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:

websites:  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.

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)




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 makes 9/11 look like a storm in a tea-cup. But it has all the same hall-marks as being an “inside job”. 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, moderate Labour leaders, Greens and Liberal Democrats are all opposed to brexit. This newsletter offers us a chance to share our findings and research and campaigning strategies.

































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 newsletter 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 knwoedge of irisih ghistgory, except what they might have picked up from army operatives in the good old drays 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 inrtelelctuals. 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 ld 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 break up 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 quesiotns 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 Britih 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-destroction of the British nation, that it proves Christ was indeed as false messiah. Those who follow him fall into the fire..

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 by some; the Welsh Plaid Cymru leader, xx 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 swing 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 resigned, and Theresa May finally announced what kind of brexit she wanted – ie a soft one.


  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, Britzin 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 depaerture 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 thatlegitimate 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 yeas 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 fro 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 h 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 h 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 Office r 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 persona messenger direct tot 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 persona 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 newsletter 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 h 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 pay back 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 RECONCIALTION 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. He either ignores the then 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 things 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 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 todays 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 been able to go 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 newsletter 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 passed 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 newsletter 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 quesiotns 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 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 Newsletter 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 britsih 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 newsletter 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 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 h 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 newsletter 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 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:



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  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.


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




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, 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.



  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.


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 eh 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 newsletter 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:, 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 quesiotns 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 newsletter 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 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 tot the EU leaders that we have decided to have a rethink and we would like a further 1 yeas 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 teh 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 teh 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, teh 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 teh Order of the Thistle ? The mind boggles. They surely cannot be so ignorant that their policies are going to break up teh 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 against 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.

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, on Novemeber 9, 2018, 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. This is what this intelligent young MP has said: “This is 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. EDITORIAL COMMENTS: This newsletter 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 Newsletter for your library, please buy one on 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:, or 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 Newsleter 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 doign 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 cylist 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:   Comments, feedback, offers of legal help, offers of parliamentary support, to





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,  or


Following the attack on Syria by the USA, UK and France, on Friday 13 April and Saturday 14 April, a decision taken by Prime Minster Theresa May without consulting parliament, or the democratic will of the people of Britain, debates finally took place in the UK parliament on Monday 16 April and Tuesday 17 April. Although the quality of these debates were in some parts marked by excellent rhetorical flourishes and showed some basic understanding of the complexity of the situation we now find ourselves in as a world, the author has recorded his own detailed comments on these debates in the enclosed two talks. He has pointed out some major flaws not just with the thinking of MP’s as evidenced in  the debates, but also points out some problems with the existing UK Constitution as it tries to deal with a new era of information warfare, propaganda and truth-deficits. The fact that the “secret intelligence” on which this military action was launched was shared only with members of the Privy Council, and does in fact appear to be flawed if not mendacious, raises the ethical and political question about whether we now live in the UK in a Kryptocracy., where secrecy, lies and half truths determine policies that could literally mean the end of life in the UK and Europe for generations to come. Is this right or just ? is it intelligent ? The speaker works through some major issues that are concerning everyone in the UK and globally right now about the whole tragic confict going on in Syria and above all, how we can best end it and mediate a genuine peace agreement, and why we should. He suggests that the UK’s foreign policy needs to be entirely rethought and a new branch of policy be developed, which he has christened “peace policy” to balance the work of our current think tanks who talk only of military and security policy, foreign policy and strategic policy. There is no joined up thinking going on whatsoever about peace policy in the government of the UK, as was made clear by the debates in Parliament this week; nor apparently is it going on in the Opposition.  But these talks should interest not only UK citizens but also all Commonwealth, Europe, Middle Eastern, American and indeed Russian thinkers. The author is radically calling for joined up global thinking about peace, and a truly universal peace policy being developed. Among other things he calls for a new floor to be put on top of the existing Pentagon building: a 9 Sided circular shape (A Nonagon) which would house a new Department of Peace dedicated solely to peace thinking, mediation, and conflict resolution, just as the thinking of the Pentagon is dedicated to war fighting and covert destabilisation of countries around the world. The Pentagon is the biggest single drain on the world’s collective wealth, and is like a black hole literally siphoning off the collective wealth of the planet, in pursuit of the chimera of “security”. It needs capping, literally, and the drain of global wealth towards militarism needs to be plugged. The UK should likewise develop a genuine Department of Peace to offset the work of the Ministry of Defence. Anyone who cares about seeing truthful and intelligent peace thinking  applied to shaping policy in the UK governing structures, and who is prepared for some genuine “blue skies” thinking, should listen in to these two talks.


