Copyright © 2015 - 19 All rights reserved.

11th September, 2017

Corbyn <-> Snake-in-the-Grass

During the 8th June, 2017 General Election the Labour Party made clear that it planned to destroy the UK economy, replace it with a not so quite well defined, Marxist/Socialist/Communist or Maoist political system, and turn Britain back to the 1900's, not the 1970's, but to a time of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) - with Democracy well and truly sidelined in favour of total state control and mob rule.

The "Magic Money Tree" economics espoused by the Labour Party (Corbyn and McDonnell) was very inviting for those who had been under financial pressure ever since the political Left had created the global downturn (2008) beginning with deregulation, by the Clinton administration, which led to the Subprime Mortgage scandal - which still has a major impact on EU banks, but they try to keep these things quiet. A crisis that was made substantially worse by New Labour, who placed the entire UK financial system at risk, by borrowing and spending, and acquiring PFI debt in an unprecedented attempt to bring the UK economy to its knees.

It is clear that the attempts by the Con / LibDem coalition, in trying to solve the UK national debt crisis, created by New Labour, were not going far enough to reduce the deficit, and thereby, the debt in the short term. The attempts were not working because it was "hamstrung" by LibDem objections to Conservative policy measure.  As a result far too many people in the public sector, who can be easily whipped up by the Labour Party and the Unions, were disadvantaged by, what appeared to be, a seemingly endless round of austerity, which led to widespread discontent and easy targets for a Labour Party offering money for nothing.

The methods used by the Labour Party also involved tactical voting and activism through its little Red Army - Momentum - which targeted and abused Conservative candidates, whilst Corbyn targeted the youth vote, along with their hard pressed parent's, with "pledges" to remove tuition fees along with their legacy debts - first brought in by Blair and implemented, notoriously by Clegg and the LibDems, in the Con / LibDem Coalition government, which also included Vince Cable and others, in their pursuit of power, by any means. 

Corbyn though, subsequently disavowed his wild election promises, under the heading of "aspirations", but of course, his chicanery had worked its magic by reducing the Conservative vote take.  

The final advantage that the Labour Party had was the it claimed to be willing to back the government on Brexit, even going as far as to place such a commitment in its Manifesto - and Corbyn even sacked some of his front bench after they voted against the government, during the earlier debates on Brexit. This too has now been disavowed, but it also helped reduce the Conservative vote by convincing the former Labour voters, who had voted for UKIP previously, to return to the Labour fold.

The most disingenuous part of Corbyn's election though, was the Labour Manifesto title, "For the many not the few" which is clearly at odds the appointment of his son to a job in the Labour Party "for helping MacDonnell" - blatant nepotism. The Labour Party want power only for their own elites, their families, friends and trusted supporters - they are all Champagne Socialists, doing their best to emulate Orwell's "Animal Farm" - neither Corbyn nor anyone else in the Labour party nor anyone else in the political Laft can be trusted.

This is not to forget May's part in this fiasco - whether or not she was instructed to hold and lose an election by the EU - or was tricked by her advisors or seduced by her own poll ratings - she could not have performed worse if she had been specially trained to lose - interestingly, it appeared that Corbyn had been replaced by a "stand-in double", since his behaviour was totally different during the latter part of the election campaign, than at any other time during his entire Parliamentary career. 

In the end though, May lost her majority, mostly self-inflicted, deliberately or not, and partly because of Labour Party chicanery.

Ever since the 9th of June, 2017 the rest of the political parties on the Left, and the statist SNP have done their best to bring down the duly elected government, with tactics reminiscent of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) - e.g. using the Grenfell Tower fire as an excuse for a "Day of Rage", an excuse for mob rule, and a march on Parliament to blame May for something which was none of her fault - but the situation in Russia 1917 cannot be compared with those which prevail in Britain today, which, in any event, were actually brought about by New Labour (1997 - 2010).

Treachery of the Political Left

The current Labour party position seems to have evolved around the time that Blair started visiting Juncker in Brussels, and a series of meetings with the EU by Corbyn, Starmer and Abbott, and has resulted in Corbyn undertaking a volte-face on supporting the government on the Withdrawal Bill, now Corbyn is firmly against Brexit (the opposite position to that which he has held during his entire time in Parliament).

To such an extent that he is ready to sack anyone who votes with the government related to the Withdrawal Bill.

It is not clear if, or how Corbyn has been "turned", but the coincidence of the various meetings in the EU cannot be excluded - nor can the price of his treachery be estimated - should that be the case. It has become increasingly clear though, that the Labour Party - under Corbyn - is now intimately working with the EU to stop "Brexit", and no doubt with other Left wing groups, and the SNP and some Unions.

