Published On: Mon, May 1st, 2017

GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part Two: the EU still rules

Let’s cut to the chase: the contention put forth by the author is that the General Election to be held on June 8th has been called to shore up Parliament for a continued fudge of the Britain’s exit from the EU, or to deliver a Fake Brexit†. Once again, the Establishment is relying on the seesaw political model that it has installed in the imaginations of the electorate. As such, people “understand” that when one side is elevated, the ascendency of the other side is always a mechanical likelihood, and perhaps even a physical certainty, and so the voter is fixated on raising or grounding one side or the other. In the meantime, behind the theatre that compels voters to choose a side (rather than a new course), there is a shadow government, the British Government in its fullest sense, that is always making sure that events proceed in the direction of its own agenda.

To keep this LibLabCon system alive, the parties have to appear to have political differences to maintain the illusion of a democratic choice, however in office these parties will implement the shadow government’s agenda because they are each but one aspect of the same multi-faced creature. As such, if the Tories maintain a minority government, or rule as part of a coalition, the LibLabCon will cooperate in spite of perceived party lines for the aforementioned common purpose. However, in such circumstances it would be difficult to maintain the impression of party distinction (which ultimately leads to the end of the grand deception). This is why the British Establishment has always preferred an election-winning party to have a very good majority.

As far as all this applies to a Parliament whose main task will be to give the impression of delivering Brexit to the electorate, there is a sub-component assignment to achieve. This is the marginalisation of any Tory MPs who would oppose Fake Brexit. And so Theresa May needs that big and foolproof majority, and what she desperately has to avoid is a Tory rebellion which leaves her Cabinet, and the main body of the Tory Parliamentary Party, working with Labour and the Lib Dems. This would not be good for optics – as previously explained. It also goes without saying that UKIP can’t be allowed to form a kernel of opposition around which dissenting Members of all parties can coalesce. And so, this is why ahead of the election, in order to try to create the desired Tory majority, the public are hearing about how Labour will deliver a “soft brexit”, but not about how the Tories would do exactly the same thing.  With talk of the Tories selecting staunch Remainers in winnable seats, it looks as if the assemblage of fake Brexiteers for Fake Brexit is being realised. When the author gets a better idea of the scale of this, there will be an article.

Moving on, and the focus in this particular series of articles is on how the General Election of 2017 is about manoeuvring to get the electorate to choose a Tory majority by deception. This article is going to look at revelatory material in the Great Repeal Bill White Paper, published without any fanfare at the end of March 2017, that confirms that the Tories aren’t going to deliver what people think they are; the Great Repeal Bill White Paper should be treated as an indicator of Tory intention regardless of what is in the party’s election manifesto.

Much has been made, in the last week or so, of Theresa May’s apparent back-sliding on Britain remaining a signatory – or not (more to the point) – to the ECHR. Incidentally, in case there’s any confusion, the ECHR refers to the European Convention of Human Rights, which established the European Court of Human Rights – and it is probably the court that most people think of when they come across the acronym. The difference matters hardly, because the court is for testing cases measured against the convention. The court is not an EU body, but the European Court of Justice, the EU’s supreme court, “refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human Rights as though it was part of the EU’s legal system” (from Wikipedia).

Back in 2016, just before Britons voted to Leave the EU, and before Theresa May had been selected to become Prime Minister, she had the following to say about the ECHR:

The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights…

So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.

However, May’s earlier forthrightness has now been retracted, as the following extract, from a very recent and unsurprisingly devious Telegraph article, demonstrates:

[Theresa May] was expected to write the commitment into the Conservative manifesto meaning that Britain would be committed to withdrawing [from the ECHR] by the end of the next parliament, in 2022.

However, senior Government figures have told The Telegraph they expect Mrs May to drop the commitment because it would be a major distraction for her Government from the Brexit negotiations.

The spin being given, as the reader can see, is that leaving the ECHR might be considered as something less important to worry about for now, and to be dealt with after 2022. It’s all incredibly disingenuous, – and that’s leaving aside the dishonesty in the article to imply that somehow Britain won’t be bound by the ECHR after 2022. The Great Repeal Bill White Paper reveals that the issue of leaving the ECHR is not a major distraction, because it isn’t even being considered:

2.22 The Charter is only one element of the UK’s human rights architecture. Many of the rights protected in the Charter are also found in other international instruments, notably the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but also UN and other international treaties too. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, not of the EU. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU will not change the UK’s participation in the ECHR and there are no plans to withdraw from the ECHR.

Why has Theresa May had such a change of heart? Let the author suggest something: the EU Referendum result. The ECHR provides a basis for ECJ law. It would be hard then, would it not, to be subject to the ECJ if the convention that it upholds is not recognised? The point is this: the British Government plans to maintain the supremacy of European law as a protection for EU-derived law on the British statute books against what is arguably legitimate domestic law that contradicts it. It’s quite clear from reading the White Paper:

(From paragraph 2.14)

The Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU.

EU-derived law will be the EU law that we are led to believe is “going to be converted” into UK law. And so…

2.20 If, after exit, a conflict arises between two pre-exit laws, one of which is an EU-derived law and the other not, then the EU-derived law will continue to take precedence over the other pre-exit law. Any other approach would change the law and create uncertainty as to its meaning. This approach will give coherence to the statute book, while putting Parliament back in control. Once the UK has left the EU, Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be able to change these laws wherever it is considered desirable.

