Antagonists for Sedition.

 Antagonists for Sedition.

Over time there have been many descriptive names given to an individual, organisations or bands of people that have been identifies as undertaking dubious acts, whether with forceful results, clandestine preparations or in some surreptitious form aimed at inciting persuadable perpetrators to fall into a stepped progression of actions that have been and are designed to overthrow an established order of lawful administration; knowing that such acts when discovered are highly controversial and challenged the established administration to react with secret investigation, covert embedded insertion, proscription, prosecution or death. Sometimes it can become obvious that there are or have been groups of actors that, due to their visceral desire to highlight an issue, generate open public action and stands out so they become a ‘group or person of interest’ to security services to be watched. Such scrutiny as has been aimed at activist in and bodies of Trade Unions, CND, Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, NUS, RMT, NUT, NUM, NGO’s, charities etc.  Any unaffiliated politic leaning party or any organised public group campaigners and some members of established political parties, terrorist factions or anyone not of the established order who may threaten to disturbed the ‘equilibrium’ of  government script are targets.  Some of these group in the main operate with unsophisticated organisational arrangements, of limited means, of single issue and seldom are of any real threat and over the past 100 years there have been thousands spied / infiltrated upon – just in case. But in viewing a list over the recent time it is interesting to note that there are distinctly less observable corporate, media, financial, or legal players of security interest, organisations that do have the resources and sophistication to influence with concerted prejudice ways and means to manipulate the executive direction of state. Other than infrequent investigative journalism one doubts that there is any security service attention placed on them!  

It must be quite obvious by now that there are a number of forces in play which the administrative structure  is, for the moment, incapable of  possibly really appreciating the full consequences of the latitude allowed to them that in other strained circumstances, using the old contemporary methods of ‘information’ dissemination, (TV, Radio news, paper print or direct oral) they would not be able to freely impress upon recipients, views that would fall foul of libel, slanderous, unlawful, obscene, treasonable subversive or deemed a outrage to public decency etc. without being taken to account by the force of laws, political pressure or new lawfully applied controls.

The cause and power of these forces comes from the sudden injection into organised civil structures, within the effective past 30 years and which have largely been ignored due to the actuality that they were seen as extremely useful tools for corporate and personal communication. It was allowed to progress and expanded without any form or oversight, controls, systemic social affect analysis, or controlled supervision (other than the state tapping into IPS’s) now leads to a situation where any information using their distribution systems can be done pier to pier or generally without knowing what the information is (via encryption), who the originator is, source, funding or the ultimate impact of secreted information.

Computers and IT is the architecture structures onto which are riding the conduits of influential powers loosely called apps but in particular the media platforms that are facilitating electronic print content distribution which by a magnitude is considerable more intrusive, unrestricted and facilitating harm. In defense the platforms plead that they are non- responsible for any content they allow to be electronically produced /printed via their platforms as a way of differentiating themselves from traditional methods. These are not passive systems, there is a guiding mind / policy /strategy in the provision of these platforms and why they are not treated as existing controlled media methods is a question that is coming under due scrutiny. However like many things there are good factors at play in the use of fast accessible communication between linked nodes and also growing examples of the dangers inherent in the secrecy such systems allow.

It is probable, due to the exposed threats, that government now take a belated interest in the monitoring of flagged computer traffic and are extremely cautious to hide their comprehensive intrusion into networks particularly those that are encrypted. As any nefarious party will know anything transmitted over an electronic format can be snooped on and the content cannot be eradicated to hide detrimental misconduct; encryption is no ultimate safeguarded either. This creates a problem for those that want to have influential pressure outside any unwanted inspection and gives rise to the edict of - no electronic trail use, face to face meets, plain covert allusive speech, write or type destroy after use, no observable hierarchy structure, obscure existence and were necessary only use multifaceted domain linked bespoke encrypted content.

There have been names given to suspect pressure groups of the past which have been easily stretched by elements of media to portray the given sinister nature of the actions and intent of such groups, which by doing so it is assumed a reader will just accept the menacing threat of a descriptive noun, useful catch-all phrases like; Extremist (of any description), Socialist, Communist, Fifth Column, Militant Tendency, Momentum, Terrorist; all of whom because of their obvious nature have been of interest yet it is doubtful they have had or will have the capacity to really inflict a long term challenge to the administrative executive, government or the fabrics of the economic / social state of the nation.

There are some clandestine groups that do not court overt public attention and are amorphous with a tenuous structure, apparently just ‘like minded people’, “one of us”, with a collated view on an issue and do not obviously appear to intimidate the established order of the state of the nation, these have both in corporate, public and private fields, attracted none or a light oversight into their affairs.

