A Fake Brexit fait accompli to be punched home during Great Repeal?

There has been an extraordinary development in the past few days in the ongoing deceit being employed by the British Government regarding the UK’s leaving of the EU. This latest expansion of the confidence trick is so obviously sneaky and devious, and the pretend innocence arranged around its perpetration is so fake, that it shouldn’t fool one confirmed idiot, let alone an entire nation of sheeple. When we get further into the details what we’ll see is that it shows that the Government really is intent on deceiving people about the process of leaving the EU. We’ll also see confirmation of what has been written about extensively on this site: that the crucial act of leaving the EU is the repealing of the European Communities Act 1972 (EC Act 72), not the triggering of the much less essential Article 50, and it’s the former and legislation associated with it that we should be focussing on, not the decoy that is the latter.

If the reader recalls (or if he or she would like to become briefed), a recent FBEL article pointed out that the Government would repeal the EC Act 72 as part of the Great Repeal Bill (due to commence May/June), and at the same time it would have to legislate to remove from or place EU law on the statute books – to speak very basically indeed. In particular, that article was concerned with the dilemma of suddenly having millions of foreign nationals in the country without the old Leave to Remain status, and how there probably needed to be a reset through new legislation to accommodate them – one way or another. Although the extent of the process of handling all issues that would be outstanding as the UK became independent of the EU was not overtly stated, it was suggested and certainly understood by the author, who, as anyone could if they wanted to, deduced the magnitude of the matter from reading and research.

It was very interesting, then, for the author to start seeing, on Tuesday of this last week, certain articles in corporate-media that began to address the issue more directly. At last we got to see in what exact fields of governance the legislation would be enacted, but the presentation was very strange, and perhaps not to be unexpected. In low key and somewhat sneaky fashion, we were told how data “leaked” to a newspaper showed that the Government needed to pass seven more “Brexit bills” in conjunction with the repealing of the EC Act 72. Furthermore, at the same time as this was happening, the country’s attention was being directed toward the conjuring trick diversionary instrument that is the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which had reached a sheepasmic climax of excitement with heralds blasting fanfares to announce that the Queen was going to sign the Article 50 bill into law. It definitely seemed like a case of burying bad news wedded to an incredibly coy manner of presentation, and so the overall impression the author had was this: there couldn’t have been a more clear case of one very important thing passing completely unseen under the radar due to a commotion caused by another much less important thing.

The author first came across the reports of “seven more Brexit bills” in the International Business Times (the article is here; note it has video that starts automatically. Much the same is reported in a Telegraph version, here). It said that “Whitehall papers” had been leaked to the Times; the original Times article (which the reader must pay for to read – hence no link) was headlined: “Brexit faces fresh hurdles, leaked Whitehall papers reveal”. We should interpret all this as follows: essentially the Government gave the nod for its intelligence assets in its flagship propaganda outlet to broach the subject into the public arena. It was “leaked” (of course it wasn’t leaked) so that Government didn’t have to announce what was ahead for Brexit so that there can’t and won’t be any scrutiny of it. Look at this governmental remark as reported in the Telegraph copy:

A Government spokesman said: “We do not comment on leaks. We have been clear that we are considering all options to prepare for various potential outcomes of negotiations, as people would expect of a responsible government.”

We’re going to return to that mention of negotiations momentarily (the notion that the seven Brexit bills are to do with Article 50 needs to be nipped in the bud), but first let’s just contemplate the apparent impression that corporate-media is clearly trying to install that somehow the necessity to pass other legislation with respect to Brexit is now, all of a sudden, something that should be a surprise.

