British exit from the European Union is the current [ July 2016 ] big issue in the Main Stream Media. That is because they are skating over the real big issue, which is Ethnic Fouling using Immigration by Third World aliens especially Illegal Immigration. The Referendum & its Post Script have been given the rather ugly name, Brexit. Having got the right decision on Referendum Day the next matters are how to get out and how to prevent Cameron and other Traitors blocking it or making sure it is on the worst possible terms. The exit plan, Flexcit has been worked out by Richard A. E. North. it is rather good.
The legal attack on Democracy is being led a Sikh
Gina Miller, a Brazilian barber
Deir Dos Santos and, hiding behind
the scenes, a Jew Alan Miller. Andrew Joyce has
something to say about the perpetrators - see
Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit. One is
Alex Chesterman; the
Wikipedia does not
he is a Jew. The
Jewish Business News does, implicitly at all events - see
Zoopla's founder Alex Chesterman execute with $34.2 million deal.
Why So many Englishmen Want Out Of EU
Die Welt explains why, in German or does it? It was a vote against Third World immigration.
We can't let Brexit be derailed by a City slicker and a Brazilian crimper
Sensible comment from Richard Litttlejohn. This attack on Democracy is being led by a Jew, a Sikh and a Brazilian barber.
Arron Banks ex Wiki
Is a rich supporter of Brexit & UKIP as well as being lively. Left Wingers hate him, a distinct plus point. He reads as a Capitalist Swine with off shore companies.
Flexcit ex Wiki
Flexcit is the name of a policy which involves gradual British disengagement from the European Union. Its original author and main proponent is Richard A. E. North. It was the official policy of Arron Banks' Leave EU campaign although the campaign did not get official recognition.
It is a sensible plan for gradual withdrawal but there is a problem, the Not Invented Here Syndrome aka sour grapes. Using it would obstruct the ill disposed, saboteurs et cetera. Doctor North says that a "dysfunctional Parliament" created the EU problem in the first place. He stops short of mentioning Treason At Maastricht but he does mention the profound ignorance of BBC journos. There is no comment on their corruption, Marxism or Homosexuality. Writing off the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a problem not a solution is sensible. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978 should be applied although we are not a party to it.
The Leave campaign needs a credible Brexit plan
Give the a stick and it will inevitably embrace the wrong end of it with both hands. Only by this means could we get a front page story demanding that the Prime Minister – leader of the remain campaign – produce an EU exit plan. This is rather like expecting Rommel to produce a plan for clearing the Afrika Korps out of Egypt.
That said, we do of course need an exit plan but, as with any fundamental political change – the impetus must come from outside the bubble. Since the dawn of time – from Chartism, the welfare state and the Thatcher revolution – this has always been the case.
And it is the abject failure of the "leave" campaign to embrace the only fully prepared exit plan in existence – or produce one of its own - which is proving to be its greatest, if not fatal weakness.
After all, if the campaign does now have the courage and moral certainty to acquaint the voting public with its vision for a post-exit EU, and offer a credible plan for achieving it, why should anyone cast a vote for it in the referendum?
Yet, despite the very obvious and desperately urgent need for a plan, there is no progress from the noise-makers.
Farage and his GO monster is committed to political suicide by turning the referendum campaign into a debate on immigration, Arron Banks – after briefly showing a spark of courage – has retreated into his bunker, and the Cummings-Elliott duo have dug in their heels, determined that, whatever else their Titanic has, it won't be a structured exit plan.
And there we are, as the two competitors for designation lock horns – neither are able to offer any credible leadership and neither are able to confront their own fundamental failings - we have the makings of an electoral disaster.
Yesterday, at least, though, we had our final planning meeting in the Leave Alliance, preparatory to our launch on 16 March - budget day. We'll be at 1 Great George Street, in Westminster, starting at 2.30pm, when we'll also have copies of the short version of Flexcit.
The event will be filmed and we'll place a professionally-edited video on YouTube clip, to go alongside the Flexcit pamphlet. And in April, we have plans for a workshop in London, further to roll out the plan.
This at least will give Flexcit some more profile, then to make the media and noise-makers all the more absurd for ignoring it. Come what may, we're going ahead. If this referendum fails, it'll be none of our doing.
Democracy creates uncertainty, but Mark Carney’s fears will prove unfounded
Wednesday 9 March 2016
Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, today described the prospect of a British secession from the European Union as the "biggest domestic financial stability risk" facing the UK. If Britain left the EU and could not secure the same business conditions for the City that it enjoys today, it would "without question" hit UK jobs and growth.
The success of a new relationship with the EU after leaving would depend on the "degree of mutual recognition enjoyed by the UK. Would the City be able to hold on the "passporting rights" that facilitates cross-border business in the European Economic Area, i.e. the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein?
"There would be an impact. I can't give you a precise number in terms of institutions or jobs or activity, because we don't know where we would be on that continuum between full mutual recognition or pure third-country access."
There is little doubt that the markets may jitter at the prospect of the referendum, so Mark Carney is speaking the truth when he warns of uncertainty. This in itself is not a good enough reason not to hold one; democracy is necessarily uncertain at times.
HSBC previously warned it would relocate in the even of Brexit, until the board voted to remain in the UK in a decision that drew a line under almost a year of uncertainty over the future of Europe’s biggest bank. Banks and business do not like the prospect of change or the risks associated with the people expressing themselves democratically.
However, the reasons for HSBC remaining in the UK apply to every bank that warns it may relocate if Britain leaves the EU. Stuart Gulliver, HSBC’s chief executive, said HSBC's current location “delivers the best of both worlds to our stakeholders.” He added that said Britain’s “internationally recognised” regulatory framework and legal system, as well as its workforce, meant the UK should remain HSBC’s home.
There is in no perceivable advantage to leaving London; it is a first rate global city that will remain a global hub in or out of the EU. As for Britain’s “internationally recognised” regulatory framework, Britain has adopted global regulatory conventions made at the real top tables where the rules are made, and would do so in or out of the EU.
From a regulatory perspective, there is zero competitive advantage in moving away from London. Why relocate to mainland Europe in a post Brexit scenario? Nowhere would the business environment improve, there are no tax advantages to moving to Paris, thus it would be a waste of time and resources.
In any case, in order to secure the economy and de-risk Brexit in the event of a vote to leave, the Government will inevitably seek to retain access to the Single Market in a mutually beneficial negotiated settlement. The Market Solution is the optimal solution for alleviating risk, calming uncertainties and seceding from political and judicial union in an orderly fashion.
The mainstream Leave campaigns are making a mistake in not fully endorsing a negotiated secession that secures continued membership of the Single Market. The uncertainty and doubts of the market and the public would be significantly calmed by the acceptance on behalf of the Leave campaigns that our continued participation in the Single Market is inevitable and desirable. Alas, they lack vision.
