The Malthouse compromise, the ongoing Tory Brexit con, and further tricks to engineer acceptance of the Article 50 deal

It has been spelt out at FBEL before: the objective of Government in this current supposed post-EU era, and with regards Brexit, is to dupe the leave-voting public, which is the majority of it, and the demographic that has been termed here as the “tax revenue”, into supporting an Article 50 deal. When the Government is sure that this has been achieved, then at that point the Commons, with all the so-called Tory rebels included, will vote it through – and with it, all that it entails, meaning the intended continued parallel development, and globalist governance harmonised with the EU, set to come about through the terms of the Tory executive’s Withdrawal Bill (validated by the EU through Article 50). That Fake Brexit meant continued globalist government has also been a staple of FBEL output from a time before the general election of 2017, with a warning that only votes for UKIP could change what the Government had planned. Of course, lately, with the deliberate tarnishing of the UKIP brand, and its recruitment of internet shills towards that end, it’s now too late to do anything through an election ballot box.

And in fact, while it is too late to vote in a national election ever again, the British Government does yet realise a risk to its survival, and this is why it must produce an arrangement where the leave-voting public think that a) Britain is leaving the EU, and b) is doing so in a way that is advantageous to the country. Such an arrangement is crucial for the British Government because the alternative is not even to be contemplated. What is so threatening is the possibility that the leave-voting public, if properly motivated, will make governance of Britain impossible; riots in London by Remainers that endanger the Queen, for instance (courtesy of Project Fear – and as if [the Queen and the EU are as thick as literal thieves together]), will be nothing compared to the quiet civil disobedience of the lawfully justified majority who have found that voting in elections is like pulling on a steering wheel that isn’t connected to a rudder.

So, the crucial importance for British Government of a deal with the EU, which the leave-voting public is persuaded to accept, is that it provides an apparent impetus and justification for adopting all that aforementioned EU legislation for harmonisation onto British statute books (via the Withdrawal Bill). Essentially, then, because an international treaty is meaningless if one party to the contract can’t do anything about the other tearing it up when it decides that it is being disadvantaged by it, the real significance of the Article 50 treaty has always been domestic: to bring about a situation where the public will accept the implementation of legislation that an independent Britain doesn’t need to implement. In short: a hoax (by its nature, government-by-deception can always be reduced to this term). Of course, that means that adopting EU legislation without the excuse of an Article 50 agreement should look very odd – to say the least – and FBEL will be doing its best to point this out to people.

To put things slightly differently, but mostly to reiterate the important point: the Article 50 deal is all about ensuring that the additional EU “colour of law” legislation is accepted unquestioningly by the unsuspecting British public, and there has been a new development in the attempt to make this happen: the “Malthouse compromise”. This is as cunning a device as the British Government has ever come up with, designed to impress upon DUP voters that their party is satisfied with arrangements regarding the Irish border, and upon Tory voters that the rebels in their party are happy to accommodate the plethora of other things wrong with the Article 50 deal, with the implication being that the voters just accept everything on faith (and many will).

The Guardian reports the Malthouse compromise like this:

In basic terms, the prime minister would renegotiate the backstop element of her Brexit deal to replace it with a free trade agreement with as-yet-unknown technology to avoid customs checks on the Irish border.

It would also involve extending the transition period for an extra year until December 2021 to allow more time to agree a new trading relationship…

If the attempt to renegotiate the backstop fails, the Malthouse compromise offers a plan B – essentially a managed no-deal… Under this plan, the PM would ask the EU to honour the agreed Brexit transition period, extended for one year, in return for the UK honouring its agreed financial contributions and its commitments on EU citizens’ rights.

The thing that the reader should notice immediately is that this travesty that so-called Tory rebels have signalled assent for will render void any advantages that leaving without a deal would otherwise engender.  Britain will get to pay its financial contributions to the EU, and EU citizens will continue to have “rights” in the UK. In short, the “Malthouse compromise” is a way of keeping terms of the Article 50 deal without the deal.  It is about setting up justification for putting that aforementioned EU legislation on the statute books.

