David Gauke, Chuka Umunna, and Luciana Berger all failed to be re-elected
ES News email
Every former Conservative and Labour MP who quit the parties in protest over issues including Brexit and anti-Semitism has failed to be re-elected.
Among them was Tory defector Sam Gyimah, who was met with cries of "shame" after he appeared to split the opposition vote in Kensington and Chelsea, costing Labour's Emma Dent-Coad her seat in a borough still dealing with the aftermath of Grenfell disaster.
The former Conservative ministers David Gauke, Dominic Grieve, and Anne Milton were all ousted by Tory candidates after running as independents in their old constituencies.
Former Labour MPs Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna, who defected to the Lib Dems, via a brief sojourn in the Independent Group, failed to get re-elected after standing in new seats.
Ms Berger lost after defecting to the Lib Dems (PA)
Here are the big losses from MPs who quit their parties:
Chuka Umunna: On a bad night for the Lib Dems, the former Labour and Independent Group MP for Streatham lost his gamble in switching seats as he trailed the Tories in Cities of London & Westminster.
Sam Gyimah: The ex-Tory minister, who defected to the Lib Dems because of his Brexit stance, was a distant third in Kensington - the seat changing hands from Labour to the Conservatives.
Anna Soubry: The former Tory, who left the party and became leader of The Independent Group, was unable to command the majority she held when she stood as a Conservative in 2017 - finishing a distant third in Broxtowe on 4,668 votes.
Anna Soubry finished fourth (Jacob King/PA)
Dominic Grieve: A ex-Tory minister, who had the whip removed by Boris Johnson for being a Brexit rebel in the Commons and stood as an Independent, could only place second to his former party in Beaconsfield, losing by 15,712 votes.
Luciana Berger: Having left Labour over the party leadership's handling of anti-Semitism, Ms Berger co-founded the Independent Group but later defected to the Liberal Democrats. A switch of seat from Liverpool Wavertree to Finchley and Golders Green failed to pay off, though, as she trailed the Tories in second.
David Gauke: The former Tory justice secretary lost the whip after supporting efforts in Parliament to block a no-deal Brexit, but he lost out to his former party as he stood as an independent in the South West Hertfordshire seat.
Former conservative MP Dominic Grieve has been ousted from his seat in Beaconsfield (AFP via Getty Images)
Antoinette Sandbach: Another Brexit rebel who had the Tory whip withdrawn, she joined the Lib Dems and fought for re-election in Eddisbury but failed to command the same majority she won as a Tory in 2017, finishing a distant third.
Mike Gapes: Having resigned from the Labour Party last February over anti-Semitism after 50 years as a member and 27 years as an MP, he failed to hold onto his seat in Ilford North.
Anne Milton: The Brexit rebel suffered a calamitous defeat, coming fourth in a constituency she has represented since 2005. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
By Natalie Fahy Digital Editor UPDATED 16:23, 4 SEP 2019
Rushcliffe MP Ken Clarke has had the whip withdrawn from the Conservative party, effectively expelling him.
Mr Clarke, 79, was among 21 rebel Tory MPs who joined opposition parties on Tuesday night to take control of the Commons agenda with the aim of blocking a no-deal Brexit. As well as having the whip withdrawn, they are all barred from standing at the next general election.
He first won his Rushcliffe seat in 1970, and has served under Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major in a number of high-profile cabinet positions - including as Chancellor.
After his sacking, Mr Clarke said he was still a conservative but he had reservations about the party under Boris Johnson's leadership.
He told BBC's Newsnight: "I don't recognise this. It's the Brexit Party, rebadged.
READ MORE
Boris Johnson loses control of Commons in key Brexit vote
"It's been taken over by a rather knockabout sort of character, who's got this bizarre crash-it-through philosophy... a Cabinet which is the most right-wing Cabinet any Conservative Party has ever produced."
In the House of Commons on Tuesday night, the cross-party group succeeded by 328 to 301 votes to suspend a Commons rule that says only the government can create new laws.
David Kernek explains why he’ll be in Parliament Square to send up three cheers at 11pm tonight
VOTES in general elections and referenda can change history – making nations and perhaps breaking empires.
They are not, though, sufficiently powerful to change the convictions of those on the losing side, and neither should they be. None of those who I know voted Remain in Britain’s 2016 referendum on European Union membership have changed their minds; some of them have been out on marches, rallies and street stalls to support those in parliament who at the outset declared their respect for the plebiscite result and went on to spend three years attempting shamelessly to have it binned.