Instead The Leave Alliance is the only campaign group that champions a staged exit with a soft landing, providing a platform to build our future on, as well as being the only campaign with a serious plan.
At the prospect of the UK retaining Single Market membership after leaving the EU Mark Carney expressed concerns. He stated that there would be questions over whether the UK would lose its "substantial influence" over the development of EU financial regulations and would retain the flexibility achieved in the renegotiation settlement secured by David Cameron.
Sir Jon Cunliffe, the Bank's deputy governor for financial stability, also raised points of concern when he claimed that if we wanted to remain in the single market for financial services, it would be a very big negotiating ask to also have the influence on setting the rules:
“So when you see how the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) counties participate – the Swiss and others in the rule setting – they’re consulted but they don’t have a say. It’s theoretically possible that a say could be negotiated, as I say we’re in unprecedented territory, but to me it’s not likely that we would be able to stay in the single market and have the influence on setting the rules that we have as a member of the European Union, if we were outside the EU.”This is of course the standard criticism of the so-called “Norway option” that is commonly used to downplay the benefits of forging a relationship with the EU based on cooperation and trade alone.
As ever, there is an international elephant in the room. What Sir Jon Cunliffe chose to obscure is that the banking industry is global and so, increasingly, is its regulation. In fact, there has been what has been described as a “Cambrian explosion” in international regulatory co-operation which has transformed the regulatory environment. This means that pulling out of “Europe” would not make any difference to the trading environment – power is no longer geo-located in Brussels (if it ever was). Our EU parochialism is preventing us from seeing the bigger picture.
Conveniently, the extent of this transformation has been charted by the OECD and by researcher from Arizona State University. And in their documents we see this helpful chart (below) which sets out the structure of global financial regulation.
The UK government is fully involved, as is the US government, where IRC is subject to a Presidential Executive Order, with action directed through the Office of Management and Budget. And it drives trade relations between the US and Canada.
Yet, while writ of IRC is dominating the global regulatory environment, it is almost completely invisible to the media, to most politicians and commentators. This means that most of what we are told is superficial to the point of misleading. The way we are governed has undergone a revolution – an invisible revolution – and the mass media is not even close to putting us in the picture.
Instead, it gives succour to the propagandists, who would have it that the “Europe” of which they know so little is one which is essential to UK trade, unwilling or unable to recognise that, in this changing world, we can live without the political ambitions of the EU and do better on the global stage.
The point they cannot seem to cope with is that globalisation has now advanced to such a stage that the original justification for having the EU running the European trading bloc has long since expired and we need to create a genuine European marketplace. “Europe” isn’t working, and we need now to look for a new settlement, of which IRC is a major part.
If we leave the EU, the banks won’t flee, London will remain a foremost global city and Britain will embrace an outward looking vision. There is a global Single market emerging, and we need to be fully engaged with it.
Repealing the European Communities Act is not an option Tuesday 8 March 2016
This is the reality of “simply” repealing the European Communities Act 1972; it would be a political and economic disaster that would leave our reputation and our economy in tatters. This is why it is not an option on the table and no one in the Leave movement should waste another moment considering it or advocating it. Failing to meet our obligations and breaking treaties is unthinkable and thoroughly un-British.
The purpose of Brexit is not to cut ourselves off from the EU, or to turn our backs and isolate ourselves, or to act out in hostility. What we seek is a new relationship with the EU based on cooperation, not subordination. In order to get that, we will have to act in good faith and the spirit of cooperation to ensure that our secession is managed sensibly, to the benefit of all parties.
Read Flexcit: The Market Solution to leaving the EU
Expats Have Nothing To Fear From Brexit Friday 4 March 2016
Two million UK citizens working abroad could become illegal immigrants overnight if Britain were to leave the European Union according to remain fear mongers playing fast and loose with the facts . This is one of the more flimsy and morally objectionable deceits given that it is designed to disseminate anxiety amongst the expat community and in many cases this myth is proliferated by people who should, and probably do, know better.
The status of treaty rights acquired while a treaty is in force, when that treaty comes to an end, was dealt with in a 2013 Parliamentary briefing, and is covered in much more detail by UN lawyers. A clarification has even been issued via a House of Commons Library note, which stated:“Generally speaking, withdrawing from a treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other, but does not affect any rights or obligations acquired under it before withdrawal.”The (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is clear, in article 70.1.b it states that a termination of a treaty:
“Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.”To summarise, “acquired rights” – also known as “executed rights” or “vested rights” – do continue to apply to individuals. So firm are they embedded in the international order that they have acquired the status of “customary law”, which means the principle does not need to be anchored by any particularly treaty, but stands alone as a fundamental principle of international law.
Thus, should it come to the UK leaving the EU, those persons who currently live in other EU member states, invoking the right to remain under the “freedom of movement” or “freedom of establishment” provisions of the treaties, will be able to retain that “acquired right”. There may be some details around the margins that have to be settled which will make up part of secession negotiations, in both informal talks that begin in the aftermath of a vote to leave, and formal talks that begin after our Article 50 notification.
The issue is settled. Spreading fear amongst expats is now the reserve of barrel scraping social media campaigners, with even Europhile think tank British Influence conceding the lack of credibility to this argument:
“General principles of EU law concerning legitimacy and legal certainty as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon presuppose that the UK and the EU would be required, or at least strongly recommended by civil servants, diplomats and government lawyers, to agree on the protection of acquired rights…”
The report concludes that it is likely a transitional agreement will be achieved, but even if one did not materialise, or if the transitional agreement had problematic “gaps”, acquired rights are covered my international law:
“International law should be sufficient to protect acquired rights. For example, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, while parties to a treaty can be released from future obligations by withdrawing from the agreement, rights and obligations acquired under the same treaty are not affected".
Stop lying to expats. They have nothing to fear from Brexit.
BMW have no right to interfere - and no credibility Thursday 3 March 2016
Rolls-Royce CEO, Torsten Muller-Otvos, has sent a letter to BMW employees on Britain's EU referendum as though who governs us were any of his business. A copy of the letter was released to the media. Here we analyse the key points.
"Free trade is important for international business. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars exports motor cars throughout the EU and imports a significant number of parts through the region. For BMW Group, more than half of MINIs built and virtually all the engines and components made in the UK are exported to the EU, with over 150,000 new cars and many hundreds of thousands of parts imported from Europe each year. Tariff barriers would mean higher costs and higher prices and we cannot assume that the UK would be granted free trade with Europe from outside the EU.
Actually we can assume free trade. That is actually the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty Article 50 negotiations. Both parties know full well that erecting tariff and non-tariff barriers has harmful consequences for both sides and runs anti-ethical to what both the EU and the WTO stand for. In this, we see that forty years of integration are not so easily unpicked.