And what incredible nonsense it is, especially when a Lords committee went to the trouble of preparing a paper on scrutinising the Government as it processes these additional legislative requirements. The author is yet to delve deeper into a document entitled, “HL Paper 123, The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ (a pdf download) and delegated powers”, but even a cursory look provides enough clues:

The process of converting the body of EU law, as described by the Government, will consist of two distinct phases. First, the initial preservation of EU law by converting it into UK law with such amendments as are necessary to make it work sensibly in a UK context; and second, a longer-term process in which Parliament and the Government determine the extent to which (what was) EU law will remain part of UK law… The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ is intended to facilitate the first aspect of the process. The second should be achieved through normal parliamentary procedures.

It goes on…

The challenge facing Parliament—and on which we focus in this report—is how to grant the Government relatively wide delegated powers for the purpose of converting EU law into UK law, while ensuring that they cannot also be used simply to implement new policies desired by the Government in areas which were formerly within EU competence.

Did the reader catch what he or she needed to? The Government is going to award itself special powers in the Great Repeal Bill so that it can convert EU law into UK law in the first phase. Presumably this is a necessity because the first phase needs to be wrapped up pretty quickly so that there are no periods where law doesn’t apply. Now, the Lords of this select committee pronounce that they are concerned about these special powers in terms of the constitution, but the author suggests that the public needs to be concerned because they could be used to convert legislation – and on the extreme quiet – that would undermine Brexit.

Of course, the reader might ask, why should we be suspicious? – after all, the corporate-media articles mentioned above would have us believe the following sort of thing:

A leaked list of legislation prepared by Whitehall indicates that each of the new laws will provide MPs and peers the much sought after opportunity to set out the framework for negotiation.

And also this…

The raft of legislation could provide further opportunities for MPs and peers to shape the terms of Britain’s departure from the bloc, potentially causing disruption within the tight two-year timetable after Article 50 is triggered.

What we seem to be being told in these extracts, then, is the legislation orbiting the repeal of the EC Act 72 is related to what the UK Government must parley for when it talks to the EU regarding supposed conditions for exit in the Article 50 negotiations. Logically, it follows that conditions for exit should be able to shape the legislation – or, perhaps legislation should anticipate the final agreement. And maybe, this is the line that is going to be sold to the public. Look at the following extract. It contains a quote from a “government source” talking to the Times about how much legislation is going to be dealt with in the process of repealing the EC Act 72 (emphasis added):

There is a degree of pushback about [the length of the list] The list is still accurate, but efforts are being made to see what can be done to adopt the current position and replicate EU structures in Britain.

As predicted at FBEL in the articles “Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism” (link) the Government appears to admit it is chiefly concerned with retaining a parallel legislative system for Global compatability –  i.e. Fake Brexit. We should be very concerned that the Government, acting rapidly and without much scrutiny, is going to sell the country out during the process to bring EU law into UK law by enacting legislation in the first phase of the Great Repeal that means the UK does not win its proper independence. The UK doesn’t need to make an agreement with the EU about terms of exit – how many times have Government ministers talked about the possibility of no deal being reached? The answer: quite a few times. There is no requirement to accept any deal with the EU – or even try to strike one with an Article 50 negotiating process – and there definitely is no requirement to construct a parallel legislative structure with the Great Repeal. And yet, what we seem to be seeing is the initial suggestion of a narrative whereby this is insisted upon as being the case.

To summarise, what we should be suspicious of is a continued emphasis on negotiation outcomes while there is no scrutiny of the process of leaving the EU where it counts – the Great Repeal. The author fears that this will be the private area where the Fake Brexit will be delivered, and the negotiations, which will be the very public space, won’t even have to resemble what the Government decrees in the first instant phase of the Great Repeal. And so we need to be vigilant. FBEL will be reporting on the Great Repeal Bill when it occurs (as best it can), and analysing supplementary first phase legislation. But the Government really can’t be held to account unless the public stop being lead by its nose by the Government through the corporate-media, and stop looking solely where they are instructed to look. If we focus on the Great Repeal, and don’t fixate on the Article 50 process (keep an eye on it, yes), we can make it so that creating Fake Brexit will be something the British Government will wish that it hadn’t embarked upon.