The Withdrawal Bill and King Henry VIII Clauses

"The Withdrawal Bill is set to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which has been responsible for the most extreme unfettered use of secondary legislation in British history: it was the mechanism by which almost 9,000 EU directives have been incorporated into UK law, not to mention a further 12,000 EU regulations which are directly imposed on UK law with no involvement of Parliament whatsoever."

The Withdrawal Bill contains Henry VIII clauses, Schedules 7, 8 and 9, which would potentially allow the government to: alter Acts of Parliament and Parliament could not amend those changes; restrict scrutiny and avoid the requirement of a vote.

The purpose of the Henry VIII clauses in these present circumstances is to ensure that the approximately 9000 laws can be brought into UK law without any delays brought about by deliberate "Brexit" delaying amendments or stalling by any of those who are bent on preventing the ECA (1972) being repealed. So the Schedules 7, 8 and 9 would only allow specific application - not any widespread use that the Labour Party is trying to claim, quite falsely.

The Schedule 7 - Henry VIII clause would be used to amend laws through secondary legislation - by committee - which would not work in the UK if they were not amended – these would not take place in secret and should only involve 700 to 1000 to be changed. If the opposition was not happy with the changes then the Courts would strike down the changes, alternatively they can be struck down through normal Parliamentary processes, after being brought into UK law.

The Schedule 8 - Henry VIII clause relates to UK complying with International obligations - which might arise during the EU negotiations.

The Schedule 9 - Henry VIII clause relates to the implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement - which may arise during the EU negotiations.

There are no other Henry VIII clauses in the Withdrawal Bill and the Schedules 7, 8 and 9 cannot be applied outside those restrictions. Following the voting this morning (12/9/17) the debates on the EU Laws will be time limited - to 8 days and 8 hours each day.

These procedures are designed to ensure a smooth passage of the legislation, but are being disingenuously described by the opposition as a government power grab by the Labour Party - but it does not allow the government any such privilege outside the Committee processes, and the restriction that are applied.  It is a blatant lie by those, whose only interests lie with the EU – not with the interests of the British people, and heavily promoted, quite falsely in the EU friendly media - the opposition have only one objective - to bring down the government and attempt to install a Communist State in its place.

In any case, any amendments, once brought into UK, each law would be subject to normal Parliamentary scrutiny, where
they can be amended or repealed under normal Parliamentary process – apparently both Remainers and Leavers believe that this a sensible approach to ensure legal certainty for individuals and businesses alike, on departure from the subjugation by the EU.

What is Being Repealed

The primary reason for the Withdrawal Bill (all of the above are part of this as well) was to take the UK out of the legal clutches of the EU, which is highlighted in an article by David Campbell, Professor of Law in the Lancaster University School of Law - part of the article is presented below:-

"Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 was a measure unknown in the previous history of the modern British constitution, making provision for the legislation of a body other than Parliament, the EU, to have direct effect in the UK. Section 2(2) makes provision for the detailed implementation of EU law by secondary legislation"*.

and, as former MP Peter Lilly, stated (

"Ironically, the greatest Henry VIII clause in our history, over the past 44 years has been the European Communities Act (1972) which meant that EU legislation has become binding upon UK citizens with UK Parliament powerless to amend or reject any such legislation – even if every British MP voted against it."

This is what the Labour Party and the SNP in the UK are protecting, on behalf of the EU

This is also what Sturgeon defines as being Sovereign inside the EU

**Despite the above, or perhaps because of it, Ms Miller took the government to court, to prevent it from using its own Henry VIII clauses - to free the UK from subjugation under EU Law - by forcing the government to seek Parliamentary approval first. Whilst the court case was successful, Ms Miller's action, if the intention was to prevent the invocation of Article 50 (TEU) was not - one might legitimately ask though, what business advantage would be gained by her actions? - since to Remain in the EU under ECA (1972) gives no advantage to the British people - whose circumstances can be changed without redress.

Opposition to this Withdrawal Bill cannot be justified - on any grounds - by any Elected Representative of the British People -  who voted to Leave in a majority of British Constituencies (421 to 632 or 67%)

(Chris Hanretty, a politics lecturer at the University of East Anglia, NOV 2016)

*Secondary legislation does not undergo full Parliamentary scrutiny, but is passed by Committees of delegated MP's.

**Update (12/9/2017) - Congratulations to Theresa May, Conservative MP's, and Labour rebels

for successfully steering the "Withdrawal Bill" through its first stage in the Commons

this morning (Midnight to 1 AM)