With that in mind we know that a bespoke agreement cannot be delivered inside the allotted two years and nobody has any interest in it dragging on. And so it is entirely reasonable to assume that our government would seek to use as many existing legal instruments as possible to ensure the settlement was as close to EU membership as possible. Not least because no Westminster party actually wants to leave the EU.
It is therefore next to certain that we would continue as a member of the single market while leaving the political EU construct. At the very worst, if talks fail, we end up with a mutual recognition agreement and a free trade agreement along the lines of the Australian path. Not immediately optimal, but certainly no doomsday scenario. As authors of the most comprehensive Brexit plan in circulation, it is our best estimation that the Norway Option would be stage one of the exit process. Is that really so bad? That brings us neatly to the next point:
"When it comes to regulation, whether the UK remains inside the EU or leaves it, with Europe as the UK's largest export market by far, we would have to abide by European rules and regulations in any case. We believe it's much better to be sat at the table when regulations are set and have a hand in their creation, rather than simply having to accept them.
Does Torsten Muller-Otvos realise that they are no longer made by the EU? When we actually look at where they do come from, we find our old friend UNECE looming large. Its Transport Division, based in Geneva, provides secretariat services to the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29), and has been doing so for more than 50 years.
By its own account, the World Forum incorporates into its regulatory framework the technological innovations of vehicles relating safety and environment impact. WP 29 was established on June 1952 as "Working party of experts on technical requirement of vehicles". The current name was adopted in 2000.
As to a little bit of detail, the core of the Forum's work is based around the "1958 Agreement", known formally as "Agreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions". This was augmented by a further Agreement in 1998.
As helpfully explained here, these form a legal framework wherein participating countries (contracting parties) agree a common set of technical prescriptions and protocols for type approval of vehicles and components.
The UNECE instruments, produced under the Agreements, are classic "diqules". As quasi-legislation, they have no mandatory effect until converted into laws by the territorial bodies signatory to the agreements (contracting parties).
Despite that, they used to be called "UNECE Regulations" or, less formally, "ECE Regulations". Since many non-European countries are now contracting parties to the Agreements, the regulations are now officially entitled "UN Regulations". Through this, each contracting party's type approvals are recognised by all other contracting parties.
There are currently 57 signatories to the Agreements, including non-EU countries such as Norway and the major vehicle manufacturing countries of Japan and South Korea. And the EU is also a part, having acceded via Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 and Council Decision 2000/125/EC of 31 January 2000.
And now for the interesting bits. When it comes dealing with the World Forum, we see this interesting report. The European Commission on behalf of EU Member States, it says, seeks "continuously increase their involvement in the Geneva technical legislative process, in particular by working within WP.29 and its subsidiary bodies in order to ensure harmonisation between UNECE Regulations and EU legislation".
As a result, we thus discover that the EU's own major regulations on the general safety of motor vehicles have been replaced with UN Regulations. They aren't EU regulations any more. They might have an EU label on them by the time they get to us, but they're made in Geneva, not Brussels.
Dealing with UNECE, of course, is part of trade policy – part of the Single Market, so the EU takes change. Graciously, the EU Commission allows Member States take part in the preparatory work of the UNECE working parties.
If it becomes obvious at this stage, they kindly EU tells us, that further discussions between experts are necessary, an informal working group may be set up within a working party with a view to making progress in the development of the Regulations. This may occur where there is a rapid development of complex new technologies. And we can even take part in these informal groups.
However, when it comes finally to agreeing the standards proposed by UNECE, the Member States have to take the back seat. The European Commission, it says firmly, "exercises the right to vote in WP.29 on behalf of the EU and its 27 Member States". Thus, despite the UK having major vehicle manufacturing interests, producing its 1.58 million cars in 2012, we have no direct vote on vehicle standards. We do not have a seat at the table.
Just in case you might ask, yes Norway – as a full member of UNECE - takes part in the World Forum. As an independent nation, it represents itself in the committees and votes on its own behalf. Despite having no indigenous manufacturing industry, it takes an active part in the proceedings.
More to the point, as a multinational company, BMW and the like operate at levels far higher than nations and blocs, and since it is more that just the EU who adopts the rules, their self-interest is not in any way threatened."Finally, we get a significant benefit from the easy movement of our people between the UK and Europe. This allows the rapid transfer of expert knowledge throughout Rolls-Royce Motor Cars and BMW Group networks, building the skill level of our UK workforce. Our employment base could also be affected, with skilled men and women from most EU countries included in the 30 nationalities currently represented at the Home of Rolls-Royce here at Goodwood.
Put simply, there is no real reason why would should expect that visaless access (as existed before the EEC) would not be part of the EU negotiations, and since we most certainly would want it, the EU would likely leverage it to full EEA freedom of movement in any case. Most serious analysts think that leaving the single market in the first stage of Brexit would be improbably and politically difficult, as outlined in the Daily Telegraph. It's not realistic to believe that we would quit the EEA.
What we're looking at here is pure propaganda shrouded in ignorance. The EU is not the single market and trade is not contingent on political subjugation. Torsten Muller-Otvos has no right to interfere or even attempt to influence the votes of UK employees. Morally, it is bankrupt.03/03/2016 link
We're making progress
Wednesday 2 March 2016
But for the diehards wedded to long held beliefs it feels to us like the campaign has reached a turning point today as we are now seeing a far more serious public debate about the Brexit options.
We have looked at the folly of the WTO Option just recently here at The Leave Alliance (TLA), then today we get a fairly comprehensive demolition job from the former president of Switzerland on why the Swiss option is not much cop. It echoes much of what we have said in our comprehensive Brexit plan.
And then we get Norwegian Prime Minister saying of her country's place outside the EU: "We lack influence in important decision making processes in the EU" - but in practice we know this to be something of a lie in that Norway chairs a number of global regulatory committees (from which the EU receives its own rules) and has its own free vote and right of opt-out at the WTO.
It should also be noted that Erna Solberg is a foaming europhile. Speaking to the BBC's Ben Wright she says "I would prefer it if Norway was a full member of the EU" - yet every polls sees the Norwegians overwhelmingly rejecting EU membership. Were another party in office in Norway right now we would be hearing distinctly different noises. Put simply, the lady is just as much out of touch as our own politicians.
Adding some much needed clarity we get Ben Kelly of The Sceptic Isle (and deputy editor, TLA) writing in the Telegraph, explaining that the Norway Option is most likely the path of least resistance for protecting access to the single market, thus it will be the direction of travel for negotiators. It kills the scaremongering stone dead.
