, once invested, the Commission as a whole can be removed by a two-thirds ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament. This has never happened before, but in 1999 the Santer Commission resigned before a censure vote was due to be taken which they were likely to lose. So, yes, the Commission is not directly elected. But it is not strictly true to say that it is ‘unelected’ or unaccountable.And, in many ways, the way the Commission is now chosen is similar to the way the UK government is formed. Neither the British Prime Minister nor the British cabinet are ‘directly elected’. Formally, in House of Commons elections, we do not vote on the choice for the Prime Minister, but rather vote for individual MPs from different parties. Then, by convention, the Queen chooses the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons to form a government. This is rather like the European Council choosing the candidate of the political group with the most seats in the European Parliament to become the Commission President. Then, after the Prime Minister is chosen, he or she is free to choose his or her cabinet ministers. There are no hearings of individual ministerial nominees before committees of the House of Commons, and there is no formal investiture vote in the government as a whole. From this perspective, the Commissioners and the Commission are more scrutinised and more accountable than British cabinet ministers. So, it is easy to claim that the EU is run by ‘unelected bureaucrats’, but the reality is quite a long way from that. This important essay and many other useful writings about Brexit are available on the helpful LSE website blog: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/06/21/is-the-eu-really-run-by-unelected-bureaucrats/


  1. GERMAN POLITICS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: Some people complain that the EU is too “Germanic” in its culture and orientation. But they forget that Germany itself is subject to constant political fluctuations and registers all shades of political opinions in its vibrant culture from far left, green, to social democrat, to centrist and different shades of right wing. But somehow this complex mixture manages to stay together without blowing up into civil war or with Bavaria or another part voting for independence. Stability is not necessarily a bad thing in politics after all. On 7 December, 2018, Germany’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) elected Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer as its new leader. She will succeed Angela Merkel, who has headed the party since 2000. Kramp-Karrenbauer, also known as AKK (ominously this sounds like MBS in Saudi Arabia), is closely associated with Merkel, to the extent she is sometimes referred to condescendingly as ‘Mini Merkel’. Yet, rather than Merkel – who has been Chancellor since 2005 – stepping away from front line politics, she is going to continue as the German Chancellor, with the aim of seeing out another three years in the position before stepping down in 2021. If Merkel manages to stay in power for this long, she will have seen off at least three US presidents (four if Trump is voted out of office in 2020 or, as some have argued he may do, walk away), at least three UK Prime Ministers (a number that could quickly become four) and four French Presidents. Just as importantly, this period has, among other events, seen the credit crunch and its related global financial crisis and the seemingly never quite receding Eurozone turbulence, the rise of populism, the UK Brexit vote, (and hopefully its revocation in a second referendum) the continued rise of China and India, and the Arab Spring and the tumultuous civil and regional wars which followed in its wake. In the short-term, Merkel’s decision appears a sound one. Indeed, she remains surprisingly popular for a leader who has been in power for well over a decade. Yet, three years, as the saying almost goes, is a long time in politics. Something aptly demonstrated by the fact that it is only two and a half tumultuous years since the Brexit vote and less than two years since Trump became US president. Though formally the job of party leader and Chancellor are separate, given the convention for them generally to be held by the same person within the largest party in Germany, the potential for instability seems strong. One precedent is not encouraging for Merkel. A similar situation occurred in February 2004 when the ruling Social Democrats (SPD) removed Chancellor Gerhard Schröder from his position as party leader, outraged by his ‘Agenda 2010’ labour reforms. Schröder staggered on for another 17 months before losing a vote of confidence in the Bundestag and then a general election, to Merkel. So it is interesting that Merkel is staying on as Chancellor of Germany. Given that her phone was spied on by the Usa intelligence services, given that Trump simply doesn’t seem to understand European culture, and was quite rude to Merkel and other European leaders whenever he meets them, given that the USA has become a dangerous and sometimes pettily hostile ally to Europe, and given that the USA may well have helped swing the brexit vote in 2016, in order to “get back at the EU” – it would be nice karma if Merkel was indeed still German Chancellor when the UK reverses its decision, democratically, and decides that, sorry chaps, this divorce s is simply too painful, so we are going to stay put, if that’s ok ! The last time this current author was in Berlin was to read a paper on Sophiaphobia, which launched the idea on its academic career, meaning the fear of wisdom, a tendency which mobs and anti-intellectuals have always had since long before John Dee’s library and Joseph Priestley’s laboratory were broken into and attacked by mobs. Brexit seems to this editor at least, like a very Sophiaphobic thing to be doing. Wise up, guys !


  1. RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE OVER BREXIT: There have been claims made in many circles that somehow Russia might have interfered in the 2016 election. Some say that they had a huge on line campaign directed at persuading voters to vote Leave. Now Putin has seemed to give credence to this idea. On Decemeber 19 Vladimir Putin has said the UK should not hold a second referendum on Brexit, insisting Theresa May must “fulfil the will of the people”. This is an absurd statement to make and shows how ignorant or conniving he is when it comes to UK politics and the actual “will of the people”. Offering public support that the embattled British prime minister could probably do without, Putin said he understood May’s position in “fighting for this Brexit”.“The referendum was held,” the Russian president said from Moscow during his annual press conference, which is broadcast on national television. “What can she do? She has to fulfil the will of the people expressed in the referendum.”Britons may see some irony in a lesson on democracy from a fourth-term president who has co-opted or crushed any substantial opposition in his home country. In a statement, the former foreign secretary David Miliband, who has backed a second referendum, said it was “an insult to the United Kingdom that he should be lecturing us on our democratic process”. Russia is seen as a possible beneficiary of the UK’s exit from the EU, and a prominent financial backer of the leave campaign, Arron Banks, met Russian embassy officials repeatedly during the run-up to the referendum in June 2016. Not to mention the meddling the UK has been doing in Syria, in trying to detach Ukraine from Russia sphere of influence; in supporting extremist Muslims in Syria and in Yemen, and going along with Saudi Arabia in their demented attacks in Russia, and in encouraging them way back in 1980 onwards over Afghanistan. The fact is that the UK helped train and arm the Jihadis who waged a relentless war on Russia’s presence in Afghanistan. So there is little love lost between Russia and the Uk when it comes to international affairs. One shod also not forget the attacks on Russia for alleging their involvement in the Skripal incident. More recently, the Uk has even accused Russia of hacking The Institute Of Statecraft and issuing attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. So no, Russia might well have wanted to see the Uk humbled and broken up, and kicked out of the safe matrix of the EU. Perhaps Putin is arguing against a second referendum because he actually wants to see the UK brought to its knees. And who can blame him ? However, this still smacks of unwarranted interference in the UK’s own complex political procedures. In a nod to recent accusations of election meddling, Putin coyly suggested he was hesitant to give advice on Brexit “lest they accuse us once again of something”. But he then went on to criticise the idea of a second referendum or “people’s vote”, which could offer the possibility of Britain staying in the EU. A no-deal Brexit has recently become significantly more likely, with May’s deal expected to be rejected by the UK parliament. “Was it not a referendum?” the Russian president said. “Someone disliked the result, so repeat it over and over? Is this democracy? What then would be the point of the referendum in the first place and what is the sense of direct democracy?” but else remarks of Putin are disingenuous and shows he has been badly advised. Russia undoubtedly stands much to gain from a UK brexit, not least the dismantling of UK’s nuclear weapons bases once Scotland leave the UK. So perhaps Putin has all along been playing a very clever game, only now he has finally, inadvertently admitted what he is up to. As a Russophile and an expert in Russia’s intellectual history, my advice would be for Putin to withdraw these remarks. I would argue as editor that in fact it is not in Russia’s interest to see the UK break up over brexit as it will usher in total chaos and risks of future conflicts, nor is it in the interests of the USA. The Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin might well like to see the EU broken up and humbled and the UK likewise, and Russia reassert its great power status. But Dugin ought to give some thought to the philosophy of peace and how Russia, Europe, and the West generally can work out a way of living in peace and prosperity across the globe. Signing a Digital Cyber Peace treaty would be a first move in this direction, and instead of withdrawing from Nuclear Weapons treaties both the USA and Russia and the UK should reaffirm them. Brexit will simply make all this much more difficult and chaotic. Dugin apparently has close ties with the Kremlin and the Russian military, having served as an advisor to State Duma speaker Gennadiy Seleznyov and key member of the ruling United Russia party Sergei Naryshkin. Dugin was the leading organizer of the National Bolshevik Party, National Bolshevik Front, and Eurasia Party. He is the author of more than 30 books, among them Foundations of Geopolitics (1997) and The Fourth Political Theory (2009). In the Kremlin, Dugin represents the “war party”, a division within the leadership over Ukraine. Dugin is seen as an author of Putin’s initiative for the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. He considered the war between Russia and Ukraine to be inevitable and appealed for Putin to start military intervention in eastern Ukraine. It is time for Dugin to seriously think through some basic moves in the political philosophy of peace, and likewise for Putin to step back from the interference in the UK’s democratic process as we stumble finally towards a second referendum to reverse the nightmare of brexit. Or we are going to be causing the champagne to flow in Dugin’s home and Putin’s Kremlin, on April 1st, 2019, appropriately all fools day. Already in June 2012, Dugin said in a lecture that chemistry and physics are demonic sciences, and that all Orthodox Russians need to unite around the President of the Russian Federation in the last battle between good and evil. So here we are again, another exceptionalist apocalyptician, just like Steve Bannon and his cronies who have brought us brexit. Poor old Uk needs to wake up and not buy into this apocalyptic rhetoric and stick with the good old bumbling EU and the UK, before we watch them break up before our eyes.