Image result for nonagon


Peace Policy, Conflict Analysis and the Syrian situation – a Philosopher and Historian Speaks Out Against the Further Militarisation of the Region, April 2018

Following the recent declaration warning against hastily jumping to conclusions over the Salisbury poisoning case, which I have signed and authored, along with philosophers and other intellectual colleagues from around the world, the situation in Syria has suddenly reached fever pitch in the Western media as if to stampede the world into a major military confrontation over the issues of a chemical weapons attack. This however prejudges the situation which has received no proper forensic and investigative analysis. Until then, we should all calm down, and find out who actually was responsible, then let them be dealt with according to international law and due process. Meanwhile the international community should be trying to mediate this civil war in Syria, not add to it by further militarisation.  But for that to happen, we have to learn about the deeper background of this crisis. We have to be prepared to take the long term view. In this dangerous situation it is imperative that the voices of intellectuals and philosophers and academics can be heard above the conflicting claims and hysterical war rhetoric that we are hearing, even from our elected political leaders. Intelligent political leaders who wish to be remembered by coming generations as having prevented wars, rather than having triggered them, need to reflect soberly on this situation we find ourselves in. Please listen in to this important talk, share it widely with friends and colleagues, and try to  get your MP’s, Lords, members of Congress, the Knesset and other elected political leaders to listen too. Hopefully, we can still avoid a planetary melt-down.. but we do all need to put our thinking caps on.. 




Directeur, Dr. Thomas Daffern B.A. (Hons) D.Sc. (Hon) Ph.D. (B.A.)
Trésorière: Jenny Wheatcroft  Département des Médias: Nicola Hague
USA and Canada Coordonnatrice: Almira Rzehak, Israël Coordonnatrice: Gila Haron M.A
Coordonnatrice des Balkans, Gordana Netkovska Italie Secrétaire: Francesca Dell’Ova
Londres Secrétaire: Nisa Saiyyid B.A. et Isabella Wessoly B.A.Coordinateur Francaise : Tori Milner Coodinateur Russe: Prof Chumakov PhD, Anna Ivanova B.A.
13 Grande Rue, Betete, La Creuse, 23270, Limousin, Aquitaine, France.
Anglais bureau: 217 Ham Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2QB
Tél. +33 05 8756 5489 / Mob. 07500 238523 Courriel:
Sites Web:
Facebook: Institut international d’études sur la paix YouTube: IIPSGP1





We the undersigned are British, Russian, European, Indian, American and other intellectuals and philosophers who have long campaigned for better peace and understanding between Russia, Europe, the UK and the rest of the world. We have been instrumental in  organising conferences of Philosophers for Peace in 1985-1986, 1988 and 1990, and again in 1993 and often since then. Many of us  have taken part regularly in meetings of the World Congress of Philosophy.  Some of us are members of International Philosophers for Peace and the Prevention of Nuclear Omnicide and many of us are involved also in a new project, to establish the World Intellectual Forum. Through our contacts and networks, we have links to leading philosophisers and intellectuals all over the world, in Russia, Europe, UK, China, USA India, the Middle East, Israel, Latin America, Africa and so on.


We are issuing this emergency statement because of increased sabre rattling in the media arising from the tragic poisoning on 4 March 2018 of two Russians, Sergei and Yulia Skripal, father and daughter, one of whom lives in Salisbury and one in Moscow. They will hopefully recover but their lives are still in the balance.


It’s our considered opinion that these tragic poisonings were very unlikely to have been in any way sanctioned at any official level by the Russian government under Vladimir Putin and that any evidence put forward to the contrary by the UK government needs to be examined by an independent international committee of scientific and forensic experts. Responsible voices in the UK have increasingly questioned whether the UK government’s accusations against Russia are indeed accurately based. They must be tested out by genuine experts objectively. We suspend judgment until the actual evidence has been assessed by neutral third parties.