While we fully accept an EEA/Norway deal still means we pay into the EU budget and doesn't mean immediate deregulation, it means we pay a lot less, and it means we get control of fishing and agriculture back along with energy policy. That in and of itself is worth having.
There are limitations to this option, but as we continue to spell out, Brexit is a process not an event. There are pitfalls, but also a great many freedoms and future opportunities. Adding our weight to Efta, we then have sufficient clout and leverage to renegotiate the EEA agreement at a later date, including freedom of movement, which is due for review anyway.
Those are negotiations we would never get remaining in the EU, especially not after this referendum and the sham reforms of David Cameron.
While diehards will probably be disappointed by some of the compromises, that's probably no bad thing. Politics is usually going wrong if the head bangers are satisfied. The point is that the EEA provides us with a safe departure lounge so we can take as much time as we need to untangle ourselves from the EU mess. It can't immediately satisfy everybody's criteria, but at the very least, we are out of the EU and on the road to something better. What's not to like?
Could Peter Mandelson be any more offensive?
[ Probably not but then he is a Jew on the make - Editor ]
Tuesday 1 March 2016
In his first intervention in the referendum debate, Peter Mandelson, the Labour peer and former Trade Commissioner, claims that the UK could not only lose access to the single European market but could also lose the EU’s preferential trading status in foreign markets if the UK pulls out of the European Union. He also asserts that British exporters would face trade tariffs of up to 20 per cent on goods such as cars, whisky, pharmaceuticals and fashion sold around the world.
In retaliation, he warns, the UK might also have to raise tariffs on imported goods – pushing up the cost of foreign imports – while new trade deals are agreed. This he claim “would be harder” than those in favour of Brexit think, as after years in the EU the UK has “no real trade negotiating capacity”.
Now, unless Lord Mandelson's appointment to the EU was largely a political sinecure to keep him out of the way (we couldn't possibly comment), it is unlikely that a man of his stature and reputed intelligence could be this ignorant. From an MP or MEP, perhaps yes, we could write it off as run of the mill stupidity, but not so here. What we are looking at here is a grotesque distortion.
Firstly we note that magic word "could". If we leave the EU, all sorts of things could happen, but in this case, the probability of such occurring is next to, if not, absolute zero.
The only way this could happen is if we left the single market as well as the EU and left unilaterally without invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. To do that would require a repeal of Section 2 of the European Communities Act, which last time we checked requires one of those parliamentary vote things. Given how obviously suicidal this is, nobody sane would propose it, and if they did, parliament would rightly block it.
That means we will leave via Article 50. For tariffs to go up, we would have to leave the EU without first having secured a free trade deal. Mandelson has it that the UK has “no real trade negotiating capacity” - which is wholly offensive - but if that is true then it speaks to just how corrosive our EU membership is.
But then the whole point of leaving by Article 50 (apart from it being the legal instrument we've agreed to) is that it is the only instrument that compels the EU to negotiate an exit settlement. In this, it is more than reasonable to assume that neither the EU nor the UK wants to see an end to the relationship on less than amicable terms. To leave without a trade agreement at the very least would cause a toxic shock that would have far reaching ramifications for both parties, as well as knocking confidence in the still fragile Euro.
Therefore, we start from the position that all parties are negotiating in good faith, will necessarily be risk averse, and will seek to conclude an agreement as quickly as possible to remove uncertainty. Everybody wants this done with the least amount of fuss, the least amount of uncertainty and maximum continuity of trade.
As many have now pointed out, including Mandelson, a bespoke agreement inside two years (as mandated under Article 50) is just not going to happen. That means, we will look at as many existing legal constructs as possible. The EU will not be keen to replicate the tangled mess of the Switzerland model, nor will it be in any hurry to engineer any special UK exemptions lest it precipitate more member states voting to leave the EU.
In that regard, it is most likely that the European Economic Area will be the default option. It addresses the matter of leaving the EU while ensuring continuity, while requiring no special exemptions not already enjoyed by non-EU EEA members. That means the single market is protected.
This will likely be accepted without challenge in that as much as neither side wants any headaches, it will also be negotiated by a government that doesn't actually want to leave - so will opt for the relationship that most resembles EU membership.
But this is all familiar territory to those who have read our comprehensive Brexit plan. What makes us double-take is a subtlety in Mandelson's words where he says the "UK might also have to raise tariffs on imported goods – pushing up the cost of foreign imports – while new trade deals are agreed". This makes us wonder whether Lord Mandelson is actually startlingly ignorant as well as dishonest.
The point being that we do not actually leave the EU until Article 50 negotiations are concluded and a settlement ratified. Therefore there is no gap between EU membership and the new settlement. Moreover, we are able to rely on the principle in international law of presumption of continuity - as he of all people should know. We retain third party agreements.
In any case, the EU has a common external tariff that it must apply to all non-EEA members (his scenario). If we matched it in reciprocation, as Mandelson suggests, under WTO non-discrimination rules, we have to impose tariffs on all our other trading partners worldwide. That creates havoc, so we end up not imposing tariffs on the EU while they impose tariffs on us. That is why unilateral withdrawal would not be on the table - and that is why there is really no such thing as the WTO Option. It's just not an option whichever side suggests it.
And so, making estimations broadly in line with the political realities, with single market access intact, there is no justifiable reason to give credence to anything Lord Mandelson has said. Put simply, he is a liar using the prestige of his former title to distort the debate and deceive voters. It's easy to see how he was the architect of New Labour - who took political lying to new heights and pioneered it to an art form.
But then having gone through this process of elimination we can now say that an off-the-shelf solution is the most realistic and politically achievable - and we can dispense with all the silly scaremongering about what could happen. Stronger In repeats the claim that we don't know what out looks like. Well as it happens, it rather looks like we do.
What it does mean is that we retain freedom of movement, we still pay into the EU budget (albeit considerably less) and we get no immediate deregulation. That said, it means we get control of fishing and agriculture back along with energy and environment policy, a veto on new rules and regulations and as per the whole point of this exercise, we are out of the EU.
There are limitations to this option, but as we continue to spell out, Brexit is a process not an event. There are pitfalls, but also a great many freedoms and future opportunities. Over the coming months, we will be outlining what those are.
While this will not immediately satisfy Brexit hardliners, they should note that in the first instance we would be out of the EU, and out from under the rule of what is essentially the supreme government for Europe. That alone would be reason to celebrate. But it doesn't stop there.
Adding our weight to Efta, we then have sufficient clout and leverage to renegotiate the EEA agreement at a later date, including freedom of movement, where we would be kicking at an open door. Those are negotiations we would never get while we remain in the EU, especially not after this referendum and the sham reforms of David Cameron.