  1. WEEKLY FASTING EACH SUNDAY TO PREVENT BREXIT – the editor is now fasting each Sunday as a protest against the Brexit madness.. if everyone who opposes brexit can fast every Sunday from now on, we can rally a spiritual energy to stop this madness.. I am suggesting that everyone who is truly opposed to brexit spend each Sunday from now in fasting, prayer, study and campaigning. Gandhi advocated this method to fuel non-violence campaigns, so did the Druids of Britain and Ireland and Europe of old, and so did the hunger strikers in Northern Ireland when the Time of Troubles were at their worst. We have to prevent the madness that is Brexit so I ask you to join me in this Sunday weekly fast each Sunday until brexit is stopped. The School of Nonviolence continues its work under the auspices of IIPSGP with its new base here in France, but our work is European wide, including all of the British isles. Whereas the UK government wants to impose brexit and then go on spending on militarism, we at IIPSGP are saying – lets invest in peace, love, cooperation, nonviolence, and education, and keep both Europe and the UK together as peace-loving forces for good in the world..

86. THE KARMA OF BREXIT: THE SPIRITUAL AND METAPHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF POLITICS – A talk by Dr Thomas Clough Daffern at the Ark, 4 Collins Sreet, Totnes,  TQ9 5PJ – on Tuesday 15 January 7 for 7.30 start, co-organised by IIPSGP and the Wessex Research Group – followed by questions and answers, and a celebratory glass of wine and a poem or two afterwards.  

Talk repeated in London, Theosophical Society, 50 Gloucester Place, London W1U 8EA on Thursday 17 January, 2-5pm

Theses talks will explore the disastrous consequences for the UK of the implementation of Brexit, and discusses the whole topic from an esoteric, karmic and Druidical perspective. Why would the UK risk its own break up (Scottish independence, Irish reunification) for the sake of implementing a flawed, advisory and illegally conducted referendum held way back in 2016 before all the facts were known ? What fanatical and ill-informed occultists are pushing for this outcome ? What are their ideological positions and what will they gain from seeing the break up of the UK ? On the other hand the lecturer accepts that many of those who voted for leave first time round did so in good faith before all the facts of the situation we are in came to light. This situation is the worst emergency facing the UK since the Battle of Britain, and has the potential to achieve what Hitler failed to achieve for all his bombing – the complete and final destruction of the UK as a political entity as it has existed since 1603.

Given all this, is there any light ? How can we save the UK from the most disastrous sequence of events in our history since 1603 ? The speaker intends to cast some light on how to retrieve the situation, by emphasising, love, unity, peace and integral spirituality. By saying no to fear and hate, racism and xenophobia and “anti-Europeanism” and by exposing the unintelligence of those who would pit the British people against the European people as fake occult conspiracy theorists who have simply not done their homework and have been brainwashed into a false nationalist version of history peddled by Bannon and his UK cronies (Nigel Farage et al). In the lecturer’s view, Britain and Europe (named after a Phoenician Princess) best belong together as particles and waves do in creating their energy displays of beauty. Scotland and the rest of the UK would also be better to remain united and part of a reforming EU.  While a majority of votes cast were in favour of leaving in 2016, the majority of people in Scotland and in Northern Ireland voted to remain. To disrespect their wishes risks breaking up the UK forever. A second referendum will give us all a chance to rethink and to choose inclusive love this time round.  The lecturer will present the fruit of his own research into these matters, based on many months of detailed research. He will present his own conclusions  based on this work as a peace scientist and philosopher. Others may of course draw different conclusions, as is fair in a democracy, and hopefully a lively and civilised discussion will ensue in the questions after the main talk.