Similarly, the result of the UK’s first referendum – the one back in 1975 – on its unenthusiastic involvement in the European project didn’t change my judgement, which was that joining the European Economic Community (EEC) was an error, and that the referendum result confirming that membership was likewise mistaken, as was our then prime minister Harold Wilson when, in welcoming the Remain vote, he declared: “It means that 14 years of national argument are over.”
During those 14 years I read up on the history of the European movement from its origins in 1918, when the founder of the Fiat motor company wrote a book – European Federation or League of Nations – which argued the case for the former. He was followed in 1922 by the son of an Austrian diplomat who wrote Pan Europa, in which Count Richard Coudenhove Kalergi proposed a merger of the German coal and French steel industries that would be the basis of a federal “United States of Europe”.
I had taken the trouble to read the Treaty of Rome. I studied the arguments against membership set out by the Left and the Right, and thought carefully about those put up by the Sensible Centre, most of which – then as now – seemed to be about the frictionless sale and distribution of cars, kettles and cattle.
I looked back at the contribution made by General de Gaulle who, as France’s president, not once but twice – in 1963 and 1967 – rejected British applications to join, citing “a number of aspects of Britain’s currency, economy, from working practices to agriculture” that made “Britain incompatible with Europe”, adding that the UK harboured a “deep-seated hostility” to the pan-European project.
“England,” he summarised, momentarily overlooking the fraying union known as the United Kingdom, “is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short, the nature, the structure, the very situation that are England’s differ profoundly from those of the continentals.” He knew it wouldn’t work.
That swung it for me. I voted Leave in 1975 and, having since then read or seen nothing to bring about a change of mind, did so again 2016. From Rome to Lisbon, via Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, each EU treaty has been a building block in the construction of a fantasy country called Europe, a dystopia that will sooner or later implode beneath the weight of its own insoluble economic, political, social and cultural contradictions. Which is why at 11pm today I shall with many thousands of others be in Parliament Square, Westminster, to cheer and applaud if not the definitive termination of the UK’s European Union membership, then at least the decisive and irreversible half-way stage to that end.
Going into Europe was not seen by most of the English – as the general might have said – as anything remotely resembling an historic change. It was just about shifting those cars and kettles and for some, perhaps, the promise of better nosh here and a modest villa in Provence or Tuscany. For the political class and Her Majesty’s Commentariat, the EEC offered a world stage and a gravy train to replace those provided previously by the empire.
The Foreign Office’s deeper thinkers might have had a more strategic bent, as Sir Humphrey explained in Yes, Minister (1980):
Sir Humphrey: “Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see … We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing.”
Minister: “But surely we’re all committed to the European ideal?”
Sir Humphrey: “Really, minister!”
Well, that hasn’t worked, as evidenced by the 52,741 laws* – directives and regulations – that since 1990 have been generated by EU legislation and imported without hindrance into Britain’s statute book.
The point is not that all of these laws might be rubbish; some might be judged beneficial, others damaging in one way or another. The point is that they have been laws not made by governments that can be turfed out by electors. They have been laws not made here … or in Athens, Berlin, Rome, Vienna and the rest. Leaving the EU, then, will be historic in a sense that slithering half-heartedly into the EEC on January 1, 1973 wasn’t.
That’s why I’ll be in Parliament Square at 11pm tonight, to send up three cheers – at long last – for home rule, and for a precious European ideal that pre-dates the EU by some centuries: democracy. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
_________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:19 pm Post subject:
Brexit breakthrough: George Orwell's brilliant analysis explains why Britain left EU
BREXIT will continue to spark passionate debates for years to come - but George Orwell, one of Britain's most treasured thinkers, may have provided the perfect explanation behind the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU.
Take his best-known novels, Animal Farm and 1984. The specifics, of course, are different but both fictional works make Orwell’s deep-seated scepticism for centralisation clear for all to see.
His world view in 1984 is particularly evident as Orwell actively separates the UK from Europe in his dystopian geopolitical vision.
Dubbed ‘Air Strip One’, Britain’s allegiances are with ‘Oceania’ – made up of North, Central and South America, Australia, New Zealand and southern Africa – and this huge cluster of nations fights perpetual war with ‘Eurasia’ – made up of Russia and continental Europe.
The parallels to contemporary Brexit discourse are uncanny here, as the Leave side repeatedly highlight the strength of Britain’s relationship with the US and the Commonwealth as a counter-argument to Remain points about maintaining close ties with Brussels.
