The call now is not just for MPs to defeat the Robbins-Selmayr Treaty tomorrow, but to do so demonstrably, driving a stake through the heart of Martin Selmayr's plot to split Northern Ireland from Britain.
After tomorrow? Who knows. Corbyn has declared he will call a vote of no confidence in the government. He is likely to lose it, but if by some chance he gains the needed two-thirds majority, it would mean a General Election on Thursday 21st February. Other desperate Conservative Remainers are doubtless plotting puerile public schoolboy tricks, with little notion of the fury they will unleash amongst the 17.4m, who have to date proven remarkably patient, well-behaved and responsible in the face of naked anti-democratic sabotage.
No. I think Boris has the sense of it today;
If the PM is defeated on Tuesday, she should come to the House and announce:
(1) that the UK and EU will keep the sensible bits of the deal, notably on citizens;
(2) that the backstop is coming out;
(3) that we are going to use the implementation period to negotiate a Canada-style free-trade deal, and withhold half the £39 billion until we get it; and
(4) that we are going to intensify preparations for no deal – in the knowledge that it is by preparing for no deal that we are likely to get a very good deal.Not my favoured Clean Brexit, but a pragmatic 'well, we did offer ...' solution that I'm sure Brussels would reject, giving us a Clean Brexit by default.
46 comments:
Parliament will do what it does, and I doubt that it will be influenced by your blog nor by any comment to it.
I think that if Anonymous @08:24 knows anything at all, it knows how to make a name for itself...
The only trouble is, it is a bad name...
I feel sorry for all of the other class that is known as Anonymous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being, that none of the named people either in the comments, or I would imagine the author, are of the view that what we say or write, will have any bearing on that shower of shite in the Commons.
We don't need to be reminded of that sad fact.
Anon - it's not the effect of a single blog, but of a thousand speaking together ;)
I've been thinking for a while that the PM's favoured outcome is actually a No Deal Exit.
Her forecast speech today seems consistent with No Deal as the objective. By saying that defeat for her (insanely bad) withdrawal agreement makes it likelier that the UK will stay in the EU, she weakens the pressure on the EU to improve the WA. No Deal Brexit is still baked into the Act ...
This is just yet more distortion, and caricature, of truth and fact, to fit your spurious narrative of conspiracy-victimhood.
Yes, thousands are at it. So what?
Horse-trading has always gone on in Parliament.
Why ever would it not?
The grown-ups - the other EU leaders -sit there, rolling their eyes, while this toddler of a country has tantrum after tantrum, and about the fact that it is free to have tantrums, apparently.
I'm sure Macron is rolling his eyes and laughing his arse off (wherever he's actually hiding today).
There was never a need for a Withdrawal Agreement anyway. You might even view it as good tactics to entice the other side with one before dropping them dead. (No, I don't think so either.)
Yes, that would be bad faith as ever, from perfidious Tory Albion, mongy.
Why the need to remain Anonymous? Not paid for this trolling?
The axiom of the cretin is "it's not what is said that matters, but who's sayin' it"
You answered your own question, my friend!
(Click, bang, "ow my foot", says Sackerson.)
NO. If the EU is allowed a foot in the door, or even a toe they will push and push, aided by Remainers, and before we know it we will be back in full time. There can be no half in-half out. EWe must come out without any form of agreement. No treaty.
NO COMPROMISE.
It is very easy to tell whether any "deal" is Leave: Is the deal with the EU something we could offer in principle to another state such as the USA? If it isn't, then the deal is not Leave.
Theresa May's DWA and Chequers fail that test. We could not give the USA that much control over the UK as Mrs May's deal gives the EU.
By all means let us have deals, agreements and treaties with the EU. But they must only be the same as those we have with the rest of the world's nations.
All of which means, as any fule know, it is best to just leave without any treaty or agreement. End the current relationship and then build a new one. Which even May must understand and therefore she has deliberately or has negligently shafted the process.
Just a quick question.
Let's assume that after a long time, and some reversals, the EU enlarges, and enters treaties with other unions, into a vast, maybe even global one.
Would you still want out?
If not, then why not?
PS, TTIP, thrown out by our MEPs (yes, those rubber-stampers), would have given the US far more control over the UK than May's deal, or even the Norway option would.
And where are the EU military bases on UK soil, from which they bomb then non-UK-enemies, such as Libya? Without even asking? Come on?
Tomorrow ze vorld!!
Bwahahahahaha!
Imagine for a moment that Spartacus's real name was "Anonymous"....
I'm Spartacus...
No, I'm Spartacus!
I'm Spartacus....
Spartacus here...
etc. etc.
You can't answer even the simplest of questions, can you?
Oh dear dear.
Such unresolved anger. I thought they'd be on at least the fourth or fifth stage by now.
But the longer this goes on, the more the bullies, bigots, zealots and authoritarian arses do reveal their true selves. Why ever would we want to allow them any power at all?