The lecturer is the Archdruid of the Order of Peace Poets, Bards and Druids, and serves as peace officer to the Council of British Druid Orders. He was awarded the Mt Haemus Lectureship for 2010. In 2017 he founded the European Council of Druids. As a Christian, he was baptised into the Anglican church in 1985 at Kings College, University of London. Before that he had served as librarian at Rudolf Steiner House in London and has spent many years studying esoteric Christianity. He founded the Mary Magdalene Studies Association in France in 2017 and has lectured for many years on all aspects of Christian theology. He has recently completed  a Commentary on the 6 Gospels. As a Philosopher, he directs the International institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy, and was awarded his PhD from the University of London in 2008 for a study of the Transpersonal Search for Peace from 1945-2001. He is also European coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum.  As a historian, he obtained his BA (Hons) degree in history from the University of London in 1988 and has since written numerous books on all aspects of historical studies, and lectured from the University of Oxford and the University of London in intellectual history. He is about to publish the first ever academic historical inquiry into 9/11. He is calling for the setting up of the International Historical Commission into 9/11 which will be first time that professional historians have taken on board the fact that something truly anomalous happened in the USA on 9/11 and that it is our intellectual duty to work out exactly what happened, from evidential historical records. The lecturer is also a Poet and musician, who runs the Musee des Muses in France, dedicated to the 9 Muses, who inspire all true poetry and philosophy. He is also a trained teacher with a PGCE in religious education and has served as head of religious studies and philosophy in various UK schools. Having lived in England for many years including 10 years in London, he lived in Wales for 10 years, and then Scotland for 7 years. He moved to France 2 years ago where he has been busy learning about French esoteric, Christian and Druidical traditions and discovering common patterns and themes between the sacred landscapes of France, the UK and Ireland. He has published over 40 books, with his most recent being a Dictionary Of New Words For A New Global Peace Civilisation (2018) and the Anti-Brexit Journal (2018) See http://www.educationaid.net and www.lulu.com/iipsgp He has instituted a weekly fast against brexit each Sunday until a second referendum is held and invites all those supporting this position to fast alongside each Sunday from now on, as a Peoples Fast, in the tradition of Gandhi and the Druid, Christian, Hindu and Jain communities who always fast until justice is done. It brings spiritual clarity to a situation and strengthens the moral resolve of those participating. He runs the School of Nonviolence, established with the Gandhi Foundation in London, it is now run from his base in France. He has received numerous awards for his international peace education work and has lectured in many  countries worldwide.

For more information contact: iipsgp@educationaid.net. Attendance by donation.


87. EDITORIAL COMMENTS: This Journal has been brought to you as an act of faith and goodwill by Dr Thomas Daffern , Director of the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (IIPSGP) and European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum. It is an attempt to bring together into one place the arguments, peoples, ideas and movements that are gradually coming together in solid and hopefully powerful and effective opposition to the folly of brexit which is being pursued by the UK government led by prime minster Theresa May. The single solution to this increasingly bitter and fractured debate which has split British society, and which will result in keeping the UK together as a nation state, within the European Union, seems to be a second referendum. The alternative – to push Brexit through the Parliament, and try and sort out the mess afterwards, leaving everything still to be decided with the European Union, i.e. Brexit without an agreement in place, seems to be the worst case scenario, which will leave everybody facing a kind of black hole situation, Out of this will almost certainly then arise the breakup of the United Kingdom as a disgruntled Scotland and a incredulous Northern Ireland will exercise their democratic rights to leave the UK. Conversely, as we have proposed, if the English nation, or parts of it, wish to leave the European Union, then let them leave the EU and also the UK at the same time. After all the UK was brought into being by a Scottish King (James 6th, who was born at Stirling Castle) and the English have no legal right to the title without contestation. If the second referendum was framed in those terms, it is probable  that even the English would decide miraculously to vote for staying  inside the UK and for staying inside the EU together, one nation, in a wider confederation of nations coming together for the common good of peace, well being and prosperity for all our citizens. Please feel free to email comments, additions, amendments, or suggestions for the next issue of this newsletter. We will continue with producing, updating and improving this newsletter, until a second referendum is announced, and until the UK has managed to claw its way back from the abyss of Brexit. If you would like a printed copy of this Journal for your library, please buy one on www.lulu.com/iipsgp You will also find my talks on our You Tube channel at IIPSGP1 including many on Brexit, and also on our Blog at https://thomascloughdaffern.wordpress.com/


Please contact: Dr Thomas Daffern, Director, IIPSGP, European office: European Peace Museum, 13 Grande Rue, Betete, La Creuse 23270, France, Mobile: +44 (0)7500 238523 Tel. +33 5 87565489  Email:  thomasdaffern@gmail.com, or iipsgp@educationaid.net UK address : 213 Ham Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2QB.



This photo taken in the Summer of 2018 outside the European Peace Museum in Betete, La Creuse, France, where this Newsletter has been written, shows an intrepid Dutch  cyclist, who is en route from Amsterdam by bicycle all the way to Huelva in Spain, the port where Columbus sailed to the Americas. Seeing our sign he dropped in for a quick visit and coffee, a chat about the history of 9/11 and the silence of academics, his Jesuit education in Holland, the nature of philosophy,  and the difficulty of doing peace history, before setting off again on his months long journey to Huelva. This random snapshot sums up the work of Europe – all of us are on this journey together – should we shoot the cyclist because suddenly we have been brainwashed into hatred for the “other” ? Or should we not just welcome them as our guest ? Are we not all just “passing through” ?




This is a poem read by Thomas Daffern, who as well as being a poet and philosopher and historian, is also the Peace Druid of the Council Of British Druid Orders and has recently founded the European Council of Druids. He also founded and directs the work of the Order of Peace, Poets, Bards and Druids and has published 6 volumes of poetry to date, and recorded an audio version of them also.  He has posted many times on this blog why he opposes Brexit as a serious dumbing down to the innate genius of the British people; as a sell out to the boring and bland accountant-bankers who run the City of London and who dictate the policies of the Tory Party, and who act from selfish and immoral ends and purposes. Here he marshals the flaming bolts of light from Lugh, the Bardic and Druidical Sun God, who gives his name to Lyon, Lugdunum (London) and Carlisle and many other great cities across Europe, in order to stop and prevent the breaking up of the Uk, and to prevent brexit, and invokes rather the Muses’ preferred vision of peace, harmony, love and unity as prevailing throughout the great European cultural sphere from the West of Ireland through to the mountains of Armenia.. in one landscape of peace.. But first, Lugh has one last heroic deed to perform, to kill the one eyed demon of Tory Island, Balor, and to this end, this poem shows the way, and acts as a call to valour and courage for all the true bards and sages of Britain, Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Europe to this sacred cause. Thomas lives in the Druid heartland of Gaul (France) where he runs the Museum of the Muses and directs the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy. He has a PhD from the University of London for his work as a historian of intellectual history and has lectured at the University of London and Oxford and served as a teacher of religious studies and philosophy in many British schools. He has performed at the Struga Poety Festival in Macedonia on three occasions.



Here as promised is my proposed emergency back-stop to prevent brexit – comprising a draft Parliamentary Bill to outlaw the Tory party for treasonously threatening the destruction of the united kingdom by implementing Brexit against the majority wish of the people of the United Kingdom.

The simple facts of demography are these, that the people of Scotland and the people of Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the European Union. They will therefore seek to rejoin the European Union if forcibly taken out, and this will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. The logic behind these statements are inescapable and factually based on long observation of the politics of both Scotland and Northern Ireland. So what ? What’s the fuss ? I have had several Brexiteers saying – if Scotland and Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, why not just let them ?

Well, here are just a few of the problems I foresee arising from the breaking away of Scotland from the UK.

