New Political Mafia by Robert Braban

Letter to Johnson of ‘Trump, Johnson, Bolsanaro & Co (unlimited)’

28th May 2020

Dear Johnson,

It’s now two weeks since I last wrote to you and it’s become very apparent that you do not do too well without me.

As a part-time prototype premier and pretender, participating almost permanently in puerile procrastination, your parsimonious protestations at the prohibited pursuits of Cummings your perfidious principal, reveal your own proclivity for perfidious practices.

You are a prime purveyor of porkies and your pusillanimous performance pertinent to Cummings’ pilgrimages was pure phantasmagory.

Despite your Churchillian pipe-dreams your presentational performance and the phenobarbital nature of your peroration together portray you as the premature ejaculation of political intercourse. They point to the need for a proctologist as a speech therapist.

Your status as a philandering pinnochio, primarily pointed at your penile protuberance and with a prepubescent predisposition to pimp for the perquisites of power, means that you present as a chancer completely out of his depth in a post requiring prescience, perspicacity and probity.

The best advice anyone could offer would be for you to jump into the car with Dom and go to Durham to stay with his Mam. You can always do a few day trips to Barnard Castle. The Blind leading the Blind would cover it all from all angles.

Words fail me!

Yours as ever,


PS. I’ll write again in a couple of weeks or after your next blunder, whichever is the sooner.

→ Democracy is a continuous process…by Jon Danzig


This time last year, Nigel Farage and his new Brexit party wanted Britain to leave the EU without any deal, and without the British public having any further say.

But that’s not what Mr Farage said just one month before the EU referendum of 2016.

On 16 May 2016, the then UKIP leader told the Daily Mirror that if Remain scraped through with a narrow win, he’d want another referendum.

In those circumstances, Mr Farage predicted, there would be growing pressure to re-run the vote.

Just 38 days before the referendum, Mr Farage told the Mirror’s associate editor, Kevin Maguire:

“In a 52%-48% referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.”

On the other hand, if Remain won with a decisive victory, such as happened in the first referendum in 1975, the game would be over.

Said Mr Farage, “If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, then that ends it.”

BBC News also reported at the time, ‘There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.’

It was obvious that before the referendum, Mr Farage thought that Remain would win by a narrow margin.

Just before polls closed on 23 June 2016, Nigel Farage said, “It looks like Remain will edge it.”

After the polls closed, he told a party of supporters that Remain had probably won. He added, “I hope I’m wrong.”

But even in the face of defeat, Mr Farage assured his supporters that the Brexit campaign would continue.

“Win or lose this battle, we will win this war,” said Mr Farage.

It’s clear that if Remain had won the referendum, Mr Farage and other Brexiters would not have given up. They would have carried on campaigning and called for another referendum.

Just as Eurosceptics did after they lost the first referendum in 1975 – by a landslide.

There is no shame in Remainers now continuing to argue the case for Britain to re-join the EU.

Just as there would have been no shame in Brexiters continuing their campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they had lost the referendum.

Democracy is a continuous process, in which no vote is ever permanent, and any vote can be changed by a new vote in the future.

Whatever side you are on, Remain or Leave, Labour or Tory, one thing is clear: losing a vote does not mean you have to give up what you believe in.

Isn’t that a message we can all agree with?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ Please re-Tweet:

▪ Link to Daily Mirror story of May 2016:

Letter to Boris – 19th May 2020 by Robert Braban


Dear Boris,

First of all, you don’t need to apologise for ignoring my suggestions on the naming of your latest child. Frankly, I thought that suggesting ‘Ovid’ was pretty safe; I couldn’t in my wildest dreams have envisaged that one of Wilfred’s many earlier siblings would have been named Ovid. Sorry!

This week I was hoping to be able to congratulate you on your progress recovering from your Mustique absence, your couple of weeks at Chevening and your couple of weeks with the NHS and at Chequers, backed up by your having spent this past week in hiding trying to avoid ridicule. Unfortunately I can’t. Frankly, you look like shit.

It was pleasing that you decide to provide the nation with a good laugh. People needed cheering up and being told to ‘Be Alert’ by someone who took five weeks to realise that there was a pandemic in force really did cause great merriment. Oh Boris, you really are a cad!

You won’t appreciate it now, but later when the recrimination phase starts, your frequent responsibility-dodging trips could serve you well. The fact that you have survived this long makes it certain that ‘passing the buck’ is one of your few practical skills. (Sorry, shagging doesn’t count)! Passing the buck might at least validate your choice of dimwits as Cabinet members. Line them up to take the blame. Why should you carry the can when you weren’t there?