Globalism is sooo over.
Point of Order, Mr Chairman: the tedious assembly of a regiment of fatuous strawman arguments is as interesting and compelling as it is deceptive.
Anon said Let's assume that after a long time, and some reversals, the EU enlarges, and enters treaties with other unions, into a vast, maybe even global one.
Would you still want out?
Ohhh, I dunno. Maybe yes, maybe no. Perhaps we'd put it to the people and let THEM decide, just as such decisions SHOULD be.
You never know, our MP's might even IMPLEMENT our will - that'd be a change.
Another "right-writes" interesting fact, with a little help from Gisela Stewart:
The 2016 referendum voted "leave" by a margin of 3.8% of the vote.
No less than 75 MP's are squatting their grimy bottoms on seats in the Commons with percentage majorities of less than 3.8%.
So the vexed question is:
What do we do about them?
If the leave majority is not legitimate, as determined by a full house of commons?
What of 75 of its MP's with majorities of less than 3.8%?
Perhaps we should ignore them!
Or better still, that 3.8% is quite a strong statement, perhaps we should go with it?
So many questions....
But you duck the question, Dave, again.
Would *you* want out?
If not, then why not?
Just imagine, the UK alone, and hundreds of other countries united?
Anon "just imagine, the UK alone, and hundreds of other countries united"
Hells teeth!
Are you comical Ali?
Poppet, just because you have asked a question, it does not mean that you are entitled to an answer. Your question, as I have previously observed, is a fatuity. A bientot, dear.
Anon - I'm not 'ducking the question' at all. The situation you propose isn't, hasn't and won't be presented to me so your question is moot.
The principle of being ASKED if I wanted to join (or not) and that decision being HELD UP and implemented (or not) is the issue.
Ok, suppose I vote YES, I want to be part of that mystical global alliance - what would you say if (a minority of) people then stood up and started making demands for it NOT happening? Should I then whinge and complain the way YOU do?
Or should 'they', like you, should STFU and accept the democratic will of the people?
Just sayin'....
Fine. When our supreme Parliament makes plain, that the choice is between their amended version of May's deal or no exit at all, do you think that the people should be asked which?
If not, then how democratic is that?
And the only government which was bound by Cameron's words was his. That has been dissolved. And no Parliament can bind its successor, that is, it can reverse tomorrow whatever it does today.
No, you don't have to answer, and I never claimed that anyone did.
Those are not the only options as you well know.
Mark, the options would be whatever, but only, what Parliament allowed them to be.
Surely you know what their general view is by now?
Anon: The 2018 withdrawal bill - which is law having received royal assent- says that we cease to be an EU member on 29th March at (I think) 11pm. EU treaties etc cease to apply at 11pm.
That is the case unless this bill is repealed and replaced with something else. Is anybody talking about repealing the 2018 act?
So we will be leaving in two and a bit months whatever they decide.
We had a referendum and I understand that it was pretty clear that leaving meant leaving the customs union and the single market.
And this time they did shout at everybody through a megaphone. I've still got mine and it clearly stated that the result would be respected.
May's deal is one thing, but saying there will be no Brexit? I appreciate hyperbole and the obfuscation to be expected, but legally, how would "No brexit" actually work?
This is not a facetious question (thoughts anybody)
Yes, Mark, it would be very messy, legally, politically and in other ways, but the EU is pragmatic, and Parliament is sovereign. Beyond that, I don't know.
My preference is probably now leaving, but with a sensible arrangement with the EU, incidentally. I think that a bitterly divided, major country back in the EU would be intensely damaging to both, and for many years.
A Swiss or Norwegian type arrangement would probably settle down rather more quickly.
It would have been far better if the whole can of worms had been chucked in the furnace before it was ever opened, however, but that would have required the Tories and their media to tell the truth about the EU, and about much else.
Anon, The people are sovereign in a democracy (demos=people, kratos=power).
Given the corporatism, corruption, and lack of democracy in the EU, how much more corporatist, corrupt and anti-democratic does the EU have to get before you too want to leave? Come on, answer the question.
Anon. Thank you, that's quite sensible. We're all perfectly reasonable here and welcome any chance to discuss contrary views.
I loath the EU more than I can put into words, but I haven't always. I was, at best, ambivalent but was willing to be persuaded.
It was the ERM (I'm that old) that began my journey from ambivalence to the utter loathing I have today. No need to go into detail but I suspect a few posting here would have similar stories.
It would be best if we could leave with some sensible arrangement but it has been clear from day one that they don't want to. They simply can't.
"crashing out" is what we need to do and hopefully we will. Will there be disruption? Quite possibly but it will be a small price to pay.
The EU is finished. It's either going to implode completely or just stagger on becoming more riven and dysfunctional.
I don't relish either but there's nothing we can do except put as much distance from it as we can.
What is going on in parliament is a farce. MPs are trashing the very concept of parliamentary democracy (or at least people's belief in it) and for what?