  • UK intelligence services: currently MI5, MI6, GCHQ all serve the nation to the best of their ability and try to keep us secure from foreign or terrorist threats. If Scotland becomes an entirely separate sovereign nation, she will either have to build her own intelligence services, and it cannot be pre-determined that her foreign policy will be the same as that pursued by the UK currently, or she will lay claim to a proportion of the existing UK services. Perhaps some serving intelligence officers will defect to join the Scottish service. It will put huge strain on many people and will make the UK a far less safe place to be. If Northern Ireland then follows Scottish independence and secedes, the strain will be even worse.
  • The honours system: currently people who have done great works of service to the nation are honoured with various medal and awards, such as the MBE, OBE, DBE etc. if Scotland breaks away, will she have her own such system ? How can the remaining UK continue to use the term “British Empire” in their remaining medals system; the British Empire only came into being after the union of the crowns of Scotland and England and Wales under King James in 1603. Their dissolution will be the final coming apart of whatever remains of the British Empire. There will be long and bitter disputes about this and new names will have to be found north and south of the border.
  • The monetary system: Scotland will want to use the Scottish pound in their new monetary system; English based national bankers and treasury officials will try to resists this; it will lead to bitterness and recriminations.
  • North Sea oilfields: lines of demarcation will be drawn differently, this will lead to huge conflict and bitterness and legal disputes dragging on for years. The key thing is, both sides will become poorer in the long run and only the lawyers richer.
  • The Ministry of Defence: at present the MOD serves to protect the people of all the UK; after the division of the UK into two or possibly three or four mini-nations, what will happen to the MOD and its resources ? There will be huge splits, arguments, disagreement and divisions about this leading to endless political and legal wrangling. One thing is certain – our nation as a whole will be much less secure than currently. The nuclear umbrella will have to be withdrawn from Scotland for such is undoubtedly the will of the Scottish people.
  • The future of the monarchy will be in doubt, since it is quite likely that after independence, whatever they say in public, once independent, the Scottish government will hold a subsequent referendum on replacing the monarchical system by an elected presidential system. The monarch will thus revert to being monarch of a much smaller realm. It is possible other voices south of the border will also call for the abolition of the monarchy as an irrelevance. If the monarchy couldn’t even prevent the breakup of its own realm, what on earth is it for, voices will argue no doubt. So not only will Theresa May be the last UK Prime Minister, but Queen Elizabeth will be the last monarch, certainly of the UK. It is tragic and ironic therefore that a so cvative party is actually impreillign the constitutional fabir oc of hte UK which has survived since 1603 an d the Union of Scotland and Engla and Wales.
  • If the UK breaks apart and Scotland achieves complete independence, other countries around the world which look to the UK, such as Commonwealth countries, for stability, hope and order in a chaotic and fragmented world, will be bitterly disappointed; they will see yet another once great power falling apart at the We have watched as Yugoslavia fell apart; as the USSR collapsed, as Afghanistan fell apart, as Iraq imploded, as Syria collapsed, as Libya disintegrated, as Ukraine ended up in an uncivil war. In some of these break ups we ourselves have played a not altogether glorious role.  I have always hoped the Uk could play a genuinely creative role in actual peacebuilding and mediation. Now the world will watch as the once great UK follows the same route, and breaks up into warring and argumentative petty countries, leaping directly back into the dark ages. If you think I am being alarmist, then I suggest you study history and philosophy for 40 years as I have done. I also suggest you live in Scotland for 7 years and keep your ears to the ground. I promise you, there is a very strong probability all this will happen once Scotland  votes for full independence from the UK so as to be able to remain in the EU, which was her own democratically expressed will. I take no joy in saying this, but as a Canadian dual British citizen who has lived and worked in both countries, and traveled and lectured in over 33 countries worldwide, I can say that I and my fellow Canadians, not to mention Indian citizens, where I have traveled widely and taught often, are appalled at the prospect of the UK breaking up into residual nations. Both Canada and India are modern federations and we suggest the UK should remain together and follow the same route. The House of Lords could be replaced by a Federal Senate as part of this modernisation process.

All these issues are huge problems in themselves. Compared with the breakup of the UK and all that it brings into focus, the prospect of remaining inside the EU however comes as a welcome option to remain together as one nation, at peace with itself (more or less) and with its neighbours. The question before us, is do we  hate the EU so much that we are prepared to see the UK collapse, after over 400 years of common history as a result of this burning hatred? Or do the people of Britain love their own nation, the UK, more than they hate the EU ? After all, the EU is reformable,  but once the UK is destroyed however, it cannot be rebuilt, and 400 years of history will have vanished like a pipe dream. A country whose unity was forged by Saints, as reflected in our national flag, will ave been broken apart by politicians.

I have tried again and again to impress upon the Prime Minister over recent weeks and months, but she has utterly and totally ignored my warnings to the point of adverse rudeness. She hasn’t the intellectual capacity to argue against me, and instead retreats behind bland platitudes which are as dull as they are factually incorrect. You can join me in any last minute efforts trying to impress upon the Prime Minister the urgency of this situation which now threatens our very future as a nation. I cannot see another way to retrieve this situation apart from calling a second EU referendum. I believe this policy would have the very greatest support from all thinking UK citizens. The Terms on which the second EU referendum should be conducted would have to be fairer than before; all voters 16 and over should vote, UK citizens living in Europe or elsewhere who remain UK citizens should all get to vote with plenty of time for their voting papers to arrive and return, and these votes should be counted at a separate central location in the UK. Unless there is a second referendum, I am afraid we are going to live through the breakup of the UK and I for one will not be happy unless I had done my utmost to prevent that happening.

It is also a thoroughly false argument repeated an nauseam by Tory Ministers to say that Brexit represents the will of the people of the UK. Of all registered voters only 72% actually voted, 28% didn’t vote at all for whatever reason (an abstention is actually a vote for the status quo, which is to remain in the EU), of those who did vote, 35% voted to remain, 36% voted to leave. This means that 64% of the total voters did not vote to leave the EU. What it means, is that if we are to leave the EU, 34% of the voters will have imposed their will over 64% of the rest. This is hardly a ringing mandate for such a massive change affecting the nation for years to come, and indeed, affecting the entire history of Europe. Or to put this another way, the combined number of voters who voted to leave the EU was 17,410,742. The combined total of those voters who either voted to remain in the EU or who voted to keep the status quo by not voting at all, was 29,089,259. which is 64% of the total. Please have a quiet word with the Prime Minister and do what you can to prevent UK break up. In addition, the Tory Party, which is masterminding this whole process, has only 120,00 members. So a minority gtroup, with reactionary views, mostly of an anti-intelectual antuyre, who stand for a variety of semoi-fascist, ractist adn xenophobic views, will have effectely engineered a secret coup in whch their own xenophopbic racist attitudes will have led to teh break up of the Uk, as the rest of the nations which make up the UK reject what is essentially a little Englaish attitude.

Who am I to be saying all this ? Why should anyone care ? Well, I have no outer political power or office and have never striven for such.  I am merely a philosopher and intellectual, a Druid and an Anglican Christian, an expert in interfaith philosophical studies, an historian, and a poet,  who has always believed in our constitution and in the UK, and believed that we can turn this UK into a peace-loving nation and help advance democracy, the rule of law, justice and fair play around the world, through our work in the UN and in the European Union,. This is why I accepted the job, on graduating, of setting up an International Institute of Peace Studies in London, and why I organised countless meetings, seminars, courses, and publications in the cause of an intelligent peace policy to be followed by the UK as a nation. I did this work not in any party politically biased fashion but on behalf of the whole community of our multitextured patchwork of peoples.

