Please, Don't Pretend This Is Normal.

Even if it does sound depressingly familiar.

On June 23rd 2016 (23/6/16) Britain held a referendum on whether it wished to Leave or Remain part of the European Union (EU).

This vote was the largest democratic exercise in British political history. 72% of 46.5 million registered voters participated.

It was larger even than the 1975 referendum on joining what would become the EU. There only 64% of 40 million registered voters participated.

Of those 46.5 million voters 17.4 million voted for Britain to Leave the EU.

This was not just a clear decision to Leave the EU. It was also a victory over the 17.3 million voters who voted for Britain to join the EU back in 1975.

Despite the growing population the total number of voters who wanted to be part of the EU actually fell between 1975 and 2016. From 17.3 million to 16.1 million.

On February 8th 2017 (8/2/17) the lower, elected house of Parliament, the House of Commons, finally voted overwhelmingly to accept the decision to the electorate. Passing the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 after months of opposition and delaying tactics.

The passing of the EU (Withdrawal Notification) Act 2017 allowed the British government to formally notify the EU of its intention to leave. On March 29th 2017 (29/3/17).

The issuing of that formal notification triggered the start of a negotiation process over the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. Set to expire on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).

In November 2018 the EU and Britain reached an agreement on the manner of Britain's exit from the EU. This was an extremely strong agreement which gave Britain unprecedentedly favourable terms.

That Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons on January 16th 2019 (16/1/19). It was rejected by MP's.

The Withdrawal Agreement was put before the Commons again on March 13th 2019 (13/3/19). Again it was rejected by MP's.

Having refused to adopt the Withdrawal Agreement twice the Commons forced the British government to seek a delay on leaving the EU. At the EU Council (EUCO) summit on March 22nd 2019 (22/3/19).

There Britain was offered two options. A delay until May 22nd 2019 (22/5/19) on condition the elected house adopted the Withdrawal Agreement. Or a delay until April 12th 2019 (12/4/19) if it did not.

The British government failed to even attempt to accept the offer of a delay until May 22nd (22/5/19). Refusing to put the Withdrawal Agreement to the Commons for a third time.

This forced Britain to seek another delay of Leaving the EU on April 10th 2019 (10/4/19). This time until October 31st 2019 (31/1/0/19).

The House of Commons then went on very long holiday. Having driven the British economy into recession.

On Tuesday (3/9/19) the House of Commons finally returned to work.

The Labour MP Hilary Benn immediately attempted to force another delay to Britain Leaving the EU. Through the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill he sponsored.

The European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill was introduced to the Commons on Tuesday (3/9/19) evening. Receiving its first reading.

At around 5pm on Wednesday (4/9/19) Benn's Bill began its second reading. By around 8pm that same evening it had been adopted by the Commons.

That alone prevents Benn's Bill from ever becoming law.

It was introduced under a piece of Commons procedure known as; "Standing Order 24 (SO24)." This allows for emergency debates.

However SO24 does not allow for the introduction of legislation.

Parliament itself has already declared that the issue addressed by Benn's Bill doesn't constitute an emergency.

That Britain would leave the EU on October 31st 2019 (31/10/19) without a deal has been known since April 10th 2019 (10/4/19). Six months ago.

When the date of Britain's departure from the EU became known the Commons decided that it did not require urgent attention. Instead voting to go on holiday.

In order to become law a bill must pass through five stages in the Commons;

First Reading. Second Reading. Committee. Reporting. Third Reading.

All of these stages are independent of each other. They can only be held on five separate days.

The purpose is to allow for the proposed law to be given proper consideration. So it's effects can be researched and any unintended consequences can be identified and removed. This is particularly true of the Committee and Reporting stages.

To understand how outrageous the Commons behaviour has been in regards to Benn's Bill you only need to look at the Chinese city of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is currently undergoing its 14th straight weekend of mass protests. These protests began in earnest on June 9th 2019 (9/6/19).

They were triggered by the Second Reading of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 by Hong Kong's Legislative Council.

The First Reading of this so-called Extradition Bill had taken place on April 3rd 2019 (3/4/19).

The protesters main objection is that China is an anti-Democratic, Totalitarian state. However not even China would not go so far as the British House of Commons by holding multiple readings of a bill on the same day.

