Originally posted by snapper
View Post
The full hypocrisy and dangers involved in the 'Leave' campaign - and the lengths they propose to go to achieve a disaster for the UK - are now becoming apparent.
I am pretty certain the whole 'Leave' campaign and it's leading spokesmen and Ladies argued during the campaign that a deal (a la Norway, Switzerland or Canada) regarding future trade between the UK and the Continent would be "the easiest deal in history to make". I recall considering this notion before the referendum and thought it dubious myself as the EU is a self interested organisation in it's own right and letting the UK 'get away' lightly with Brexit would encourage others to further erode the central jurisdiction which they rightly or wrongly seek to uphold. David Davis (the first Brexit Minister) proclaimed he would be conducting talks with German car manufactures without considering that they have no authority to negotiate for the EU. So the 'easiest deal in history' argument was it turned out incorrect.
Having however wrongly argued that the UK would be able to make 'easiest deal in history' the 'Brexiteers' now say that when they meant the UK would be able to work out the 'easiest deal in history' with the EU what they actually meant was that the UK should leave with no deal and that the British people who believed their first mistaken argument all understood they actually meant the 'easiest deal in history' really meant 'no deal'. It's like the pigs in Animal Farm changing the laws of the revolution. Some of them even argue that the UK will get a better deal after it has left with no deal... I am not sure how that can make sense to anyone but unashamed misdirection is now the name of the game it seems. Breath taking hypocrisy and misdirection for which should be some legal remedy.
Mrs May having resigned a leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party there are a host of would be successors, the favourite being the incompetent self publicist Boris Johnson. Another contender is the second Brexit Minister (after Mr Davis discovered the German car manufactures could not negotiate with him and went off in a huff claiming the EU was playing against the rules) Dominic Raab. Before I explain the Honourable Members ingenious plan let me recall another of the Brexit campaigners main arguments was that; leaving the EU would restore sole sovereignty to the British people and to Parliament. To this they added wildly extravagant claims of how many EU laws directly effected British people and businesses etc. So restoring the sovereignty of Parliament was said to a great and virtuous result of leaving the EU. The current British Parliament being unable to pass any sort of agreement on Brexit may perhaps cause some to question the value of this virtuous sovereignty the Brexiteers spoke of. So the excuse is that the majority of MPs are 'remoaners'. Mr Raab though has an ingenious solution to get around this troublesome Parliamentary democracy problem: If elected as Tory leader (and ergo PM) by the few thousand remaining Conservative Party members he proposes to plans to use Royal prerogative (exercisable by the PM with the Queens consent) to prorogue Parliament. This means the session of Parliament would end, the MPs would all go home and no business would be done until October when the EU's extension of the Brexit timetable runs out. Thus the UK would leave the EU with 'no deal' by default. Of course the normal and democratic process for removing such an impasse would be call an election and argue your case to the country believing that a new Parliament would succeed where the current has failed to reach agreement. Not a bit of for the 'Honourable' Mr Raab(id) as of course the Tories would not fare well so he will dispense with asking the people in order to do 'peoples will' that they did not vote for in the referendum - to get the 'no deal' and 'dispense with Parliamentary sovereignty when Parliament will not agree with no deal'.
So here we see the second such blatant disregard for all that 'Leave' campaign urged the British people would be in their interests. When they said 'easiest deal in history' they meant 'no deal', when they said 'restoring the sovereignty of Parliament' they meant to add a caveat of 'except when Parliament won't agree to no deal' and guess what? That is what 51% for Brexit actually (of the 72% of the eligible voters to vote in the referendum) understood and meant.
This Member can only described as 'Honourable' in sarcastic terms. The whole hypocrisy is sickening and what is worse is that if ploy is used by whoever is elected as the next Conservative leader it will drag the Queen into it as she my give her consent to the use of the royal prerogative to essentially shut down Parliament until the deadline for a Brexit deal is passed. The English Civil War started for a more minor reason - over ship tax to pay for the Navy and honestly any PM who attempts such a misguided and anti democratic ploy to having lied to the British people so much deserves to end as did Charles l with his head on the block.