The majority of voters of Northern Ireland voted to remain  in the European Union. The majority of voters of Scotland chose to remain in the European Union.  The great majority of British citizens now want a second referendum of this most vital of political questions.  Why has this current government interpreted the referendum results as a mandate for an absolute Brexit ?  In my work as a political scientist and philosopher of peace over many years teaching at both the Universities of London and Oxford, I have never known of such a fatal miscalculation.  The immediate consequences of this policy will result in the citizens of Northern Ireland being given a referendum by choice to join with the Republic of Ireland and remain in the European Union.  All the demographics point to this as an almost certain outcome.  Likewise the people of Scotland will lawfully demand a second independence referendum, and this time will vote for becoming an independent nation state within the European Union.  Again, the implications of the Brexit policy are that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will have to be renamed Little Britain (England and Wales).

I have even written to the Queen warning her of the risks from imposing this fanatical and hard line Brexit by the Tories and received a polite reply from her correspondence secretary.

I wrote to her because I believe we all  have a constitutional duty to help defend the integrity of the realm.  Privy Councillors have a special sworn duty to protect Her Majesty from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I wrote therefore not as a Privy Councillor but as a loyal subject, to warn the Queen of the impending danger which I foresee for the UK.  I assured her that if she consults with any genuine academics, constitutional experts, legal advisers, political scientists etc. they will also confirm that what I  wrote  is as true as anything ever can be when it comes to political science.  I explained to her gently that If she is being told otherwise (the Scots will back down, the Northern Irish are not serious, etc.), then she is being mis-advised by party political place-men lacking in a fundamental overview of the situation.  I explained to her that Melbourne was appreciated by Queen Victoria as a great Liberal Prime Minister, precisely because he told her the truth, not because he told her what she wanted to hear.  I also pointed out that we seem to be lacking statesmen and stateswomen of his calibre nowadays.


Why am I going public with all this ? Well, Brexit is such a major policy blunder that all of us must do what we can to stop it.


So now I going the extra mile – and having tried warning the Prime Minister (politely) having tried warning her Majesty, having tried warning the general public, I have come to the realisation, in view of Theresa May’s recent performance in Strasbourg, where she attempted, ignorantly, to bully all 27 other European Union country leaders into “accepting her vision and view of what Brexit should look like, or she will just leave anyway” – which is frankly not how things are done in European politics. Most of the other European Union leaders do not want the UK to leave at all, and have now said openly they think the UK should be given a second referendum. I wholeheartedly agree with them.


Yet incredibly the Conservative Party and its leader continue on as before, steaming straight into the iceberg.


For this reason, I have now drafted the following legislation, and would ask that anyone with parliamentary contacts should share, copy, paste and publicize it. We need some politicians of integrity to come forward and back this Bill.


We are faced with an imminent tragedy of the destruction of the UK, which has been in existence since 1603.


The main party that is pursuing this policy against all common sense, right reason and democratic precedence, is the Conservative Party, hence the only final answer to solve this problem is to outlaw them as a treasonous body whose politicians must be either maliciously, or ignorantly,  intent on destroying the country. Here follows the text of the Bill, whose text is I hope self-explanatory. I have also integrated this bill with the text of my earlier Parliamentary Duty of Veracity Bill, because the two issues are inextricably intertwined. The only reason we have got into this mess is because politicians have been lying and getting away with it, and still are. There therefore ought to be at the earliest opportunity a new Bill which makes lying in Parliament illegal, and here it is.





Be it enacted by the Lords, spiritual and temporal and by the Commons here assembled, that a new bill be brought forward concerning THE PROSCRIPTION OF THE ILLEGAL, TREASONOUS AND TERRORIST BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN



To ensure that members of parliament, members of the House of Lords and others should renounce membership of this illegal and treasonous body known as the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN or face arrest and imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation


The purpose of this act is to enshrine in law the proscription of the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain as an illegal, treasonous, and terrorist body whose continued existence is inimical to public well being, democracy and the rule of just law in the united Kingdom as well as of the continuation of the United Kingdom itself as a political entity.


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of Scotland contrary to their express wish


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of Northern Ireland contrary to their express wish


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of London contrary to their express wish


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of many parts of England and Wales contrary to their express and growing wish


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of The United Kingdom as a whole contrary to their express and growing wish, and to refuse to permit them to obtain redress at a second national referendum on continued membership of the European Union


Whereas it has been demonstrably proved that the CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is determined to impose the severance of the membership of the European Union on the people of The United Kingdom as a whole contrary to right reason, and in the face of imminent and direct threats that the consequence will be the imminent and immediate destruction and fracturing of the said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as ILLEGAL, because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions and customs of British democratic law and legal procedures, with principles of common law and the invisible architecture of the British constitution, both formal and informal, and with the principle of self-preservation that any nation state retains unto itself, and which is the fount and principle of law, duty and moral righteousness


Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as TREASONOUS  because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions and customs of British democratic law and legal procedures, with principles of common law and the invisible architecture of the British constitution, in as much as they bound to lead to the imminent self-destruction and self-dismemberment of the United Kingdom as a political entity, with the ending of the Act of Union of 1603 and the independence of Scotland, and the ending of the Province of Northern Ireland as part of the UK and its reunification with the Republic of Ireland


Be it therefore recognised that the BODY KNOWN AS THE CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN BILL shall henceforth be recognised as A TERRORIST ORGANISATION  because its actions have been shown to be at variance with traditions of national self preservation and are leading directly to the dismemberment, destruction and fracturation of the state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This outcome is so obvious to any analysis, that the conclusion is that it must have been entered into the same wilfully and malevolently by senior Conservative Politicians in collusion with foreign powers who wish to see the destruction of the United Kingdom, and who have already set their sights on the ending of the UK as it currently exists and therefore can be proved to have treasonous purposes at heart.


Be it THEREFORE enacted by the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lord’s spiritual and temporal and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows; –


  1. Legal obligation laid on members of parliament to renounce membership in the henceforth illegal CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, which is pursuing policies deliberately and malevolently which will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom
  2. Legal obligation laid on all employees, committee members and officials of the sometime CONSERVATIVE AND UNIONIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN to resign and dissolve the said association, which has been entered into for nefarious and illegal purposes and which is pursuing policies deliberately and malevolently which will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom
  3. In view of the fact that the current imminent self-destruction of the United Kingdom has come about due to the deceitful, manipulative, and dishonourable ignoring and silencing of genuine oppositional voices in parliament, and by the pursuance of policies such as brexit which are likely to lead to the breakup of the UK, there is henceforth a Legal obligation placed on all members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords henceforth to tell the truth on all political matters brought before them, on all matters of official businesses or all matters of parliamentary business