How can they (How can anybody with a single atom of critical faculty) not see the utterly predicted disaster of the euro; the stability threatening levels of youth unemployment which are a direct consequence; the economic evisceration of southern European countries that is not only a consequence, but part of the design. "Beneficial crises" intended to force disparate (And clearly incompatible) countries together politically.
I don't think they can't see but there is some sort of cognitive dissonance here. Even more extraordinary given that the evidence is right in front of their eyes.
We are leaving. It will just take longer and be more messy than it should be (for that I would blame the EU about 90%) but we are leaving.
Economic damage is one thing but this would be repairable. What I am deeply concerned about is the political damage (And I don't mean the possibility of a Corbyn government). Damage is being done to the reputation of the very democratic process that might be a long time to repair.
For that, there is no condemnation strong enough for this cabal of political whores.
Just been watching the Commons
Astonishing confident and eloquent condemnation of the Robbins-Selmayr Treaty by Corbyn; he's wiped the floor with her. She's on the back foot and has only weak put-downs in response. An embarrassment to my Party.
Well, if you want to see a union, which is "staggering on and dysfunctional" then look at the US, Mark.
Shut-down government, and 30,000 gun deaths alone a year. The EU has only 5,200 killings total, and for a rather larger population.
EU inequality is bad enough, but not quite to the extent that it is in the US.
And of the WEF top seven countries for rule-of-law and judicial independence, five are EU ones (with NZ and Canada). The US is twenty-fifth.
"(3) that we are going to use the implementation period to negotiate a Canada-style free-trade deal, and withhold half the £39 billion until we get it"
How many more times does the EU have to say it? Unless this treaty is ratified there will be no implementation period.
Oh perlease. Don't play that fake comparisons game.
The US Supreme Court is judicially independent - whilst the EU has its corrupt political court the ECJ, as bent and pliable as Roland Freisler's kind of 'justice', Foul and stinking of the putrescent abomination of Euro Federasty. The ECJ soils every nation's courts it touches with faecal ordure.
The US gave us the Jefferson speech, the Gettysburg Address, the declaration of Independence; the EU has given us the Animal Waste Directive.
The US frees people; the EU enslaves them
The EU also enslaves its people in ignorance; 430m people and NOT ONE university in te global top 20. The UK alone has 5.
A sclerotic economy, a failing currency, a corrupt court, an unelected and anti-democratic dictatorship, inflated with hubris and ambition that has fomented wars and death in the Balkans and Ukraine - all te EU offers the people of Europe is a downward spiral of decay and self destruction, the eighth malbowge, home to liars, panderers, barrators and bent EU capos.
Who would want to inflict that feculent cesspit on their children?
Raedwald writes:
"The US gave us the Jefferson speech, the Gettysburg Address, the declaration of Independence; the EU has given us the Animal Waste Directive.
The US frees people; the EU enslaves them"
That is because the former is based on habeas corpus, whilst the latter is based on corpus juris.
The whole basis of this argument.
And why we MUST leave.
It is why this Anonymous, who told us he had better things to do than argue s/his case last week, but is still here, transfixed apparently by his magnificent trolling.
Where is your evidence for your slurs on the officers of the ECJ?
They are being watched not by one, but by twenty-eight countries' own legal minds for fairness and for cogency.
And the ECJ can only rule within the very limited, clearly-defined competences, of the Lisbon Treaty and the others anyway.
But you enjoyed your little outpouring, didn't you, Raed?
Surely even away with the fairies as you are you don't deny that the ECJ is the EU's political court? Its very reason is to help implement the Federast empire - it's not a court of justice but a maker of rules to help the EU achieve its expansionist objectives.
As bent as the People's Court.
"The ECJ adopts an ultra-flexible interpretative approach which leaves the court free to choose whatever interpretative criterion best suits securing the EU’s interests and furthering the integration process. The advocate general’s opinion in Wightman is another powerful example of the ECJ’s inherent pro-Union approach. It is not and never will be an impartial umpire in legal disputes between the EU and other parties."
Bent. Utterly bent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/05/reminded-yet-ecj-not-can-never-impartial-court/
So many of these "love Europe, hate the EU" bloggers are, when you scratch the surface, simply sycophantic, US thralls, desperate to preserve its hitherto dominance.
Here they seem to be again.
Anon is another desperate remain loser. Middle class London Bubble marxist shite. I actually look forward to a civil war--but I now think after their wankers march that they had to big up 3x and was mostly pensioners--despite all their "yoof" bollocks--they haven't got the numbers.
Eee, Ecky Thump. Wrong on all points pal!
I'm a comfortable, property-owning northerner, who obviously believes in private property.
Yes, and if any yellow vests come banging on my door looking for trouble, then maybe a gardening fork through the liver would make them see sense, haha!
Love Europe hate the EU?
Easy position to support as the two things are totally different.
Love the US, hate the US, that also is totally separate.
Post a Comment