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis tells Sun Online his negotiating tips to Boris Johnson. Davis threatens that if the EU breaks its promise to deliver a Canada style-free trade deal Britain should break the Withdrawal Agreement and withhold cash payments to the EU.
From Brexit breaking news to HD movie trailers, The Sun newspaper brings you the latest news videos and explainers from the UK and around the world.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun May 17, 2020 1:13 am Post subject:
Brexit warning: EU's 'nonsense' demands may force UK to seek extension at 'crunch point'
THE EUROPEAN UNION's "unprecedented" arguments in Brexit negotiations are increasing the likelihood of an extension being a "sensible" option, the former governor of the Bank of England has warned.
By NAOMI ADEDOKUN
PUBLISHED: 00:01, Sun, May 17, 2020 | UPDATED: 00:05, Sun, May 17, 2020
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1283242/brexit-news-eu-uk-trade-talk s-brexit-extension-transition-period-bank-of-england
Brexit extension 'sensible' for business says Mervyn King
We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.
Brexit talks are on the verge of collapse after rows have broken out over each party's red lines between UK Chief Negotiator David Frost and his EU counterpart Michel Barnier. The UK has six weeks until a legally binding deadline ruling out an extension to the transition period. Lord Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, suggested to LBC that an extension may be more likely as the coronavirus crisis goes on. He said the EU's arguments don't "make a great deal of sense".
He said: "So far it seems that there is an understandable disagreement between the UK and the European Union.
"The UK voted to leave the EU and one of the reasons was so the UK could then decide its own regulations that would apply to our economy.
"The European Union is arguing that even though we will leave the EU, we should still follow their rules and regulations in order to have a free trade agreement.
"That is unprecedented, there is no real parallel for that."
Lord King continued: "I think the argument put up by the EU doesn't make a great deal of sense.
"I can't see any way which you can reconcile the views about whether we should adopt rules and regulations from the EU or go our own way.
"That will have to be resolved, and when it is, then it should be relatively straightforward to get an agreement on a free trade deal.
"But I can't see at this stage that it's going to be easy to find a way out of the current en passant in these two positions."
This raises the likelihood of a no deal scenario at the end of the year. (Image: LBC)
Brexit: Britain needs to leave the EU 'quickly' warns Galloway
Play Video
This raises the likelihood of a no deal scenario at the end of the year.
Lord King reminded listeners that there is an "alternative".
He said that the two sides could agree that they're not going to reach agreement on a free trade deal.
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 05/17/2020 - 06:11
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint
Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,
A strange comic book that was commissioned for publication by the European Union in 2012 eerily predicted almost exactly what has unfolded with the Covid-19 global pandemic. However, in this propaganda laced presentation of the outbreak, unelected globalist bureaucrats save the planet.
The comic book, titled ‘Infected’, was a production of the European Commission’s international cooperation and development arm. It was not intended for widespread public consumption, but instead to be distributed inside EU institutions. Only a few hundred of the comic books were made.
The EU’s description of the strange publication states that “While the story may be fictional, it is nevertheless intertwined with some factual information.”
The graphic novel depicts scientists inside a lab in China experimenting with deadly pathogens:
A wannabe hero time travels from the future, alerting authorities to the coming pandemic, and presents an antidote, before quickly becoming the target of opportunists who want to steal the cure and sell it to drug companies:
The story features the transmission of a novel virus from animals to humans in a crowded wet market:
“Indeed, imagine if you were infected in this market by a new contagious agent.” says the UN’s chief advisor on contagious diseases, adding “You probably wouldn’t even realise it until the end of the incubation period.”
The publication suggests that air travel would exacerbate the spread of the disease, with the character adding that “You’d have headed back to Europe, the US, Latin America, or Australia as planned via an international airport.”
The cartoon depicts the failure of a global health organisation to act quickly enough to stop a pandemic:
It also predicts draconian safety measures, including social distancing, which make everyday life “totally unbearable”:
The piece concludes with an EU Parliament hearing, in which Brussels pushes for more integrated European cooperation on global health matters, mirroring a real life initiative known as ‘One health’.
The globalists are lauded for helping develop and distribute a vaccine to the world:
Was this predictive programming or just a bizarre coincidence?
In 2020, in reality, the EU has pandered to China, and bowed to censorship regarding the virus outbreak.
The EU has also been heavily criticised by member states and insiders for monumental failings owing to internal bureaucracy. The EU’s science chief even resigned due to the inept coronavirus response from the institution.
In the Eurocrats’ own fiction, globalism saves the planet. In reality, it ends in mass death and global tyranny.