Voters’ Remorse, or The Morning After the Night Before
Everybody in British politics is in shock now that that they face the reality of having to negotiate the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. In the case of Boris Johnson, a charming opportunist who took the leadership of the Brexit campaign in the hope of succeeding David Cameron as prime minister, the prospect of having to lead those negotiations was so frightening that he simply froze up.
That gave Michael Gove, co-leader of the Brexit campaign, an excuse to stab Boris in the back and supplant him as the main Leave candidate for the Conservative leadership, which he duly did on Thursday morning. Gove is a true believer, but he lacks Johnson’s charisma, so the next Conservative prime minister is actually likelier to be Theresa May – who supported the Remain campaign.
If most Conservative members of parliament are terrified by the outcome of the referendum, that is even more true for ordinary pro-Brexit voters..........
One thing all the contenders for the prime ministerial job agree on is Britain should not start negotiating its exit now. Recognising this, Cameron promised to stay in office until October to give the Conservative Party time to find a new leader – and promised NOT to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty during that time.
Gwynne Dyer writes, often well. His article makes sense until he mentions our remorse. It is news to me & I suspect lots of others. Cameron's treachery is very much what one expects from a corrupt War Monger; it's what we got.
The Meaning Of Brexit [ 23 June 2016 ]
Gilad Atzmon explains; it demonstrating that 'Right' & 'Left' are different terms for the same gang of corrupt manipulators.
Ten Ways To Leave EU, Scenarios For Brexit [ 23 June 2016 ]
Yes, it is all unsettled. Mr MacDonald does not mention we 'joined' by Treason At Maastricht & that we are fully entitled to walk away. The American Declaration of Independence applies just as much to England as America. Honest government [ an alien concept ] has the Consent Of The Governed. WE have the Right Of Revolution.
Will The Tories Betray The Brexit Revolution? [ 2 July 2016 ]
For once, the clichés are justified. We really do stand at a momentous juncture as a nation. The decisions made in the next few months will determine the path we take post-Brexit. Will we take a bold leap, or will we take the timid, tepid, half-hearted path, row back to a “Brexit-lite”, squandering what really is a once in a century opportunity?
To say “we”, of course, is incorrect: unlike the brave Brexit decision made by the British people as a whole, the path it now takes will depend entirely on the internal politics of the Tory Party, an institution with a somewhat dubious history when it comes to putting the nation before its own needs.
Let us look at the situation cynically from the point of view of Tory self-interest. There are four years to go to an election and the Opposition is in meltdown. No other challenger is likely to arise. However Brexit is not without considerable short-term risk. Rather than do what is best for the country fifteen or twenty years hence, how do you ensure your domination for the foreseeable future?
Firstly, one imagines there have been some rather interesting phone conversations from major Tory corporate donors over the last few days to the various likely leadership candidates. Shocked and panicked by the threat of removal from the single market, a great deal of pressure will brought to bear by vested interests to ensure such very agreeable arrangements continue: free movement of cheap labour, crony capitalism via the Brussels regulatory regime and, of course, tariff free access to the EU market..........
In essence, the future of our country relies entirely on whether the Tory Party can rise to the Brexit challenge.
There is no mention of horse trading or Jews, just rich donors but it is somewhat realistic.
Denmark Wants A Referendum Too [ 2 July 2016 ]
DANISH politicians are urging its government to hold a referendum after Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.
The Danish People's Party (DPP) and the Red-Green Alliance (RGA) have renewed the demand for a vote on the Scandinavian nation’s membership of the Euro-bloc after the Leave camp’s success.
Leader of DPP, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, said Brussels had made its bed by underestimating the looming scepticism in Europe and now the Danish people must be given a chance to follow Britain out of the EU. The right-wing politician said: “This shows that once against the EU completely underestimates people’s scepticism. The EU has made its bed.
“I also believe Danes should of course have a referendum on whether we want to follow Britain or stay in the EU.”.........
The demand for a Danish referendum comes as far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen called for a French vote on EU membership. As the final results revealed Britain could cut ties with Brussels this morning, the French politician repeated her previous calls for a “Frexit”. She tweeted: “Victory to liberty! As I have been demanding for many years, we now need the same referendum in France and EU countries.”
Asking people what they want is an idea. We could call it Democracy. Didn't they try it once in Athens? Perhaps it isn't the way to go. Wonderful politicians know how to run our lives better than we do, don't they? Isn't that why they imported millions of Third World foreigners to do the dirty work - and rape our daughters?
Andrea Leadsom Pledges Britain Would Be On Fast-Track To Brexit [ 4 July 2016 ]
It can be done. Andrea Leadsom says she can and will. It is a power bid but probably a sincere one.
Liam Fox Says No Brexit For THREE YEARS As He Rules Out Deal For EU Migrants In PM Pledge [ 4 July 2016 ]
Liam Fox, a comedian with light fingers can do a Brexit on the worst possible terms.
Brexit & Jews [ 1 July 2016 ]
So many Jews flock to 'Left Wing' causes but they are just means to an end, to the supremacy of Jews. Their Useful Idiots believe in superior rights for Third World aliens, Feminism, Homosexuals, White Guilt et cetera. Jews are not that stupid; they have their eyes firmly on the main chance because they are shamelessly Racist. That is why the Jew Alderman explicitly asked “Will Brexit be good for us Jews?”
Belgium Offers An Olive Branch To Brexit's Friends Calling For A North Sea Union [ 24 August 2016 ]
Belgium is a nation of shop keepers too. They want trade too. Going through there means bypassing Calais and 9,000 vicious Third World invaders.
After Brexit, Ask Not What This Country Can Do For Immigrants, But What Immigrants Can Do For This Country [ 3 September 2016 ]
The Telegraph asks the right question for once. Ask what they do to England or look at the next reports to know.
MPs Try To Block Brexit [ 11 October 2016 ]
Second guessing British public is NOT acceptable' May rules out allowing MPs Brexit vote
THERESA MAY has ruled out a vote for MPs on Brexit with Downing Street insisting Parliament should not be allowed to “second-guess” the will of the British people.
The Prime Minister has been accused of “Tyranny” by ignoring the House of Commons as she pushes ahead with negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU. Over the weekend it also emerged former Labour leader Ed Miliband has held secret talks with Remain-supporting Tories in a bid to force a parliamentary vote on the terms of Brexit.
But while Downing Street today insisted MPs will be allowed to “scrutinise” the exit process, a vote for MPs on Brexit appeared to be dismissed.
The rogues alleging Tyranny are proving their hatred of Democracy when they don't get their own way.
Thornberry Obstructing Brexit [ 12 October 2016 ]
EMILY Thornberry MP was slapped down by Tory MP Bernard Jenkin for arguing the House of Commons should have the final say on any Brexit deal instead of the elected Government. Bernard Jenkin hit back at the Shadow Foreign Secretary's flimsy proposal that the House of Commons should sign off on any Brexit deal.