  1. a) All members of the House of Commons (of whichever political party) are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    b) If found to have dissimulated, lied, obfuscated, falsely denied, prevaricated or otherwise mendaciously attempted to deflect the questioner, or to dissuade from asking the question, then a formal procedure would be inaugurated whereby an independent investigative committee on parliamentary truth standards would be convened to consider the evidence for mendacity.
    c) If the charge of mendacity were upheld and proven to a high degree of likelihood, the Member Of Parliament would be automatically sent back or recalled to their constituency and a fresh election triggered for the said constituency.
    d) Private and personal matters would be excluded from this provision, except so far in that they have bearing on matters of State or the business of government. Financial matters and other professional matters that have bearing on their official roles however would be included.
    e) All members of the House of Lords likewise are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    f) All members of local councils and local authorities or their executive officers or staff are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any UK citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    g) All government employees, members and officers of government bodies, committees and quangos and all civil servants, are hereby required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any British citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    h) All members of the Royal Household and the Privy Council, the armed forces and all other agencies of the British state are likewise so required to speak the truth in response to questions put to them by any British citizen whatsoever, on matters of official business either in writing or orally.
    i) Matters of national security concerning which questions might be put, would have to be argued before the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) as being genuinely matters which cannot be answered in public. Truthful answers would however still have to be given to all such requests to a special committee of the Parliamentary Standards Committee, who would have the final say on whether to make the answer public or to communicate it to the respondent.
    j) All holders of Public office, including those mentioned above, and also anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes people who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally, and all people appointed to work in: the civil service, local government, the police, the courts and probation services, non-departmental public bodies, health, education, social and care services. The principle of honesty also apply to all those in other sectors that deliver public services.
  2. The procedures for the calling of Parliamentary Investigative Truth Committees would be under the auspices of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL)
    5.The jurors of the Parliamentary Truth Committees would be taken by random lot chosen from the official jury rolls of Westminster. No jurors would serve on more than one such Parliamentary Investigative Committee
    6.The juries of other officials to be established in each local parliamentary constituency and to be formed of ad hoc members taken by lot from the local jury rolls.
    7.The Oaths (or Affirmations) taken for formal and official office would be updated to reflect this new obligation of Veracity on taking up appointment.
    8. If any holder of public office or government official has been found to have dissimulated, lied, obfuscated, falsely denied, prevaricated or otherwise mendaciously attempted to deflect the questioner, or to dissuade from asking the question, and a formal procedure has concluded there is affirmative evidence for mendacity, then the official concerned would be required to resign from office immediately, with one months’ severance pay only permitted.
    9. This principle of honesty runs parallel to Parliamentary Privilege laws and privileges. Members of parliament are no longer permitted to make untrue accusations, deliberately lying, against fellow parliamentarians. Henceforth they are required to observe the principle of honesty if they wish to accuse their colleagues of wrong doing.
    10.The new legal duty of veracity imposed by this Bill on all holders of Public Office cannot be refused by hiding behind “freedom of information” legislation. There are no cost ceilings involved in truth–telling. Nor can public officials refuse to respond honestly to questions on the grounds of “confidentiality” except without giving very good grounds to the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL).
    11. Frivolous, time-wasting and vexatious questions soliciting nonsensical information in inappropriate ways would be dealt with according to their desserts, and costs accrued to the frivolous questioner. Common sense rules would apply (e.g. what colour tie did you wear on December 19th 2014).


  1. The dissolution of the Conservative and Unionist Party shall take immediate effect on the passage of this legislation, and likewise, the Duty Of Veracity shall immediately become a principle in parliamentary law and procedure.


This act hereby passed and approved by order of Parliament and through the Grace of Queen Elizabeth 2nd, Sovereign, so help us God.




This provisional parliamentary legislation has been drafted by Dr Thomas Daffern, September 2018, in an effort to prevent Brexit coming into force, by the proscription of the key political force that is pushing it, an illegal treasonous and terroristic organisation, by any definition of the words, with only 120,000 members throughout the UK, yet which is imposing a policy against the wishes of the vast majority of the 62 million people who lives in the UK. Dr. Thomas Clough Daffern B.A. (Hons.) PGCE. D.SC. (Hon), PhD. is a philosopher, historian, teacher, poet, author, lecturer, musician, thinker,  educator, consultant and peace studies specialist. His academic background includes degrees in European and world history (with political philosophy) and religious education, plus a long period of intense personal study in philosophy, religion and the history of ideas – together with over 30 years teaching experience in the same fields. He has also trained and practised in conflict management within communities and schools, specialising in multifaith and multicultural mediation. He is also a trained and experienced teacher in secondary schools, specialising in philosophy, religious education, history and citizenship studies. He was awarded his PhD from the University of London for a thesis which explores the history of the search for peace from 1945-2001 and which proposes a new field of historiography, Transpersonal History, as the best way to establish a rigorous discourse on peace among rival and contending spiritual and intellectual traditions, currently battling for hegemony on the planet. He is an expert in research techniques and methodologies on all aspects of history, religious studies, the history of world philosophy and transpersonal psychology. He has lectured in peace studies, philosophy and religious studies for many years at the Universities of London and Oxford, and has spoken  at the UN Headquarters about the role of Universities in changing the climate of fear and violence on the planet to one of trust and wisdom-seeking. He is a founder and coordinator of International Philosophers and Historians for Peace and has worked with philosophers and intellectuals from many countries worldwide to help establish intellectual and spiritual networks for peace and goodwill. In 1990 he was elected in Moscow as Coordinator of International Philosophers for Peace, a specialist body of philosophers worldwide searching for peace and international understanding. He is Director of the International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (IIPSGP) which works across many academic fields to bring together all those with an interest in and a commitment towards the study of peace and philosophy on all levels of the personal and global and to applying the qualities of love and wisdom to the resolution of the problems and tensions of today’s world. IIPSGP arose out of a feasibility study which Thomas undertook for the University of London into the proposed establishment of an Institute of Peace Studies (from 1989-1992). IIPSGP now operates as an autonomous Institute with members scattered worldwide. Thomas is also Founder of The Global Green University, which has arisen from the work of IIPSGP and was launched in 2000 as a pilot project in complementary higher education, to bring into being a new global higher education initiative which can provide space for the deeper, holistic, transpersonal and ecological  kind of learning. Dr Daffern is also European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum a new initiative like the World Economic Forum, but with a wider intellectual participation. Dr Daffern is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party in recognition that they are the major political force fighting brexit in the UK at present. He has personally co-chaired over 35 seminars in the House of Lords from 1993-2007 concerning all aspects of peace, policy and ethics, with the friendly help of members of the House of Lords. Further details about his work can be found on here: http://www.educationaid.net   Comments, feedback, offers of legal help, offers of parliamentary support, to thomasdaffern@gmail.com





In this talk I grapple with the existential and ethical dimensions of Bwrecksit – who will benefit, who will suffer, both short and long term ? I go into the deep history of the situation we are in and explain that the long term consequences of this fatally flawed referendum choice, if implemented rather than being referred to for a second referendum, will be the breakup of the United Kingdom in its current form.

This talk is an appeal to the intellectuals of the UK and all who love and respect our country with all its diverse cultures, traditions, religions and communities living side by side, to stand up and prevent Brexit from being implemented. As a last resort, the author also proposes proscribing the Conservative party as a treasonable and terrorist organisation which is in the brink of pursuing policies that will destroy the country.

