Will May Et Al Get Away With A Stitch-up?

I suspect that they are banking on it. All of May’s words about ‘Brexit means Brexit’ have been meaningless. We knew from the moment that the referendum result was published that that was so. So why did May et al propose an agreement which was NOT Brexit, and obviously so?

The border between North and South Ireland was abolished because it was a nuisance. It caused a lot of trouble for people going about their legitimate business. It did not stop ‘infiltrators’ who were determined. Even a wall could be circumvented by sea. And, despite their religious and political differences, Irishmen were Irishmen. They wanted to travel freely in their own country. There have been no significant ‘troubles’ since.

The border is a red herring.

Even so, it has been a useful tool to weaponise for both sides. Make it a big issue to distract attention from the really important and costly details, such as the intention to pay £39,000,000,000 for nothing. Has anyone analysed what that sum would be used for? It would probably be used to prop up the very bureaucracy which we have voted to leave! It is not a divorce settlement. There is no divorce, since that word suggests commitments. The vote terminated any such commitments with immediate effect.

I’m not sure that the Elite understand the affection that we have for our armed forces. I was in the Air Force from 1960 til 1963. I STILL regard myself as ‘an airman’ even after some 50 years. Even if only in theory, the Air Force is still part of ME. The idea of an EU army is horrific. To whom would such an army have allegiance? Much as one might decry it, we owed our allegiance to The Queen. But The Queen represents the whole People and not some political party or Elite. That is the importance of the allegiance. The idea that our armed forces would swear allegiance to Junker does not bear thinking about. In which case, who would they swear allegiance to? Perhaps they would simply be a mercenary army, paid as such and promised the spoils of war.

The list goes on and on. I read that the Roman Empire collapsed because there was so much corruption at the centre that it could no longer afford or organise the defence of its frontiers.

The EU is an obese non-entity, capable only of producing long-winded documents which any State with any pride would ignore.

Where is the UK’s pride?

2 Responses to “Will May Et Al Get Away With A Stitch-up?”

  1. Rose Says:

    Where is the UK’s pride? In the hearts and memories of it’s people.

    A commentor on the Telegraph directed us to this article, which helps to explain some of my uneasiness at living under EU law.

    “To grasp how the EU has functioned until recently though, it is worth briefly outlining what its structure was intended to be, through comparison with the UK Parliament.

    In the UK, Parliament is the law-making body. In the Commons, all members are elected; the other house, though not directly elected, acts in an advisory capacity, and cannot veto laws. All proceedings are televised, every word transcribed. The Government is drawn from Parliament, with its ministers answerable to it, and they must appear before it frequently. This Government can be removed at set intervals, along with every other member of the Commons.

    The EU, meanwhile, is a system of law-making groups, the most important being the Commission – a small, unelected gathering, where note-taking is banned and whose chamber none may enter without the Commissioners’ permission. Only the Commission may propose laws. These progress to the Council, which passes legislation through a qualified majority vote (QMV), following the abolition of the national veto. The Council is attended by Coreper (the Committee of Permanent Representatives, i.e. Member States’ ambassadors), which tries to reach agreement on Commission proposals before they get to the Council. How Coreper reaches agreement is also hidden, but 70-90% of decisions are now made this way, then adopted by the Council without further discussion. The European Parliament meanwhile cannot propose law, often is not consulted, and typically can be ignored.

    While the Commission has always been an obstacle to transparent decision-making, after it initiates proposals the Parliament and Council are supposed to be able to amend and occasionally block them. Our research suggests that, as the Commission takes greater control of the EU system, even this little capacity is being seriously undermined.

    At the heart of this is the growing use of “Trilogues”, small and little-known negotiating groups that operate on behalf of the Commission and Coreper. Designed to be subject to even less oversight, they are “a legislative body in [their] own right” and “possibly the most powerful, [governing] the overwhelming majority of legislative procedures”.

    These Trilogues include a small number of Commission representatives, MEPs, and civil servants. They aim to secure legislative agreement before any transparent process occurs, giving the Commission even greater control while preventing the public knowing why laws are being made. Once Trilogues agree a text, neither the Parliament nor Council are able to change it, so with national scrutiny rendered “difficult, if not impossible”, Member States’ ministers now have little involvement.

    Moreover, in both the European Parliament and the Council, the UK is now the country most often on the losing side, with Germany and an entrenched bloc of its Eurozone voting allies the most frequent winner. Even before it loses all representation in the EU institutions, the UK is already consistently outvoted on issues of profound national interest, like financial regulation, and has been unable to achieve any meaningful reform to this system.”

    • junican Says:

      Thanks Rose. Do people like Soubry know anything about these ‘deep state’ tricks? I doubt it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: