A direct continuation of Part 1; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-brexit-blockade-on-common-knowledge.html
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I pointed out that negotiations between the EU and the British Government had been exceptionally organised, efficient and smooth. For example they finished four months ahead of the deadline. Something which is almost unheard of.
I compared it to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations on a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. The so-called Durban Platform which I was heavily involved in.
Due to my involvement in those negotiations I have to point out that current US President Donald Trump's record on combating Climate Change is far better than the record of his predecessor Barack Obama.
All President Trump has done is withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Which, due to the failure of the Durban Platform will not, in any way combat Climate Change.
Former President Obama not only refused to sign America up to efforts to combat Climate Change. He also moved to block all other nations from signing up to efforts to combat Climate Change. A goal Obama sadly achieved through the adoption of the Paris Agreement.
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I pointed out that Parliamentary Remoaners, along with the entire Labour Party are using tactics of obfuscation. Raising nonsense objections to spread confusion and delay the process.
For example Labour's John Mann demanding the Withdrawal Agreement is amended to protect workers rights. When the Withdrawal Agreement signs Britain up to all EU laws for the Transition Period. Including laws which protect workers rights.
During the Durban Platform negotiations former President Obama took these obfuscation tactics to ridiculous new heights. Through popstar Rihanna's 2013 Diamonds World Tour.
In 2009 Rihanna, along with Jay Z and Kanye West released a song called; "Run This Town."
Britain has asserted that this song alone caused the August 2011 riots. Primarily because a drunk 14 year old girl in Croydon phoned the BBC News channel in the midst of the riots to quote the lyrics to the song live on air.
Under Obama the US went on to assert that this song was also the sole cause of the so-called; "Arab Spring." Particularly the genuine revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt in early 2011.
Did I mention the purpose of this plan was obfuscation and the spreading of confusion?
In 2007 the Rihanna song; "Umbrella" topped the British charts for something like 15 weeks over the summer. That was one of the wettest summers in British history with it raining almost every day for every one of those 15 weeks.
This led to a few people to joke that it was the Rihanna song which was causing it to rain. The so-called; "Rihanna Effect."
Former President Obama's plan to sabotage the Durban Platform was to put Rihanna through the gruelling Diamonds World Tour. The hope being that people would try and track extreme weather events to Rihanna's changing moods during the tour.
This is actually quite an effective tactic to disrupt Climate Change negotiations. The premise is so ridiculous as a scientist it is almost impossible to definitively prove that Rihanna's mood swings aren't the cause of Climate Change.
In the midst of this I found myself caught up in yet another of Britain's often less than competent Courts practice of bringing baseless, malicious prosecutions.
In May 2013 the front windows of a property belonging to the NHHT were smashed in. I was promptly arrested, accused of the crime.
Due to my profile in Rihanna's tour this very much highlighted the rights afforded to arrested people in Britain. Compared to the rights, or lack there of, afforded to arrested people in the Egypt of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi.
So stark was the contrast it led to Egypt having a second revolution. To overthrow Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.
It also made the theatrical discussions over the deportation of Abu Qatada al-Filistani to Jordan very real. Resulting in Abu Qatada al-Filistani suddenly being deported to Jordan.
Initially I was arrested for the offence of Criminal Damage with Reckless Disregard for Human Life. Contrary to Section 1(2)(b) of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971.
This is essentially a very serious felony. Considered equivalent to attempted murder. As such it can be punished with whole life imprisonment.
Over the course of 2013 I was eventually charged with simple Criminal Damage. Contrary to Section 1(2)(a) of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971.
This is known as an either way offence. Essentially meaning it can either be treated as a felony or a misdemeanour.
Initially I was charged with the felony version of the offence. Eventually that was reduced to the misdemeanour version of the offence. In what seemed like an effort to keep it before the Bishop's Court rather than see it elevated to the Crown Court.
When the case eventually came to Court in November 2013 it was rapidly dismissed as both false and malicious.
I was not even called upon to offer a defence. Despite wasting six months of my life the prosecution had failed to produce enough evidence to even question my innocence.
In response to the January 19th (19/1/19) bombing in Londonderry the police and other public officials were quick to label it as a reckless act and an attempt at murder.
This is a long-running source of annoyance for law enforcement over the PIRA bombing campaign.
As was standard during the PIRA bombing campaign the police were informed of the bombs location and the time it was set to detonate. The purpose of this warning was to force the police to evacuate the area around the bomb.
This constitutes a reasonable step by the bombers to make sure the bomb does not endanger life or limb.
As such it is impossible to treat it as an act of attempted murder, contrary to common law. If someone had have been killed it would also be extremely difficult to treat it as an act of manslaughter. It is even impossible to treat it as an offence of Criminal Damage with Reckless Disregard for Human Life.
I'm sure though the police will be able to come up simple Criminal Damage along with some offences under the Theft Act of 1968 and the Explosives Act of 1875.
On Monday, January 21st (21/1/19) the issues of Northern Ireland spread to Liverpool on the British mainland. As they have been known to do in the past.
A man used a mechanical digger to smash in the front windows of a hotel in the city. In a clear reference to my 2013 arrest.
Primarily though this was a reference to the radical Protestant "Digger Movement" of Gerrad Winstanley. An offshoot of the equally Protestant "Leveller Movement" of John Wildman.
Opposed to the feudalism practised by the NHHT both the Diggers and the Levellers were active in the period between the First English Civil War and the Second English Civil War. The threat they posed to the landed gentry was really a trigger for the Second English Civil War.
This should serve as a reminder to the Remoaners of all stripes that they are now sailing dangerously close to treason, sedition and civil war.
The targeting of the Bishop's Street Court House in Londonderry should serve as a very specific warning to the Labour Party.
They are not master criminals. They have not fooled anyone.
In fact they've been caught red-handed.
The only reason they've not been prosecuted is the protection of others. Protection provided by people the Labour Party are now really starting to p*ss off.
A warning that was only restated with Monday's (21/1/19) developments in the case of Labour MP Kate Osamor.
In December 2018 Kate Osamor's son and Labour Councillor for Haringey, Ishmael Osamor was convicted of drug dealing. Something the NHHT have certainly been linked to.
Kate Osamor initially denied knowing anything about her son's crimes until his conviction. This is simply not true. At the start of the trial she had written to the Judge requesting leniency. She misused official Parliamentary stationary in order to do this.
Another Judge decided to protect Kate Osamor by issuing an injunction to prevent that detail being made public. On Monday (21/1/19) that protection for the Labour MP was suddenly lifted.
Today (24/1/19) former SNP leader and MP Alex Salmond has been arrested and charged. With two counts of rape and nine counts of serious sexual assault.
That should serve as a reminder to all Parliamentarians with skeletons in their closets. What's done in the dark can be brought to the light.
They are not above the law. They most certainly can be arrested. And they most certainly go to prison.
At around 17:10 on 24/1/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up when I've cleared my head a bit.
Edited at around 17:40 on 24/1/19 (UK date) to add;
The January 19th (19/1/19) bombing also served to unsettle the painfully pro-Labour, painfully pro-Remain national broadcaster the BBC.
It seemed to trigger traumatic memories of March 4th 2001 (4/3/01). When the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) detonated a similar car bomb outside BBC Television Centre. Forcing the BBC News channel off the air.
I'd forgotten the second item on the news that day was Foot 'n Mouth disease. Of which there currently seems to be an epidemic of in British politics.
You'll notice the RIRA front suddenly disappeared on September 11th 2001.
In response to the January 19th (19/1/19) bombing five men were promptly arrested. Leading to days of questions about; "The Five Responsible." In reference to the British Security Service MI5 or simply; "The Five."
Although the British media didn't seem to pick up on it four of the five arrested have since been released. Not only without charge but not even under further investigation.
There has been speculation that the January 19th (19/1/19) bombing was the work of the New Irish Republican Army (NIRA).
This is pronounced; "The Naira." As is the Nigerian currency; "The Naira." Curiously NIRA came into being in 2012. Just as Nigeria was being threatened by Islamist terrorism flowing from Libya and Mali.
Although Syria is draining all my resources Islamist terrorism now also presents a severe threat to The Sahel Belt region of Africa. This sits directly below the Sahara and stretches from one side of Africa to the other.
The Withdrawal Agreement was defeated in the UK Parliament on January 15th (15/1/18). As the DusitD2 Hotel in Kenya was under Islamist terror attack.
This occurred close to the scene of the September 2013 Westgate Shopping Mall attack. An attack which was closely linked to the Durban Platform, Rihanna's Diamonds World Tour and the UK Labour Party's efforts to have a Westfield Shopping Mall built on the site of the Whitgift Shopping Mall.
Officially the DusitD2 Hotel attack was claimed by Al Qaeda as retaliation for US President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Sitting in the Sahel Belt Kenya is bordered on one side by Somalia. On the other it is bordered by South Sudan, formally part of Sudan.
On Sunday, January 20th (20/1/19) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Chad. The first Israeli Prime Minister to visit the country since the Muslim majority nation broke off ties with Israel in 1972.
Sitting in the Sahel Belt Chad is bordered on one side by Sudan. On the other it is bordered by Libya.
Netanyahu's visit to Chad was marked by an Al Qaeda attack on Chadian troops in Mali. This to was claimed as retaliation for US President Trump recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
So clearly we need to crack on and get this Syria problem solved once and for all. There's clearly plenty more work that needs doing.
On Tuesday (22/1/19) news broke that a light aircraft carrying the newly signed Cardiff City FC player Emilano Sala had gone missing. Over the English Channel on a flight between France and the UK.
I hope I don't need to point out that Emilano's Sala's family name is one letter off the family name of the much more famous Egyptian and Liverpool FC player Mohammad Salah.
This presumed crash has led to lots of discussion over whether the aircraft was safe and safely operated. Raising The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issues. The search over the sea has also raised The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) issues.
It turns out the Piper Malibu aircraft is actually registered in the US. Carrying the registration number N264DB.
This is a very specific reference to an episode of the US TV show; "The Unit." Season 3, Episode 3; "Always Kiss Them Goodbye."
In the episode terrorists of unspecified origin try to use a light aircraft to attack a packed Baseball stadium with VX Nerve Gas.
A Chemical Weapon extremely similar to the "Novichok" used to poison the Skripal's et al. Even Britain considers its blaming of Russia for that controversial.
The heroic members of The Unit prevent the attack using a Piper Malibu aircraft carrying the registration number N834BH.
I hate to spoil the episode, or indeed the Sala investigation for anyone. However the Piper Malibu drifted below radar altitude and went into an aerodynamic stall.
By an amazing coincidence I watched that episode of The Unit for the first time on Monday (21/1/19) evening.
The TV show The Unit has been used as something of a codebook for people involved in the Syria. Mainly because the head of the US-led coalition is a Colonel Ryan. The head of The Unit is also a Colonel Ryan.
So when the actual Colonel Ryan is mentioned it's hard not to respond in the way they do on the TV show.
It was particularly used as a codebook when it was announced Rihanna was dating the Saudi Hassan Jamil. Whose family are linked to supplying ISIL and Al Qeada with logistical support such as motor vehicles.
Germany used The Unit Episode 11 of Season 2; "Silver Star" to remind Rihanna that if she continues on that course she could well be killed as an enemy combatant. The episode revolves around an unspecified spy agency using an private jet crash to kill a target.
Under President Trump the US has continued to force Rihanna down that path. People are not happy.
So as Britain was forcing France to launch a search for Sala's aircraft France decided to arrest Chris Brown.
He seems to have done a deal with the devil. To avoid one big punishment he has to put up with a lot of small punishments.
The Unit Episode 20 of Season 2; "In Loco Parentis" was used as the blueprint for the February 14th 2018 (14/2/18) mass shooting in Parkland, Florida. This was conducted by extremist factions within the US to block President Trump calling on Erdogan to withdraw all his forces from Syria.
The Unit Episode 6 of Season 3 is entitled; "MP's." It sees The Unit acting as the security detail for a very irritating pop starlet. As she tours Middle-Eastern combat zones. Particularly Camp Liberty in Iraq's Anbar Province.
Which certainly feels familiar to me.
On Monday (21/1/19) the EU imposed sanctions on four Russians over the Skripal poisoning. Including the two men the UK had identified as suspects on September 5th 2018 (5/9/18).
As a way to remind Britain that they brought it up as part of the Brexit negotiations. However their lies are having very real and negative effects in both the EU and the US.
So Britain really needs to hurry up and formally retract what even it acknowledges is a false allegation.
18:35 on 24/1/19 (UK date).
Thursday 24 January 2019
Wednesday 23 January 2019
A Brexit Blockade on Common Knowledge.
In June 2016 the British public voted to leave the European Union (EU). The so-called; "Brexit."
In February 2017 the British Parliament ratified that decision into law. Through the passing of the European Union Act 2017.
In November 2018 the British Government and the EU reached an agreement on their relationship after Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement.
On January 15th 2019 (15/1/19) the British Parliament rejected this Withdrawal Agreement. By 432 votes to 202. Apparently the largest defeat for a government in the history of the British Parliament.
As expected the Labour Party used this defeat to introduce a motion of No Confidence in the government.
The government was so sure that it would defeat this No Confidence motion it allowed it to be tabled immediately. It also waived the regulation 14 days it has to respond to a No Confidence motion.
As a result the No Confidence motion was voted on the following day, January 16th (16/1/19). It was defeated by 325 votes to 306.
One thing really highlights the idiocy of the Parliamentarians who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement. On January 9th (9/1/19) they amended the bill itself.
In order to force the government to return to Parliament within three working days to lay out the next steps. In the event of the government being defeated.
The Parliamentarians who voted for this amendment then voted against the bill. Thus rendering the amendment invalid.
Despite this the government immediately returned to Parliament to advise it of the next steps. Even before the No Confidence vote had taken place.
The government will introduce a fresh bill on the Brexit issue on January 29th (29/1/19).
The exact wording of this bill has yet to be written. However it could read something as simple as;
"BREXIT?"
The purpose of this new bill is not to put forward the government's agenda. Instead it is to allow Parliamentarians to amend the bill to put forward their own agenda.
Parliament's opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement is entirely negative.
The Labour Party opposed it simply in the hope that defeat would bring down the Conservative government. Allowing the Labour Party to become the new government.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) opposed it simply to avoid them having to call a referendum on Scottish independence.
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) opposed it to prevent the regulatory divergence created by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Parliamentarians who wish to Remain in the EU, the so-called; "Remoaners," of all stripes opposed it as a way to stop Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers opposed it as a way to force a No Deal Brexit.
Having been given the opportunity to say what they are opposed to this new Brexit bill gives Parliamentarians the opportunity to say what they are in favour of. This will form the basis of a new set of demands to be presented to the EU.
Absolutely none of this changes, in any way, the fact that Britain will be leaving the EU at 23:00 (GMT) on March 29th 2019 (28/3/19).
If British Parliamentarians cannot reach an agreement with the EU by that point then Britain will leave with no agreement. The No Deal scenario.
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I highlighted how a No Deal Brexit will be extremely bad news for Britain.
It will see Britain immediately withdraw from five critical EU agencies;
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX),
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
The European Railway Agency (ERA),
The European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU-LISA).
It will also see Britain unilaterally scrap all the laws which underpin its membership of those EU agencies. Laws which have been built up over the course of over 40 years.
The scrapping of these laws will see Britain fall afoul of Article 20 or Article XX of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
This allows nations to close its borders to anything which endangers human health (b). It also allows nations to close their borders to anything which threatens their ability to enforce normal border, customs controls (d).
Establishing that transport vehicles and other conveyances are safe is both necessary to protect human health and considered part of normal border controls.
Just today (23/1/19) the occupying regime in Northern Cyprus announced an agreement with Turkey. With both sides agreeing that the others driver certification system is sufficient Turkish driving licenses will now be recognised in occupied Cyprus. And vice versa.
Back in December 2018, amid the Parliamentary debate on the Withdrawal Agreement, close British ally Jordan announced it will be reinstating the 1999 Land Transport Treaty with Syria. This bilateral treaty allows Jordanian vehicles to drive on Syrian roads and Syrian vehicles to drive on Jordanian roads.
The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) is the set of rules which underpin the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is essentially just a mechanism to resolve disputes arising from GATT.
The Hard Brexiteers are pushing for a No Deal Brexit so Britain can trade on WTO rules.