It must be abundantly clear now that this relaxed investigative stance so obviously given to these three spheres is no longer acceptable and a much greater effort should be made to make public the real purpose of organisation, groups, or names of all supporting individual and funding streams that finance them and their output when that output can have risky consequential impact onto the public arenas. It is obvious that platforms and apps like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, are coming under scrutiny due to their potential use in malign influences used by individuals and such groups, but there are other unarticulated ‘non groups’ that are being passed by and yet are of immediate and real danger to the state of the nation.

If it were not for the impending disaster that is about to be inflicted onto the, once called UK; as a result of the Brexit malfeasances, devious financial illegality, the impact of hidden actors operating to manipulate the government and the future direction of the nation for decades to come, they would have remained surreptitiously unknown, up to now.

It is known that a great deal of discredited money has been used to buy pressure in the direction of the Brexit vote and it is known who some of the acting individual were however it is evident that the source of some of those funds used in the campaigns are still hidden behind an electronic screen of opaque ownership and the originators and key principles driving their agenda are continuing to build on their successes of the influential power gained so far. One of them, called Britain’s Future, which will not divulge the source of its finances nor organisational structure has increased alarm about the influence of so called “dark money” in politics with no details available as to who is ultimately paying for all the hard Brexit targeted advertisement it buys. This group has apparently spent in excess of £340,000 on Facebook adverts backing a hard Brexit since the Facebook social network began publishing lists of political advertisers. It is the biggest spender on this platform than all UK political party and the government combined. (1)

This clandestine group like some others still active should have raised a great deal of alarm in government circles and within security services, that it did not, indicates that there is a staggering weakness in the systems devised to protect the nation from internal or foreign malign interfering powers but what is even, for one, more confounding is the laxity of management that reside within parliamentary parties that do not to recognise that they are under internal assault. In some way the general ‘cut and trust’ of party political interplay, policy differences and the ego power struggles, some of which are on public display, are generally not aimed at insurrection of the government within parliament, however.

There are two (non groups) power blocks of MPs who have been operating in such a manner that they are effectively a 5th column insurgency functioning to force the government to bend to their demands. One, the Conservative Democratic Unionist party has historically been very influential for some 40 years supporting the English conservative party and gaining substantial financial investment for Northern Ireland to keep in power. It now moves against the democratic (of vote remain) mandate of Northern Ireland, bribed recently by the Maybot for supporting the government as it satisfies its own Brexit ends. As is known now there has been a few individuals and other non groups that have been active in the pursuit of applying pressure to public opinion and prefer not to be too closely identified nor be open with the sources of their funding stream but there is one other that has been less well known yet is considerable more effective.

The other (non group) block of MP’s is the ERG, its innocuous title – European Research Group insists it is not (a block) just a lose group really, just a gathering, of liked minded individuals who just happen to have a similar aim. One might assume that the title was to make clear that it was a research facility to cover and clarify European issues for the group; nothing can be further from the truth. This ERG was formed in 1993 by a past Tory MP Michael Spicer to stand for backbenchers concerned that the EU was turning into a federal super state, its first “researcher” was the eventual ardent leave Brexiteer and campaigner Daniel Hannan but one can now assume that its real intent is and has always been the overthrow of the nations membership of the EU by whatever means, aided by sympathetic media publication willing to present an orchestrated anti European agenda at every opportunity and gain directive control over government policies relating to Europe.

“The European Research Group (ERG) has been the most influential lobbying force in Westminster since Britain voted to leave the EU a year and a half ago, pushing May towards a hard Brexit by running an aggressive, disciplined, and highly organised parliamentary and media operation. Now, with the Brexit talks entering a critical new phase, the group has burst into the national spotlight.

First it ramped up the pressure on May to make a clean break from the EU, including fully withdrawing from the customs union. Then it led the pushback against the secret government analysis leaked to BuzzFeed News, which suggested Brexit will be bad for the UK economy under every scenario examined. Anna Soubry, the most outspoken of the Tory Remainers, claimed a clique of “35 hard ideological Brexiteer” are holding May to ransom and urged her to throw them out of the party. Newspaper reports claimed the ERG is ready to overthrow the prime minister if she crosses its Brexit red lines.

The Brexiteer caucus has done more to shape the UK’s Brexit policy than the official Labour opposition, the army of lobbyists employed by the City, big business, and trades unions, and the smaller group of committed Remainers on the Conservatives’ opposite flank. “They are the people who hold the whip hand in the party,” said a former senior 10 Downing Street official with close knowledge of the Brexit process.

