The “no-deal Brexit vote”: another trick to engineer acceptance of the Article 50 deal
Confusion about Brexit abounds, when it is all quite simple. The UK Government wants to install, permanently, a raft of EU legislation upon the British statute books. In order to do this, a device is required to create an appearance of “obligations to be met” so that the desired adoption of the array of EU law cam be said to be necessary according to the terms of an international treaty: i.e. the Article 50 withdrawal agreement (along with a little mentioned framework for future parallel and harmonised development with the EU – so, as the FBEL voice in the wilderness has warned since 2016, it will be as though Britain never leaves the EU). Conversely, if there is no treaty, then the voluntary adoption of EU legislation would look entirely unnecessarily, not to mention obstinately disobedient, perverse and arrogant, and even the most obtuse member of the general public (and the competition is tough) would want to question the Globalist motives of British Government.
It has been said in these pages in the past that the British Government would finally arrange things so that MPs could vote to approve an Article 50 agreement (or deal) when it thought that the British public could tolerate such a thing. To be clear, this would not just be a question of a deal being approved by enough members of the Leave-voting public, and according to qualifying criteria; it is, and has been, rather, about creating anxiety regarding the devil-one-knows as opposed to the devil-one-doesn’t. British politics is never about the quality of the product; instead, the fear of the least favourite option is all important. Yesterday’s latest Brexit circus in the House of Commons was yet more of the same thing.
The reader should be clear; when the Tory Executive submitted a motion to a vote in the House to the effect that the Commons would not accept Britain leaving the EU on the 29th March without an Article 50 deal, it was merely arranging circumstances for further developments along the lines abovementioned. Be clear, dear reader, that after that vote, where (to paraphrase the corporate-media inaccuracy) “MPs ruled out a no-deal Brexit”, there was no new device whereby Parliament had replaced or withdrawn legislation concerning the default nature of a no-deal Brexit at the end of this month. The lie that “no-deal has been ruled out” is told to make people anxious. The truth of the matter is that, with an amendment introduced by Caroline Spelman, who notably appeared to want to disown her intervention (at one stage she had appeared to have withdrawn it† – behaviour explained by trepidation regarding reaction from her constituency?), which turned the Government’s motion into one “ruling out a no-deal Brexit at any time”, a situation has been engineered whereby the Commons now faces a clear cut, but nevertheless artificial choice between one option, and another that is less objectionable. Ultimately, of course, it is the public upon whom the pressure will come to bear, and there’s no doubt the plotters and connivers that hover on the borders between military intelligence and civilian government who are in charge of all this are hoping that the likes of Rees-Mogg are going to be given the go-ahead to finally go-along by an inundation of communications from tearful sheeple who can no longer stand the turmoil.
The two options that MPs are now being asked to decide upon were introduced in a statement made by Theresa May. According to her, there will be another motion tabled today, and it “will set out the fundamental choice facing this house.”
She continues (emphasis added):
If the house finds a way in the coming days to support a deal, it would allow the government to seek a short limited technical extension to article 50 to provide time to pass the necessary legislation and ratify the agreement we have reached with the EU.
But let me be clear, such a short technical extension is only likely to be on offer if we have a deal in place.
Therefore, the house has to understand and accept that, if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days, and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, then it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50.
Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.
Please consider the emphasised portion, for here are the choices laid out – but look at the dynamic from which the options arise; paraphrasing, it goes like this: “because MPs do not support leaving without a deal on the 29th March (which is a complete strawman), then they must either support a deal in the coming days, or face a longer extension to Article 50”.
The wording of the upcoming Government motion also reveals that the exploits in the Commons on Wednesday have been for engineering this false dilemma:
That this House: 1. notes the resolutions of the House of 12 and 13 March, and accordingly agrees the Government will seek to agree with the European Union an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3).
The key word is “resolutions”. What has been dubbed the “no-deal Brexit vote” was a declaration of ground upon which another construct could be built. In itself it is meaningless. The motion goes on, and provides the detail of the false dilemma – that can only exist by ruling out the exit by default when no Article 50 agreement is reached:
2. agrees that if the House has passed a resolution approving the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 by 20 March 2019 then the Government will seek to agree with the European Union a one-off extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) for a period ending on 30 June 2019 for the purpose of passing the necessary EU exit legislation; and
3. notes that if the House has not passed a resolution approving the negotiated Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship … then it is highly likely the European Council at its meeting the following day would require a clear purpose for any extension, not least to determine its length and any extension beyond 30 June 2019 would require the United Kingdom to hold European Parliament elections in May 2019.
To break it all down into what it really means, if MPs vote to ratify an Article 50 agreement before the 21st March, then the Government will start unpacking and installing that EU legislation, and it will tell the public on June 30th that Britain has left the EU. Of course, this will be in name only. An FBEL reader should know by now what a Fake Brexit will look like.
On the other hand, if MPs do not ratify the Article 50 agreement, then lions and tigers and bears! Oh my! Lions and Tigers and Bears! Oh My! Get the picture? This is for consumption by the general public.
However, if people who voted Leave hold their nerve, and do not partake in any activity that the Government could call terrorism, or even racism and far-rightism, in ugly displays on the streets – protesting or rioting – of its (fake) surging to threaten the rules based order (not to mention rainbow unicorns) – that sort of thing – but instead calmly let the Government know that a wholesale, and peaceful change is long over due regarding how they are going to allow themselves to governed (and that decent people are sick and tired of seeing pictures of intellectual pygmies – who think they are gods – standing at the Commons’ despatch boxes, all puffed up from the latest instance of knowing what’s best and legislating accordingly), then the lawbreakers in Parliament might opt to act to mitigate the reckoning that is coming and that will find them out for the very frail and inadequate beings they are.
That being said, the hubris-filled, tin-pot Babylonians, Pharaohs, dictators and technocrats in the Houses of Parliament see tanks on their models of the battlefields, and they think that these toys represent real arms on the ground – arms which in reality have been neutralised. That’s why we should take the statement by May, and the wording of the upcoming motion as a declaration of intent: the British Government is determined not to repeal the European Communities Act, 1972, on 29th March.
Now, some people are putting too much store in the fact that the EU, or the governments of the individual nations, has to grant Britain an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period, and without unanimity, the extra periods of time that the UK Government is boasting about will just not happen. They say that the EU will not present a united front, but this is not a safe appraisal. Some powerful people, and the corporate-Masonic-Mafia-kleptocratic money, don’t want Britain to leave the EU.
Besides which, as far as the author is aware (and it is something that we all need to know for sure), the EC Act 72 won’t just rescind itself when the hands on a clock reach a particular location on a face: there has to be the enactment of the EU Withdrawal bill – an action by Government that, it now appears, the lawbreakers are saying they won’t perform when the default state – that is, a no-deal – applies. They sowed the wind. They will reap what they have sown. The time has come for a less guarded discussion about (peaceful) methodology for civil disobedience.
† At one point the only amendment was a proposal to implement the Malthouse Compromise – another device for engineering tolerance of Article 50, as written about at FBEL previously. The author thought that a “deal by stealth” was on the cards, but it appears that only a shiny and fully signed off treaty will do.