Apparently not realising that it is these WTO rules which are going to f*ck Britain in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
Lacking the laws needed to comply with Article XX of GATT Britain will be effectively placing itself under a complete economic blockade.
No transport vehicles will be allowed in or out of Britain. You certainly can't move goods without transport vehicles.
In discussing this initially I had a deadline of three days. To write what eventually turned out to be some 25,000 words.
So I resorted to a sort of shorthand. Comparing the situation to Israel's blockade of Gaza.
I'm now ready to concede that perhaps the finer points of the border relationship between Israel and Gaza do not fit into the category of; "Common Knowledge."
On an extremely technical level there is actually no Israeli blockade of Gaza.
The main problem moving goods into Gaza is one of money.
Responsibility for paying Gaza's bills falls to the Palestinian Authority. That is controlled by the Fatah Party. They are in a long running dispute with the Hamas Party which controls Gaza.
As a result the Palestinian Authority simply refuses to pay Gaza's bills.
Take for example the 2017 Gaza electricity crisis. This was not the result of the actions of the Israeli government. The Palestinian Authority simply refused to pay Gaza's electricity bill so the electricity providers simply cut off Gaza's supply.
Added to that the Palestinian Authority also refuses to pay the salaries of government employees in Gaza. With the government being the largest employer in Gaza this has effectively starved the local economy of money.
Israel is, of course, extremely happy with this situation. It allows for Gaza to effectively be placed under blockade. While allowing Israel to credibly deny that they are the ones placing Gaza under blockade.
Israel does restrict, by placing quotas on, certain goods entering Gaza. These are goods which Israel argues threatens the health of its citizens. Construction materials which can be used to build military bunkers and attack tunnels being a prime example.
The exact goods Israel restricts on these Article XX grounds and the quotas it places on them are a matter of constant discussion, dispute and argument.
Another significant problem moving goods into Gaza is that Israel does not recognise transport vehicles from Gaza as safe to travel on Israeli roads.
So even if you're the United Nations (UN) and you want to move goods into Gaza you have to wait for Israel to provide transport vehicles to make the trip.
Funnily enough Israel is hardly forthcoming when it comes to providing transport vehicles to move goods into Gaza.
In the event of a No Deal Brexit Article XX of GATT will prevent any and all transport vehicles entering or leaving Britain.
This will create a situation similar in nature, but much more extensive than the fuel protests Britain saw in September 2000.
Here protesters angry at the cost of fuel blockaded all of Britain's oil refineries. Within about three days the entire country had effectively ground to a halt.
In order to prevent this, along with food shortages and riots Britain will have to unilaterally recognise EU transport vehicles as safe for the purposes of GATT.
There has been no official word on this. However all the No Deal planning I have seen so far seems to rely on EU transport vehicles continuing to be allowed access to Britain. It doesn't even seem to entertain the idea that they would be refused entry.
So a No Deal Brexit won't present any major problem in terms of EU goods arriving on the British market. However it will cause significant problems in terms of British goods arriving on the EU market.
Obviously the EU transport vehicles Britain unilaterally allows in won't want to return empty. It's a waste of money for their operators.
However it will be entirely up to those EU hauliers which British goods they transport to the EU market. It's unlikely they're going to prioritise British goods which compete with EU manufacturers.
For example I don't see BMW using their car transporters to get Jaguar cars to the Berlin market.
So rather than taking back control a No Deal Brexit will actually will make Britain more dependent than ever before on the EU.
Effectively putting British manufacturers in the humiliating position of having to ask the EU for permission to use the toilet.
With British transport vehicles being put out of commission that does risk reducing the overall supply of transport vehicles.
However many British operators are already moving to solve that problem. By simply re-registering as EU operators.
For example EasyJet which operates air transport vehicles (planes) has registered 130 of those planes in Austria.
Just yesterday (22/1/19) P&O which operates sea transport vehicles (boats) announced that it is registering it's entire UK based fleet in Cyprus.
In order to take advantage of not just Cyprus' status as an EU member but also its place on the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) White List.
Both EasyJet and P&O will now no longer be paying their taxes in Britain.
Not only will Britain have to resolve the Article XX issue with the EU it will have to also resolve it with all other, non-EU nations. The World over.
So I stand by my assertion that a No Deal Brexit will be catastrophic for Britain. However there are a number of well rehearsed counter-measures that can be quickly brought in to mitigate the worst effects of that catastrophe.
Therefore a No Deal Brexit is not so severe as to justify cancelling Brexit all together. As the Remoaners are currently trying to claim
Not least because at 23:00 and 1 second the Remoaners entire motivation for opposing the Withdrawal Agreement will simply disappear.
The situation is so significant though that it has seen the British Establishment bring out its big guns.
Not least because the Remoaners attempts to block Brexit seem dangerously close to treason. As defined by the 1848 act.
It certainly seems poor etiquette for Parliament to advance a bill to the Monarch. A bill which would ask her to disregard the counsel of her subjects. As expressed through the 2016 referendum.
On Thursday, January 17th (17/1/19) Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II was involved in a traffic collision.
He was, erm Brexiting a side road at a T-junction when his Land Rover was hit by an oncoming vehicle.
By an amazing coincidence the local, Norfolk County Council were set to discuss that main road, the Queen Elizabeth II Way, the very next day. Friday, January 18th (18/1/19). They concluded that things were moving too fast and voted to cut the speed limit.
You could describe Norfolk County Council as; "The Local Parliament." Just as in EU terms you could describe the British Parliament as; "The Local Parliament."
Remoaners in the British Parliament of course think Brexit is moving too fast and want to slow it down.
In response to Prince Philip's collision there has been a lot of discussion in Britain over whether, at 97 he is too old to be driving. Even if there is no legal way of stopping him from driving. Unless he is convicted of a specific driving offence. As is true of any driver, at any age.
In short Britain has been forced to ask itself if its system of certifying drivers as safe is sufficient for its own purposes. Let alone the EU's purposes.
To those familiar with the history of The Troubles in Northern Ireland Prince Philip's collision brought a specific scene to mind. The aftermath of the August 27th 1979 (27/8/79) Warrenpoint or Narrow Water ambush.
This saw the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) use two roadside bombs to destroy a British Military convoy. At a T-junction outside Narrow Water Castle in Warrenpoint, County Down.
Resulting in the deaths of 18 British soldiers it was the worst PIRA attack on the British Military in the entire conflict.
The impact of the Warrenpoint ambush to intensified by the fact it came on the same day as the PIRA assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten. On his boat in Sligo Water in the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Mountbatten was the uncle and effectively adoptive father of Prince Philip.
Just as things are getting interesting at around 18:25 on 23/1/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up after dinner.
Edited at around 20:00 on 23/1/19 (UK date) to add above & below;
Wednesday, January 16th (16/1/19) - the day before Prince Philip's crash - also produced scenes familiar from The Troubles. In Scotland, a country not unused to the sectarianism of Northern Ireland.
The bomb squad were called to Balfour Street in Fife to deal with a suspect device. Which turned out to be a home brew beer kit.
This seemed like an attempt to sober up the Hard Brexiteers, drunk on the prospect of a No Deal Brexit. By reminding them of Article XX of GATT and the Israel/Gaza border issues.
Even Britain is prepared to admit that the 1917 Balfour Declaration may have a role to play in the current conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Friday, January 18th (18/1/19) brought even more scenes reminiscent of The Troubles. This time in Northern Ireland itself.
Four masked men burst into a house on the Lower Dromore Road in Warrenpoint, County Down. They shot and killed a 37 year old man and shot and wounded a 21 year old woman.
Following these coded warnings the big drama came on the night of Saturday, January 19th (19/1/19). A car bomb exploded outside the Bishop Street Court House in Londonderry, County Londonderry.
Along with the Warrenpoint shooting this is exactly the sort of violence that is associated with The Troubles.
It seemed intended to warn the DUP that it is not just the Republic of Ireland and the EU who are insisting on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Protocol is also being insisted upon by the British Crown. The British Crown the DUP claim to be so loyal to.
This is a very significant statement.
In discussing the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland I said that there are some Protestant hardliners who want to return to The Troubles. At the time of the 1998 Belfast Agreement those hardliners included not just DUP supporters but also members of the British Security Service, MI5.
These hardliners tried to stop the Belfast Agreement ever coming into force. By carrying out the August 15th 1998 (15/8/98) Omagh bombing. Murdering 29 civilians this was the single worst atrocity of The Troubles.
The Protestant hardliners thought it would be blamed on Catholics. It would be so utterly appalling it would make it impossible for Britain to allow the Belfast Agreement to take effect on December 2nd 1998 (2/12/98).
It has been well established that MI5 had agents within the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) group which was blamed for the bombing.
It is also well established that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the police at the time were informed, on multiple occasions that the bombing was going to take place.
It has also been well established that MI5 actually tracked the bomb, in real-time, from the bomb factory to its target. Yet failed to intervene to stop the bomb reaching it's target or even evacuate the area.
Both US and Irish intelligence work on the assumption that RIRA is nothing more than an MI5 front organisation.
This is actually particularly relevant to the current conflict in Syria. Saturday's events in Londonderry certainly caught the attention of people there.
Hard as it may be to believe Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan was first elected on a mandate to do a Belfast Agreement style peace deal with the Kurds and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). A group not at all dissimilar to the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) factions in the Turkish National Intelligence Agency (MIT) were committed to stopping this from happening. So they created a RIRA-style front organisation known as the Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (TAK).
Every time peace between Turkey and its Kurdish population came close TAK would suddenly pop up. To commit an atrocity so appalling it made it impossible for Erdogan to talk to the Kurds.
Eventually Erdogan decided it was more profitable to abandon the Kurds. Instead taking an extreme nationalist position to absorb the MHP into his Justice & Development Party (The AK). It is no accident the MHP front is the TAK.
In February 2016 Erdogan was desperate to invade Syria. An area which has been designated; "Garvaghy Road" for obvious reasons. So suddenly TAK re-appeared.
They supposedly carried out a bombing of a Turkish military convoy in Ankara. Which seemed like an attempt to recreate the August 1979 Warrenpoint ambush. Although I think the similar August 1988 Ballygawley ambush was being more discussed at the time.
Due to it's experience of The Troubles Britain instantly called Bullsh*t on this. However then US President Barack Obama seemed to fall for it. Allowing Erdogan to invade Garvaghy Road in August 2016. To counter the threat to Turkey of Kurdish terror.
Erdogan and MIT are still playing this game in Syria. In January 2018 Turkey invaded and continues to illegally occupy the Afrin Canton area of Syria. This sits directly to the west of the Garvaghy Road area.
Within Afrin Canton the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are conducting a PIRA/INLA style resistance against the occupying Turkish forces. As is their right.
However alongside the SDF another group calling themselves; "The Wrath of Olives Operations Room" who claim to be Kurdish. Unlike the SDF the Wrath of Olives are focused attacking civilians rather than combatants. Which seems designed to turn the local population against the SDF.
On December 12th 2018 (12/12/18) Erdogan declared that Turkey would launch an operation on December 14th (14/12/18). This would target the SDF controlled Shangri-La area which sits directly to the east of the Garvaghy Road area.
By an amazing coincidence December 12th (12/12/18) also saw a wave of five bomb attacks across Afrin Canton and Garvaghy Road. The targets included the Ahli Hospital in Azaz, Garvaghy Road which killed one civilian and the main Mosque in al-Bab, which also killed one civilian.
None of these bomb attacks were carried out by the SDF. They have also not even been claimed by Wrath of Olives. Details which has not stopped Erdogan from blaming the Kurds.
Londonderry is also a very famous example of the sort of identity politics at play in Northern Ireland.
Protestants take a deep sense of their identity from the fact they are BRITISH Protestants. So to them Londonderry is most certainly LONDONderry.
Catholics take a deep sense of their identity from the fact they are IRISH Catholics. So they are keen to erase any sense of a British identity. Including, often their Protestant neighbours.
So to Catholics Londonderry is known simply as Derry.
To neutrals it is known as; "Stroke City" because it is written as; "London/Derry." And because a stroke is probably what you'll end up with trying to referee all the arguments over the name.
In discussing the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland I may have appeared to have stumbled into this argument. I referred to the airport within Londonderry as; "Derry City Airport." Appearing to take a pro-Catholic bias.
The reason why I did this is because the airport in Londonderry is officially registered as; "Derry City Airport." When I first discovered this I thought it sounded strange. So I checked twice. In a discussion about pedantic points of law I had to go with the official name.
It is also significant that the January 19th (19/1/19) Londonderry car bomb targeted the Bishop's Court House.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland allows for what are technically British laws to be ruled on by; "Competent British Courts." The implication from the EU being that many British Courts are incompetent.
This EU insistence on "Competent" British Courts stem almost exclusively from the actions of the British Labour Party during the August 2011. Particularly in Croydon where they used fire to destroy privately owned homes to allow their allied Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) to build tower blocks in their place.
It might be the Labour Party funding NHHT which owns these voter mills. However the plots of land they stand on, the Freeholds are often still owned by the Estate of the Protestant Archbishop of Whitgift.
So the Whitgift Estate has used its influence over Britain's Courts to protect the Labour Party from prosecution. Particularly where it relates to plans to build a Westfield Shopping Mall on the site of the current Whitgift Shopping Mall.
The Labour Party's actions have of course been met with numerous, private legal challenges. In protecting the Labour Party from these legal challenges the Bishop's Courts haven't even felt the need to give even the impression of legal competence.
You can track this EU insistence on "Competent" Courts to a very specific stage of the negotiations. The point where Britain, on September 5th 2018 (5/9/18) announced that it had identified the Russian suspects in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal et al.
I've covered this here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/09/oh-dear-britains-farted.html
Britain's case against the two Russians is utterly ridiculous.
It claims the two men were administering a poison to a door handle in Salisbury on the night of March 3rd (3/5/18). When the police themselves have proved they were actually in London at the time.
It also claims the two men poisoned two other people in Salisbury on or around June 30th 2018 (30/6/18). Despite the police themselves proving that the men left the UK on March 4th (4/3/18) and have never returned.
The purpose of Britain releasing this information was not so that it would be believed. The purpose was to raise, in negotiations with the EU Britain's often less than competent Courts practice of bringing baseless, malicious prosecutions.
I, myself, was actually involved in one such case when news of Sergei Skripal's arrest in Russia broke. Back in January 2006.
I told you this case before Brighton Magistrates in Sussex dragged on until June 2006. Preventing me taking my talent for riotous assembly to the 2006 World Cup being held in Germany.
I also told you that the initial arrest occurred in August 2005. However I never got around to telling you the circumstances of the arrest.
It occurred as I was locked in the drivers cab of a Sussex Police CCTV van. As three Sussex police officers looked on from outside, growing increasingly embarrassed.
As I made no attempt to drive the vehicle away this did not constitute Taking Without Consent. Contrary to Section 12(1) of the Theft Act of 1968.
As I was not attempting to take the property I was certainly not attempting to permanently deprive the lawful owner of their property. Contrary to Section 1(2-5) of the Theft Act of 1968.
Fortunately there is no specific law against the kidnapping of police vehicles. So; "Disorderly Conduct" sounds about fair.
It was shortly after this Sussex Police decided to show off their Pig armoured Land Rover outside my house.
Normally used to guard Gatwick Airport this, of course, is the only armoured Pig Land Rover used by any police force on the British mainland. You only need to look at the coverage of the January 19th (19/1/19) Londonderry car bomb to see how widely they're used in Northern Ireland.
I think Sussex police may have decided to use a vehicle so synonymous with Northern Ireland because of Brighton's own role in The Troubles.
On October 12th 1984 (12/10/84 PIRA blew up the Brighton Grand Hotel. Nearly killing the Conservative government of the day during their annual party conference.
Sussex Police certainly didn't choose the Pig Land Rover because it's a comfortable, fast and fuel efficient vehicle.
At around 22:00 on 23/1/19 (UK date) I am frustratingly going to have to waste at least another day on this.
In February 2017 the British Parliament ratified that decision into law. Through the passing of the European Union Act 2017.
In November 2018 the British Government and the EU reached an agreement on their relationship after Brexit. The Withdrawal Agreement.
On January 15th 2019 (15/1/19) the British Parliament rejected this Withdrawal Agreement. By 432 votes to 202. Apparently the largest defeat for a government in the history of the British Parliament.