It would be remiss of me not to give you this warning. The vast Army of unelected members of your government you are smuggling into #10 won’t have the guts to tell it like it is. The fact is that Keir Starmer has recognised your ineptitude and is moving heaven and earth to ensure that the genuine Bojo is exposed to public view. It could be terminal.

What’s he doing? you are bound to ask. The answer is that he’s being extremely underhanded. He’s reading subject briefs, news reports and official reports, and to your detriment; understanding them. He’s using a really basic recipe of simple truth and intellect. Just to explain, education and intellect are two different things. Given the right circumstance one can educate a Chimp, but one either has intellect or one does not. You have education.

Without your baying sychofants to drown your sequential errors, your dishonesty will not only be recorded in Hansard, but will be audible to all.

‘R’. No not as in “We want ‘R’ cuntry back”, nor as in the common phrase:”Johnson is an Arse”, but as your Scientific clothes peg on which all coats are now being hung. What bad service you’ve had from these Scientists. They thought they were advising on how to beat the virus; you thought they were telling you how to ‘Get Brexit Done’ whilst dodging through your government generated funerals.

Tomorrow when you go into the torture chamber you should modify your answer to the first question. Instead of referring to meetings, you should inform the house that you are spending a little time in pursuits more suited to your ability: “On Thursday I shall be picking Strawberries, on Friday planting Cabbages and for the remainder of the week I shall be fully occupied apologising to relatives of those who have died because of my incompetence.

I suspect that the friendly consensus would be that you should blame your bungling on ill health and retire. Better to be remembered as the twerp with the overactive dick who paid Jennifer £20,000 an hour out of public funds for five horizontal computer lessons, than one of the scarce number in history who led a nation into the wilderness, not out of it.

Yours sincerely,



→ From 1 January access to Europe will be more difficult


‘Visit Europe from 1 January 2021’ is the title of the UK government website which ironically tells you how much more difficult visiting ‘Europe’ will be from next year.

Yes, we’re getting our country back (really?) but instead, we’re losing our continent, or at least, easy access to it.

Among some of the key points for travel throughout the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein from 1 January 2021:

▪ You may be refused entry if your passport only has 6 months left
▪ The guarantee of free mobile phone roaming ends
▪ Your EHIC health card is only valid until 31 December
▪ Use separate lanes from EU/EEA arrivals when queuing
▪ Visa requirements for long stays, business travel, work or study
▪ Your pet passport will no longer be valid
▪ Extra documents to drive
▪ Customs declarations for business goods

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. More restrictions are likely, especially – as anticipated – we don’t get a deal this year covering our new relationship with the EU.

Brexit means ending free movement between us and our continent.

▪ Oh, how the people of the former Communist countries would have cherished ‘free movement’ instead of being trapped behind their Iron Curtain.

▪ Oh, how Winston Churchill would have been amazed – shocked – that the people of Britain would volunteer to end easy access to the European mainland.

It was he who wrote to his foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, on 21 October 1942, after the first British victory of the Second World War at El Alamein:

‘Hard as it is to say now.. I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’

And it was he who said in his famous speech on 5 March 1946 at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri:

“The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”

▪ And yet, it’s Britain that is maximising the barriers between European nations and restricting travel.

▪ And yet, it’s Britain that is shunning unity in Europe by making ourselves a permanent outcast.

What have we done?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ Please re-Tweet:

▪ Government website: ‘Visit Europe from 1 January 2021’


→ Brexit crash on top of a pandemic crash. You really want that?


A no-deal Brexit now looks almost certain, with the latest round of talks between the UK and the EU ending in stalemate, and the negotiations by all accounts turning acrimonious.

It’s almost as if the British government wants a no-deal, even though the Withdrawal Agreement, approved by the UK Parliament, called on both sides to achieve:

“a free trade area…underpinned by a level playing field”

Both sides are far away from achieving a ‘level playing field’ – with Britain insisting on retaining some EU benefits, with the EU saying you can’t pick and choose, or enjoy EU benefits without agreeing to our rules.

▪ Yes, the country voted for Brexit – albeit by the slimmest of margins, and with only a minority of the electorate voting for Leave

(Just 37% of the UK electorate voted for Leave – in all other mature democracies across the world that hold referendums on key issues, that would not have been enough for Leave to have won. A super majority endorsement of at least 50% of the entire electorate, and often at least 60%, would have been required before a big change could go ahead.)