In this same draft bill it is also proposed that politicians in Parliament have by law to tell the truth on all matters of fact concerning business before parliament, and if found to have lied, automatically lose office, and lose their license to be a politician. As a licensed and fully qualified teacher, Dr Daffern explains that the political profession is the last resort of scoundrels and mountebanks, who need no qualifications, training, and are not monitored to ensure they are doing their job effectively on behalf of the people who elect them. On the contrary, as the current shower taking Britain to the Brexit cliffs show, they take the meaning of the words “unqualified” and “under-educated” and “untrained” to new heights of meaning.

This talk is based on the experience of living and teaching in Scotland for 7 years in a wild part of Argyll and uses the landscape and scenery of Argyll to explain what Bwrecksit will actually be like, to people who have not realised the full implications, drawing on the stunning scenery of the island of Mull and its cliff paths by way of analogy.

By the way the dictionary definition of Mountebank is as follows: It derives from the Italian montimbanco, which was formed by combining the verb “montare” (“to mount”), the preposition “in” (converted to im, meaning “in” or “on”), and the noun “banco” (“bench”). Put these components together and you can deduce the literal origins of “mountebank” as someone mounted on a bench – the “bench” being the platform on which charlatans from the 16th and 17th centuries would stand to sell their phony medicines. Mountebanks often included various forms of light entertainment on stage in order to attract customers. Later, extended uses of “mountebank” referred to someone who falsely claims to have knowledge about a particular subject or a person who simply pretends to be something he or she is not in order to gain attention. In other words, instead of being mounted on a horse, a mountebank was someone mounted on a bench. Perfect analogue for Brexiteers.






In this short talk I address what it is in British psychology that makes for the appeal of BWrecksit among ordinary people throughout the UK. It is not the intellectual appeal of the ideas behind BWrecksit (I explain how there is none).  I argue instead that it appeals precisely to two features of British mentality: a deference to people in authority, and a stoicism or stiff upper lip mentality. Thus the worse BWrecksit becomes and the worst its consequences become clear, the more it will appeal to the UK to carry on, Dad’s army style. I give an example of my own life illustrating these two features of our mentality and explain why now is the time to consider jettisoning these two characteristics before it is too late..




In this short talk I am giving my views as a political philosopher, using the idea of Aristotle, that we should always require our political leaders to submit their own personal egotism to the general well being and happiness of the collective civilization they are supposed to be leading or governing. I explain in detail how the current government of the UK is falling woefully short by its fanatical implementation of BWRECKSIT and I give specific and detailed reasons why this is not a logical, intelligent, ethical or prescient path to be following. I then explore the very likely consequences of what will happen if they manage to bully parliament, the media, the opposition and the legal system into allowing BWRECKSIT to happen in March 2019. Within one year I predict there will be a second referendum for Scottish independence from the UK and this time, a resounding victory for the Independence vote. Hence, BWRECKSIT will immediately and directly lead to the permanent breakup of the United Kingdom. Having lived for many years in Scotland and England both, and also in Wales, I feel I know the pulse of both nations, pretty exhaustively, and can see definite trouble looming  up ahead. The divorce of Scotland and England from one another will be lengthy, protracted, bitter, and lead to considerable pain and discomfort on many sides. It will leave England alone in its post BWRECKSIT nightmare. Scotland will happily return to the EU on achieving independence, and also join the family of Nordic nations, and pursue a peace path, removing nuclear weapons from her soil at once. But the negotiations will be painful and difficult. It is my considered opinion therefore as a political philosopher, that BWRECKSIT should be put to the UK electorate again, with all the full implications on the table, including the inevitability of Scottish independence from the UK should BWRECKSIT go ahead.




The prize will be awarded in two stages. The first will go to the architectural design for putting a top floor on the Pentagon, to house a New Department of Peace.

The Second phase will go to the lobbying team or political consultancy group, who manage to get the US Department of Peace Bill through both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President of the USA.

Both prizes will be awarded on the same day, when the first building work actually begins on the Nonagon, and after the President has signed the Bill into law.

RATIONALE: The Pentagon is currently the largest single source of expenditure on planet earth, and spends billions of dollars per year, and trillions over decades, all of which go to military and defence expenditure on behalf of the USA. It organises, finances and plans, the entire running of the USA military, including the Navy, the air force, the army, and also pays for all weapons research and development. It also manages the budgets of the military intelligence networks of the USA, which have spiralled into astronomical expenditure rates since 9/11. It is also responsible for paying for USA army bases around the planet, which are many in number. All this military-industrial complex which is fed from the Pentagon, is also the largest single aggregate consumer of energy on the planet and responsible for major pollution worldwide.  Yet this vast expenditure I actually buying the USA as a nation very little security. Attacks on USA interests worldwide are ongoing. The rival major powers of the planet are not fading away, and continue to protest and oppose many aspects of USA policy, and also continue to develop their own military arsenals. All this vast expenditure by the Pentagon has actually witnessed many new wars breaking out worldwide.

THE NONAGON: The Nonagon will be a nine-sided building sitting on the top of the existing Pentagon structure, which will house the new USA Department of Peace. This will be voted into being by act of USA congress and the President. The budget of the Department of Peace will be exactly the same, in any calendar year, as the Department of Defence. Once the Nonagon is built, the easiest way to achieve this parity will simply be to cut the Department of Defence budget in two, and allocate one half to the new Department of Peace.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACE: The purpose of the new department will be to achieve peace worldwide in our lifetimes, by seeing a peaceful end to all ongoing wars and military and violent struggles taking place worldwide. Its aim will be to achieve bilateral peace and nonviolent treaties between the USA and every other nation on earth, pledging that neither will attack the other in military aggression or covert destabilisation and intelligence wars. Its tools will be: communication, mediation, dialogue, peace-building, confidence building measures, social development, poverty alleviation, providing alternatives to recruitment into terrorist armed groups through peace training provision, and above all educational provision, from school through university level to post graduate research institutions. It would be the aim of the Nonagon that every Ministry of Education worldwide will write and implement a peace education curriculum for all schools in their country, varying according to the prevailing cultural norms of that country. Likewise it would be the aim of the Nonagon, that all Universities in the world would have a department of peace studies in their universities, teaching and researching the whole field of peace from a variety of academic lenses, including political science, sociology, philosophy, religious studies, arts, literature, psychology, theology, humanities, history, ecology, earth sciences, natural sciences, biology, engineering, law, diplomacy etc. The Department of peace would have large budgetary resources at its disposal and would insist that development funding can be given to rebuild shattered post conflict communities, once all sides agree to a comprehensive peace plan that can be drafted, and presented by the Department of Peace.