As expected the Labour Party used this defeat to introduce a motion of No Confidence in the government.
The government was so sure that it would defeat this No Confidence motion it allowed it to be tabled immediately. It also waived the regulation 14 days it has to respond to a No Confidence motion.
As a result the No Confidence motion was voted on the following day, January 16th (16/1/19). It was defeated by 325 votes to 306.
One thing really highlights the idiocy of the Parliamentarians who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement. On January 9th (9/1/19) they amended the bill itself.
In order to force the government to return to Parliament within three working days to lay out the next steps. In the event of the government being defeated.
The Parliamentarians who voted for this amendment then voted against the bill. Thus rendering the amendment invalid.
Despite this the government immediately returned to Parliament to advise it of the next steps. Even before the No Confidence vote had taken place.
The government will introduce a fresh bill on the Brexit issue on January 29th (29/1/19).
The exact wording of this bill has yet to be written. However it could read something as simple as;
"BREXIT?"
The purpose of this new bill is not to put forward the government's agenda. Instead it is to allow Parliamentarians to amend the bill to put forward their own agenda.
Parliament's opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement is entirely negative.
The Labour Party opposed it simply in the hope that defeat would bring down the Conservative government. Allowing the Labour Party to become the new government.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) opposed it simply to avoid them having to call a referendum on Scottish independence.
The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) opposed it to prevent the regulatory divergence created by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Parliamentarians who wish to Remain in the EU, the so-called; "Remoaners," of all stripes opposed it as a way to stop Brexit.
The Hard Brexiteers opposed it as a way to force a No Deal Brexit.
Having been given the opportunity to say what they are opposed to this new Brexit bill gives Parliamentarians the opportunity to say what they are in favour of. This will form the basis of a new set of demands to be presented to the EU.
Absolutely none of this changes, in any way, the fact that Britain will be leaving the EU at 23:00 (GMT) on March 29th 2019 (28/3/19).
If British Parliamentarians cannot reach an agreement with the EU by that point then Britain will leave with no agreement. The No Deal scenario.
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I highlighted how a No Deal Brexit will be extremely bad news for Britain.
It will see Britain immediately withdraw from five critical EU agencies;
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX),
The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
The European Railway Agency (ERA),
The European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU-LISA).
It will also see Britain unilaterally scrap all the laws which underpin its membership of those EU agencies. Laws which have been built up over the course of over 40 years.
The scrapping of these laws will see Britain fall afoul of Article 20 or Article XX of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
This allows nations to close its borders to anything which endangers human health (b). It also allows nations to close their borders to anything which threatens their ability to enforce normal border, customs controls (d).
Establishing that transport vehicles and other conveyances are safe is both necessary to protect human health and considered part of normal border controls.
Just today (23/1/19) the occupying regime in Northern Cyprus announced an agreement with Turkey. With both sides agreeing that the others driver certification system is sufficient Turkish driving licenses will now be recognised in occupied Cyprus. And vice versa.
Back in December 2018, amid the Parliamentary debate on the Withdrawal Agreement, close British ally Jordan announced it will be reinstating the 1999 Land Transport Treaty with Syria. This bilateral treaty allows Jordanian vehicles to drive on Syrian roads and Syrian vehicles to drive on Jordanian roads.
The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) is the set of rules which underpin the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The WTO is essentially just a mechanism to resolve disputes arising from GATT.
The Hard Brexiteers are pushing for a No Deal Brexit so Britain can trade on WTO rules.
Apparently not realising that it is these WTO rules which are going to f*ck Britain in the event of a No Deal Brexit.
Lacking the laws needed to comply with Article XX of GATT Britain will be effectively placing itself under a complete economic blockade.
No transport vehicles will be allowed in or out of Britain. You certainly can't move goods without transport vehicles.
In discussing this initially I had a deadline of three days. To write what eventually turned out to be some 25,000 words.
So I resorted to a sort of shorthand. Comparing the situation to Israel's blockade of Gaza.
I'm now ready to concede that perhaps the finer points of the border relationship between Israel and Gaza do not fit into the category of; "Common Knowledge."
On an extremely technical level there is actually no Israeli blockade of Gaza.
The main problem moving goods into Gaza is one of money.
Responsibility for paying Gaza's bills falls to the Palestinian Authority. That is controlled by the Fatah Party. They are in a long running dispute with the Hamas Party which controls Gaza.
As a result the Palestinian Authority simply refuses to pay Gaza's bills.
Take for example the 2017 Gaza electricity crisis. This was not the result of the actions of the Israeli government. The Palestinian Authority simply refused to pay Gaza's electricity bill so the electricity providers simply cut off Gaza's supply.
Added to that the Palestinian Authority also refuses to pay the salaries of government employees in Gaza. With the government being the largest employer in Gaza this has effectively starved the local economy of money.
Israel is, of course, extremely happy with this situation. It allows for Gaza to effectively be placed under blockade. While allowing Israel to credibly deny that they are the ones placing Gaza under blockade.
Israel does restrict, by placing quotas on, certain goods entering Gaza. These are goods which Israel argues threatens the health of its citizens. Construction materials which can be used to build military bunkers and attack tunnels being a prime example.
The exact goods Israel restricts on these Article XX grounds and the quotas it places on them are a matter of constant discussion, dispute and argument.
Another significant problem moving goods into Gaza is that Israel does not recognise transport vehicles from Gaza as safe to travel on Israeli roads.
So even if you're the United Nations (UN) and you want to move goods into Gaza you have to wait for Israel to provide transport vehicles to make the trip.
Funnily enough Israel is hardly forthcoming when it comes to providing transport vehicles to move goods into Gaza.
In the event of a No Deal Brexit Article XX of GATT will prevent any and all transport vehicles entering or leaving Britain.
This will create a situation similar in nature, but much more extensive than the fuel protests Britain saw in September 2000.
Here protesters angry at the cost of fuel blockaded all of Britain's oil refineries. Within about three days the entire country had effectively ground to a halt.
In order to prevent this, along with food shortages and riots Britain will have to unilaterally recognise EU transport vehicles as safe for the purposes of GATT.
There has been no official word on this. However all the No Deal planning I have seen so far seems to rely on EU transport vehicles continuing to be allowed access to Britain. It doesn't even seem to entertain the idea that they would be refused entry.
So a No Deal Brexit won't present any major problem in terms of EU goods arriving on the British market. However it will cause significant problems in terms of British goods arriving on the EU market.
Obviously the EU transport vehicles Britain unilaterally allows in won't want to return empty. It's a waste of money for their operators.
However it will be entirely up to those EU hauliers which British goods they transport to the EU market. It's unlikely they're going to prioritise British goods which compete with EU manufacturers.
For example I don't see BMW using their car transporters to get Jaguar cars to the Berlin market.
So rather than taking back control a No Deal Brexit will actually will make Britain more dependent than ever before on the EU.
Effectively putting British manufacturers in the humiliating position of having to ask the EU for permission to use the toilet.
With British transport vehicles being put out of commission that does risk reducing the overall supply of transport vehicles.
However many British operators are already moving to solve that problem. By simply re-registering as EU operators.
For example EasyJet which operates air transport vehicles (planes) has registered 130 of those planes in Austria.
Just yesterday (22/1/19) P&O which operates sea transport vehicles (boats) announced that it is registering it's entire UK based fleet in Cyprus.
In order to take advantage of not just Cyprus' status as an EU member but also its place on the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) White List.
Both EasyJet and P&O will now no longer be paying their taxes in Britain.
Not only will Britain have to resolve the Article XX issue with the EU it will have to also resolve it with all other, non-EU nations. The World over.
So I stand by my assertion that a No Deal Brexit will be catastrophic for Britain. However there are a number of well rehearsed counter-measures that can be quickly brought in to mitigate the worst effects of that catastrophe.
Therefore a No Deal Brexit is not so severe as to justify cancelling Brexit all together. As the Remoaners are currently trying to claim
Not least because at 23:00 and 1 second the Remoaners entire motivation for opposing the Withdrawal Agreement will simply disappear.
The situation is so significant though that it has seen the British Establishment bring out its big guns.
Not least because the Remoaners attempts to block Brexit seem dangerously close to treason. As defined by the 1848 act.
It certainly seems poor etiquette for Parliament to advance a bill to the Monarch. A bill which would ask her to disregard the counsel of her subjects. As expressed through the 2016 referendum.
On Thursday, January 17th (17/1/19) Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II was involved in a traffic collision.
He was, erm Brexiting a side road at a T-junction when his Land Rover was hit by an oncoming vehicle.
By an amazing coincidence the local, Norfolk County Council were set to discuss that main road, the Queen Elizabeth II Way, the very next day. Friday, January 18th (18/1/19). They concluded that things were moving too fast and voted to cut the speed limit.
You could describe Norfolk County Council as; "The Local Parliament." Just as in EU terms you could describe the British Parliament as; "The Local Parliament."
Remoaners in the British Parliament of course think Brexit is moving too fast and want to slow it down.
In response to Prince Philip's collision there has been a lot of discussion in Britain over whether, at 97 he is too old to be driving. Even if there is no legal way of stopping him from driving. Unless he is convicted of a specific driving offence. As is true of any driver, at any age.
In short Britain has been forced to ask itself if its system of certifying drivers as safe is sufficient for its own purposes. Let alone the EU's purposes.
To those familiar with the history of The Troubles in Northern Ireland Prince Philip's collision brought a specific scene to mind. The aftermath of the August 27th 1979 (27/8/79) Warrenpoint or Narrow Water ambush.
This saw the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) use two roadside bombs to destroy a British Military convoy. At a T-junction outside Narrow Water Castle in Warrenpoint, County Down.
Resulting in the deaths of 18 British soldiers it was the worst PIRA attack on the British Military in the entire conflict.
The impact of the Warrenpoint ambush to intensified by the fact it came on the same day as the PIRA assassination of Lord Louis Mountbatten. On his boat in Sligo Water in the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Mountbatten was the uncle and effectively adoptive father of Prince Philip.
Just as things are getting interesting at around 18:25 on 23/1/19 (UK date) I'll pick this up after dinner.
Edited at around 20:00 on 23/1/19 (UK date) to add above & below;
Wednesday, January 16th (16/1/19) - the day before Prince Philip's crash - also produced scenes familiar from The Troubles. In Scotland, a country not unused to the sectarianism of Northern Ireland.
The bomb squad were called to Balfour Street in Fife to deal with a suspect device. Which turned out to be a home brew beer kit.
This seemed like an attempt to sober up the Hard Brexiteers, drunk on the prospect of a No Deal Brexit. By reminding them of Article XX of GATT and the Israel/Gaza border issues.
Even Britain is prepared to admit that the 1917 Balfour Declaration may have a role to play in the current conflict between Israel and Palestine.
Friday, January 18th (18/1/19) brought even more scenes reminiscent of The Troubles. This time in Northern Ireland itself.
Four masked men burst into a house on the Lower Dromore Road in Warrenpoint, County Down. They shot and killed a 37 year old man and shot and wounded a 21 year old woman.
Following these coded warnings the big drama came on the night of Saturday, January 19th (19/1/19). A car bomb exploded outside the Bishop Street Court House in Londonderry, County Londonderry.
Along with the Warrenpoint shooting this is exactly the sort of violence that is associated with The Troubles.
It seemed intended to warn the DUP that it is not just the Republic of Ireland and the EU who are insisting on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The Protocol is also being insisted upon by the British Crown. The British Crown the DUP claim to be so loyal to.
This is a very significant statement.
In discussing the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland I said that there are some Protestant hardliners who want to return to The Troubles. At the time of the 1998 Belfast Agreement those hardliners included not just DUP supporters but also members of the British Security Service, MI5.
These hardliners tried to stop the Belfast Agreement ever coming into force. By carrying out the August 15th 1998 (15/8/98) Omagh bombing. Murdering 29 civilians this was the single worst atrocity of The Troubles.
The Protestant hardliners thought it would be blamed on Catholics. It would be so utterly appalling it would make it impossible for Britain to allow the Belfast Agreement to take effect on December 2nd 1998 (2/12/98).
It has been well established that MI5 had agents within the Real Irish Republican Army (RIRA) group which was blamed for the bombing.
It is also well established that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), the police at the time were informed, on multiple occasions that the bombing was going to take place.
It has also been well established that MI5 actually tracked the bomb, in real-time, from the bomb factory to its target. Yet failed to intervene to stop the bomb reaching it's target or even evacuate the area.
Both US and Irish intelligence work on the assumption that RIRA is nothing more than an MI5 front organisation.
This is actually particularly relevant to the current conflict in Syria. Saturday's events in Londonderry certainly caught the attention of people there.
Hard as it may be to believe Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan was first elected on a mandate to do a Belfast Agreement style peace deal with the Kurds and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). A group not at all dissimilar to the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) factions in the Turkish National Intelligence Agency (MIT) were committed to stopping this from happening. So they created a RIRA-style front organisation known as the Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (TAK).
Every time peace between Turkey and its Kurdish population came close TAK would suddenly pop up. To commit an atrocity so appalling it made it impossible for Erdogan to talk to the Kurds.
Eventually Erdogan decided it was more profitable to abandon the Kurds. Instead taking an extreme nationalist position to absorb the MHP into his Justice & Development Party (The AK). It is no accident the MHP front is the TAK.
In February 2016 Erdogan was desperate to invade Syria. An area which has been designated; "Garvaghy Road" for obvious reasons. So suddenly TAK re-appeared.
They supposedly carried out a bombing of a Turkish military convoy in Ankara. Which seemed like an attempt to recreate the August 1979 Warrenpoint ambush. Although I think the similar August 1988 Ballygawley ambush was being more discussed at the time.
Due to it's experience of The Troubles Britain instantly called Bullsh*t on this. However then US President Barack Obama seemed to fall for it. Allowing Erdogan to invade Garvaghy Road in August 2016. To counter the threat to Turkey of Kurdish terror.
Erdogan and MIT are still playing this game in Syria. In January 2018 Turkey invaded and continues to illegally occupy the Afrin Canton area of Syria. This sits directly to the west of the Garvaghy Road area.
Within Afrin Canton the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are conducting a PIRA/INLA style resistance against the occupying Turkish forces. As is their right.
However alongside the SDF another group calling themselves; "The Wrath of Olives Operations Room" who claim to be Kurdish. Unlike the SDF the Wrath of Olives are focused attacking civilians rather than combatants. Which seems designed to turn the local population against the SDF.
On December 12th 2018 (12/12/18) Erdogan declared that Turkey would launch an operation on December 14th (14/12/18). This would target the SDF controlled Shangri-La area which sits directly to the east of the Garvaghy Road area.
By an amazing coincidence December 12th (12/12/18) also saw a wave of five bomb attacks across Afrin Canton and Garvaghy Road. The targets included the Ahli Hospital in Azaz, Garvaghy Road which killed one civilian and the main Mosque in al-Bab, which also killed one civilian.
None of these bomb attacks were carried out by the SDF. They have also not even been claimed by Wrath of Olives. Details which has not stopped Erdogan from blaming the Kurds.
Londonderry is also a very famous example of the sort of identity politics at play in Northern Ireland.
Protestants take a deep sense of their identity from the fact they are BRITISH Protestants. So to them Londonderry is most certainly LONDONderry.
Catholics take a deep sense of their identity from the fact they are IRISH Catholics. So they are keen to erase any sense of a British identity. Including, often their Protestant neighbours.
So to Catholics Londonderry is known simply as Derry.
To neutrals it is known as; "Stroke City" because it is written as; "London/Derry." And because a stroke is probably what you'll end up with trying to referee all the arguments over the name.
In discussing the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland I may have appeared to have stumbled into this argument. I referred to the airport within Londonderry as; "Derry City Airport." Appearing to take a pro-Catholic bias.
The reason why I did this is because the airport in Londonderry is officially registered as; "Derry City Airport." When I first discovered this I thought it sounded strange. So I checked twice. In a discussion about pedantic points of law I had to go with the official name.
It is also significant that the January 19th (19/1/19) Londonderry car bomb targeted the Bishop's Court House.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland allows for what are technically British laws to be ruled on by; "Competent British Courts." The implication from the EU being that many British Courts are incompetent.
This EU insistence on "Competent" British Courts stem almost exclusively from the actions of the British Labour Party during the August 2011. Particularly in Croydon where they used fire to destroy privately owned homes to allow their allied Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT) to build tower blocks in their place.