▪ Yes, Leave was on the ballot paper, and Leave won.

But when did Britain vote for a No-Deal Brexit?

We’ve never been given any say on what type of Brexit we’ll get – and still we don’t know what Brexit we might get.

That’s like saying to the estate agent, ‘We agree to sell the house. But we’ll leave it up to you what our next home will be.’

The current transition period runs until 31 December 2020, during which time the UK continues to follow EU rules.

After that? We don’t know.

The government responded bluntly last month to an online petition requesting a Brexit transition extension:

“The transition period ends on 31 December 2020, as enshrined in UK law. The Prime Minister has made clear he has no intention of changing this. We remain fully committed to negotiations with the EU.”

As reported by The Week magazine:

‘The EU wants the UK to agree to follow its rules on fair and open competition so British companies given tariff-free access to the EU market can’t undercut their European competition.

‘The EU has warned that the UK won’t be allowed a “high-quality” market unless it signs up to EU social and environmental standards.’

If a deal can’t be agreed with the EU, then the UK will default to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms from 1 January 2021.

Every WTO member has a list of tariffs and quotas that they apply to other countries.

As The Week outlined in stark terms:

‘That means the UK would be hit by big taxes when it tried to sell products to the EU market. The bloc’s average WTO tariffs are 11.1% for agricultural goods, 15.7% for animal products and 35.4% for dairy.

‘British car makers would be hit with a 10% tariff on exports to the bloc, which could amount to €5.7bn per year. That would increase the average price of a British car sold in the EU by €3,000.

‘Currently, trade between the UK and EU is tariff-free. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) predicts that no-deal would mean that 90% of the UK’s goods exports to the EU would be subjected to tariffs.

‘WTO “most favoured nation” (MFN) rules mean that the UK couldn’t lower its tariffs for any specific country or bloc, such as the EU, without agreeing a trade deal.’

The EU is the UK’s biggest export and import market by far – almost half of ALL our exports go to the EU and just over half of ALL our imports come from the EU.

Even the UK government, in it’s ‘secret’ but leaked Yellowhammer report last year, detailed how a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for the UK, including delays at ports and food and medicine shortages.

And that’s before the government knew anything about the Covid-19 pandemic, which is sending the UK into recession, with unemployment predicted to spiral.

Back in the day, before the referendum campaign, when the Conservative government was pro-Remain, they presented the three main Brexit alternatives – all of which, said the government then, would cause damage to Britain.

① THE NORWAY OPTION – means Britain would leave the EU but still have free and frictionless access to the EU Single Market, by far Britain’s most important and lucrative export and import market. But this option would mean Britain continuing to pay the EU and obey its rules – including free movement of people – without any say in them.

② THE CANADA OPTION means Britain would have tariff free trade with the EU, but not the highly cherished and valuable frictionless trade. And there would only be limited access for our services sector, which makes up almost 80% of our economy.

③ THE WTO OPTION (often referred to as ‘no-deal’) means relying on World Trade Organisation rules. But that would mean new tariffs and complicated, costly procedures on UK trade with the EU, hurting British consumers, businesses and employment. It would also suddenly and catastrophically end all EU membership benefits, affecting all our daily lives.

None of these options were presented as choices in the referendum that voters could opt for. The only option was for Remain, or an undefined Leave.

Before the referendum, Jacob Rees-Mogg proposed a second referendum if Leave won. He said in 2011, when he was campaigning for a new referendum on Brexit:

‘We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.’

It makes sense now to give people a vote on the type of Brexit we want. Of course, the Tories won’t give us that.

But do remember that when, early next year, the country is likely to be in the middle of two catastrophes: Covid-19, and a no-deal Brexit.

One on top of the other will cause us deep pain.

Given a choice, wouldn’t you vote to avoid the second pain, since unlike Covid-19, it is entirely avoidable?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ The Week report

▪ The government’s three different versions of Brexit, published in March 2016.

▪ Video about the Yellowhammer report:

Winston Churchill’s, United states of Europe speech delivered at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946

Winston Churchill’s, speech delivered at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946

I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great
parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of
most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe
were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the
happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet
it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by
the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our
own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed
made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry,
careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and
scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the
victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is
all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the
Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide.
Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or
enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of
succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.
They may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by
the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene
and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as
Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or
as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace,
safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will
hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life
worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions
of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of

Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union, which
owes so much to the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that
immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War –
the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It
failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being,
because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained.
This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with
which to build and also bitter, dearly bought experience to spur.