A crime has been committed on British soil, and allegations are being made that claim it originated in orders  from the Russian government, but no concrete empirical proof is being given, simply innuendos and agitation.


This reminds us of the false evidence that was used to generate the invasion of Iraq in 2003, arguably the worst blow to peace in international affairs for many years, in which the media rushed to accuse Al Qaeda alone of being responsible for the events of 9/11 without any real evidence being produced, and then generated a media storm which resulted in somehow linking the events to Saddam Hussein, and this generated in turn a mass hysteria in the Western mind which somehow made invading a sovereign country legitimate in many minds.  Of course, it wasn’t legitimate but an illegal action under international law but the media colluded in creating a false narrative that impacted on the way events turned out, resulting in the mass deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the destabilisation of the entire Middle East since then.


Now something similar is happening. The mass media in the UK has rushed to point the finger at Russia without real evidence being produced. All the available evidence shows that Russia would have far more to lose by authorising this killing, of an agent who had already long ago been sent back to live in the West. Why on earth would Putin now send a hit squad to kill someone they had already let go ? It is unthinkable that President Putin would be that stupid. There is also an unwritten rule that after official “spy swops” you don’t go on and kill those you returned, or the whole system is invalidated and trust breaks down completely.  As intellectuals we have a duty to demand a very high burden of proof this time around. We urge all committed intellectuals to co-sign this letter with us and share it widely among fellow thinkers and responsible intellectual leaders in the UK, Russia and Europe. We cannot stand back and let this hysterical attempt to generate negative feelings between Russia and the UK go unremarked


Also possible as a hypothesis, is that someone from another international power, or an “unofficial” influence block inside the UK, has done this killing and then helped manipulate the media in order to blame Russia – why ?  Because they want to destabilise further the friendships that have been building up in Anglo-Russian relations since the ending of the cold war and may simply have a strong case of “Russo-phobia” – because it takes people’s minds off domestic difficulties such as the likely impact of Brexit on the break up of the UK itself ! If they can whip up aggression against a foreign nation through false attacks, it takes people’s minds off critical decisions in the UK regarding brexit and its likely negative impact on the long term stability and well being of the UK itself. It is almost certainly the case that whoever did this killing in Salisbury wants Brexit to succeed and is prepared to use any means, fair or foul, to bring that about.


As leading philosophers of peace in our respective countries who worked through  philosophical networks to help bring about the ending of the cold war between Russia (then the Soviet Union) and Europe and the UK and USA, we urge caution to all those in the UK and Russia who would like to turn this sad incident in Salisbury, England into something of major importance.


We ask both sides to submit their evidence and contra-evidence to responsible investigating bodies such as the International Court of Justice, and if a crime has been committed and allegations are being made, then let Interpol deal with it, let responsible European, Russian and UK policing agencies be tasked with tracking down the attackers. Let justice be done –  in other words, let us not be too hasty to rush to our condemnations without allowing properly legal authorities to investigate in a responsible manner. Then, whoever turns out to have been guilty, let them be punished according to the law, both domestic and international. As philosophers we suspend judgement until the truth has been established beyond doubt.


Russia and the UK are both two ancient nations who have both learned the hard way that only true justice in the end lets a country flourish This is test case in our relations. Instead of hasty judgments, let true evidence and true legality prevail.


But the case raises an additional and equally difficult matter. In today’s modern globalised world, conflicts are being fought behind the scenes, by espionage agents, using cloak and dagger methods, or using the internet and cyber networks to spread black propaganda ad infinitum. We have entered a new era of “information wars”. Nobody knows anymore who to believe or how to trust anyone. It is as if our basic understandings of morality have broken-down and with that the distinction between right and wrong. Truth has become “whatever you can convince enough people to believe”. But this is not how the cold war ended. This is not how the UK and Russian emerged out of a long period of hostile relations to recognise each other as free nations both embarked on a search for justice, peace,  prosperity and enlightenment, as are all nations worldwide. We urge therefore that a new international peace treaty be signed in which nations pledge not to use black espionage, black propaganda, fake news and disinformation against each other. Then acts such as this poisoning in Salisbury would be totally ruled out of order, and never permitted, under any circumstances. We ask that the governments of Russia and the UK make such a treaty, and pledge that they will conduct their relations honourably henceforth, and that although they may have policy differences, and may express those openly, they will never stoop so low as to use such underhand methods as covert attacks and killings on each other’s soil, or indulge in false flag attacks against their own citizens.  In turn, once Russia and the UK have signed such a treaty, we will ask other nations (e.g. members of NATO and members of the Commonwealth of Independent States) to co-sign the treaty, and we will hope that the treaty can be adopted by the UN in general, by the EU, in the Middle East and that all nations can eventually sign it. This will take huge effort but we say the time has come for this.


For just as people have been campaigning to rid the world of all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, we also believe, as philosophers and intellectuals, that the new sphere of warfare is now cyber-warfare, information war and covert propaganda and cyber-espionage – and that to establish true peace between nations we need to devise new treaties and new laws outlawing all such manifestations of ill-will and short term egoistical self-advantage of one nation against  another. We suggest this new treaty be called THE INTERNATIONAL TREATY OF CYBER-PEACE


We leave the drafting of such a treaty to international lawyers, and urge that they begin the work without delay, both in Russia and the UK.


Meanwhile, we offer to help with philosophical mediation, through the Multicultural and Multifaith Mediation Service (MMMS) over how to resolve the problems arising from this tragic case  in Salisbury. We would urge that the British and Russian representatives  come to a face to face meeting in Paris to discuss the actual evidenced facts that are known behind this sad event, in private.  Just as the Treaty Of Paris (1990) led to the ending of the cold war in Europe in 1990, we ask that the leaders of Russia and the UK, NATO and the CIS and other responsible international bodies such as the United Nations, take a deep breath, a step back and stop escalating the wars of propaganda between our respective cultures and countries.


The fate of the nations of the world is in the balance and we urge all responsible intellectuals and all genuine politicians who are concerned for the future well being of the planet, to come together and join us in the work of the World Intellectual Forum. We call for moderation in political views, humility and a recognition that as one global society, we the peoples of separate countries have to realise that our futures and our fates are bound up with each other and we need to transcend traditional enmity with new friendship, trust, honesty and respect.







Dr Thomas Clough Daffern, Director, International Institute of Peace Studies and Global Philosophy (UK and France), European Coordinator of the World Intellectual Forum; Secretary General, Philosophers and Historians for Peace, (, Vice President  and European Coordinator, International Philosophers for Peace and the Prevention of Nuclear Omnicide (, Chair, Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Middle East (

Coordinator, Centre for Peace Policy Research ( ), Rector, Global Green University,  Initiator: The Interfaith Peace treaty (

Dr Igor Kondrashin, President & CEO, World Philosophical Forum, Secretary-General, Supreme Council of Humanity, International GUSI Peace Prize Laureate, Citizen of the Earth-XXI (Russia, Greece, Universal State of the Earth), Philosophical Coordinator of World Intellectual Forum


Prof.Dr. D. Swaminadhan Ph.D.(England),  D.Sc.  FIE, FNAE, FTAS, FAPAS, MISTE, MISCA. MIIPA, Global Chairman of the World Intellectual Forum, President, Mahatma Gandhi National Institute of Research and Social Action (MGNIRSA), Hyderabad, India; Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Medical Research (JNIAMER), Secunderabad, India; Chairman, Swaminadhan Research Foundation (DSRF), Hyderabad, India, Formerly:Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, (JNTU) Hyderabad,


Shlomo Shoham of Israel, retired Judge, former head of the Commission for Future Generations for the Israeli Knesset, and Legal advisor to the Constitution Law and Justice Committee in the Israeli Parliament, Honorary fellow of the Bertelsmann Foundation, Founder and Director of the Sustainable Global Leadership Academy, board member of the World Intellectual Forum


Prof. Dr Christopher Busby. Scientific Secretary, European Committee on Radiation Risk, Brussels, Director, Green Audit, UK, Director Environmental Research SIA, Riga,Latvia, President International Foundation for Research on Radioactivity Risk, Stockholm.