THE EXISTING PENTAGON STRUCTURE The Pentagon was designed by American architect George Bergstrom (1876–1955), and built by general contractor John McShain of Philadelphia. Ground was broken for construction on September 11, 1941, and the building was dedicated on January 15, 1943. General Brehon Somervell provided the major motivating power behind the project; Colonel Leslie Groves was responsible for overseeing the project for the U.S. Army. David J. Witmer replaced Bergstrom as chief architect on April 11, 1941,  after Bergstorm resigned due to charges, unrelated to the Pentagon project, of improper conduct while he was president of the American Institute of Architects  The Pentagon is the world’s largest office building, with about 6,500,000 sq. ft (600,000 m2), of which 3,700,000 sq. ft (340,000 m2) are used as offices. Approximately 23,000 military and civilian employees and about 3,000 non-defence support personnel work in the Pentagon. It has five sides, five floors above ground, two basement levels, and five ring corridors per floor with a total of 17.5 mi (28.2 km)  of corridors. The Pentagon includes a five-acre (20,000 m2) central plaza, which is shaped like a pentagon.

THE FUTURE NONAGON STRUCTURE: The Nonagon will retain the overall internal size as the Pentagon below it, but will be a 9 sided building, instead of a 5 sided one. The existing height of the walls of the Pentagon is 22 metres high and consists of 5 storeys full of offices, in which the numerous employees of the Pentagon are accommodated. Likewise, the Nonagon will be 22 meters high and also consist of 5 floors likewise. This will bring home to everyone that the work of the Department of Peace is equally important as the wok of the Department of Defence. All prize entries for the Leonardo Da Vinci Peace prize must explain in detail how the Nonagon structure will be built so as to cap and sit aside the existing Pentagon structure, and must also explain how a 9 sides building can be made to fit safely and beautifully atop a 5 sides structure.  On the very top of the Nonagon will be a purposely built World Peace garden for people to admire the views and enjoy nature at her finest, with trees and shrubs from all over the world, and with cooling fountains for hot summer days. There will also be meditation pavilions and prayer spaces for all world faiths to pray for peace and keep up a steady energy of goodwill for the work inside the Nonagon below.

All necessary facilities for the Nonagon structure to house the new US Department of Peace must be included in the plan, and specified by the architectural design presented. A detailed specification of the interior space design requirement for the Nonagon will be made available to candidates wishing to enter for the prize.

THE LEONARDO DA VINCI  DIMENSION: Why Leonardo da Vinci ? Leonardo was a famous Italian artist, inventor, architect, designer, draughtsman, sculptor, mathematician, and scientist, whose work has become the very base line of the ideal of Renaissance genius. The American colonies of North and South America, and then the USA, were themselves  born out of the European renaissance and the Americas are named after a fellow Florentine, Amerigo de Vespucci (1454-1512), who like Leonardo was a protegee of the Medici family of cultural and financial patrons  running the Florentine democracy in its glory days. Amerigo and Leonardo could have met and discussed ideas together at the Academy in Florence. The necessity of the times mean that Leonardo had to spend time working as a military engineer and technical inventor, both for Lodovico Sforza, the ruler of Milan, which was one of the superpowers of the day, and for Cesare Borgia, the fierce military general working for his father, Pope Alexander Vl. In today’s world, many brilliant inventors, scientists and engineers likewise end up working for the military around the world, spending the best years of their lives designing weapons and high-tech equipment that will end up killing and maiming people all over the world. They also work for high tech military intelligence projects designed to pump out propaganda to weaken and demoralise self-defined “enemies”. But Leonardo’s vision was ultimately one of peace. As a Christian catholic and universal mystic, Leonardo dreamed of a world where the spiritual laws of love and wisdom would one day prevail over a world based on barbarism, cruelty and violence. He dreamed that peace can be furthered through art, science and beauty and the realisation and manifestation of the divine patters that underlie all our lives. He was an expert in sacred geometry and had studied Islamic and Jewish science, Sufism and the Qabalah, as well as advanced Christian philosophy and metaphysics.

The Leonardo Da Vinci Peace Prize has been launched as a project of IIPSGP following the Leonardo Da Vinci Peace Study day in France, and the visit to the Chateau of Amboise and Close Luce where Leonardo lived and died from 1516-1519, having been invited by King Francis 1st, the great renaissance King of France who did so much to boost education, scholarship, learning and the arts in France and Europe. The USA was itself a truly renaissance country, which historically also prizes and values renaissance thinking, and a whole lineage of savants and polymaths like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Buckminster Fuller, Edison, A.G Bell, Tesla, Einstein, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and many others, have contributed in the centuries since its foundation, to the advancement of humanity as whole, by developing numerous excellent inventions and technical and engineering devices. Whereas Leonardo da Vinci only dreamed of flight, the USA has developed the air industry. Whereas Leonardo only sketched ideas for self-moving automobiles, the USA has developed the car industry. The greatest statesmen and leaders of America, such as Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt, or J.F. Kennedy, have all realised that whereas the USA might have to fight unavoidable wars from time to time, the best long interests of the USA and the planet as a whole, are found in developing and securing peace. Thus the coming into being of the Nonagon and the Department of Peace represents the best brightest dreams of all the greatest visionary American citizens and pioneers. Peace was likewise the vision of the native peoples of North America, and in Deganawidah profound teachings on peace were shared before the coming of the Europeans. Many of the early settlers and pioneers who came to North America likewise dreamed of a country living at peace, such as William Penn. The Nonagon will represent the achievement of all their hopes and goals too.

IMPLICATIONS: Building the Nonagon will represent a major shift for the people of the USA and the world. By recognising that peace is an equally important goal for mankind as defence, it will send a signal to other nations to likewise follow suit. Instead of proving one’s friendship to the American people by match-spending the Pentagon’s massive budget, nations could instead develop their own departments of peace and develop their own peace projects in their own unique cultural contexts. instead of the USA military continuing to strive for strategic military dominance over all other nations, it could realise that the true way to security is via peace, not war.  It represents a major shift of consciousness suitable for a third millennium, that shows mankind there is a way out of the current chaos and confusion caused by unsolved military conflicts worldwide. The Nonagon would tackle creatively and imaginatively the necessity to end peacefully (un)civil wars such as have been raging in Syria for too long, and the long-standing Israel-Palestine conflict over hegemony in the Holy Land. By building the Nonagon and prioritising peace, the USA would show it is serious about peacebuilding not only in the Middle East, but globally, and in this new mission it would hopefully be joined by its true friends and partners.

PRACTICALITIES: Fully trained and qualified architects and architectural practises are invited to submit their design plans for building the physical infrastructure of the Nonagon. Political lobbying forms and consultancies are invited to submit their plans to ensure the passage of the US Department of Peace Bill, including the wording of the bill. Both prizes will be judged by a professional team of architects and savants organised under the rubric of the IIPSGP. The final announcement will be made in Amboise at Clos Luce where Leonardo lived and died from 1516-1519. The prize will remain open until the building of the Nonagon commences.

GUIDING VISION: It has been well said of Leonardo that “He was like a man who had woken too early in the darkness when everyone else was still asleep” (Dmitri Merezkhkovski, 1901) The same will be said of the Leonardo da Vinci Peace prize and the Nonagon Project, but later, humanity will only ask why it took so long to think of it.


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Please contact Dr Thomas Daffern, Chair of the Leonardo da Vinci Prize Committee or Jeffrey Gayle, Architectural Adviser to IIPSGP, at IIPSGP, Leonardo da Vinci Peace Prize, 13 Grande Rue, Betete, La Creuse, 23270, France, iipsgp@educationaid.net  or  iipsgp@gmail.com