The Obvious Brexit ‘Deal’

We have already informed the EU that we shall leave at 11 pm on 29th March 2019. The EU has accepted that. We, The People, decided in June 2016 to leave, so that the implementation date was already several months late. the Parliament of the day had no option but to set in motion the process of leaving, no matter how many remoaners there were. It was unthinkable that the decision of The People could be set aside. The weasel Cameron should have been thrashed metaphorically to within an inch of his virtual life by the likes of Corbin. What cowardice! He promised to implement the decision but ran away. Now we see him grinning as he trots around London keeping fit. I have no doubt that he is smoking like a chimney at home.

Why did he run away? PM May has had every reason to run away as well in the last few months, but she has persevered. She may be a ‘wrong ‘un’, but she has persevered. Why did Cameron run away? There can be only one answer, which is that his advisers ran away as well. He was left alone with no idea what to do. When I say, ‘no idea what to do’ I mean exactly that. Absolutely no idea what to do. It took months for the Gov to decide to invoke Art 50, which should have been done within a few days of the vote. That can only mean that new ‘experts’ had to be found to advise.

It seems to me that the Gov is presently in a similar situation. May et al have no idea what to do. They want a ‘deal’, but the EU is absolutely intransigent. No ‘deal’ unless it accords with EU regs, which are written in stone.

There is no possibility of a ‘deal’ until AFTER we have left. What is possible is that we shall be able to disengage gradually, which means retaining the status quo for a while. That is what should have started to happen two years ago. For example, our MEPs (EU Parliament) should have been told that they no longer represented the UK, even if they stayed in place. And that the UK would no longer pay them, either directly or indirectly. That we would no longer recognise the ECJ (EU Court of Justice), ongoing cases apart. We would no longer have representation on the EU council.

There was nothing to discuss about such matters.

As regards subjects such as CERN, they could wait and we would continue to support them for the time being. Present arrangements for trade and travel were not a problem. Time would tell.

The enormous mistake was to even think of sorting out all the ramifications of Brexit during the course of a few meetings of people who had no idea what to do. The example of Soubry being unaware of the TobCON directive which attempted to destroy ecigs, and the intervention of the slimy bastard Andrew Black, an Australian, who is now destroying the character of the UN, comes to mind. There are lots of example where no one knows what the laws and regulations are. What could be worse than the definition of ‘hate speech’? It seems to be incredible that the definition is ‘that which a person hearing such speech believes that the speech is ‘hateful’.

Enough for tonight.

The obvious Brexit deal is MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO for the time being of those things which affect The PEOPLE, such as travel, including trade. But withdraw from supranational treaties which deny our country’s sovereignty.

4 Responses to “The Obvious Brexit ‘Deal’”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “ definition of ‘hate speech’? It seems to be incredible that the definition is ‘that which a person hearing such speech believes that the speech is ‘hateful’.”

    Why not, a biological male declaring as female gender must be accepted as the truth.

    All is perception and the World is crazy.

    • junican Says:

      You are obviously right. The whole thing needs to be repealed. It makes no sense whatsoever. Speech is noisy and often makes no sense. That is the nature of speech.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Out on March 29 with no deal i hope. The likes of Soubry and Grieve should be thrown out of the Conservative Party. Conniving bastards both !

  3. junican Says:

    An agreement to continue as we are in trade matters for the time being would be preferable, but that should have been agreed two years ago. It should have been the first thing on the agenda.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: