Copyright © 2015 - 18 euexit.com. All rights reserved.
23rd December 2018
May's No Deal
Theresa May's European Union (Withdrawal) agreement, which has so far been rejected by Parliament is an attempt to hoodwink the British people into thinking that it is actually a trade deal with the EU which will bring prosperity to the UK; in reality though it isn't a deal at all - not a trade deal - which is what would be desirable - it is just an extension of the UK - EU negotiations by another name - under total EU control.
Essentially, renaming the components of the parts of the agreement, using such phrases as "Common Rule Book" - instead of stating that the UK will not be leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market - is simply a marketing ploy to rebrand something that is hard to sell - it is still the same s before; but it is just conning the public - who the British "elite" believe are too stupid to understand what they are doing anyway.
They did the same thing with the rejected Constitution for Europe (2004) - distributed it within the texts of the Lisbon Treaty (2007) and earlier treaties - and called it a "Reform Treaty" and, after some sleight-of-hand by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) - “et voilà !” - the Lisbon Treaty (2007) is now the de facto Constitution of the EU - and few of the populations of the EU ever realised what was happening.
After such an enormous deception upon the EU populations (in 2007) one would caution against having anything to do with the EU - but May is on the EU's side in these "faux" negotiations - and on the side of multinational corporations and international bankers - she is not on the side of the British people; whatever she claims, and her latest agreement succinctly illustrates where her priorities really reside - and that is not with the interests of the UK.
In truth, the Theresa May "Agreement" does not benefit the UK at all: it is an extension of Article 50 by other means which allows the EU to keep the UK trapped for at least another two years, if not forever; worse still the public have been led to believe that the only thing wrong with May's agreement (and let's stop kidding ourselves it is really Merkel's plan) - is the "Backstop".
Firstly, the "Backstop" is not a "real" problem in itself: neither the EU, nor Eire nor the UK will ever build a hard border between Northern Ireland and Eire; even if we leave on WTO rules; the present border can be operated with currently available technology; secondly it is the direction of travel of all customs borders under the aegis of WTO and; thirdly the notion of "Frictionless Trade" in the EU is, in any event, a myth (The Limited Impact of EU Membership on Barriers to Trade (https://briefingsforbrexit.com/impact-eu-membership-trade-barriers/-;)
The "Backstop" was almost certainly invented by Blair; and suggested to the EU during his clandestine meetings with the EU negotiators and / or Meerkel; initially, as a way to force the UK government to argue with other vested interests; rather than just with the EU - it is an invented problem; and part of the overall project fear strategy (see Blair's "Brexit Playbook")
The "Backstop" is also leverage which can be used against the UK - in an EU attempt (threat) to annex Northern Ireland; as the EEC illegally "grabbed" - took control of our fishing grounds in 1972. In addition, Ireland under EU control isolates Britain and benefits Nationalist tendencies in Eire. ironically enough; since Eire long ago gave up any notion being a sovereign independent nation when it joined the EU.
The EU has claimed supremacy over all Member State Constitutions and Legal Systems; including Eire - following a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), prior to 2016, in which the Lisbon Treaty (2007) was declared a "Constitutional Treaty" and is now the de facto Constitution of the EU Member States, as stated above..
Of course, Ireland benefited massively from their 2nd EU Referendum since they were a net recipient of EU funds (our money - after the EU skimmed off its share) - but, when it is Eire's turn to contribute the EU - the Irish may not be quite so pleased with their "Yes" vote in 2009. ("The Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution (Treaty of Lisbon) Act 2009 (previously bill no. 49 of 2009) is an amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which permitted the state to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon of the European Union. It was approved by referendum on 2 October 2009 (sometimes known as the second Lisbon referendum" - Wikipedia)
UK Parliamentary Impasse
Parliament was given May's "EU Withdrawal Agreement" to "scrutunise" (debate) - it was clearly a set-up between the EU and Theresa May (plus civil servants), and it had already been signed off by both parties without any prior UK Parliamentary scrutiny - and the agreement was therefore not amendable.
So, for the period of the debates (4th to 11th of December) the meaningful vote represented a pretend amending and voting on the pretend amendments of the agreement - but the "Meaningful Vote" would only take place in a final decision on the 11th December 2018 - either to accept or reject the agreement.
It became clear early on - soon after publication - that the agreement was a new treaty - written by Brussell's to replace the European Communities Act (1972) which, incidentally had, cleverly, not been completely repealed by the same Remain supporting Parliament that was "ruminating" over the proposed new agreement being offered by the EU. The agreement contained a one-sided offer - favouring only the EU and keeping the UK firmly under its control - is typical of what might be offered to a country which had suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of a superior force - and which planned to punish the recipient for its temerity to actually dare to oppose its will.