It might be the Labour Party funding NHHT which owns these voter mills. However the plots of land they stand on, the Freeholds are often still owned by the Estate of the Protestant Archbishop of Whitgift.
So the Whitgift Estate has used its influence over Britain's Courts to protect the Labour Party from prosecution. Particularly where it relates to plans to build a Westfield Shopping Mall on the site of the current Whitgift Shopping Mall.
The Labour Party's actions have of course been met with numerous, private legal challenges. In protecting the Labour Party from these legal challenges the Bishop's Courts haven't even felt the need to give even the impression of legal competence.
You can track this EU insistence on "Competent" Courts to a very specific stage of the negotiations. The point where Britain, on September 5th 2018 (5/9/18) announced that it had identified the Russian suspects in the poisoning of Sergei Skripal et al.
I've covered this here; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/09/oh-dear-britains-farted.html
Britain's case against the two Russians is utterly ridiculous.
It claims the two men were administering a poison to a door handle in Salisbury on the night of March 3rd (3/5/18). When the police themselves have proved they were actually in London at the time.
It also claims the two men poisoned two other people in Salisbury on or around June 30th 2018 (30/6/18). Despite the police themselves proving that the men left the UK on March 4th (4/3/18) and have never returned.
The purpose of Britain releasing this information was not so that it would be believed. The purpose was to raise, in negotiations with the EU Britain's often less than competent Courts practice of bringing baseless, malicious prosecutions.
I, myself, was actually involved in one such case when news of Sergei Skripal's arrest in Russia broke. Back in January 2006.
I told you this case before Brighton Magistrates in Sussex dragged on until June 2006. Preventing me taking my talent for riotous assembly to the 2006 World Cup being held in Germany.
I also told you that the initial arrest occurred in August 2005. However I never got around to telling you the circumstances of the arrest.
It occurred as I was locked in the drivers cab of a Sussex Police CCTV van. As three Sussex police officers looked on from outside, growing increasingly embarrassed.
As I made no attempt to drive the vehicle away this did not constitute Taking Without Consent. Contrary to Section 12(1) of the Theft Act of 1968.
As I was not attempting to take the property I was certainly not attempting to permanently deprive the lawful owner of their property. Contrary to Section 1(2-5) of the Theft Act of 1968.
Fortunately there is no specific law against the kidnapping of police vehicles. So; "Disorderly Conduct" sounds about fair.
It was shortly after this Sussex Police decided to show off their Pig armoured Land Rover outside my house.
Normally used to guard Gatwick Airport this, of course, is the only armoured Pig Land Rover used by any police force on the British mainland. You only need to look at the coverage of the January 19th (19/1/19) Londonderry car bomb to see how widely they're used in Northern Ireland.
I think Sussex police may have decided to use a vehicle so synonymous with Northern Ireland because of Brighton's own role in The Troubles.
On October 12th 1984 (12/10/84 PIRA blew up the Brighton Grand Hotel. Nearly killing the Conservative government of the day during their annual party conference.
Sussex Police certainly didn't choose the Pig Land Rover because it's a comfortable, fast and fuel efficient vehicle.
At around 22:00 on 23/1/19 (UK date) I am frustratingly going to have to waste at least another day on this.
Tuesday 15 January 2019
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward.
On June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16) Britain voted to leave the European Union (EU). The so-called; "Brexit."
On November 25th 2018 (25/11/18) the British government reached a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
It is published here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration
On December 4th 2018 (4/12/18) this Withdrawal Agreement was introduced to the British Parliament in the form of a bill.
Here, in 2019 Britain's Parliamentarians are still debating whether to adopt the bill as law.
I covered the Withdrawal Agreement, in some detail, across four parts.
Part One: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_46.html
Part Two: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_30.html
Part Three: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_9.html
Part Four: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement.html
Across those four parts I hope I made one thing clear;
Britain needs to adopt this Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.
I am not just saying that because the effects of a No Deal Brexit would be catastrophic. I'm saying that because this is actually an extraordinarily good deal.
In February 2017 Britain adopted into law the 2017 European Union Act. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
Parliament rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement will, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
Crucially Parliament adopting the Withdrawal Agreement will also, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
Under the Withdrawal Agreement from March 29th (29/1/19) Britain will cease to be member of the EU.
Instead it will be considered a Third Country by the EU. The same status the EU grants to the other 165 members of the United Nations (UN) who are not also members of the EU.
No longer being a member of the EU Britain will be entirely free to negotiate Free Trade agreements with both the EU and non-EU nations.
Under the Withdrawal Agreement Britain will end its contributions to the EU budget.
Beyond the commitment to the end of the current EU budget period in 2020. Something former Prime Minister David Cameron legally committed the UK to back in 2013.
The Withdrawal Agreement also returns Britain's share of EU assets it has contributed to and owns part of.
Assets which the Withdrawal Agreement values at around GB£21bn. Dependent on the performance of complex financial instruments. Such as the entire UK economy.
The Withdrawal Agreement also establishes the terms on which the UK can buy services from the EU in the future. A typical relationship in which any nation buys services from another nation as a normal part of international relations.
In a break from those standard terms the Withdrawal Agreement actually allows Britain to tell the EU what its bill for buying these services will be. Rather than the EU simply sending the UK a bill.
One of the main factors which prompted people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To restore the supremacy of British Laws and British Courts.
The Withdrawal Agreement does not immediately achieve this. However it does not set out to. No nation would want to suddenly scrap 40 years worth of laws overnight.
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I explained the catastrophic effect such a move would have on the ability to move people and goods. Between the UK and not just the EU but the entire World. It is akin to the UK placing itself under total economic blockade.
That is just the immediate problem. Scrapping 40 years worth of laws overnight would also mean that your contract of employment suddenly becomes invalid. Likewise your car insurance or home insurance would suddenly no longer be valid.
Not the sort of thing you only want to discover the moment after you've been flooded out.
Instead the Withdrawal Agreement keeps those laws in place for a two year Transition Period. To allow for alternative arrangements to be made.
The two year Transition Period can be extended. If alternative arrangements are still not in place by then the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland takes effect.
This immediately replaces the EU laws with identical British laws.
It then allows Britain to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. Providing those laws do not offer less protection than they laws they replace. "Backsliding" in the jargon.
What independent laws Britain will be able to pass in the future is really too complex a question for me, or anyone to answer now. It is really dependent on what sort of trade deal Britain wants to have with the EU in the future.
Any Free Trade agreement requires some level of harmonisation of laws governing safety and quality standards.
One of the main reasons why the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) took 7 years to negotiate was making sure Canadian and EU products adhered to the same safety and quality standards.
The Withdrawal Agreement most certainly does not take the can of these questions and simply kick it down the road.
Instead it establishes a structured and time limited forum for them to be addressed. Free from confusions and complications. Such as the unravelling of complex financial instruments.
During the Transition Period the UK will continue to adhere to all EU laws. Including the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. As such it will not immediately bring an end to migration into the UK from the EU. Nor expel EU migrants already within the UK.
However it puts in strong deterrents to limit that migration to just short-term, seasonal migrants. The supply of which you wouldn't immediately want to block overnight.
The Withdrawal Agreement also allows the UK to refuse entry to or deport a whole range of EU migrants.
People with criminal convictions or who would place an undue burden on Britain's healthcare system and public services by being too sick to or unwilling to work.
If the Transition Period gives way to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Britain will immediately do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. While Northern Ireland will continue to remain in a single market with the EU.
In discussing this concession Britain has won from the EU I compared it to a Muslim being allowed to say; "Oh, but there are other gods, except Allah."
I don't think that should be considered offensive. The concession Britain has been able to win from the EU here is very much of that scale and severity.
So the Withdrawal Agreement most certainly meets the tests to determine whether it honours the result of the 2016 referendum. It also wins significant concessions for Britain from the EU without giving much away.
The Withdrawal Agreement is also extremely comprehensive. The more you get into the fine technical detail of it the more it reads like a highly skilled negotiator's work of art.
For example Article 5(2) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland protects the rights of EU citizens to travel through Northern Ireland to and from the Republic of Ireland. For example if they want to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland.
These EU citizens in transit will have extremely limited contact with Northern Irish society. They will not take up jobs and they will not use public services such as housing and healthcare. Their only real contact will be putting money into the local economy through hotel bills, taxi rides and meals out.
So Northern Ireland blocking these EU citizens in transit is not just the question nobody asked. It's the question no-one would even think of asking.
Yet the Withdrawal Agreement is so comprehensive it has not only thought to ask the question it has made provision to answer it.
The objections to the Withdrawal Agreement by British Parliamentarians and the media are often entirely false.
Not just false but false to the point of being utterly ridiculous.
Take for example the latest demand being made by the Labour Party. Particularly through John Mann MP.
They wish to see the Withdrawal Agreement amended so it ensures that the protections for UK workers remain the same as they are under EU law.
During the Transition Period the UK will adhere to all EU laws. Including the laws governing the protection of workers.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked the UK will be able to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. However those laws will not be allowed to backslide. Offer less protection to workers.
So the question John Mann MP and the Labour Party are raising is one that the British government thought of years ago and have addressed during the negotiation.
The government have then published the results in the Withdrawal Agreement in black and white for John Mann and anyone else to see.
Something the UK government did, apparently long before the Labour Party even thought to ask the question.
Another popular objection. Famously put forward by Conservative MP Esther McVey is that the Withdrawal Agreement contains No Plan B.
The Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan A. The two year Transition Period.
The Withdrawal Agreement then lays out a Plan B. Extending the Transition Period.
Finally the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan C. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Objecting to Plan C because you want to draw up a Plan B raises serious questions about whether you've been tested for dyslexia.
It is on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that the objections have been their most ridiculous.
The protocol allows the UK to trade with the rest of the World on the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Rules underpinned by the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
Hard Brexiteers want to prevent Britain trading on the WTO terms. So Britain can trade on WTO rules.
It is also claimed that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain legally binding guarantees.
The Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland both most certainly do contain legally binding guarantees. They also provide a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure those legally binding guarantees are enforced.
A dispute resolution mechanism which is heavily biased in Britain's favour.
What neither the Withdrawal Agreement nor the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland do is stamp those legally binding guarantees on every article, on every page of the documents.
That is because it is completely legally unnecessary to do so.
It would also probably double the length of documents which already seem to be too long and complicated for British Parliamentarians to comprehend.
The only legitimate objections I've seen raised are those of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
They are concerned by the Regulatory Divergence created by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Rules which are different on the British mainland from rules in Northern Ireland.
However even here I think the DUP are being overly sensitive.
Even before the start of The Troubles let alone the 1998 Belfast Agreement there was significant regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
It is, after all Schedule VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 which inhibits the free movement of British citizens between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
If you were trying to exploit Brexit to further the cause of a united Ireland the advice you would give to the DUP is very simple.
You would advise the DUP to reject the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and pursue a No Deal Brexit.
A No Deal Brexit will not repeal the Belfast Agreement. Including the legal obligation that places on Northern Ireland to hold a binding public referendum on unification with the Republic of Ireland.
What a No Deal Brexit will do is create an economic catastrophe that will make unification with the Republic of Ireland look very attractive to Northern Irish voters of all stripes.
As with all British Parliamentarians it is still well within the DUP's power to stop the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland coming into effect. Even once the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted.
They just have to refrain from buggering up the next two phases of the negotiation.
Like they're buggering up this first phase.
(Originally posted at 18:25 on 10/1/19 (UK date)).
18:50 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
On November 25th 2018 (25/11/18) the British government reached a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
It is published here; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration
On December 4th 2018 (4/12/18) this Withdrawal Agreement was introduced to the British Parliament in the form of a bill.
Here, in 2019 Britain's Parliamentarians are still debating whether to adopt the bill as law.
I covered the Withdrawal Agreement, in some detail, across four parts.
Part One: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_46.html
Part Two: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_30.html
Part Three: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_9.html
Part Four: https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement.html
Across those four parts I hope I made one thing clear;
Britain needs to adopt this Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.
I am not just saying that because the effects of a No Deal Brexit would be catastrophic. I'm saying that because this is actually an extraordinarily good deal.
In February 2017 Britain adopted into law the 2017 European Union Act. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
Parliament rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement will, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
Crucially Parliament adopting the Withdrawal Agreement will also, in no way change the fact that Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
Under the Withdrawal Agreement from March 29th (29/1/19) Britain will cease to be member of the EU.
Instead it will be considered a Third Country by the EU. The same status the EU grants to the other 165 members of the United Nations (UN) who are not also members of the EU.
No longer being a member of the EU Britain will be entirely free to negotiate Free Trade agreements with both the EU and non-EU nations.
Under the Withdrawal Agreement Britain will end its contributions to the EU budget.
Beyond the commitment to the end of the current EU budget period in 2020. Something former Prime Minister David Cameron legally committed the UK to back in 2013.
The Withdrawal Agreement also returns Britain's share of EU assets it has contributed to and owns part of.
Assets which the Withdrawal Agreement values at around GB£21bn. Dependent on the performance of complex financial instruments. Such as the entire UK economy.
The Withdrawal Agreement also establishes the terms on which the UK can buy services from the EU in the future. A typical relationship in which any nation buys services from another nation as a normal part of international relations.
In a break from those standard terms the Withdrawal Agreement actually allows Britain to tell the EU what its bill for buying these services will be. Rather than the EU simply sending the UK a bill.
One of the main factors which prompted people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To restore the supremacy of British Laws and British Courts.
The Withdrawal Agreement does not immediately achieve this. However it does not set out to. No nation would want to suddenly scrap 40 years worth of laws overnight.
In discussing the Withdrawal Agreement I explained the catastrophic effect such a move would have on the ability to move people and goods. Between the UK and not just the EU but the entire World. It is akin to the UK placing itself under total economic blockade.
That is just the immediate problem. Scrapping 40 years worth of laws overnight would also mean that your contract of employment suddenly becomes invalid. Likewise your car insurance or home insurance would suddenly no longer be valid.
Not the sort of thing you only want to discover the moment after you've been flooded out.
Instead the Withdrawal Agreement keeps those laws in place for a two year Transition Period. To allow for alternative arrangements to be made.
The two year Transition Period can be extended. If alternative arrangements are still not in place by then the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland takes effect.
This immediately replaces the EU laws with identical British laws.
It then allows Britain to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. Providing those laws do not offer less protection than they laws they replace. "Backsliding" in the jargon.
What independent laws Britain will be able to pass in the future is really too complex a question for me, or anyone to answer now. It is really dependent on what sort of trade deal Britain wants to have with the EU in the future.
Any Free Trade agreement requires some level of harmonisation of laws governing safety and quality standards.
One of the main reasons why the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) took 7 years to negotiate was making sure Canadian and EU products adhered to the same safety and quality standards.
The Withdrawal Agreement most certainly does not take the can of these questions and simply kick it down the road.
Instead it establishes a structured and time limited forum for them to be addressed. Free from confusions and complications. Such as the unravelling of complex financial instruments.
During the Transition Period the UK will continue to adhere to all EU laws. Including the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. As such it will not immediately bring an end to migration into the UK from the EU. Nor expel EU migrants already within the UK.
However it puts in strong deterrents to limit that migration to just short-term, seasonal migrants. The supply of which you wouldn't immediately want to block overnight.
The Withdrawal Agreement also allows the UK to refuse entry to or deport a whole range of EU migrants.
People with criminal convictions or who would place an undue burden on Britain's healthcare system and public services by being too sick to or unwilling to work.
If the Transition Period gives way to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Britain will immediately do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. While Northern Ireland will continue to remain in a single market with the EU.
In discussing this concession Britain has won from the EU I compared it to a Muslim being allowed to say; "Oh, but there are other gods, except Allah."
I don't think that should be considered offensive. The concession Britain has been able to win from the EU here is very much of that scale and severity.
So the Withdrawal Agreement most certainly meets the tests to determine whether it honours the result of the 2016 referendum. It also wins significant concessions for Britain from the EU without giving much away.
The Withdrawal Agreement is also extremely comprehensive. The more you get into the fine technical detail of it the more it reads like a highly skilled negotiator's work of art.
For example Article 5(2) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland protects the rights of EU citizens to travel through Northern Ireland to and from the Republic of Ireland. For example if they want to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland.