I am pretty certain the whole 'Leave' campaign and it's leading spokesmen and Ladies argued during the campaign that a deal (a la Norway, Switzerland or Canada) regarding future trade between the UK and the Continent would be "the easiest deal in history to make". I recall considering this notion before the referendum and thought it dubious myself as the EU is a self interested organisation in it's own right and letting the UK 'get away' lightly with Brexit would encourage others to further erode the central jurisdiction which they rightly or wrongly seek to uphold. David Davis (the first Brexit Minister) proclaimed he would be conducting talks with German car manufactures without considering that they have no authority to negotiate for the EU. So the 'easiest deal in history' argument was it turned out incorrect.
Having however wrongly argued that the UK would be able to make 'easiest deal in history' the 'Brexiteers' now say that when they meant the UK would be able to work out the 'easiest deal in history' with the EU what they actually meant was that the UK should leave with no deal and that the British people who believed their first mistaken argument all understood they actually meant the 'easiest deal in history' really meant 'no deal'. It's like the pigs in Animal Farm changing the laws of the revolution. Some of them even argue that the UK will get a better deal after it has left with no deal... I am not sure how that can make sense to anyone but unashamed misdirection is now the name of the game it seems. Breath taking hypocrisy and misdirection for which should be some legal remedy.
Mrs May having resigned a leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party there are a host of would be successors, the favourite being the incompetent self publicist Boris Johnson. Another contender is the second Brexit Minister (after Mr Davis discovered the German car manufactures could not negotiate with him and went off in a huff claiming the EU was playing against the rules) Dominic Raab. Before I explain the Honourable Members ingenious plan let me recall another of the Brexit campaigners main arguments was that; leaving the EU would restore sole sovereignty to the British people and to Parliament. To this they added wildly extravagant claims of how many EU laws directly effected British people and businesses etc. So restoring the sovereignty of Parliament was said to a great and virtuous result of leaving the EU. The current British Parliament being unable to pass any sort of agreement on Brexit may perhaps cause some to question the value of this virtuous sovereignty the Brexiteers spoke of. So the excuse is that the majority of MPs are 'remoaners'. Mr Raab though has an ingenious solution to get around this troublesome Parliamentary democracy problem: If elected as Tory leader (and ergo PM) by the few thousand remaining Conservative Party members he proposes to plans to use Royal prerogative (exercisable by the PM with the Queens consent) to prorogue Parliament. This means the session of Parliament would end, the MPs would all go home and no business would be done until October when the EU's extension of the Brexit timetable runs out. Thus the UK would leave the EU with 'no deal' by default. Of course the normal and democratic process for removing such an impasse would be call an election and argue your case to the country believing that a new Parliament would succeed where the current has failed to reach agreement. Not a bit of for the 'Honourable' Mr Raab(id) as of course the Tories would not fare well so he will dispense with asking the people in order to do 'peoples will' that they did not vote for in the referendum - to get the 'no deal' and 'dispense with Parliamentary sovereignty when Parliament will not agree with no deal'.
So here we see the second such blatant disregard for all that 'Leave' campaign urged the British people would be in their interests. When they said 'easiest deal in history' they meant 'no deal', when they said 'restoring the sovereignty of Parliament' they meant to add a caveat of 'except when Parliament won't agree to no deal' and guess what? That is what 51% for Brexit actually (of the 72% of the eligible voters to vote in the referendum) understood and meant.
This Member can only described as 'Honourable' in sarcastic terms. The whole hypocrisy is sickening and what is worse is that if ploy is used by whoever is elected as the next Conservative leader it will drag the Queen into it as she my give her consent to the use of the royal prerogative to essentially shut down Parliament until the deadline for a Brexit deal is passed. The English Civil War started for a more minor reason - over ship tax to pay for the Navy and honestly any PM who attempts such a misguided and anti democratic ploy to having lied to the British people so much deserves to end as did Charles l with his head on the block.
Comment