A British Prime Minister presenting such a "capitulation" document to its Parliament was met with disbelief or was it for real, or a hoax? - or submitted for another purpose? - and suspicions have been building that it was part of a strategy by which the EU-UK could bring about a 2nd EU Referendum - by offering a treaty which could never be accepted in Parliament and another alternative which was more beneficial to the EU - but if it was passed then it was win-win for the EU.
As a measure of the disgust, disbelief and downright disillusionment experienced by Parliament generally and Conservative Eurosceptic "Backbenchers' more specifically, they submitted the requisite number of letters (48) of "No Confidence" in the Prime Minister - however, she won the vote mostly with help from members of the 1922 Committee who were on the government's "payroll" - the final result was 200 to 117 - but was it all play acting anyway"
Nevertheless, much disquiet pervaded Parliament during the debates which began to focus on "how to exit" from the agreement - which was blocked by the "Backstop" - the provision for a border in Northern Ireland (NI) which the EU and Eire insisted upon, and which prevented the UK leaving the agreement without the explicit acquiescence of the EU.
Despite May's assurances that neither the EU nor the UK wanted the "Backstop" - the Labour Party insisted that the government publish the Legal Advice on the matter from the Attorney General - Geoffrey Cox. When it became clear that the legal advice had warned against the Prime Minister's position, more opposition built against the agreement and Theresa May decided to pull the agreement from the "meaningful vote" scheduled for Tuesday the 11th December 2018 - Parliament "closed" on the 20th December 2018.
In the meantime, Theresa May would return to the EU to attempt to obtain a legally enforceable "exit" date from the proposed "Backstop" customs arrangements - and the debates would reconvene on the 7th of January 2019 with a second attempt at passing the EU withdrawal agreement on the 14th December 2019 - which assumes that May can return with a suitable form of legal wording - in time for that vote.
May's Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration.
Along with the EU withdrawal agreement was a non-legally binding Political Declaration- but neither represent an EU - UK trade deal - so it is a "NO Deal" arrangement that May has brought back to the UK from the EU.
The withdrawal part would be a legally binding document which simply extending the Article 50 negotiations by another name; under Draconian terms, and the Political Declaration is not legally binding - simply meaningless "warm and cuddly words". The entire arrangement is being billed as a deal between the UK and the EU - it is nothing of the sort - it allows the UK to continue trading, as is, on the 29th of March 2019 but on day two onward - the EU can unilaterally change its Directives and Regulations to ensure that the UK cannot ever compete with the EU.
That is because our Remain Parliament have "kindly" helped the EU by not repealing Clause 2 of the European Communities Act (1972) - despite its grand sounding name (The Great Repeal Bill (2008)) it is only partly repealed it should be renamed as the "Great Repeal Illusion Bill (2018)" - and the part not repealed simply leaves us under total EU control - defenceless against any actions that the EU, or any and all, of the rest of the 27 EU Member States can blackmail the UK into giving more and more concessions.
If Parliament votes May's agreement through just on the basis that she secured a concession on the "Backstop" would mean that the UK would be under that new punishment Treaty - (which is not a new trade deal with the EU) - that would only be "negotiated" during a flexible "Transition Period" - and in reality would never come into effect - we would just stay in the EU under worse terms - except that the Remainers' would celebrate the fact that Theresa May had managed to turn around a vote to Leave the EU to one which is to Remain in the EU - by renaming sections of her arrangement with the EU.
The Remain Plot
It is doubtful that May's agreement was anything other than a false deal - it is a "No Deal" designed to keep the UK in the EU on the EU's own terms - and that was only in place to force a 2nd EU Referendum - which means that opting for May's withdrawal agreement - pretending to be a new EU-UK deal - in a Referendum would only be voting for an EU version of a "No Deal" that would not be of interest to anyone who voted Leave.
That is because it would be on worse than our existing terms, perversely though it might suit the Remain camp - in reality though - it is just an extension of Article 50 by proxy, to push negotiations and the status quo up to at least the next UK General Election in 2022 - and we have been there before and "done that old chestnut to death".
By placing only the following options on the table in the new debates next January 2019, Parliament will decide between "Norway" ,"CETA+++", "WTO" - which will be called "No Deal" - but is better than any other option on offer, and the debates will include May's EU - "No Deal" and possibly "Remain", but probably not
The EU-negotiators and UK-HMG hope to create a scenario where Parliament is deadlocked - and that "forces" a vote for a 2nd Referendum - all quite cynically disingenuous - in order to thwart the EU Referendum vote in 2016 - and typical of the EU which has "form" for corruption and deception - as it has developed through stealth over the past 46 years.
In order to have a second Referendum, it is certain that Article 50 would have to be extended or revoked - take that to mean that the 2016 Referendum result has been overturned and our elected Representatives and their ennobled Peers will claim that it was nothing to do with them - when they seek re-election - don't let them get away with it.