These EU citizens in transit will have extremely limited contact with Northern Irish society. They will not take up jobs and they will not use public services such as housing and healthcare. Their only real contact will be putting money into the local economy through hotel bills, taxi rides and meals out.
So Northern Ireland blocking these EU citizens in transit is not just the question nobody asked. It's the question no-one would even think of asking.
Yet the Withdrawal Agreement is so comprehensive it has not only thought to ask the question it has made provision to answer it.
The objections to the Withdrawal Agreement by British Parliamentarians and the media are often entirely false.
Not just false but false to the point of being utterly ridiculous.
Take for example the latest demand being made by the Labour Party. Particularly through John Mann MP.
They wish to see the Withdrawal Agreement amended so it ensures that the protections for UK workers remain the same as they are under EU law.
During the Transition Period the UK will adhere to all EU laws. Including the laws governing the protection of workers.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked the UK will be able to replace those laws with independently passed British laws. However those laws will not be allowed to backslide. Offer less protection to workers.
So the question John Mann MP and the Labour Party are raising is one that the British government thought of years ago and have addressed during the negotiation.
The government have then published the results in the Withdrawal Agreement in black and white for John Mann and anyone else to see.
Something the UK government did, apparently long before the Labour Party even thought to ask the question.
Another popular objection. Famously put forward by Conservative MP Esther McVey is that the Withdrawal Agreement contains No Plan B.
The Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan A. The two year Transition Period.
The Withdrawal Agreement then lays out a Plan B. Extending the Transition Period.
Finally the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a Plan C. The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
Objecting to Plan C because you want to draw up a Plan B raises serious questions about whether you've been tested for dyslexia.
It is on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that the objections have been their most ridiculous.
The protocol allows the UK to trade with the rest of the World on the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Rules underpinned by the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
Hard Brexiteers want to prevent Britain trading on the WTO terms. So Britain can trade on WTO rules.
It is also claimed that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain legally binding guarantees.
The Withdrawal Agreement and the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland both most certainly do contain legally binding guarantees. They also provide a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure those legally binding guarantees are enforced.
A dispute resolution mechanism which is heavily biased in Britain's favour.
What neither the Withdrawal Agreement nor the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland do is stamp those legally binding guarantees on every article, on every page of the documents.
That is because it is completely legally unnecessary to do so.
It would also probably double the length of documents which already seem to be too long and complicated for British Parliamentarians to comprehend.
The only legitimate objections I've seen raised are those of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
They are concerned by the Regulatory Divergence created by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Rules which are different on the British mainland from rules in Northern Ireland.
However even here I think the DUP are being overly sensitive.
Even before the start of The Troubles let alone the 1998 Belfast Agreement there was significant regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
It is, after all Schedule VII of the Terrorism Act 2000 which inhibits the free movement of British citizens between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
If you were trying to exploit Brexit to further the cause of a united Ireland the advice you would give to the DUP is very simple.
You would advise the DUP to reject the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and pursue a No Deal Brexit.
A No Deal Brexit will not repeal the Belfast Agreement. Including the legal obligation that places on Northern Ireland to hold a binding public referendum on unification with the Republic of Ireland.
What a No Deal Brexit will do is create an economic catastrophe that will make unification with the Republic of Ireland look very attractive to Northern Irish voters of all stripes.
As with all British Parliamentarians it is still well within the DUP's power to stop the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland coming into effect. Even once the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted.
They just have to refrain from buggering up the next two phases of the negotiation.
Like they're buggering up this first phase.
(Originally posted at 18:25 on 10/1/19 (UK date)).
18:50 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward Pt.2
A direct continuation of Part One; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_57.html
In that post I looked at how the Withdrawal Agreement passes the tests of honouring the 2016 referendum to leave the EU.
I also looked at how the objections to the Withdrawal Agreement raised by British Parliamentarians are almost entirely false.
As such it is clear that Britain must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.
The Withdrawal Agreement represents a multi-dimensional treaty between 28 nations. As such I don't think it's really possible to describe it as; "Simple."
However in terms of negotiating multi-dimensional treaties between nations the Withdrawal Agreement and the process it has been arrived at has been smooth, organised and easy.
One similar negotiation process I've been heavily involved in is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically efforts to draw up a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. Known as the Durban Platform.
This process was designed to take four years. Spread out across quarterly and, in the later stages monthly meetings.
The final set of meetings was supposed to be the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). This was scheduled to end on December 11th 2015 (11/12/15).
Like pretty much every UNFCCC meeting it spectacularly failed to end on schedule. Instead it had to be extended, at the last minute into an extra day.
On that extra, final day several versions of the 27 page agreement were circulated over the course of around five hours. Giving negotiators just minutes to read each new version, assess it and negotiate changes.
Amid the stress and chaos the US negotiating team screwed up.
At the last minute they re-wrote the fourth paragraph of Article 4 of what became the Paris Agreement. This change allows China and India - the 2nd and 3rd largest emitters of greenhouse gases (ghg's) - to continue growing their emissions by as much as they like.
Failing in any way to combat Climate Change the Paris Agreement was adopted simply because, at that point everyone just wanted to go home and go to sleep.
Amid both UNFCCC and EU circles there is a famous story of how then Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to the EU's emissions trading scheme.
Going into the 2007 EU Summit Britain only wanted to sign up the non-commercial sectors of its economy to the scheme. Private homes rather than businesses.
The final session of that EU Summit went on for more than 36 hours straight. Without breaks for sleep or even meals.
By the end of it former Prime Minister Blair had signed up all sectors of the UK economy, including business, to the EU emissions trading scheme.
The story has it that sleep deprived and highly stressed former Prime Minister Blair simply no longer had any idea what he was signing Britain up to.
That story, of course has been put about by former Prime Minister Blair's political rivals.
However people familiar with this type of negotiation have absolutely no trouble believing it.
In contrast the negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement have reached a comprehensive and mutually beneficial consensus. Some four months before the final deadline of March 29th (29/3/19).
A feat that is virtually unheard of in negotiations of this type.
The only thing that is making the Brexit process difficult is Britain's seemingly idiotic Parliamentarians.
The good news is that the moment the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted things immediately get a whole lot easier.
For a host of reasons;
A Covenant Held: Throughout the referendum campaign current British Prime Minister Theresa May kept an extremely low profile. Earning her the nickname; "The Submarine."
Eventually Theresa May surfaced. Quietly coming out on the side of Remain.
When Theresa May became the Prime Minister tasked with guiding Britain through the Brexit process this created a lot of suspicion amongst Brexiteers, those who voted to Leave.
They were concerned that Prime Minister May would behave like all the other Remoaner politicians. Abuse her position to block Brexit and impose her views on the electorate.
A system of government that is commonly known as; "Tyranny."
As it turns out Prime Minister May has done absolutely nothing of the sort. She has put her own, personal views to one side. Instead taking on the views and concerns of the British people, both Leave and Remain. Even the completely insane ones.
Prime Minister May has then taken the views of the British electorate and presented them to the EU during the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations. Winning significant concessions from the EU in the process.
This type selflessness is exactly the quality that voters in a democracy should look for in their politicians, leaders and public servants.
It's the other 642 self-serving crooks in Parliament Britain wants to be getting rid of.
Regardless of whether the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). This will remove any question of Prime Minister May betraying the Brexiteers in an effort to keep Britain within the EU.
The Brexiteers, of course can continue to be suspicious of how close a relationship with the EU Prime Minister May is trying to build.
However they will no longer be able to accuse her of trying to block Brexit.
The Remoaners: These are the people who voted to Remain in the EU.
Previously I've compared the Four Pillars of EU membership to the Five Pillars of Islam. For many Remoaners membership of the EU is something which has taken on almost religious levels of significance and devotion.
For many Remoaners continued membership of the EU is a deep existential issue. One that defines their very existence. It is was determines that they are Good People. Superior in every way to the Bad People who voted to Leave.
These Remoaners have, in no way accepted the result of the referendum.
From the moment the referendum result was announced they have engaged in a campaign to keep Britain within the EU. Their main strategy has been to obstruct, obfuscate and confuse the Brexit process at every step.
The Remoaners objective is to make everything so extremely difficult that people will simply give up and Britain will remain in the EU.
This type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.
That is despite the entire House of Commons being elected in 2017 on a clear mandate to honour the 2016 referendum and ensure Britain leaves the EU.
With the exception of the SNP's 35 MP's, The Liberal Democrats 12 MP's, Plaid Cymru's 4 MP's and the Green Party's 1 MP.
The reason why Remoaners are massively over represented in Parliament is actually quite simple.
Leaving the EU will restore power to the British Parliament. Bizarre as it sounds the biggest losers from power being restored to the British Parliament are actually British Parliamentarians.
Currently laws in Britain are passed by the EU. They then automatically become British laws through the 1972 European Communities Act.
British Parliamentarians only involvement in this process to receive a text message or email telling them that the law has changed.
At this point British Parliamentarians look up from their expense claims just long enough to boast to voters about what they've achieved.
And why their 'achievement' means they should be allowed to keep their GB£77,000 a year 'job.'
For evidence of this you only need to look at the Withdrawal Agreement. This contain lengthy lists of British laws that must remain in place after Britain has left the EU.
However those laws are not referenced using the British Act of Parliament which created them. No British Act of Parliament created them.
Instead the laws are referenced under the prefix; "ED." Meaning; "European Directive."
This is the main reason why Britain can't simply leave the EU with No Deal.
No British Parliamentarian has actually done a day's work in about 40 years.
Prior to the Christmas recess the Remoaners tactics have focused on obfuscation and spreading confusion.
For example claiming the government has no Plan B. When, in fact the Withdrawal Agreement not only contains a Plan B it also contains a Plan C.
Likewise claiming the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains no legally binding guarantees.
When, in fact the protocol not only contains multiple legally binding guarantees it also contains a dispute resolution mechanism to enforce those legally binding guarantees.
Another particularly popular Remoaner tactic has been to confuse matters by demanding the government lays out Britain's future relationship with the EU.
Throwing around almost nonsense terms such as; "Iceland Plus," Canada Max," Norway Plus Plus or; "Liechtensteiner Coffee Table!"
The purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.
Instead its purpose is to establish, through the Transition Period a properly structured and time limited forum to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.
If Britain's Parliamentarians wish to discuss Britain's future relationship with the EU then they must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. So the Transition Period negotiations can begin without delay.
It must be said that since the Christmas recess the Remoaners seem to have become increasingly aware that they're tactics are not working. The public can easily see through what are obvious lies.
So instead the Remoaners have shifted tactics to open aggression and intimidation.
For example on Tuesday, January 8th (8/1/19) Remoaners amended a Finance Bill. The amendment prevents the government from spending money in the event of a No Deal Brexit without first winning a time consuming vote in Parliament.
This amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit.
All it will do is prevent the government from deploying resources to alleviate the immediate effects of that economic crisis.
The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.
On Wednesday, January 9th (9/1/19) Remoaners amended the Withdrawal Bill itself. To force the government to return to Parliament within three days of a potential defeat to inform Parliamentarians of the next steps.
Again this amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit.
All the amendment means is that Parliament will have to wait three days rather than three weeks to be told that the Withdrawal Agreement bill will be reintroduced. At a time of the government's choosing.
After all Remoaners have made it abundantly clear that it is perfectly acceptable to force people to keep voting on something until they come up with the correct answer.
The Remoaners calculation is that being forced to make this announcement in three days rather than three weeks will trigger significant anger against the government. Triggering a Parliamentary motion of no confidence in the government.
The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.
The real scandal of Wednesday's (9/1/19) amendment is that Parliamentary rules are quite clear.
Only a minister of the government may introduce amendments to a government bill. Dominic Grieve who tabled this amendment is not a government minister.
The supposedly impartial Speaker of the Commons, Remoaner John Bercow was informed by his Chief Clerk and legal adviser of this rule. And that Grieve was not able to table this amendment.
However John Bercow completely and wilfully ignored the rules of Parliamentary democracy and allowed the amendment to go ahead any way.
These tyrannical tactics of threats, intimidation and, frankly law breaking have absolutely no place in a supposedly civilised democracy.
British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.
This prospect is a particular problem for parties which appeal to voters of the grounds they are; "Progressive." Fighting to protect workers rights, social justice and the environment etc.
For the past 40 years legislation in those areas has been exclusively the work of the EU. British political parties involvement has been limited to trying to steal the credit.
Of these self-styled "progressive" parties there is one that stands to lose far more than most from Brexit.
The Scottish National Party (SNP): It's long been the claim of all opposition parties that Prime Minister May is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator.
In that case it is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator who has absolutely run rings around the SNP.
In February 2017 Britain passed the European Union Act into law. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU.
However there remained the question of when exactly Britain would put the European Union Act into effect by formally notifying the EU. What is known as; "Article 50."
In early March 2017 Prime Minister May put around a rumour that this would happen on March 13th (13/3/17).
That rumour prompted SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to try and steal Prime Minister May's thunder. Sturgeon called her own address to the nation for March 13th (13/3/17).
Sturgeon used her address to the nation to declare that post-Brexit Scotland would hold another referendum on independence from Britain. In order for an independent Scotland to join the EU.
With this declaration Nicola Sturgeon did not steal anyone's thunder.
There was no announcement on Article 50 being activated. There was never any plan for an announcement on that day. It was simply a rumour put around to trick the SNP.
Having being tricked into the announcement the SNP were then lumbered with this promise to hold a Scottish Independence referendum. As they headed into the June 2017 General Election.
That June 2017 General Election is often considered Prime Minister May's greatest mistake. Leading to her Conservative Party losing seats and even their Parliamentary majority.
In Scotland however the 2017 General Election was a massive success for the Conservative Party. And an absolute bloodbath for the SNP.
Due, almost exclusively to their Remain stance and promise of an independence referendum the SNP lost 21 of their 56 seats. With 12 of those seats being lost to the Conservatives.
Any one of those 12 seats would represent the first Conservative gain in Scotland since 1997.
Despite this crushing defeat at the 2017 General Election the SNP are still lumbered with this promise to respond to Brexit by holding a Scottish Independence referendum.
The annual budget of Scotland is around GB£33bn.
At the moment of Brexit Scotland will lose GB£76m of that money. The money which is paid to Scotland by the EU.
The moment Scotland leaves the UK, as the SNP are pushing for, it will lose the GB£29bn block grant it receives from, predominately England.
Scotland will also have to take on extra costs which are currently met by the UK. On things like defence and diplomacy. Membership fees for the UN and its subsidiary bodies etc.
This means that overnight Scotland will be paying out at least 3,000% more money than it raises in revenue.
Locked out of the international financial system an Independent Scotland will then have to go through the long process of applying to be a new member of the EU.
It is far from guaranteed that such an application will be successful.
As part of their effort to block Brexit the SNP brought a case before the Court of European Justice.
It asked the Court to decide whether, once activated Article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn. Or whether such a more would require the consent of the other members of the EU.
On December 10th (10/12/18) the Court of European Justice ruled that Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn.
In considering this case the Court had to balance two competing sets of interests;
The right of a nation to change it's mind and withdraw Article 50.
Against the right of the other members of the EU to be protected from a nation invoking then revoking Article 50. Simply as a negotiating tactic on another issue.
Within the EU there are currently a number of disputes which could see Article 50 invoked as a negotiating tactic.
There is of course the threat to suspend Hungary's voting rights. The conventional wisdom is that Poland will veto such a move. For the simple reason that Poland needs Hungary to veto a similar move to suspend Poland's voting rights.
The dispute I'm most interested in though is over Italy's budget.
EU rules prevent member states from having a budget with a deficit larger than 2%. In October 2018 the Italian government passed a budget with a deficit of 2.6%. This was rejected by the EU leading to an ongoing stand-off between Italy and the EU.
The Italian government has suggested, in the past, that it might invoke Article 50 as part of the budget dispute with the EU.
I'm particularly interested in Italy's dispute here because it allows me to say that the Court ruling will see Article 50 go up and down more often than Berlusconi's trousers.
It says a lot that the EU would rather deal with all that. Than have to deal with the SNP.
If an independent Scotland does, by some miracle, win the support of 26 EU members the conventional wisdom is that Spain will automatically veto its EU membership bid. To prevent similar moves by Spain's Catalonia region.
Even if it is accepted as an EU member the first thing Scotland will have to do is impose a long and draconian policy of austerity. In order to bring its spending deficit down from 3,000%.