Walter Hallstein. He was a highly regarded member of the Association of Nazi Lawyers. Hitler tasked him with drawing up plans for a German ruled anti democratic European Customs Federation. He even sent Hallstein to Italy to explain how Europe would be ruled, and Italy’s share of the spoils. After the failure of Axis Barbarossa and the success of Allied Normandy landings, Germany defeat was certain. They prolonged the war long enough to ensure their post war networks were adequately set up to pursue the thousand year Reich in stealth. Hallstein like many other leading men vital to this plan was given an anti Nazi backstory, and later emerged at the first President of the E.E.C.
The Dekker paper was an internal Philips project led by Dekker's government affairs representative in Brussels, Coen Ramaer. It was the result of the company's growing dissatisfaction with the inability of government officials -- national or EC -- to produce a concrete proposal for a European market. While Mitterrand was promoting an industrial initiative, there were no specifics to the French President's plan. Moreover, when the Commission did produce a comprehensive package of proposals in late 1984, there was no outpouring of support for the initiative. The Commission document developed by Commissioner Narjes listed hundreds of pre-existing pieces of legislation -- ranging from standardisation to social actions to environmental issues -- deemed necessary for the creation of an internal market. Business leaders, while pleased that a package was produced, found the Commission package "unwieldy" and lacking "a precise time-table." Moreover, there was no strategy to ensure its implementation and no rationale for industrial growth. It became apparent to the heads of multinationals that industry needed to produce its own concrete program.
With Dekker's support, Ramaer assembled four Philips experts who had long dealt with the four key areas later outlined in the Dekker speech. As Ramaer explains, he instructed the men to:
"imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe and that you have decided that the job must be done in five years. And they [the experts] started out "but this is impossible! Be realistic!" And I told them that I couldn't care less if we were realistic or not.
Once they had picked up this idea, they found it fascinating. And they discovered that it could be done -- given the political will, of course." [Interview, September 24th 1992]
Debate: Planning for Brexit
Tue Jan 17, 2017
In this episode of The Debate, Press TV has conducted an interview with investigative journalist Tony Gosling from Bristol, and Mark Thornton, a senior fellow at The Mises Institute from Alabama, to discuss the recent remarks by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the country's exit from the European Union's single market.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/01/... https://t.co/4P3hxRZoWh
The Single Market programme was the 1980's relaunch of the economic and ultimately political integration of Europe. So-called Father of the EU, [see Mike Peters' paper for more on his role] Jean Monnet, had always felt it crucial to rein back big business. The single market programme turned this policy on its head. The relaunch document (see below) was prepared by Philips Industries in Holland and researched by unnamed Philips staff. The staff were told to "imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe."
'Imagine yourselves to be dictators of Europe'
http://www.bilderberg.org/bildhist.ht...
Few realise how pivotal the 2000 Bilderberg chairman, Viscount Etienne Davignon, was in this process. As European Commissioner for Industry and the Internal Market from 1977 to 1980 he was perfectly placed to put big business in the driving seat of European policy. In 1985, as Industry Commissioner, he challenged Pehr Gyllenhammar, CEO of Volvo, (also administrator of United Technologies, Vice President of the Aspen Institute and one of the five partners of Kissinger Associates) to organise a group of the top European businessmen to lobby the Commission. Davignon argued that the Commission would be obliged to respond to the demands of some of the largest European industrialists. The Gyllenhammar group was to become the highly influential European Round Table of Industrialists or ERT, drawing up policy for Europe.
Extract from: The Politics of Big Business in the Single Market Program, by Maria L. Green, The American University, Visiting Fellow, CSIA, Harvard University.
School of International Service, The American University, 4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington DC 20016.
Paper presented for the European Community Studies Association, Third Biennial International Conference, May 27 1993, Washington DC.
This is an essential document for anyone curious about the origins of the present policies and direction of the European Union. The above paper has the following structure. The opening section of the most relevant chapter, IV, is reproduced below.
IV. The Dekker Paper, the Political Agenda and a Constituency for Delors - extract
Repackaging the message: The Dekker Paper
On January 11, 1985, in Brussels, Wisse Dekker, CEO of Phillips, unveiled a plan, "Europe 1990", before an audience of 500 people including many of the newly appointed EC commissioners. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
This was the finale of a six-week long exercise Wessex Storm on Salisbury Plain in which 2 PARA Battlegroup (part of the UK's 16 Air Assault Brigade) gaining readiness for overseas deployment. French and US paratroopers also took part.
