Published On: Sat, Mar 30th, 2019

Government crosses line in sand; sheep must learn new mantra, men must dispense retribution

Share This
Tags

It has to be said, on a day where there has supposed to have been a “Brexit betrayal”, the country is in a much better position than the author has all along predicted it would be. That being said, the 29th March passes as this article is written, and will have terminated by the time it is published, and there will not have been an exit from the EU, by dint of a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, as Britons have been led to believe there would be. The culprit for the assuredness had been Parliament’s own legislation, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 – which has not borne fruit in the manner expected.

That the Government laid down the “law” so that 29th March would see Britain leave the EU, and yet the Government did not enact that law, but instead was found out as being essentially devious, constitutes the crossing of a line in the sand. The last straw. And it’s not just that a line in the sand has been crossed; it’s the way it has been done that must now sting into action those who understand that there must be a reaction. The very thing about a line in the sand is that the retribution implied by it should produce enough trepidation to prevent it. If the dare is met, then the price for meeting it should be paid.

As for that embellishment of provocation in the manner of the infringement of the line-crossing, here are the headlines: on March 27th, mostly, if not largely unreported by corporate-media, Parliament approved a statutory instrument that redefined the meaning of the “exit day” in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. “Exit day” was no longer March 29th. Did you know about that, dear reader? It was the sort of arbitrary rule making that befits a tyranny: basically, the British Government wrote out its own “get out of jail card.” It was the political version of creating money by ledger entry. In short, the room to manoeuvre that the Government word-processed into existence doesn’t really exist, and 17 million people have been cheated. Just as there is no gold to back a fiat currency, there is no political support for what the Government issued. This is crucial to appreciate.

Now to call any of this a “Brexit betrayal” is to use inadequate vocabulary. If you want to insist on being represented in national decision making so that you have a say in your prospects, then the British Government never was on your side. What happened today was yet another abuse by a bullying, occupying, alien entity that even thinks it can ride roughshod over restrictions it imposed on itself to win approval from its supposed superior – which is to say the republic, or “we the people”. Of course, such promises are never made in good faith, for a combatant whose intent is to conquer tells falsehoods to its enemy to create an advantage for its purpose.

Now, regular FBEL readers will know that hereabouts it was predicted that there would not be a Brexit where there wasn’t a deal on the Article 50 treaty, because of the vital importance of that agreement for establishing conditions for Britain’s continued parallel development with the EU towards a one world order. It was also written hereabouts that the only way to avoid a delay to Brexit was for there to be a no-deal Brexit on March 29th. It’s fair to say that these ideas have been proven correct in a very overtly demonstrative way. Indeed, the British Government made sure there was a delay by managing its difficulties regarding that deadline in the appalling bankster-esque manner described above.

As for the author’s prediction that the British Government would have an Article 50 deal by 29th March to meet its crucial requirement to avoid a no-deal exit, obviously things have not materialised as expected. This is not a bad thing – it is the reason why it was reckoned at the top of this article that things are generally better than they might have been. The author always thought that at this stage, the Government would have had its sleeves rolled up, ready to embark upon a monumental job of heaping EU legislation onto British statute books. This fate has yet been postponed. The bad news is, however, the British Government has all the time in the world, and a stupefied public that will allow it an eternity. Moreover, because there are people in the land who could take Government to task if only the channels to do so were in place, Government can act as it pleases because the republic – “we the people” – which should be sovereign, has no ability to temper the ambitions of Parliament (for which read Government), let alone put the rabid animal down, like it should be able to.

Now we’ve already had a taste of the “fiat-politics” of British Government whereby it shows it is out of control, and there is more to be sampled in the story of how we arrived at the state of affairs as they stood on 29th March. The grand trick driving it all has been documented at FBEL, and it involves that thing that British Government does so well: introducing a fake layer of fiction over the reality to obscure it, and to act as a false interface. It involves bamboozling the public, through assertions via corporate-media – which is still treated as authoritative even by people who should know better – into understanding the synthetic layer to be the reality. To explain briefly, 29th March was cancelled as Brexit day because Parliament ruled it out when it had no business ruling it out as an option. Indeed, Parliament created a false set of options, omitting the default one where Britain would simply crash-out. The Government’s position was paraphrased in the FBEL article, The “no-deal Brexit vote”: another trick to engineer acceptance of the Article 50 deal:

“Because MPs do not support leaving without a deal on the 29th March (which is a complete strawman [the author’s comment]), then they must either support a deal in the coming days, or face a longer extension to Article 50”.