So the SNP find themselves in the impossible position of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that their entire reason for existing is a lie.
Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is passed or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
This will be the end of the road for the Remoaners.
They will no longer be able to campaign to keep Britain in the EU. They will only be able to campaign for Britain to join the EU as a new member. Something which is far from guaranteed.
Given the way the British Parliament has behaved in the debate over the Withdrawal Agreement the EU may well decide that British politics is not up to the standard required of EU members.
(Originally posted at 16:25 on 13/1/19 (UK date)).
18:35 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
In that post I looked at how the Withdrawal Agreement passes the tests of honouring the 2016 referendum to leave the EU.
I also looked at how the objections to the Withdrawal Agreement raised by British Parliamentarians are almost entirely false.
As such it is clear that Britain must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. Without further delay.
The Withdrawal Agreement represents a multi-dimensional treaty between 28 nations. As such I don't think it's really possible to describe it as; "Simple."
However in terms of negotiating multi-dimensional treaties between nations the Withdrawal Agreement and the process it has been arrived at has been smooth, organised and easy.
One similar negotiation process I've been heavily involved in is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically efforts to draw up a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol. Known as the Durban Platform.
This process was designed to take four years. Spread out across quarterly and, in the later stages monthly meetings.
The final set of meetings was supposed to be the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). This was scheduled to end on December 11th 2015 (11/12/15).
Like pretty much every UNFCCC meeting it spectacularly failed to end on schedule. Instead it had to be extended, at the last minute into an extra day.
On that extra, final day several versions of the 27 page agreement were circulated over the course of around five hours. Giving negotiators just minutes to read each new version, assess it and negotiate changes.
Amid the stress and chaos the US negotiating team screwed up.
At the last minute they re-wrote the fourth paragraph of Article 4 of what became the Paris Agreement. This change allows China and India - the 2nd and 3rd largest emitters of greenhouse gases (ghg's) - to continue growing their emissions by as much as they like.
Failing in any way to combat Climate Change the Paris Agreement was adopted simply because, at that point everyone just wanted to go home and go to sleep.
Amid both UNFCCC and EU circles there is a famous story of how then Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to the EU's emissions trading scheme.
Going into the 2007 EU Summit Britain only wanted to sign up the non-commercial sectors of its economy to the scheme. Private homes rather than businesses.
The final session of that EU Summit went on for more than 36 hours straight. Without breaks for sleep or even meals.
By the end of it former Prime Minister Blair had signed up all sectors of the UK economy, including business, to the EU emissions trading scheme.
The story has it that sleep deprived and highly stressed former Prime Minister Blair simply no longer had any idea what he was signing Britain up to.
That story, of course has been put about by former Prime Minister Blair's political rivals.
However people familiar with this type of negotiation have absolutely no trouble believing it.
In contrast the negotiations over the Withdrawal Agreement have reached a comprehensive and mutually beneficial consensus. Some four months before the final deadline of March 29th (29/3/19).
A feat that is virtually unheard of in negotiations of this type.
The only thing that is making the Brexit process difficult is Britain's seemingly idiotic Parliamentarians.
The good news is that the moment the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted things immediately get a whole lot easier.
For a host of reasons;
A Covenant Held: Throughout the referendum campaign current British Prime Minister Theresa May kept an extremely low profile. Earning her the nickname; "The Submarine."
Eventually Theresa May surfaced. Quietly coming out on the side of Remain.
When Theresa May became the Prime Minister tasked with guiding Britain through the Brexit process this created a lot of suspicion amongst Brexiteers, those who voted to Leave.
They were concerned that Prime Minister May would behave like all the other Remoaner politicians. Abuse her position to block Brexit and impose her views on the electorate.
A system of government that is commonly known as; "Tyranny."
As it turns out Prime Minister May has done absolutely nothing of the sort. She has put her own, personal views to one side. Instead taking on the views and concerns of the British people, both Leave and Remain. Even the completely insane ones.
Prime Minister May has then taken the views of the British electorate and presented them to the EU during the Withdrawal Agreement negotiations. Winning significant concessions from the EU in the process.
This type selflessness is exactly the quality that voters in a democracy should look for in their politicians, leaders and public servants.
It's the other 642 self-serving crooks in Parliament Britain wants to be getting rid of.
Regardless of whether the Withdrawal Agreement is adopted or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). This will remove any question of Prime Minister May betraying the Brexiteers in an effort to keep Britain within the EU.
The Brexiteers, of course can continue to be suspicious of how close a relationship with the EU Prime Minister May is trying to build.
However they will no longer be able to accuse her of trying to block Brexit.
The Remoaners: These are the people who voted to Remain in the EU.
Previously I've compared the Four Pillars of EU membership to the Five Pillars of Islam. For many Remoaners membership of the EU is something which has taken on almost religious levels of significance and devotion.
For many Remoaners continued membership of the EU is a deep existential issue. One that defines their very existence. It is was determines that they are Good People. Superior in every way to the Bad People who voted to Leave.
These Remoaners have, in no way accepted the result of the referendum.
From the moment the referendum result was announced they have engaged in a campaign to keep Britain within the EU. Their main strategy has been to obstruct, obfuscate and confuse the Brexit process at every step.
The Remoaners objective is to make everything so extremely difficult that people will simply give up and Britain will remain in the EU.
This type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.
That is despite the entire House of Commons being elected in 2017 on a clear mandate to honour the 2016 referendum and ensure Britain leaves the EU.
With the exception of the SNP's 35 MP's, The Liberal Democrats 12 MP's, Plaid Cymru's 4 MP's and the Green Party's 1 MP.
The reason why Remoaners are massively over represented in Parliament is actually quite simple.
Leaving the EU will restore power to the British Parliament. Bizarre as it sounds the biggest losers from power being restored to the British Parliament are actually British Parliamentarians.
Currently laws in Britain are passed by the EU. They then automatically become British laws through the 1972 European Communities Act.
British Parliamentarians only involvement in this process to receive a text message or email telling them that the law has changed.
At this point British Parliamentarians look up from their expense claims just long enough to boast to voters about what they've achieved.
And why their 'achievement' means they should be allowed to keep their GB£77,000 a year 'job.'
For evidence of this you only need to look at the Withdrawal Agreement. This contain lengthy lists of British laws that must remain in place after Britain has left the EU.
However those laws are not referenced using the British Act of Parliament which created them. No British Act of Parliament created them.
Instead the laws are referenced under the prefix; "ED." Meaning; "European Directive."
This is the main reason why Britain can't simply leave the EU with No Deal.
No British Parliamentarian has actually done a day's work in about 40 years.
Prior to the Christmas recess the Remoaners tactics have focused on obfuscation and spreading confusion.
For example claiming the government has no Plan B. When, in fact the Withdrawal Agreement not only contains a Plan B it also contains a Plan C.
Likewise claiming the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland contains no legally binding guarantees.
When, in fact the protocol not only contains multiple legally binding guarantees it also contains a dispute resolution mechanism to enforce those legally binding guarantees.
Another particularly popular Remoaner tactic has been to confuse matters by demanding the government lays out Britain's future relationship with the EU.
Throwing around almost nonsense terms such as; "Iceland Plus," Canada Max," Norway Plus Plus or; "Liechtensteiner Coffee Table!"
The purpose of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.
Instead its purpose is to establish, through the Transition Period a properly structured and time limited forum to establish Britain's future relationship with the EU.
If Britain's Parliamentarians wish to discuss Britain's future relationship with the EU then they must adopt the Withdrawal Agreement. So the Transition Period negotiations can begin without delay.
It must be said that since the Christmas recess the Remoaners seem to have become increasingly aware that they're tactics are not working. The public can easily see through what are obvious lies.
So instead the Remoaners have shifted tactics to open aggression and intimidation.
For example on Tuesday, January 8th (8/1/19) Remoaners amended a Finance Bill. The amendment prevents the government from spending money in the event of a No Deal Brexit without first winning a time consuming vote in Parliament.
This amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit.
All it will do is prevent the government from deploying resources to alleviate the immediate effects of that economic crisis.
The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.
On Wednesday, January 9th (9/1/19) Remoaners amended the Withdrawal Bill itself. To force the government to return to Parliament within three days of a potential defeat to inform Parliamentarians of the next steps.
Again this amendment will not prevent Britain leaving the EU on March 29th (29/3/19). Nor will it prevent the severe economic crisis of a No Deal Brexit.
All the amendment means is that Parliament will have to wait three days rather than three weeks to be told that the Withdrawal Agreement bill will be reintroduced. At a time of the government's choosing.
After all Remoaners have made it abundantly clear that it is perfectly acceptable to force people to keep voting on something until they come up with the correct answer.
The Remoaners calculation is that being forced to make this announcement in three days rather than three weeks will trigger significant anger against the government. Triggering a Parliamentary motion of no confidence in the government.
The Remoaners hope is that the threat of this is so horrifying that it will scare the government into submission. Overturning the 2017 European Union Act, keeping Britain within the EU.
The real scandal of Wednesday's (9/1/19) amendment is that Parliamentary rules are quite clear.
Only a minister of the government may introduce amendments to a government bill. Dominic Grieve who tabled this amendment is not a government minister.
The supposedly impartial Speaker of the Commons, Remoaner John Bercow was informed by his Chief Clerk and legal adviser of this rule. And that Grieve was not able to table this amendment.
However John Bercow completely and wilfully ignored the rules of Parliamentary democracy and allowed the amendment to go ahead any way.
These tyrannical tactics of threats, intimidation and, frankly law breaking have absolutely no place in a supposedly civilised democracy.
British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.
This prospect is a particular problem for parties which appeal to voters of the grounds they are; "Progressive." Fighting to protect workers rights, social justice and the environment etc.
For the past 40 years legislation in those areas has been exclusively the work of the EU. British political parties involvement has been limited to trying to steal the credit.
Of these self-styled "progressive" parties there is one that stands to lose far more than most from Brexit.
The Scottish National Party (SNP): It's long been the claim of all opposition parties that Prime Minister May is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator.
In that case it is an incompetent Prime Minister and a terrible negotiator who has absolutely run rings around the SNP.
In February 2017 Britain passed the European Union Act into law. This established that Britain will be leaving the EU.
However there remained the question of when exactly Britain would put the European Union Act into effect by formally notifying the EU. What is known as; "Article 50."
In early March 2017 Prime Minister May put around a rumour that this would happen on March 13th (13/3/17).
That rumour prompted SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon to try and steal Prime Minister May's thunder. Sturgeon called her own address to the nation for March 13th (13/3/17).
Sturgeon used her address to the nation to declare that post-Brexit Scotland would hold another referendum on independence from Britain. In order for an independent Scotland to join the EU.
With this declaration Nicola Sturgeon did not steal anyone's thunder.
There was no announcement on Article 50 being activated. There was never any plan for an announcement on that day. It was simply a rumour put around to trick the SNP.
Having being tricked into the announcement the SNP were then lumbered with this promise to hold a Scottish Independence referendum. As they headed into the June 2017 General Election.
That June 2017 General Election is often considered Prime Minister May's greatest mistake. Leading to her Conservative Party losing seats and even their Parliamentary majority.
In Scotland however the 2017 General Election was a massive success for the Conservative Party. And an absolute bloodbath for the SNP.
Due, almost exclusively to their Remain stance and promise of an independence referendum the SNP lost 21 of their 56 seats. With 12 of those seats being lost to the Conservatives.
Any one of those 12 seats would represent the first Conservative gain in Scotland since 1997.
Despite this crushing defeat at the 2017 General Election the SNP are still lumbered with this promise to respond to Brexit by holding a Scottish Independence referendum.
The annual budget of Scotland is around GB£33bn.
At the moment of Brexit Scotland will lose GB£76m of that money. The money which is paid to Scotland by the EU.
The moment Scotland leaves the UK, as the SNP are pushing for, it will lose the GB£29bn block grant it receives from, predominately England.
Scotland will also have to take on extra costs which are currently met by the UK. On things like defence and diplomacy. Membership fees for the UN and its subsidiary bodies etc.
This means that overnight Scotland will be paying out at least 3,000% more money than it raises in revenue.
Locked out of the international financial system an Independent Scotland will then have to go through the long process of applying to be a new member of the EU.
It is far from guaranteed that such an application will be successful.
As part of their effort to block Brexit the SNP brought a case before the Court of European Justice.
It asked the Court to decide whether, once activated Article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn. Or whether such a more would require the consent of the other members of the EU.
On December 10th (10/12/18) the Court of European Justice ruled that Article 50 can be unilaterally withdrawn.
In considering this case the Court had to balance two competing sets of interests;
The right of a nation to change it's mind and withdraw Article 50.
Against the right of the other members of the EU to be protected from a nation invoking then revoking Article 50. Simply as a negotiating tactic on another issue.
Within the EU there are currently a number of disputes which could see Article 50 invoked as a negotiating tactic.
There is of course the threat to suspend Hungary's voting rights. The conventional wisdom is that Poland will veto such a move. For the simple reason that Poland needs Hungary to veto a similar move to suspend Poland's voting rights.
The dispute I'm most interested in though is over Italy's budget.
EU rules prevent member states from having a budget with a deficit larger than 2%. In October 2018 the Italian government passed a budget with a deficit of 2.6%. This was rejected by the EU leading to an ongoing stand-off between Italy and the EU.
The Italian government has suggested, in the past, that it might invoke Article 50 as part of the budget dispute with the EU.
I'm particularly interested in Italy's dispute here because it allows me to say that the Court ruling will see Article 50 go up and down more often than Berlusconi's trousers.
It says a lot that the EU would rather deal with all that. Than have to deal with the SNP.
If an independent Scotland does, by some miracle, win the support of 26 EU members the conventional wisdom is that Spain will automatically veto its EU membership bid. To prevent similar moves by Spain's Catalonia region.
Even if it is accepted as an EU member the first thing Scotland will have to do is impose a long and draconian policy of austerity. In order to bring its spending deficit down from 3,000%.
So the SNP find themselves in the impossible position of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that their entire reason for existing is a lie.
Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is passed or not Britain will leave the EU on March 29th (29/3/19).
This will be the end of the road for the Remoaners.
They will no longer be able to campaign to keep Britain in the EU. They will only be able to campaign for Britain to join the EU as a new member. Something which is far from guaranteed.
Given the way the British Parliament has behaved in the debate over the Withdrawal Agreement the EU may well decide that British politics is not up to the standard required of EU members.
(Originally posted at 16:25 on 13/1/19 (UK date)).
18:35 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Moving Forward Pt.3
A direct continuation of Part Two; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2019/01/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_47.html
In that post I looked at how from the EU and the British government's side the Brexit negotiations have been smooth, easy and highly organised.
What is making things seem so complicated are the actions of British Remoaners.
These Remoaners are engaged in a campaign to block Brexit.
Their main tactic has been to make the Brexit process as difficult as possible. In the hope that people will simply give up.
I went on to look at why this type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.
British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.
I also looked at why, having being completely out manoeuvred by Prime Minister May, the SNP find themselves in an impossible position.
Of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that the SNP's entire reason for being is a lie.
There is also another party in British politics absolutely committed to blocking Brexit. Sadly for reasons that are far more sinister. And nowhere near as sophisticated.
The Labour Party: At the June 8th 2017 (8/6/17) General Election the Labour Party were on course for an absolute disaster. Losing potentially up to 200 seats. Wiping them out as a British political party.
In the eyes of voters the Labour Party had become seen as so absolutely hopeless it started to swing back in their favour. They emerged as a potential protest vote.
A way for voters to ensure a Conservative government. But one chastened rather than arrogant with a majority of 200 to 300 seats.
As a result the Labour Party actually ended up gaining 30 seats. Leaving them 56 seats behind the Conservatives. And 60 seats short of a governing majority.
Unfortunately the Labour Party continue to be absolutely hopeless.
So they took finishing second, by a significant margin, to mean they were the most popular political party in all of Britain. And would soon be in power.
The Labour Party's official position is that in order to seize power they simply need to bring down the current government.
They believe that they will then be appointed as the government without the need for voters to be consulted in an election.
In order to achieve this the Labour Party would need to build a six party coalition. Something which has never been done before in British politics.
This unprecedented grand coalition would need to be made up of all of Britain's Parliamentary parties. Except for the Conservatives.
It would need to include the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This is extremely unlikely.