It occurs to the author that Brexit doesn’t have to be like this. The British Government is clearly making decisions in line with an agenda to maintain compatibility with a foreign power – to the detriment of real independence (and thus it isn’t Brexit that we are seeing, it is yet more treason).

Additionally, the supremacy of the ECJ will be maintained by the preservation of EU-derived law. The following extract (from an article on an LSE website) explains so that the author doesn’t have to:

The ECJ may retain jurisdiction over Britain well after Brexit day. The degree is a sliding scale: the softer the Brexit, the greater the ECJ jurisdiction. This is because as long as a state reaps the benefits of EU membership, above all freedoms of movement, it must give up a portion of sovereign control over the governance of those benefits. This is why any transitional period, currently floated to last 3-5 years, would need to include ECJ competence.

It occurs to the author that the writer of this extract thinks that free movement into the UK is a benefit. And it further occurs that ECJ competence would be sustained as long as EU-derived law demanded it. That’s why we’re seeing stuff like the following out of Breitbart:

Brussels is expected to demand that EU citizens in the UK should keep all the rights they presently enjoy as part of the Brexit deal, thus keeping them subject to the ECJ.

Now, understandably, the reader is probably asking, how long would EU-derived law require ECJ competence. When the author looks at the following extract from paragraph 1.22 of the White Paper, he has to think that it would last as long as Parliament wanted it to:

 We will introduce an immigration bill so nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether already resident in the UK or moving from the EU, without Parliament’s approval. This is in line with our overall approach to the Great Repeal Bill – not to make major policy changes through or under the Bill, but to allow Parliament an opportunity to debate our future approach and give effect to that through separate bills. New legislation will be required to implement new policies or institutional arrangements that go beyond replicating current EU arrangements in UK law.

And also consider this:

2.7 Our approach of converting EU law into domestic law maximises certainty and stability while ensuring Parliament is sovereign. For the purposes of this paper we are calling this body of law ‘EU-derived law’. The Government considers that, unless and until domestic law is changed by legislators in the UK, legal rights and obligations in the UK should where possible be the same after we have left the EU as they were immediately before we left.

Of course, if the UK Parliament was set on maintaining coherence between Britain and a Global model being instituted in the rest of the world, so that there was no independent development for Britain – which is what it is doing, and which it will be doing if the Establishment manages yet again to deceive the sheeple at the upcoming election – then we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for that Parliament to get around to legislating the end of ECJ supremacy – unless the author is very much mistaken.


† What the author understands Fake Brexit to entail has emerged through own research, and can be traced in the following FBEL articles:

Fake Brexit and the Sleaford by-election; the British continue to be duped (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part One (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part Two: the Modern Industrial Strategy (link)
The Lords’ Amendment and pseudo-citizenship (link)
A Fake Brexit fait accompli to be punched home during Great Repeal? (link)
GE2017: a manoeuvre to deliver Fake Brexit; Part One: the resurrected “wasted vote” meme (link)

Just to show that the author is definitely on the right track with his analysis, consider how he has consistently told you that leaving the EU amounts to repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and that the Article 50 negotiations are superfluous (and in reality, about conceding by stealth to the EU). Look at the following paragraphs from the Great Repeal Bill White Paper (emphasis added), with the authors comments inserted after them:

1.11 The Article 50 process gives effect to the UK’s withdrawal as a matter of EU law. However, new primary legislation is needed to ensure that the domestic statute book reflects the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, and to ensure an orderly transition from EU membership. We need to be in a position to repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

Article 50 is EU law, but on the repeal of the ECA (to use the above abbreviation), EU law is not supreme – unless the Government insists upon it. Leaving the EU does not have to be subject to Article 50 negotiations – and that fact is reflected in the next paragraph:

1.20 The Government is confident that the UK can reach a positive agreement about our future relationship with the EU in the time available under Article 50. However, we have also been clear that no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK. The Great Repeal Bill would also support the scenario where the UK left the EU without a deal in place, by facilitating the creation of a complete and functioning statute book no longer reliant on EU membership.

This flat out admits that the Great Repeal Bill will anticipate the complete failure of Article 50 negotiations. It is recognition that no Article 50 deal is required. The UK can leave the EU without a deal, and this is because the UK’s exit from the EU is brought about solely by the repeal of the ECA. The next paragraph alludes to this fact:

2.3 As a first step, it is important to repeal the ECA to ensure there is maximum clarity as to the law that applies in the UK, and to reflect the fact that following the UK’s exit from the EU it will be UK law, not EU law, that is supreme. The Bill will repeal the ECA on the day we leave the EU.

But here, in this last paragraph, does the Government use the trickery that this Brexit process is riddled with. The last line implies that the repealing of the ECA is a consequence of leaving the EU – and this repeats the deception in the last line of Para 1.11. But this is not correct. What this line is telling you, albeit in a heavily and dishonestly disguised manner, is that the day on which the ECA is repealed will be the day the UK leaves the EU. The author has been proven.


It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.