The final battle was an attack on Imber Village in the Salisbury Plain Training Area where 1300 2 Para and other paratroops were to be inserted into the area by a massive helicopter operation involving nine Chinooks, six Pumas (all from RAF Odiham and RAF Benson). They were supported by five Army Apache attack helicopters from Wattisham Army base and at least two Army Wildcats supporting the Apaches.
The operation took place in several waves, the first wave took in eight fully troop loaded Chinooks and six troop loaded Pumas, protected by Apaches and Wildcats. They returned within 10 minutes to emplane hundreds more paratroopers and this time they also took 2 Para's small ATV quadbikes and trailers in underslung load mode (USL). A final sunset wave took the remaining troops and quadbikes. After dark four 105mm mobile guns were USL flown to the battle. NATA was successful and took the village from enemy forces.
The battlegroup includes a company of some 150 troops from the French 2e Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes (2e REP) and a 40-strong platoon from the US Army’s 2nd Battalion, 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment.
The 2 PARA Battlegroup is a 1,300-strong unit built around the paratroopers of Colchester-based 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment, supported by signallers, engineers, artillery, medics and logistics specialists from 16 Air Assault Brigade. It is training to be ready to deploy at short notice on operations around the world.
Who took part in the attack...
- 18 sqdn RAF Odiham operated 6 CH47 Chinooks
- 664 sqdn AAC Wattisham operated at least 5 AH64 Apaches
- Squadrons from RAF Benson operated 3 CH47 Chinooks and 6 Pumas which perfomed escort and protection duty along with delivering troops.
- 2 Para was the main 1300 paratroop force.
=-French paratroopers from 2e Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes (2e REP) took part along with one of their A400m Transport aircraft which performed transport and paratrooper parachute dropping duties earlier in the week.
-A 40-strong platoon from the US Army’s 2nd Battalion, 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment also took part.
[/b] _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
THE Government claims to have legally ended the Union of the United Kingdom. They claim to have repealed the Act of Union 1800.
By BEN HABIB
PUBLISHED: 09:02, Wed, Jun 9, 2021 | UPDATED: 22:31, Wed, Jun 9, 2021
Disunited kingdom? The UK is already no more says Ben Habib (Image: Getty)
The claim was instead made by Government counsel in a largely private hearing in the Belfast High Court.
He contended the Act of Union had been secretly lawfully repealed when Parliament voted for the Withdrawal Agreement.
His motivation for doing so came from a desire to justify the Government’s equally fallacious argument that the border down the Irish Sea is legal. [This, by way of an aside, is the same border the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland, Brandon Lewis, claims does not exist. He needs to speak to his lawyer.]
For the sake of argument, however, let’s assume for a moment counsel is right.
There is a legally introduced border down the Irish Sea and the Union no longer exists.
If that is so, the Government cannot then deny the East/ West dimension of our Kingdom has been broken; Northern Ireland broken off.
In short, the people of not just Northern Ireland but also of Great Britain would have had a new constitution bestowed upon them by Westminster without any sort of democratic consent. That would be a fundamental breach of their human rights, not to mention the Belfast Agreement.
But Government counsel also maintains none of these laws have been broken.
For this to hold true would require diametrically opposite legal positions to somehow happily co-exist. A sort of constitutional Schrödinger's cat.
The truth of the matter is much less fanciful and altogether simpler. The Act of Union has been broken, but illegally.
There is a temptation to say whatever is required in court in order to win but we have to assume counsel acted under instruction and after careful consideration.
To have been prepared falsely to claim the end the Union reveals Government’s desperation. It is caught been a rock and a hard place of its own making.
Having promoted the Northern Ireland Protocol as the solution for Getting Brexit Done and having falsely claimed it was legal, counsel was forced to tie up in knots himself and the Government.
The claim that the Act of Union had been repealed, legally or otherwise, is mind boggling.
It also adds succour to the EU’s insistence that the Government adhere to the terms of the Protocol. For if the Union is no longer and the Protocol legal, there can be no justification for Government not fully implementing its terms and the Irish Sea border. The EU has itself taken legal action against the Government over this issue. Given counsel’s declarations, the EU is likely to win.
This sorry tale began when the Government deceived the electorate about the Protocol’s effects in order to gain re-election.
To protect that misrepresentation it has been forced into ever more dramatic but false claims.
Unless the Prime Minister faces up to the fact his Withdrawal Agreement, and its embedded Northern Ireland Protocol, is illegal, he will end up genuinely breaking our Union.
This will not occur with a peaceful secret repeal of the Act. It will happen by force of action and most probably bloodshed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