The DUP and the Conservatives have long operated an electoral pact. The Conservatives don't contest seats where the DUP is standing and the DUP don't contest seats where the Conservatives are standing.
So the DUP may vote against the Conservatives on the Withdrawal Bill. They won't be joining a coalition government against the Conservatives.
If Labour do manage to assemble this elaborate coalition would still only have a majority of just 3 seats.
Significantly less than the 16 seat majority of the current Conservative government, backed by the DUP.
Either unaware or unfazed by the impossibility of the task the Labour Party have approached the Withdrawal Agreement in exactly the same way they have approached every political issue in Britain since the June 2017 General Election.
An opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.
A prime example of the Labour Party's lust for power at any cost was the June 14th 2017 (14/6/17) Grenfell Tower fire.
Let's pretend for a moment the Grenfell Tower fire didn't occur amid a spate of Islamist terror attacks against Britain.
Islamist terror attacks specifically designed to aid the Labour Party. In order to weaken Britain's position during Brexit.
Let us also pretend for a moment that the Grenfell Tower fire didn't start in the apartment of a man who attended the Al Maneer Mosque. Let us also pretend for a moment that the Al Maneer Mosque hasn't produced no fewer than 19 Islamist terrorists.
Those 19 include multiple members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Including Choukri Ellekhlifi, Alexanda Kotey and Aine Davis.
Three of the so-called; "Beatles." Who, led by Mohammed - "Jihadi John" - Emwazi were specifically tasked with murdering western hostages.
Let's also pretend for a moment that the Kensington & Chelsea Parliamentary seat in which Grenfell Tower stands hadn't just been won, for Labour by Emma Dent Coad. By a margin of just 20 votes.
A margin so narrow it would normally trigger an automatic investigation into electoral fraud.
Let us also pretend the Grenfell Tower fire didn't prevent the automatic investigation into Emma Dent Coad's election. Despite 14 people having since being convicted for lying about living in Grenfell Tower. And therefore their right to vote for Emma Dent Coad.
Let's also pretend that the Labour Party didn't extensively use fire as a weapon during the August 2011 riots. Particularly in the Croydon Central constituency.
Let us also pretend that use of fire didn't lead to a massive expansion of rented, social housing in the Croydon Central Constituency. Demographic change which allowed Labour to finally win the seat at the 2017 General Election.
Unseating Gavin Barwell. Who is now Prime Minister May's Chief-of-Staff. Tasked with getting the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.
Let us also pretend for a moment that within London fire safety is exclusively the responsibility of the Mayor. That would be Mayor Sadiq Khan of the Labour Party.
Let's also pretend for a moment that Emma Dent Coad's previous job wasn't sitting on the Mayor's Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
Finally let us pretend for a moment that under the Labour Mayor London Fire Brigade flatly refused to investigate the cause of the Grenfell Tower fire for a full 18 months.
Even if you can pretend all those things did not happen the Labour Party still treated the Grenfell Tower as nothing more than an opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.
As with the Withdrawal Agreement the Labour Party's main approach to the Grenfell Tower fire was to spread transparent lies.
For example the Labour Party have, and continue to claim that cladding was fitted to Grenfell Tower for purely cosmetic reasons.
In fact the cladding was fitted as part of an insulation system to reduce heat loss and allow Britain to meet its greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions targets.
Emissions targets the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to in 2007. Apparently by mistake.
Probably the most pernicious lie the Labour Party told about Grenfell Tower was that hundreds had been killed in the fire. Only a Defence of the Realm Notice (D-Notice) had been issued by Prime Minister May to keep it a secret.
The issuing of D-Notice's are not made public. However to be effective they have to be sent to every media outlet in the country. They are actually issued on a formal register which all news outlets have access to.
So people, particularly the people I associate with, know the moment a D-Notice has been issued. And why it has been issued.
No D-Notice was issued, nor has ever been issued in relation to any aspect of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Fuelled by the lies the Labour Party then moved into open violence and intimidation.
On June 17th (17/6/17) the Labour Party organised a local; "Day of Rage" protest within Kensington & Chelsea.
As was the plan this rapidly turned into a riot.
With the local Town Hall being attacked causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage. And Conservative members of the local council being physically assaulted.
Although it flopped badly the Labour Party also tried to organise a national; "Day of Rage" protest on June 20th (20/6/17). Targeting the State Opening of Parliament that day.
In her speech to Parliament during the State Opening the Queen wore a hat bearing the; "Starry Plough" insignia. A powerful symbol amongst Irish Republicans.
Particularly for the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The same INLA which assassinated British MP Airey Neave within the Parliament building in March 1979.
The newly minted Duchess of Sussex has since been dispatched to work closely with the Al Maneer Mosque. So now we all know about its links to Islamist terrorism.
The Labour Party's strategy towards the Withdrawal Agreement is simply to reject it. Without even reading it.
Their hope is that the failure of the Withdrawal Agreement to be passed by Parliament will be enough to justify a No Confidence vote in the government. Which Labour hope will bring down the government and put them in power.
Labour are assuming people are all too thick to notice that Prime Minister May has efficiently negotiated an extremely strong Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
It's just that Prime Minister May has a very narrow Parliamentary majority. And the Labour Party will vote against whatever she does.
Following the Christmas recess Labour seem to have backed off from their demand that they simply be appointed as the next government. Without the need for voters to be consulted in a General Election.
Sadly this doesn't seem to be because Labour have finally figured out that in order to secure a majority of just three they need to pull off the impossible task of forming a six party coalition.
Instead the change seems to be the result of the Labour Party realising that the public simply won't stand for them being appointed as the government. Rather like some sort of Communist dictatorship.
So, in public at least Labour are now calling for a General Election.
The 2017 General Election campaign was one of the shortest in history. Starting on April 18th (18/4/17) it lasted for 51 days.
On January 9th (9/1/19) the Withdrawal Agreement bill was controversially, and probably illegally amended.
To give the government three days to advise Parliament of the next steps. In the event of the bill being defeated.
Those three days expire on Monday, January 21st (21/1/19).
So the earliest a No Confidence motion can be tabled is Tuesday, January 22nd (22/1/19).
The government then has 14 working days to respond. Meaning the earliest a No Confidence vote can take place is Monday, February 11th (11/2/19).
Assuming the campaign can be as brief as the 2017 campaign the earliest date for a General Election is Thursday, April 4th (4/4/19).
Five days AFTER Britain leaves the EU.
The results of the 2017 General Election weren't actually known until June 26th (26/6/17). 18 days after the vote was held.
So Labour's plan is not just for Britain to crash out of the EU on March 29th (29/3/19) with No Deal.
It's for Britain to crash out with No Deal and no government.
As I've said the effects of Britain leaving the EU with No Deal will be absolutely catastrophic.
It is the equivalent of Britain placing itself under a complete economic blockade.
This is so serious that it constitutes a Defence of the Realm issue. Rather than a party political issue.
As such, during the debate British Parliamentarians have been provided with numerous reminders of the consequences of their actions.
Starting on December 19th (19/12/18) Gatwick Airport, Britain's second largest, was closed for 36 hours. Due to the presence of drones.
This short period of disruption saw more than 1,000 flights cancelled and the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of passengers disrupted.
No sooner had Gatwick Airport re-opened then Birmingham Airport was forced to close. On December 23rd (23/12/18).
Again cancelling hundreds of flights and disrupting the travel plans of thousands of passengers. This shutdown was blamed on a communications failure.
The Parliamentary debate on the Withdrawal Agreement formally resumed on January 8th (8/1/19). Following the Christmas recess.
This was marked by Heathrow Airport, Britain's largest being closed for several hours. As the result of renewed drone activity.
This severe disruption gave Parliamentarians a small taste of the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not talking about shutting down a few of Britain's airports for a few hours. They're proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely.
On December 21st (21/12/18) the Grande Tema (Great Theme) cargo shipped was hijacked by Nigerian pirates. In the Thames Estuary of all places.
On December 22nd (22/12/18) it was raided by British Special Operations Forces (SOF's). The four hijackers were detained for immigration offences.
This cargo ship hijacking further highlighted to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.
Cargo ships are truly the lifeblood of the global economy.
The fact the hijackers were Nigerian and charged with immigration offences highlights what Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.
Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to migrants from Commonwealth nations such as Nigeria.
Rather than hijacking a ship those four men could simply apply for a visa in Nigeria.
The involvement of SOF's goes into a not particularly relevant tangent of military matters.
For the past four years I've been heavily involved in the war in Syria and Iraq. It should tell you how serious the prospect of a No Deal Brexit is that I've been pulled off the line there to deal with this.
British Parliamentarians are currently considered a greater threat to Britain than ISIL or Al Qaeda.
I may have received an anonymous phonecall telling me the new date for the Withdrawal Agreement vote. Before British Parliamentarians were told that the original vote was going to be cancelled.
British Parliamentarians continue to be upset about being shown their place in this world of ours.
However Iraq and Syria are far from the only nations former US President Barack Obama destroyed. He also destroyed Libya. Which in turn destroyed Mali. Which in turn destroyed Nigeria.
In counter-terrorism terms Nigeria is too big to fail. Even if US SOF's are understandably getting fed up of having to do all the work. There's simply not enough of them to repair all the damage Obama did.
On Thursday January 10th (10/1/19) the M6 Motorway had to be closed near Stoke-on-Trent. After 27 irregular migrants/asylum seekers leapt from a cargo truck onto the roadway.
Again this further highlights to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also no just proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.
British Parliamentarians are also proposing shutting down all road freight into, within and out of the UK. Indefinitely.
As a general rule; If you buy something in a shop then it got there on a truck.
The fact the story involved irregular migrants/asylum seekers also highlights something else Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.
Being unable to impose restrictions on EU migrants Britain has been overwhelmed. This has left the British public very inhospitable to both Commonwealth migrants and genuine asylum seekers.
Something which has been made worse by the EU's policy of abusing the refugee system to allow in economic migrants.
Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to genuine refugees.
Also I think US National Security Adviser John Bolton really needs to explain why Iran is suddenly producing so many economic migrants.
Both the Grande Tema and the M6 stories also highlight that absolutely massive concession Prime Minister May was able to win from the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Northern Ireland will be able to stay in a single market with the EU. While at the same time being able to do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
The tactics being used by Remoaners and particularly the Labour Party closely resemble terrorism.
Specifically the tactics used by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
In the 1980's and 1990's PIRA conducted a series of bombing campaigns on the British mainland. Unlike in Northern Ireland the purpose of these bombings was not to kill. Instead the purpose to was to damage and disrupt the British economy.
Take for example this footage of the June 15th 1996 (15/6/96) PIRA bombing of Manchester; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl2ye6sPG8
It starts with the police cordoning off and evacuating the area around where the bomb was planted. It then shows attempts to defuse the bomb. Finally it shows police helicopter footage focused on the bomb as it explodes.
The reason the police were able to do this wasn't due to some amazing counter-terrorism operation against PIRA.
It's because PIRA phoned them up. Not only to tell them where the bomb had been placed but exactly when it was going to detonate.
PIRA even left the hazard lights on the vehicle on. Making it impossible for the police to miss.
The goal for PIRA was the immense economic damage the massive bomb did to Manchester's physical infrastructure.
The 1996 PIRA bombing of Manchester was part of a wider campaign that also targeted the cities of London and Warrington.
Collectively they caused the bankruptcy of the Lloyd's of London insurance group. A jewel in the crown of Britain's City of London financial sector.
When anti-terrorism laws were overhauled following 9/11 the specific offence of Economic Terrorism was created. Specifically to outlaw this type of tactic.
The damage to the British economy caused by a No Deal Brexit far outstrips that of any PIRA bombing campaign.
It is this damage that the Remoaners and the Labour Party are threatening to do unless we give in and give them what they want.
As such the Remoaners and the Labour Party could well find themselves classed as terrorists.
I'm sure authorities in Gibraltar can remind them of what that entails.
Certainly over the Christmas recess, particularly the Labour Party have been reminded of their past crimes. Crimes for which they are completely reliant on Britain to continue to provide protection for them. To help them avoid prosecution.
For example on New Years Eve (31/12/18) there was a massive warehouse fire in the Croydon North Constituency.
Labour used the massive fires of the August 2011 riots to springboard from Croydon North into Croydon Central. Having failed by legal means to do so at every election since 1997.
The Croydon warehouse fire was quickly outshone by an Islamist knife attack at Manchester's Victoria Railway Station.
This served as a reminder of the alliance between Islamist terrorist groups and the Labour Party. Particularly the May 22nd 2017 (22/5/17) bombing of the Manchester Evening News Arena (MENA).
The fact it was a knife attack also referenced the June 3rd 2017 (3/6/17) London Bridge terror attack. Along with what a mess Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is making of London.
During the London Bridge terror attack there was actually another mass stabbing in the Vauxhall area of London.
It took people a while to work out this wasn't part of the terror attack. It was just one of your typical, everyday knife attacks in London.
The Labour Party's position is that as soon as they seize power they will be able to negotiate a much better deal with the EU.
The noises coming out of the EU over the Christmas recess very much contradict Labour's claim.
The general position is that whomever is in charge if Britain rejects this current Withdrawal Agreement the EU will scrap it. Britain will never again be offered a deal this good.
There is particular hostility towards the Labour Party. They are seen as falling very far short of the standards of a government the EU would be able to have any dealings with.
The criticism of the Labour Party by Poland is particularly worth bearing in mind.
As I've said Britain has never been anyone's favourite member of the EU. It's more a case of Britain being tolerated because of the money it brings.
The EU budget is a very complicated business. However you could almost get away with saying that Britain's contribution to the EU budget goes directly to Poland. Making Poland the closest thing Britain has to an ally in the EU.
On January 4th (4/1/19) five teenage girls were killed in a fire in an Escape Room in Koszalin in Poland.
Exactly like the Grenfell Tower fire it was initially blamed on an electrical fault. It then rapidly emerged that this was a lie. The fire was not caused by an electrical fault.
A man has since been arrested for causing the danger of the fire.
On Friday January 11th (11/1/19) the UK Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox expressed disbelief at Poland's position. Through the air pollution death of Ella Kissi-Debrah.
So on Sunday January 13th (13/1/19) Poland re-stated its position. With the stabbing of Gdansk Mayor Pawel Adamowicz.
Given the current murder rate it seems Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is the only person in London who hasn't been stabbed.
Gdansk is a massively important place in the history of the Trade Union movement. It is the birthplace of the Solidarity Trade Union. Founded by Lech Walesa, the second President of Poland and still a massive national hero in the country.
On Monday January 14th (14/1/19) it was announced that the UK Attorney General has dropped his opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement. And that Pawel Adamowicz has died.
So I think its fair to assume that under a Labour government Britain would be dead to the EU.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been adopted by Parliament it should be obvious to the Labour Party that they can no longer block it as a way to bring down the government.
But then simple maths should have already made it obvious to the Labour Party that in this Parliament there is no way for them to become the next government.
Much like simple maths should have already made it obvious to the Labour Party that there is no time for either a General Election or a second referendum before Britain leaves the EU.
(Originally posted at 17:20 on 14/1/19 (UK date)).
18:20 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
In that post I looked at how from the EU and the British government's side the Brexit negotiations have been smooth, easy and highly organised.
What is making things seem so complicated are the actions of British Remoaners.
These Remoaners are engaged in a campaign to block Brexit.
Their main tactic has been to make the Brexit process as difficult as possible. In the hope that people will simply give up.
I went on to look at why this type of Remoaner is massively over represented within the British Parliament.
British Parliamentarians are absolutely terrified of power being restored to the British Parliament. It means they will actually have to do a day's work. Rather than claiming credit for laws passed by the EU.
I also looked at why, having being completely out manoeuvred by Prime Minister May, the SNP find themselves in an impossible position.
Of having to stop Brexit. Or admit to voters that the SNP's entire reason for being is a lie.
There is also another party in British politics absolutely committed to blocking Brexit. Sadly for reasons that are far more sinister. And nowhere near as sophisticated.
The Labour Party: At the June 8th 2017 (8/6/17) General Election the Labour Party were on course for an absolute disaster. Losing potentially up to 200 seats. Wiping them out as a British political party.
In the eyes of voters the Labour Party had become seen as so absolutely hopeless it started to swing back in their favour. They emerged as a potential protest vote.
A way for voters to ensure a Conservative government. But one chastened rather than arrogant with a majority of 200 to 300 seats.