Defending the mandate for any Brexit deal the Government may strike, Mr Jenkin said it was "the biggest ever vote cast for any single proposition in this country, ever"......... Emily Thornberry claimed pre-Brexit promises were 'contradictory' However the Labour MP claimed she was "frustrated" by the lack of information Parliament had received on Brexit talks...........
Ms Thornberry – one of the MPs who decided to serve [ sic i.e. make a power grab - Editor ] in Corbyn's cabinet despite mass resignations earlier this year – said voters were not given a clear direction on what type of Brexit they were getting during the referendum.
Thornberry is a fat, ugly lump on the make; one that despises the honest English Working Man. She joined the Labour Party because she saw more mileage in it. Then she proved her contempt for principles by joining Comrade Corbyn.
PS Only 96% agree that it is not her business: that WE decided democratically. She hates Democracy; she wants power.
World Trade Boss Working For Quick, Smooth Brexit [ 28 October 2016 ]
HOPES of a rapid departure from the EU were significantly raised last night after the head of the World Trade Organisation vowed to "work hard" for a "fast and smooth" Brexit.
Roberto Azevedo, director general of the governing body for global trade rules, insisted the UK would suffer no "vacuum or disruption" on breaking ties with Brussels.
And he recognised that the referendum vote for leaving the European bloc was not an "anti-trade" gesture [ Quite right; it was anti-Third World invaders - Editor ].
And it came as a major new report warned that British businesses and taxpayers would hammered by massive new costs for bailing-out the crisis stricken euro if the country remains part of the EU Single Market.
Recall that we were told loudly, repeatedly that we needed to join the euro. They were wrong. We were lied to about the need to join the European Union; it was government propaganda. Out means freedom.
Her Majesty's Government And Democracy Are DEFEATED in High Court As Judges Claim That MPs Must Get A Vote On Triggering Brexit [ 3 November 2016 ]
This case is an attack on genuine Democracy, as distinct from the representative sort, which it is so much easier to pervert by bribery, blackmail or what ever. It pretty much proves that the law is a crap shoot. Her Majesty's Government can override the court if it wants.
Jew Used Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy [ 4 November 2016 ]
The Jew Alan Miller used Gina Miller a Sikh from Guyana as his front woman to attack the clearly stated will of the people in the Referendum on Brexit but then, of course Jews hate democracy. Miller looks like a White Man; lots of Jews do. It makes their treachery easier to perpetrate.
Recall that Michael Foster, another rich Jew infiltrated The Labour Party in order to control it, to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn because Jeremy is naive enough to think that Palestinians have the human right not to be murdered or harassed by Jews. His legal action failed. NB Foster was the Managing Director of Carlton Television & a colleague of David Cameron ex-leader of the Conservative Party; his business, like his politics just part of his tribal loyalty to Zionist crazies, vicious rogues like Netanyahu, the thug who runs Israel, an area full of Hard Left Socialist Jews. See e.g. Rich Jew Abuses Comrade Corbyn's Inner Circle As Nazis.
PS Foster used #Mishcon de Reya as his solicitors; they are also Jews.
Black Alien Will Vote Against Brexit [ 18 November 2016 ]
Lammy [ an MP in Parliament ] alleges that it is his conscience. Others would say that he is an enemy alien making trouble and excuses. Perhaps we should just settle for another of the Enemy Within like Blair, Brown, Cameron, Cox et al.
Third World Alien Fronting Brexit Attack Gets Gobby With Michael Gove [ 22 November 2016 ]
She is being used as tool by Zionist crazies, the Puppet Masters e.g. Alan Miller. Jews are attacking Brexit, attacking Democracy. They prefer Representative democracy; perverting it, perverting MPs is so much easier. Gilad Atzmon, an honest Jew said that Jews Buy All Western Politicians For Less Than One Main Battle Tank. I think don't come quite so cheap but he is very much on the right lines.
Lord Palmerston Sums Up All That Brexit Is About [ 25 November 2016 ]as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow… And if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.”
Lord Palmerston: “I hold with respect to alliances, that England is a Power sufficiently strong, sufficiently powerful, to steer her own course, and not to tie herself as an unnecessary appendage to the policy of any other Government. I hold that the real policy of England—apart from questions which involve her own particular interests, political or commercial—is to be the champion of justice and right; pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and wherever she thinks that wrong has been done…I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out
Speech to the House of Commons (1 March 1848).
This applies to the systematic importation of Third World aliens, the firmly held policy of Her Majesty's Government and Her Allegedly Loyal Opposition. In fact Her Majesty's Government Is Rotten. The other lot are worse.
Arrogant Third World Alien Attacking Brexit Says We Are Too Stupid To Have The Vote [ 29 November 2016 ]
Miller is a mouthy ratbag being used to manipulate us by Jews See e.g. Jew Used Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy
Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill 2016-17 [ 8 December 2016 ]
This Bill is due for a Second Reading on 16 December unless it is preempted by events. It will give us an opportunity to see which MPs are Enemies Of The People,, who votes against it and against us. The Referendum was about Democracy, the will of the people. Parliament is about Representative Democracy, about which 'representative' is stupid, wrongheaded, bribed, blackmailed, whatever. The Bill is short, to the point and at Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill (HC Bill 104). It should be redundant because we were forced into European Union by Treason At Maastricht. We are entitled to leave by Revolution or just a declaration.
Lawyer Defying Democracy & Brexit [ 10 December 2016 ]
Embittered Remain campaigners are seeking to get EU judges to rule Brexit can be cancelled in a fresh attempt to defy the will of the people. Europhile lawyers will today launch new proceedings in Ireland that could [ sic ] pave the way for Britain’s departure being abandoned after the two-year formal exit process has been started. The pro-EU campaigners will bypass the British courts as they believe the Irish judiciary will be more likely to refer the case the European Court of Justice – putting key decisions on Britain’s withdrawal in the hands of judges in Luxembourg...........
Jolyon Maugham QC, a barrister who is leading the legal bid, said he wanted to give voters the opportunity to ‘change their minds’............
The 45-year-old tax barrister is hoping to ‘crowdfund’ £70,000 in donations to pay for the action that will begin in the Irish courts as soon as the money is raised.
You just might feel that Maugham is running another get rich quick scheme and that he is an arrogant rogue - see the mug shot, one who despises the huddled peasant masses & Democracy. The first legal attack, in the High Court was set up by a Jew then fronted by a Third World alien - see Jew Used Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy. So is the one in the Supreme Court.
European Politicians Don't Like Theresa May [ 17 December 2016 ]
Theresa May said 'I think I better leave now' at a Brussels summit after EU leaders refused to discuss Brexit negotiations in front of her.............