The story continues with Theresa May going to an EU summit – the outcome of which had probably already been thought up before she left for it. This was also dealt with at FBEL, this time in the article, More Article 50 scaremongering; desperate UK Government sacrifices Parliament; the “Republic” sees how it all stands:

Now, it must be noted that both possible outcomes of the ratification vote [referring to the one that was had on 29th March] have been awarded grants of extension from the EU; if there is approval, “Brexit will be delayed until [22nd May]” [according to the] (BBC), and if rejection, “The UK must propose a way forward before [12th April]… for consideration by EU leaders.”

It was the EU summit which provided the basis for the statutory instrument – even though, and this too was noted at FBEL (see the footnote of the article linked to immediately above), there appeared to have been a failure to meet the condition by which the EU would be consulted for an extension. (Indeed, the Parliamentary motion in question, leading to the EU consultation, implied that the no-deal Brexit as yet represented the consequence of a failure of Parliament to endorse the Article 50 treaty). Anyhow, it is clear that the statutory instrument reflects the arrangement for which the EU summit provided cover, as can be seen:

Amendment to the definition of “exit day”

2.—(1) Section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of “exit day”, for “29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m. (and” substitute—

“—

(a)if, in accordance with Article 1 of European Council Decision (EU) 2019/476 of 22 March 2019(3), the period provided for in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is extended until 22 May 2019, 11.00 p.m. on that day, or

(b)if not, 11.00 p.m. on 12 April 2019…

So here’s the point: this contrivance is reliant on the Government deciding that, even though it was an outcome that most closely resembled the raw intention of that majority who voted to leave the EU, a no-deal Brexit was undesirable. Once again, a case of no gold behind the ledger-book entry. In a word: fraud. Fraud on a grand scale.

And of course, it goes on. We should notice that at the time of the EU summit, and the article is here, the BBC appeared to be telling its audience that the 12th April was not a deadline necessarily for a new default Brexit – which is definitely how it is being treated, subject to the rejection of a fourth meaningful vote on the Article 50 treaty, when some of the so-called Brexit leadership and opinion-forming media have addressed it lately.

One gets a good sense of the stupidity of the British people by the way that they walk into you at supermarkets, or are unable to stop a vehicle at a line when signalled to on the roads, but there is a whole depth of idiocy that even the author has trouble believing exists if people who voted to leave the EU, after their experiences thus far in the process, don’t understand that what happened on the 29th March was the start of an exercise in “jam tomorrow” that will go on interminably.  “Jam tomorrow” – just like the Government played a merry dance to get to this point already, with the yes, no, maybe promises of referenda. Default no-deal Brexit has turned out to be a Groundhog Day, where there is no progress of state of being from one day to the next. And yet, the author has seen the sheep being taught “March 29th good, April 12th better” – like Orwell explained was possible.

On the bright side, all this should be teaching valuable lessons to thinking individuals about the suddenly narrowed capacity of the ballot box (because of course, it must be lawful) as a means to inflict that retribution that has been discussed already in this piece, and that is required because the Government stepped over the line – and because of how it stepped over the line. Please read the FBEL article, Delegitimising Parliament: why “we the people” must stop voting.

Moreover, the situation should be providing thinking leave-voters an excellent opportunity to observe their leadership – and to suspect, if not understand that it is indeed, to a man, Establishment-supplied to waste the political energy that the British Government knows it is rousing in the population. Take Farage. On 29th March, he turned a protest about “Brexit betrayal” (as explained, a false paradigm) into an electioneering rally for getting his fat carcass back on the EU Parliament gravy train. In a speech reproduced by Breitbart, his recognition of the Groundhog Day nature of the no-deal Brexit – which needs a prior understanding of April 12th as another case of default exit – is used as the basis on which to sell the idea that “contract-forming” activity with the EU – in other words, voting in EU elections – is the way to deliver Brexit. The man is another charlatan:

But, I’m sorry to say I fear that the betrayal we have seen over today’s date will probably be repeated on the 12th of April. But let us not be disheartened, I tell you what — if that means we have to fight the European elections on the 23rd of May, let me tell you I will fight them!

And if they force us to fight a second referendum, we’ll beat them by a bigger margin.

As was written in the FBEL article, Boycotting the European elections: there can be no business as usual after Fake Brexit,

The “country’s” participation in the European election should certainly be one of the first victims of a Fake Brexit, and the withholding of votes in a British general election… should follow as soon as the opportunity allows.

If you want changes, you are going to have to, individually (collaborating with other similarly motivated individuals), make them for yourself. There is no future in surrendering your sovereignty to those whose intention is to squander it. It’s long past due to be a man, not a sheep.

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