As a result the Labour Party actually ended up gaining 30 seats. Leaving them 56 seats behind the Conservatives. And 60 seats short of a governing majority.
Unfortunately the Labour Party continue to be absolutely hopeless.
So they took finishing second, by a significant margin, to mean they were the most popular political party in all of Britain. And would soon be in power.
The Labour Party's official position is that in order to seize power they simply need to bring down the current government.
They believe that they will then be appointed as the government without the need for voters to be consulted in an election.
In order to achieve this the Labour Party would need to build a six party coalition. Something which has never been done before in British politics.
This unprecedented grand coalition would need to be made up of all of Britain's Parliamentary parties. Except for the Conservatives.
It would need to include the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This is extremely unlikely.
The DUP and the Conservatives have long operated an electoral pact. The Conservatives don't contest seats where the DUP is standing and the DUP don't contest seats where the Conservatives are standing.
So the DUP may vote against the Conservatives on the Withdrawal Bill. They won't be joining a coalition government against the Conservatives.
If Labour do manage to assemble this elaborate coalition would still only have a majority of just 3 seats.
Significantly less than the 16 seat majority of the current Conservative government, backed by the DUP.
Either unaware or unfazed by the impossibility of the task the Labour Party have approached the Withdrawal Agreement in exactly the same way they have approached every political issue in Britain since the June 2017 General Election.
An opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.
A prime example of the Labour Party's lust for power at any cost was the June 14th 2017 (14/6/17) Grenfell Tower fire.
Let's pretend for a moment the Grenfell Tower fire didn't occur amid a spate of Islamist terror attacks against Britain.
Islamist terror attacks specifically designed to aid the Labour Party. In order to weaken Britain's position during Brexit.
Let us also pretend for a moment that the Grenfell Tower fire didn't start in the apartment of a man who attended the Al Maneer Mosque. Let us also pretend for a moment that the Al Maneer Mosque hasn't produced no fewer than 19 Islamist terrorists.
Those 19 include multiple members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Including Choukri Ellekhlifi, Alexanda Kotey and Aine Davis.
Three of the so-called; "Beatles." Who, led by Mohammed - "Jihadi John" - Emwazi were specifically tasked with murdering western hostages.
Let's also pretend for a moment that the Kensington & Chelsea Parliamentary seat in which Grenfell Tower stands hadn't just been won, for Labour by Emma Dent Coad. By a margin of just 20 votes.
A margin so narrow it would normally trigger an automatic investigation into electoral fraud.
Let us also pretend the Grenfell Tower fire didn't prevent the automatic investigation into Emma Dent Coad's election. Despite 14 people having since being convicted for lying about living in Grenfell Tower. And therefore their right to vote for Emma Dent Coad.
Let's also pretend that the Labour Party didn't extensively use fire as a weapon during the August 2011 riots. Particularly in the Croydon Central constituency.
Let us also pretend that use of fire didn't lead to a massive expansion of rented, social housing in the Croydon Central Constituency. Demographic change which allowed Labour to finally win the seat at the 2017 General Election.
Unseating Gavin Barwell. Who is now Prime Minister May's Chief-of-Staff. Tasked with getting the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament.
Let us also pretend for a moment that within London fire safety is exclusively the responsibility of the Mayor. That would be Mayor Sadiq Khan of the Labour Party.
Let's also pretend for a moment that Emma Dent Coad's previous job wasn't sitting on the Mayor's Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
Finally let us pretend for a moment that under the Labour Mayor London Fire Brigade flatly refused to investigate the cause of the Grenfell Tower fire for a full 18 months.
Even if you can pretend all those things did not happen the Labour Party still treated the Grenfell Tower as nothing more than an opportunity to bring down the government and seize power.
As with the Withdrawal Agreement the Labour Party's main approach to the Grenfell Tower fire was to spread transparent lies.
For example the Labour Party have, and continue to claim that cladding was fitted to Grenfell Tower for purely cosmetic reasons.
In fact the cladding was fitted as part of an insulation system to reduce heat loss and allow Britain to meet its greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions targets.
Emissions targets the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair signed Britain up to in 2007. Apparently by mistake.
Probably the most pernicious lie the Labour Party told about Grenfell Tower was that hundreds had been killed in the fire. Only a Defence of the Realm Notice (D-Notice) had been issued by Prime Minister May to keep it a secret.
The issuing of D-Notice's are not made public. However to be effective they have to be sent to every media outlet in the country. They are actually issued on a formal register which all news outlets have access to.
So people, particularly the people I associate with, know the moment a D-Notice has been issued. And why it has been issued.
No D-Notice was issued, nor has ever been issued in relation to any aspect of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Fuelled by the lies the Labour Party then moved into open violence and intimidation.
On June 17th (17/6/17) the Labour Party organised a local; "Day of Rage" protest within Kensington & Chelsea.
As was the plan this rapidly turned into a riot.
With the local Town Hall being attacked causing hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage. And Conservative members of the local council being physically assaulted.
Although it flopped badly the Labour Party also tried to organise a national; "Day of Rage" protest on June 20th (20/6/17). Targeting the State Opening of Parliament that day.
In her speech to Parliament during the State Opening the Queen wore a hat bearing the; "Starry Plough" insignia. A powerful symbol amongst Irish Republicans.
Particularly for the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The same INLA which assassinated British MP Airey Neave within the Parliament building in March 1979.
The newly minted Duchess of Sussex has since been dispatched to work closely with the Al Maneer Mosque. So now we all know about its links to Islamist terrorism.
The Labour Party's strategy towards the Withdrawal Agreement is simply to reject it. Without even reading it.
Their hope is that the failure of the Withdrawal Agreement to be passed by Parliament will be enough to justify a No Confidence vote in the government. Which Labour hope will bring down the government and put them in power.
Labour are assuming people are all too thick to notice that Prime Minister May has efficiently negotiated an extremely strong Withdrawal Agreement with the EU.
It's just that Prime Minister May has a very narrow Parliamentary majority. And the Labour Party will vote against whatever she does.
Following the Christmas recess Labour seem to have backed off from their demand that they simply be appointed as the next government. Without the need for voters to be consulted in a General Election.
Sadly this doesn't seem to be because Labour have finally figured out that in order to secure a majority of just three they need to pull off the impossible task of forming a six party coalition.
Instead the change seems to be the result of the Labour Party realising that the public simply won't stand for them being appointed as the government. Rather like some sort of Communist dictatorship.
So, in public at least Labour are now calling for a General Election.
The 2017 General Election campaign was one of the shortest in history. Starting on April 18th (18/4/17) it lasted for 51 days.
On January 9th (9/1/19) the Withdrawal Agreement bill was controversially, and probably illegally amended.
To give the government three days to advise Parliament of the next steps. In the event of the bill being defeated.
Those three days expire on Monday, January 21st (21/1/19).
So the earliest a No Confidence motion can be tabled is Tuesday, January 22nd (22/1/19).
The government then has 14 working days to respond. Meaning the earliest a No Confidence vote can take place is Monday, February 11th (11/2/19).
Assuming the campaign can be as brief as the 2017 campaign the earliest date for a General Election is Thursday, April 4th (4/4/19).
Five days AFTER Britain leaves the EU.
The results of the 2017 General Election weren't actually known until June 26th (26/6/17). 18 days after the vote was held.
So Labour's plan is not just for Britain to crash out of the EU on March 29th (29/3/19) with No Deal.
It's for Britain to crash out with No Deal and no government.
As I've said the effects of Britain leaving the EU with No Deal will be absolutely catastrophic.
It is the equivalent of Britain placing itself under a complete economic blockade.
This is so serious that it constitutes a Defence of the Realm issue. Rather than a party political issue.
As such, during the debate British Parliamentarians have been provided with numerous reminders of the consequences of their actions.
Starting on December 19th (19/12/18) Gatwick Airport, Britain's second largest, was closed for 36 hours. Due to the presence of drones.
This short period of disruption saw more than 1,000 flights cancelled and the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of passengers disrupted.
No sooner had Gatwick Airport re-opened then Birmingham Airport was forced to close. On December 23rd (23/12/18).
Again cancelling hundreds of flights and disrupting the travel plans of thousands of passengers. This shutdown was blamed on a communications failure.
The Parliamentary debate on the Withdrawal Agreement formally resumed on January 8th (8/1/19). Following the Christmas recess.
This was marked by Heathrow Airport, Britain's largest being closed for several hours. As the result of renewed drone activity.
This severe disruption gave Parliamentarians a small taste of the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not talking about shutting down a few of Britain's airports for a few hours. They're proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely.
On December 21st (21/12/18) the Grande Tema (Great Theme) cargo shipped was hijacked by Nigerian pirates. In the Thames Estuary of all places.
On December 22nd (22/12/18) it was raided by British Special Operations Forces (SOF's). The four hijackers were detained for immigration offences.
This cargo ship hijacking further highlighted to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.
Cargo ships are truly the lifeblood of the global economy.
The fact the hijackers were Nigerian and charged with immigration offences highlights what Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.
Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to migrants from Commonwealth nations such as Nigeria.
Rather than hijacking a ship those four men could simply apply for a visa in Nigeria.
The involvement of SOF's goes into a not particularly relevant tangent of military matters.
For the past four years I've been heavily involved in the war in Syria and Iraq. It should tell you how serious the prospect of a No Deal Brexit is that I've been pulled off the line there to deal with this.
British Parliamentarians are currently considered a greater threat to Britain than ISIL or Al Qaeda.
I may have received an anonymous phonecall telling me the new date for the Withdrawal Agreement vote. Before British Parliamentarians were told that the original vote was going to be cancelled.
British Parliamentarians continue to be upset about being shown their place in this world of ours.
However Iraq and Syria are far from the only nations former US President Barack Obama destroyed. He also destroyed Libya. Which in turn destroyed Mali. Which in turn destroyed Nigeria.
In counter-terrorism terms Nigeria is too big to fail. Even if US SOF's are understandably getting fed up of having to do all the work. There's simply not enough of them to repair all the damage Obama did.
On Thursday January 10th (10/1/19) the M6 Motorway had to be closed near Stoke-on-Trent. After 27 irregular migrants/asylum seekers leapt from a cargo truck onto the roadway.
Again this further highlights to British Parliamentarians the chaos they are proposing by rejecting the Withdrawal Agreement.
They are not just proposing shutting down all of Britain's airports indefinitely. They are also no just proposing shutting down all of Britain's seaports indefinitely.
British Parliamentarians are also proposing shutting down all road freight into, within and out of the UK. Indefinitely.
As a general rule; If you buy something in a shop then it got there on a truck.
The fact the story involved irregular migrants/asylum seekers also highlights something else Britain stands to gain from leaving the EU.
Being unable to impose restrictions on EU migrants Britain has been overwhelmed. This has left the British public very inhospitable to both Commonwealth migrants and genuine asylum seekers.
Something which has been made worse by the EU's policy of abusing the refugee system to allow in economic migrants.
Finally being able to restrict the number of EU migrants Britain will be able to be more welcoming to genuine refugees.
Also I think US National Security Adviser John Bolton really needs to explain why Iran is suddenly producing so many economic migrants.
Both the Grande Tema and the M6 stories also highlight that absolutely massive concession Prime Minister May was able to win from the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Northern Ireland will be able to stay in a single market with the EU. While at the same time being able to do away with the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
The tactics being used by Remoaners and particularly the Labour Party closely resemble terrorism.
Specifically the tactics used by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) during The Troubles in Northern Ireland.
In the 1980's and 1990's PIRA conducted a series of bombing campaigns on the British mainland. Unlike in Northern Ireland the purpose of these bombings was not to kill. Instead the purpose to was to damage and disrupt the British economy.
Take for example this footage of the June 15th 1996 (15/6/96) PIRA bombing of Manchester; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl2ye6sPG8
It starts with the police cordoning off and evacuating the area around where the bomb was planted. It then shows attempts to defuse the bomb. Finally it shows police helicopter footage focused on the bomb as it explodes.
The reason the police were able to do this wasn't due to some amazing counter-terrorism operation against PIRA.
It's because PIRA phoned them up. Not only to tell them where the bomb had been placed but exactly when it was going to detonate.
PIRA even left the hazard lights on the vehicle on. Making it impossible for the police to miss.
The goal for PIRA was the immense economic damage the massive bomb did to Manchester's physical infrastructure.
The 1996 PIRA bombing of Manchester was part of a wider campaign that also targeted the cities of London and Warrington.
Collectively they caused the bankruptcy of the Lloyd's of London insurance group. A jewel in the crown of Britain's City of London financial sector.
When anti-terrorism laws were overhauled following 9/11 the specific offence of Economic Terrorism was created. Specifically to outlaw this type of tactic.
The damage to the British economy caused by a No Deal Brexit far outstrips that of any PIRA bombing campaign.
It is this damage that the Remoaners and the Labour Party are threatening to do unless we give in and give them what they want.
As such the Remoaners and the Labour Party could well find themselves classed as terrorists.
I'm sure authorities in Gibraltar can remind them of what that entails.
Certainly over the Christmas recess, particularly the Labour Party have been reminded of their past crimes. Crimes for which they are completely reliant on Britain to continue to provide protection for them. To help them avoid prosecution.
For example on New Years Eve (31/12/18) there was a massive warehouse fire in the Croydon North Constituency.
Labour used the massive fires of the August 2011 riots to springboard from Croydon North into Croydon Central. Having failed by legal means to do so at every election since 1997.
The Croydon warehouse fire was quickly outshone by an Islamist knife attack at Manchester's Victoria Railway Station.
This served as a reminder of the alliance between Islamist terrorist groups and the Labour Party. Particularly the May 22nd 2017 (22/5/17) bombing of the Manchester Evening News Arena (MENA).
The fact it was a knife attack also referenced the June 3rd 2017 (3/6/17) London Bridge terror attack. Along with what a mess Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is making of London.
During the London Bridge terror attack there was actually another mass stabbing in the Vauxhall area of London.
It took people a while to work out this wasn't part of the terror attack. It was just one of your typical, everyday knife attacks in London.
The Labour Party's position is that as soon as they seize power they will be able to negotiate a much better deal with the EU.
The noises coming out of the EU over the Christmas recess very much contradict Labour's claim.
The general position is that whomever is in charge if Britain rejects this current Withdrawal Agreement the EU will scrap it. Britain will never again be offered a deal this good.
There is particular hostility towards the Labour Party. They are seen as falling very far short of the standards of a government the EU would be able to have any dealings with.
The criticism of the Labour Party by Poland is particularly worth bearing in mind.
As I've said Britain has never been anyone's favourite member of the EU. It's more a case of Britain being tolerated because of the money it brings.
The EU budget is a very complicated business. However you could almost get away with saying that Britain's contribution to the EU budget goes directly to Poland. Making Poland the closest thing Britain has to an ally in the EU.
On January 4th (4/1/19) five teenage girls were killed in a fire in an Escape Room in Koszalin in Poland.
Exactly like the Grenfell Tower fire it was initially blamed on an electrical fault. It then rapidly emerged that this was a lie. The fire was not caused by an electrical fault.
A man has since been arrested for causing the danger of the fire.
On Friday January 11th (11/1/19) the UK Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox expressed disbelief at Poland's position. Through the air pollution death of Ella Kissi-Debrah.
So on Sunday January 13th (13/1/19) Poland re-stated its position. With the stabbing of Gdansk Mayor Pawel Adamowicz.
Given the current murder rate it seems Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan is the only person in London who hasn't been stabbed.
Gdansk is a massively important place in the history of the Trade Union movement. It is the birthplace of the Solidarity Trade Union. Founded by Lech Walesa, the second President of Poland and still a massive national hero in the country.
On Monday January 14th (14/1/19) it was announced that the UK Attorney General has dropped his opposition to the Withdrawal Agreement. And that Pawel Adamowicz has died.
So I think its fair to assume that under a Labour government Britain would be dead to the EU.
Once the Withdrawal Agreement has been adopted by Parliament it should be obvious to the Labour Party that they can no longer block it as a way to bring down the government.
But then simple maths should have already made it obvious to the Labour Party that in this Parliament there is no way for them to become the next government.
Much like simple maths should have already made it obvious to the Labour Party that there is no time for either a General Election or a second referendum before Britain leaves the EU.
(Originally posted at 17:20 on 14/1/19 (UK date)).
18:20 on 15/1/19 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)