Mrs May's attempt to spark a discussion was met with silence from the other 27 EU leaders, who waited for her to leave the room so they could talk about their own plans for the negotiations [ i.e. how to rob us blind again - Editor ]..........
The Prime Minister returned to the UK without dinner after the tense summit, which saw EU leaders threaten Britain with a Brexit divorce bill of up to £50billion, including payments to cover pensions for EU staff...............
In his first evidence session with the Brexit committee, Mr Davis said it was not his job to set immigration policy only to regain complete control over it.
European politicians are not the Enemy Within but they are Enemies Of The People - in Europe too. The Daily Mail's readers are on side.
Chancellor Shocks Germans Regarding Brexit [ 17 January 2017 ]
While our own newspapers made a lot of intimations that Theresa May's much-anticipated speech on the matter tomorrow will make it clear she is prepared for the UK to leave both the European Single Market and the Brussels-negotiated Customs Union, that German paper had a remarkable on-the-record interview with the Chancellor Philip Hammond......
But in his interview for Welt am Sonntag, Mr Hammond dashed the hopes of those who saw the Treasury as a drag anchor against what might be called the Full Brexit. He insisted the leaders of the EU ‘need to respect the British people’s sense that our history and destiny is an engagement with the rest of the world . . . historically we have never been a nation that was focused on continental Europe’..........
He went on to warn that Germany will pay a high price if that happened: ‘I think Mercedes-Benz and BMW and Volkswagen would also like to sell their cars in the UK market without tariffs. Germany’s biggest bank has a large operation in London and I assume it would like to continue that operation.’
It's coming together. Good news for once.
Jews Pervert the Course Of Democracy & Brexit [ 24 January 2017 ]
Supreme Court rules against Government on Article 50
Theresa May must now get permission of MPs
David Davis to make a statement at 12.30
Corbyn to launch bid to send May's final Brexit deal back to Brussels
Miller, a Jew Used A Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy
Attack On Brexit And Democracy Set Up By Aliens [ 25 January 2017 ]
Brexit was real Democracy, the voice of the people as distinct from Representative Democracy, a very different kettle of fish. As Gilad Atzmon told us Jews Can Buy All Western Politicians For Less Than One Main Battle Tank. I suspect that our politicians aren't that cheap but, yes they are bent.
The legal attack was fronted by Gina Miller, a Sikh from Guyana & Deir Dos Santos, a barber from Brazil. Lurking behind the scenes is the Jew Alan Miller, husband Mk III of Gina M - see Jew Used Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy. This may well be why Jews like Mishcon de Reya & David Pannick are being used in court.
The Supreme Court split 8 to 3 on this one; thereby displaying their contempt for democracy and proving law is not involved, just their prejudices. NB The head wallah, Neuberger, is a Jew of authoritarian bent who misapplies the law when he thinks he will. Hale & Kerr are just as bad. Lords Carnwath, Reed & Hughes got it right.
The law is a crap shoot. Albeit the Law And Religion Round Up 18th December casts light on the proceedings.
Our trouble maker is a sour faced rogue full of hate.
See her gloat after defeating England - pro tempore.
Theresa May’s “Clarification” Of Brexit Means Brexit [ 30 January 2017 ]
Does she say everything she means and mean everything she says? Hendo thinks not. She was a Remainer before the Referendum.
Arron Banks ex Wiki
Is a rich supporter of Brexit & UKIP as well as being lively. Left Wingers hate him, a distinct plus point. He reads as a Capitalist Swine with off shore companies.
Gina Miller ex Wiki Sikh, loud, very pushy, a bolter too, currently married to a Jew [ Mk III ]
Gina Nadira Miller (born 19 April 1965) is a British business owner who is known for initiating the 2016 R (Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [ See Dos Santos, a barber ] court case against the British Government over its authority to implement Brexit without approval from the House of Commons. Miller also co-founded #SCM Private in 2009 and founded the True and Fair Campaign.
Born in British Guiana (now Guyana) as Gina Nadira Singh, the daughter of Doodnauth Singh, former Attorney General of Guyana. She moved to England at age 10,  attending Roedean School until she ran away when age 14. Miller subsequently attended Moira House Girls School. She studied law at the Polytechnic of East London (now University of East London) but left without completing her finals because her parents wanted her in Guyana. She gained a degree in marketing, and an MSc in human resource management at the University of London.
She owned a property photographic laboratory in 1987 [ aged 22 ], before becoming a marketing and event manager at BMW Fleet Division in 1990. She started a specialist financial services marketing agency in 1992, and launched the Senate investment conference programme in 1996. In 2006 she became a marketing consultant. In February 2009, Miller co-founded the investment firm SCM Private (now SCM Direct) with her husband Alan Miller. She has been a leading campaigner against hidden charges in pensions and investment and what she describes as "flagrant mis-selling within the asset management market". She set up Miller Philanthropy (now rebranded the True and Fair Foundation) in 2009, and established MoneyShe.com in 2014, as a female-focused investment brand.
She has been married three times, and has three children.
PS Husband Mk II Jon MaguireBeat The Fraud Investigation - hints were at 'God told me, look after Africa and I'll sort out your fund', says investment chief whose £400m empire is in turmoil - God may work in mysterious ways, but telling the maverick financier Jon Maguire, whose £400million empire is imploding, to 'look after Africa' seems more puzzling than usual. [ bit rot set in ]
David Pannick ex Wiki
The Times of Israel chooses to allege that Pannick is a Jew.
Mishcon de Reya ex Wiki
Set up by the Jew, Victor Mishcon
Deir Dos Santos ex Daily Mail
Is a barber & Singh's co-conspirator. He is a Brazilian but alleged to be "British"
Now just where did a Brazilian barber find the money to hire lawyers to run this attack on democracy?
SCM Private the losses behind the headlines
They have attracted plenty of headlines, their investment performance is respectable, but Alan and Gina Miller’s SCM Private has racked up £2.5 million of cumulative losses, according to its accounts at Companies House.
A trawl of the firm’s accounts found that the Millers, who are the sole owners, have put £2.7 million into the partnership, extracting only £190,024 in remuneration since SCM Private was incorporated on 21 January 2009.......
Gina Miller is the face of the True and Fair campaign, which has garnered many column inches across the media. The campaign is calling for greater transparency around fund charges and urging more action be taken to encourage people to save for their retirement.
The pair have been consistently critical of the charges levied by the fund industry, questioning the value of active management. While some would argue this is laudable, the more cynical point to the fact that Alan Miller is understood to have made millions while previously running actively managed funds, including a hedge fund, at New Star. Money that now funds the business and is thought to make up a significant chunk of its AUM.