There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the
world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis
can only survive if it is founded upon broad natural groupings. There is already a natural
grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations.
These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact
its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of
enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent?

And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the
honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of
faith in which the millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two World Wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain
passion of Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and
massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of
the 13th century, no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished.

Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when
all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to
retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called a “blessed act of
oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future. We
cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come hatreds and revenges which have
sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed
from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion
against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the
soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have
been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been
endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that
mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to
will it and all will achieve their heart’s desire.

I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the
European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can
France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe.There can be no revival of Europe
without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United
States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important.
Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the
common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual
convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of

But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The
cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we
are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In
these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say
protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a nation which,
we know, will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom, but it may well be that in
a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and that the catastrophe
following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call
civilisation but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.

I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and
fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-
create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of
Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States
of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble
and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race
and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be
created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British
Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America – and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all
would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its
right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”.


Although I first wrote this in 2016, the deteriorating situation and the 75th Anniversary of VE Day makes it appropriate to restate the indisputable case for supporting the EU.


As we face exit from the European Union, thus contributing massively to the USA and Russian objectives of its destabilisation, we should reflect on the folly of what we do.

It took more than one thousand years for the many nations of Europe with their constantly changing borders to get together and come up with a formula to bring stability to the continent and consign war, as a way of settling disputes, to the dustbin of history. It has taken just one dubious referendum to place it in jeopardy.

During the campaign leading to the referendum on 24th June 2016 a great deal of attention was given to the economy, the myth of sovereignty, immigration and a number of other topics that are really peripheral to the consideration that should have been at the centre of every discussion: the important imperative of peace in Europe. From 1189 until the formation of the EU, seven years was the longest period of peace between nations currently in the EU!

Without peace there is no economic progress nor is there any quality of life. Without peace, all other considerations are simply wishful thinking. A major attribute of the European Union is that it has always been a force for peace.

From the EU’s inception, Europe has enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace among members of the EU and those nations aspiring to membership. The force for peace has been that EU members have pursued a common purpose and have worked as a team for the progress of all. There have been many disagreements but they have always been settled across a table and not a battlefield.

If validation of common purpose as a force for peace is required, one need look no further than the former Yugoslavia. Since the 18th century, the states that eventually formed the Yugoslav state were periodically linked in loose confederation. They were volatile states with more to separate than combine. Despite this, these states were eventually to conjoin in a rough form of European Union.

The Yugoslav state existed from its foundation in the aftermath of World War II until its dissolution in 1992 amid the Yugoslav Wars. For those not familiar with Yugoslavia, it was a socialist state and a federation made up of six socialist republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. In addition, it included two autonomous provinces within Serbia: Kosovo and Vojvodina. It was held together by common purpose and by settling differences across a table.

The striking lesson in validating ‘common purpose’ as a tool for peace is the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia after the death of Marshal Tito.

As a cohesive nation under Tito, Yugoslavia was arguably like the European Union where common purpose inter alia, fostered peace among the severely disparate nations. When the cohesive alliance ended, so did peace. The same logic can be applied to the EU which has several nations that are certainly not natural allies. Peace among EU nations, now most of continental Europe, depends a great deal upon the EU remaining intact.

Britain should cherish that peace and Members of Parliament who place nation before party interests will view the Brexit vote of 38% of UK electors as ill-founded advice, the acceptance of which is damaging to the national interest. Tory Party unity is not more important than peace in Europe!

Those who attribute peace in Europe to NATO betray their total lack of understanding of NATO, it’s constitution and its purpose. NATO is a currently powerful force but as growing nationalism makes it ever more essential, that same political trend threatens its existence. It’s a deterrent force, but it’s also a reactive and not an initiating force. It has virtually no role in the maintenance of peace and good relations between EU members. It cannot and does not prevent local conflict. Moreover, serious political instability in the USA threatens the very existence of the alliance. A part of US motivation in supporting NATO has been a preference to fight their wars on someone else’s turf. That aspiration can no longer be fulfilled.

Of course NATO was instrumental in preventing Soviet aggression but it’s also true that NATO’s contribution to the period of peace between European nations was mostly restricted to the simple fact that some of the member nations were also members of the EU. Friends with a common purpose.

There are a lot of things in the EU that need reforming, but seventy years of peace alone would be worth every disadvantage the biggest Eurosceptic could list.

RL Braban
Wg Cdr Ret’d (RAF 1955-1990)

May 2016 (Rev January 2020)