In response to Timothy Bradshaw: Another Boris choke,
I’m beginning to think the whole of Parliament is operating one big confidence trick against the electorate. Boris hasn’t really tried to deliver a WTO exit. He has quickly surrendered to every trick and turn presented by the Remainers albeit with some meaningless verbal resistance, and brought us a crappy deal.
I think we are all being played! Never trust LibLabCon. They are all undemocratic EU lovers (with very few exceptions).
‘Is this, then, our deepest problem – an unpatriotic, oikophobic and deeply cynical political class?’
Yes, Timothy, spot bloody on!
But I would add ‘so mired are they in self-regard, disdain for those who actually work for a living (but who do not share their views) and their own moral and intellectual superiority, that they are more than willing to arrange for this country to be re-cast as a overcrowded, economic basket case, in permanent servitude to the corpulent and failing EU parasite rather than grant the electorate the same privilege they have no problem in granting themselves – the power to make decisions over their own lives and who governs them’.
Malcolm Marchesi wrote:
It is obvious from a Brexiteer point of view that the Johnson agreement is far from what many of us wanted. If it passes we will be out of the EU and it is probable, if not likely, that the upcoming GE will return a more Eurosceptic Parliament. If we fail to negotiate a better long-term relationship with the EU by the end of the transition period, we can reasonably expect to get from the said Eurosceptic House of Commons at best a decent deal or at worst WTO terms. In either case we will be out, which is the most important thing at present.
Derek Henry wrote:
I think you could sum it up with few words.
The establishment are terrified of the Brexit party and thus circled the wagons.
The problem is it will work. A large group of Tory voters have moved and will now vote for the Tories in an election. Nothing will change the liars, cheats and frauds who rule over us.
And yet it is all so straightforward. We voted to leave. No mention of a withdrawal agreement. The EU has dealt in bad faith throughout, and everyone knows it. A clean break wipes the slate, and will enable the (next) UK Government to demand a quid pro quo for anything the EU asks.
That cliff isn’t high at all, and the water’s warm and inviting. It’s what we decided on in 2016. Now let’s do it.
It is what it is and we are where we are!
Boris had very little to work with, thanks to May and Robbins. The unconstitutional behaviour of the Speaker, the machinations of Benn, Burt and Letwin (who was himself the useful dupe of Lord Pannick), Miller, Blair, Bercow, Soros and others have all combined to leave Boris with no wriggle room.
Maybe we should just go ‘Norway’ and be done with it?
All true. But we are at the mercy of a parliament of liars, cheats and chancers who would revoke Article 50 if they dared.
Some parliamentary majorities become unrepresentative of the electorate by losing popular support like John Major’s in 1992. Major clung to power despite everything.
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act entitles this curiously configured parliament, where no one knows in the case of some MPs who will sit for which party from one day to the next, to thumb its nose at us until 2022.
The new media cry on behalf of their establishment masters is that weary voters simply want to get Brexit done. But they do not and never did want a bad Brexit done. And a bad Brexit is inevitable when decisions are taken under the gun and take no account of the existence of the law of unintended consequences, never mind ignore it.
What is happening in this parliament is a gruesome charade. As Conservative Home’s Andrew Gimson wrote in his parliamentary sketch during yesterday’s debate, ‘even [Remainers] do not really believe in a United States of Europe.’
Yet they are willing to risk delivering us into one. We like to say that we acquired an empire in a fit of absent-mindedness. We could become part of a federal EU despite ourselves because some politicians played parliamentary games for electoral purposes. We ruled the empire. A federal EU will rule us. Get the difference?
I see no way forward but to accept Mr Johnson’s version of the May WA as an interim measure and continue the fight for a GE to rid ourselves of this parliament while refusing a second referendum whose question it would write.
John Gaunt wrote:
In the unlikely event of Sir Keir Starmer’s second Referendum amendment passing next week, leave supporters will need to decide how to respond.
It goes without saying that the proposed question is a democratic monstrosity, excluding as it does the meaningful and total separation from the EU which so many of us now demand, and presenting us with the entirely false choice between a very unsatisfactory compromise deal and Remaining in the EU, repudiating the Referendum of 2016.
I hope very much that this Government would refuse to co-operate if the House of Commons amends the legislation to that effect, and pull the Bill. I hope very much that the Government would then recognise that this Parliament cannot be permitted to determine the nation’s future, and that no further attempt to appease it should be made.
But if it does not, then what?
Conservatives will need to decide how to respond.
I will respond as follows: I will not participate in any such Referendum; I will not campaign to support any candidate who legitimises such a Referendum; I will refuse to recognise the legitimacy of any Referendum which includes an option to Remain, because the people of this country ‘took Remain off the table’ in 2016; I will vote in the future only for parties that publish in their manifestos that such a Referendum is illegitimate, and pledge to repudiate the result the moment they take office; I will campaign to encourage others to spoil or refuse to participate as a positive act of democratic rejection of the premise upon which it is based.
This travesty may be upon us by next week. We need to be forthright in rejection.