Alien Enemy Of Brexit Gets Death Threats [ 29 January 2017 ]
Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller may be forced to leave the UK by vicious deaths threats [ allegedly ].
Police are investigating 22 cases of intimidation of the former model, 51, who successfully challenged the authority of the government to invoke Article 50..........
Mrs Miller was the lead claimant in the legal case after she privately engaged the City law firm Mishcon de Reya to challenge the government's authority.
Miller is a Sikh from Guyana fronting for her old man, a Jew. Does she care for England? Does he? Somehow I doubt it but he is using her as a cut out, hiding behind her skirts; she gets the abuse.
Enemies Of Brexit And Democracy Named [30 January 2017 ]
Below Guido introduces his list of MPs who have indicated that they will vote against Article 50. Our spreadsheet includes a column showing how each MP’s constituency voted in the referendum, quite a few are bravely planning to defy their own voters – those Welsh Labour MPs can expect a major UKIP challenge in 2020. LibDems Norman Lamb, Greg Mulholland and John Pugh are not on the list because they abstained from the last Article 50 vote and oppose Tim Farron’s position. Ken Clarke is the only Tory who has signalled an intention to vote against Article 50.
MPs are there for their constituents, in theory. The reality of Representative Democracy is rather different. Bribery is part of it. So is blackmail. The SNP have another opportunity to make themselves a nuisance so they are taking it.
MPs Pass Brexit Bill 498 To 114 [ 2 February 2017 ]
Boris Johnson said that “history has been made” after MPs voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday night in favour of triggering Brexit negotiations and beginning the process of leaving the EU.
The Foreign Secretary called it a “momentous” night as MPs voted four to one in favour of triggering Article 50. Kenneth Clarke, a former chancellor, was the only Tory MP to oppose it.................
Theresa May, the Prime Minister, will today publish a White Paper formally setting out the Government’s plans for Brexit in response to the concerns of pro-European Tory MPs.
The Commons got it right for the right reasons or wrong. The Bill must go through various stages before being signed into law by Elizabeth II. So the Jew, Alan Miller's attack on Democracy has almost certainly failed. Miller used another alien, a Sikh Gina Miller to front for him His power play, from behind the scenes is a typical bit of evil. Jews are destroyers.
The MPs who voted against Democracy include the SNP, at least seven Third World undesirables and a Jew.
Tory MPs Collude With Opposition To Derail Brexit [ 7 February 2017 ]
Theresa May is facing a bitter fight for Brexit this week with up to 27 Tory MPs ready to back moves to water down the historic EU Bill.
Conservative rebels are said to be plotting with Labour, the SNP and Liberal Democrats to pass key amendments to the legislation in the Commons. The scale of the opposition has emerged as the parliamentary battle over Brexit enters a new attritional phase.
MPs have tabled more than 140 pages of amendments to the Bill - which is just 137 words long. There will be a series of clashes in the Commons next week after the Speaker selects which changes will be voted on...............
The rearguard action against Brexit is likely to be even more fierce in the Lords, where the government does not have a majority and members are not answerable to voters..............
'In the end the Lords normally defer to the Commons after asking it to think again, maybe once, maybe twice or more ... the scope for mischief is there,' he wrote in The Sun on Sunday.
'If the Lords and the Commons in league with each other were to obstruct and thus sabotage the Government's timetable, it is obvious what the PM should do.
This nausea is the result of mischief making by the Jew Alan Miller using his old woman to front it - see Jew Used Third World Alien To Front Attack On Brexit And Democracy. She is an insolent foreigner full of hate- see Arrogant Third World Alien Attacking Brexit Says We Are Too Stupid To Have The Vote. Getting rid of the House of Lords would be a pity but most of them are not Lords at all, just clapped out politicians and chancers on the make. Lloyd George sorted them out before. He is the crook who brought us the Lloyd George Honours Scandal among other worse problems.
Elite Made Brexit Happen Says Mervyn King [ 10 February 2017 ]
Mr King, lately the Governor of the Bank of England doesn't quite say that our Referendum was a vote against Third World immigration; but it was. Mr King doesn't say that it was government policy to inflict these parasites on us but he knows the truth.
PS The Mail's headline is verbatim.
Jews Manipulating Brexit [ 3 March 2017 ]
The businesswoman behind the Article 50 court case has threatened another legal challenge unless Theresa May guarantees a 'meaningful vote' on any new deal with the EU. Gina Miller said she could not think of 'anything better to do' with her money than ensuring the PM brings the package back before the Commons. [ What about some knitting & dressmaking? ]
The comments came after campaigners obtained legal advice that Britain's 'actual withdrawal' will have to be authorised by a fresh act of Parliament.
This nausea was started by Jews, with an overweening contempt for Democracy; the little people are so stupid, don't you know? It is fronted by a sour faced, sour tempered enemy alien. Miller is a Sikh from the Third World. Her current husband, Alan Miller is of course a Jew.
Lest we forget, another Jew with an agenda tried to rid of Comrade Corbyn. The trouble with our little Jeremy is not so much that he is stupid but his idea that Palestinians have human rights e.g. the right not to be robbed, tortured, murdered, Ethnically Cleansed et cetera by Jews, by Zionist crazies.
Lords Vote Against Brexit [ 2 March 2017 ]
THE LORDS have defied the Government [ and England ] over Brexit by voting to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. But how did each peer vote last night? Peers voted by 358 to 256 for the amendment that requires proposals to ensure that EU nationals can to stay, within three months of Article 50.
The pretence was that it was a vote for human rights as distinct from an attempt to Subvert the will of the people, of Democracy. Notice the names of too many Third World aliens and Jews. The vast majority are clapped out politicians on the make.
PS Recall that this whole problem was set in train by Jews but fronted by the Sikh Gina Miller and a Brazilian barber Deir Dos Santos. Hiding behind the scenes was the Jew Alan Miller. Andrew Joyce has something to say about the perpetrators - see Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit. One is Alex Chesterman; the Wikipedia does not say he is a Jew. The Jewish Business News does.
Brexit Bill Passes As The Lords Decide Not To Defy Democracy Again [ 14 March 2017 ]
Theresa May has finally won the power to trigger Article 50 after peers backed down and passed the Brexit Bill after two crucial votes in the Commons earlier. MPs followed orders to delete an amendment on guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals, backing the Government 335 to 287, majority 48.
The Commons also defeated the second amendment on the timetabling of votes at the end of the negotiation by a majority of 45.
This whole Brexit nausea, an attack on Democracy was started by Jews fronted by Third World aliens, a Sikh from Guyana Gina Miller, a Brazilian barber Deir Dos Santos and, hiding behind the scenes, a Jew Alan Miller. See more about the perpetrators at Jews Are Leading the Legal Fight Against Brexit.