But as the group’s visibility has dramatically increased, so have the questions about the extent of its support, its funding, and its contacts with government. Even in Westminster, it remains a mostly spectral organisation. A tight-knit inner circle, fronted since January by Rees-Mogg, coordinate discreetly in their offices in the House of Commons, working back channels to 10 Downing Street and the Brexit department. A wider network of supporters liaises through WhatsApp. The ERG has rarely been penetrated by outsiders, suffering only a handful of leaks. It has barely any presence online. There’s no register of its contacts with ministers and government officials. Even its membership is a mystery, with estimates varying wildly” (2).

It is thought that there are some (obscured) 80 non-members, some paying a subscription reclaimed and paid for by the tax payer as expenses, others are aligned using the ‘research resources’ or contribute ad hoc but all of this insurgent caucus are operating behind and within the corridors of power for years, to their own cohered agenda and not generally consistent with government direction. A few are well known names in the public eye and are instrumental in using manipulating media supporting their EU attacks and pressurising any doubters. They have been intent on creative propaganda in delivering “Brexit means Brexit”, ‘the peoples vote’ and if that meant pushing for a hard Brexit at any cost, so be it! (Some names 3)

While this group has tried its best to remain ‘in camera’, questions and concerns have been raised about the secretive nature operating at the heart of parliament and gaining outstanding control over the government without being challenged. The Conservatives whips office supposedly gave this group the tag "the Taliban", as a short descript term to position its attitudes and influence on MP’s however its manipulative days may be numbered. Fortunately following a Freedom of Information request, by openDemocracy; “the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ruled that the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) must release a list of ERG members. OpenDemocracy appealed to the information watchdog when DExEU redacted the names of ERG members named in a 2017 email exchange with then Brexit minister Steve Baker. Baker, a former ERG chair, became a minister in June 2017. Just weeks later, he offered a private briefing for the ERG on the so-called Great Repeal Bill, the parliamentary act for provides for leaving the European Union. One email noted how there is a “larger group” and “a smaller more senior one" within the ERG” (4).

As the clock is running down to the fixed date 29th march 2019 to leave the EU, one can now observe the state of absolute panic of partisans to Brexit and divisive dismay of parliamentarians as no beneficial leaving deal is in sight, nor is there likely to be one especially as no trade terms have been established yet or will be able to be for 2+ years after this date and finally the reality of the economic cost has nearly overcome the fantasy that has driven the ideological extremists in their force to direct government, which it so obviously has done since its inception in 1993 and is now so close to achieving its prime aim of leaving the EU; with eventually the potentially dismantling the Union?

Had the amount of influence and power demonstrated by ERG been in the hands of any proletariat group; it is safe to say that it would not have had the freedom to insert itself into government. It would have been ostracised, harassed, denied any secrecy, investigated, possibly proscribed and generally made to be responsible for its actions. That this has not happened with such a powerful secret group is, or should have been of concern and may point to how easy it can be for well organised and funded advocates with a stepped strategy to usurp democracy or surmount it, buying into government, manipulating public perception with electronic and print media, thereby imperceptibly gaining sedition against the administrative order and persuading a country to bend to its propagandas, is an astounding achievement.

With another analysis one could say that with the example demonstrated by this influential subversive group, that a takeover of the country has already happened and was secretly planned for probable more than 26 years. For the government not to recognise it has allowed a ‘party’ within an established party to become so powerful to date and has been dictating to the elected government the direction of the most important decisions ever required of parliament, is a complete dereliction of ministerial Maybot duty allowed by tolerating abusing the flexibility of parliamentary privilege and protection. And in this, some of these actors are still continuing to pursue their cant of the mythical golden future for the UK by being out of Europe, they are busy securing their own financial position facilitating benefits to themselves against the possible degraded economy of the UK should their dream be brought to ultimate fruition. This is a financial protective arrangement which the wo/man in the working street is unlikely to be able to copy, against a financial collapse but they will have to carry the cost. For the cosseted MPs and businesses making similar ‘investment hedge’ decisions, the uninformed public are probably just seen as the useful cannon fodder of Brexit.

Is it too strong to take the above view A militant tendency: 5^th column: secreted in the heart of parliament assisted by others of vested interest, covert over years, unobtrusive, with blind eyes upon it; who would have known?

© Renot

143191357

1. Guardian Sat 9/3/2019

2. Buzzfeed 8/2/2018

3. Jacob Rees-Mogg. Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Theresa Villiers, Owen Paterson, John Whittingdale, Bernard Jenkin. Ben Bradley, Charlie Elphicke, Nadine Dorris, Dominic Raaab, John Redwood, Bill Cash, Peter Bone, David Davis, Liam Fox, Maria Caulfield, Michael Tomlinson, Penny Mordaunt, Ranil Jayawardena, Paul Scully.

4. 11/3/2019 www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/