Now, it has been the plan hereabouts to deal with the so-called continued rights of EU citizens in the UK only after the European Communities Act 72 – to be repealed as part of the passing of the Withdrawal Bill – has been stricken off the books. This way the environment to effectively convict Government will be in place, and one won’t have to play guessing games about what eventual outcomes, considering various potential variables, will actually occur. Basically, the idea that foreign nationals have rights in the UK (meaning free movement and access to the welfare state) at any and all times even without considering the hostility of their home state – the EU – towards the British people, must be a lawfully dubious one as the issue stands alone; all things being proper, government’s sole responsibility is to protect citizenry from foreign powers, and arguably the British Government’s granting perpetual rights to EU citizens is a fundamental failing of this duty†. In any case, when such things are awarded on the basis of a grand deceit and a fraud (EU immigration is fundamentally about destroying British national identity in pursuit of globalist governance), then there can be no defence of them.

What the reader needs to appreciate now is that, according to the Malthouse compromise, so-called Tory rebels would have Britain:

a) leave the EU in name, with the full deal more or less in place, and “transition period” extended (the implication of this will be examined at a later time, but basically it means effective continued EU membership)
or
b) leave the EU but with assurances that don’t need to be made but that create circumstances as if a deal was in place – see a). The reader should note that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the transition period is not meant to apply.
but not
c) leave the EU with no strings attached.

It’s about time that the leave-voting public got to grips with reality, and stopped the wishful thinking. There is none in Parliament, bar one or two rare individuals, who represent them. There are certainly none in the Tory party – and there can be no excuse for continuing to pretend that there are. Look at what the chief so-called saviour of Brexit, Rees-Mogg, said to indicate that he doesn’t want a no-deal Brexit:

That is why I am working with Kit Malthouse, Nicky Morgan and so on to try to find a way of having a way of doing some limited deal that ensures the smoothness of the transition.

Before closing, we’re going to glance at a description from a Breitbart article that mentions the Malthouse compromise that may be erroneous, but actually may be letting slip what the concept would actually mean – and constitute information that more mainstream corporate-media would want to hide. Pay attention to the terms of Plan B (emphasis added):

The Compromise, also backed by Remain-supporting MPs, would mean the UK leaving the EU as planned on March 29th and extending the transition to December 2021 in order to have more time to negotiate a free trade agreement.

If the EU does not accept the proposal, the Compromise details that the UK would ask the bloc to accept the extended transition period and the country would prepare to leave the EU on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms after December 2021. In exchange, the UK would guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK and honour the £39 billion divorce bill.

In actual fact, effectively not leaving the EU until 2021 is what the Malthouse compromise amounts to whichever way one wants to look at it – mistake in the above text or not. However, if Britain doesn’t leave the EU, in name or in actual fact by way of a no-dealǂ, on 29th March, as Parliament has set down as must happen in its own statute books, and if Parliament cannot obey its own law let alone our explicit instruction, then it will only serve to create additional (and perhaps actionable) grievance that the public must have against the law-breakers in the Commons over and above the mere, but not inconsequential, fact of the dislocation existing in the relationship between the governed and their supposed representatives in government. In real terms – terms that by our efforts we should make real –  the Parliament in London has rendered itself at best irrelevant, and at worst criminally answerable to the sovereign and rightful republic: that’s “we the people”.

† On this subject, see The 2016 Harlow “Brexit murder”; UK vassal government still in the dock, never convicted (link)

ǂ To be absolutely clear about this, a no-deal Brexit is eminently preferable than a deal which means leaving in name only. While a no-deal Brexit might happen if the Government loses control of the situation, hereabouts it has always been expected that there will be a deal – for the reason explained in the article – and thus any concern about Brexit has been rooted in what to do about it. The Government is vulnerable by the fact that while the EC Act 72 would have been repealed – meaning the end of EU membership – Britain would have been saddled with the very same, effectively, through Article 50. So, while there may have been no stopping the deal, something could be done after the fact in terms of creating public awareness of the injustices arising from the deal, and in measures to protest these injustices. Most importantly, as a foundation for a movement to undermine the Article 50 deal, it is crucial for the public to understand why the country suffers the deal.