Fortunately Britain's House of Commons does not hold absolute power in the passing of British laws.

Throughout the Brexit debate Remain MP's have frequently screamed about; "The Sovereignty of Parliament!" That term does not mean what they are trying to convince people it does.

The Houses of Parliament are sovereign only in the sense that all houses in Britain are sovereign. They are free to go about their internal business without undue interference from the Crown.

For example the police, Her Majesty's Constabulary, can't just enter my house. Instead they must first obtain either my permission or the permission of a Judge issuing a Warrant of Search/Entry.

Likewise the police cannot just enter the House of Commons. Instead they must first obtain either the permission of the Commons own security, the Serjeant-at-Arms, or the permission of a Judge issuing a Warrant of Search/Entry.

The Sovereignty of Parliament most certainly does not give the Commons absolute power. To pass laws which affect all the other houses in Britain.

Instead in its legislative role the Commons, the lower house, exists as part of a wider system. A system designed to guard against exactly the sort of excesses we have seen in the Commons handling of the Benn Bill.

Once a bill has been adopted by the Commons it is sent to the upper house, the House of Lords. There is goes through a similar process of reading, review and votes.

Despite being adopted by the Commons on Wednesday (4/9/19) Benn's Bill was not set for consideration by the Lords until Friday (6/9/19). On Friday's both the Commons and the Lords only sit for half a day.

Therefore the Lords could not properly start work on Benn's Bill until Monday (9/9/19). That would make it impossible for it to be adopted by the Lords before Parliament shuts down for the Queen's Speech. On Thursday (12/9/19) at the latest.

Supporters of Benn's Bill launched a plot to have it considered by the Lords on Thursday (5/9/19). By forcing a session in the Lords in the very early hours of Thursday (5/9/19) morning. They also threatened to force the Lords to work throughout the weekend on Benn's Bill.

However even if they were successful in that effort long delays were still expected.

As you may have detected from;

The closure of the M4 Motorway at the Prince of Wales Bridge.

The closure of the M6 Motorway due to a Gin spillage.

The closure of the Northern Line of London's Underground Rail (Metro) system.

The closure of Scotland's Forth Bridge.

All of which occurred on Wednesday (4/9/19). The same day that Hong Kong's extradition bill was officially withdrawn.

So Benn's Bill would have died quietly in the Lords. Meaning the outrageous behaviour of the MP's would never have to be spoken of again.

Unfortunately immediately after Benn's Bill had been adopted by the Commons the Government introduced another motion on Wednesday (4/9/19). This called for a General Election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011.

Since the last General Election the Labour Party have been demanding a fresh General Election. Repeatedly voting against the Withdrawal Agreement to force that objective.

Throughout the Brexit process Remainers of all political parties have demanded the issue be put back to the voters. Repeatedly voting against the Withdrawal Agreement to force that objective.

On Wednesday (4/9/19) they suddenly decided that voters should not be given a say at all. Voting to block a General Election.

They claimed that they were only doing this to ensure that Benn's Bill would be passed into law. So in a spectacularly unwise decision the Government waved Benn's Bill through the Lords. In the hope of securing support in another vote on a General Election scheduled for Monday (9/9/19).

Needless to say Labour and the Remainers could not be trusted.

Benn's Bill was adopted by the Lords on Friday (6/9/19). Just in time for Labour and the Remainers to declare that they would not be voting for a General Election on Monday (9/9/19).

Suggesting there is, in fact, another reason why Labour and the Remainers are afraid of voters being allowed to have their say.

Having been adopted by the Lords Benn's Bill is now scheduled to go back to the Commons on Monday (9/9/19).

There the Commons must decide whether to scrap Benn's Bill or attempt to seek Royal Assent for it. The final safety valve in the system designed to protect Britain from crackpot laws.

It is very hard to see how Benn's Bill can ever receive Royal Assent and become law.

If is become law Benn's Bill will force the British government to seek a delay on Leaving the EU until January 31st 2020 (31/1/20).

If the EU offers an extension to a date other than 31/1/20 Benn's Bill automatically signs Britain up to that delay. Regardless of what it may entail or how long it will be for.

This would entirely remove power from the hands of the British Parliament, Monarch and Voters. It would then place that power completely in the hands of the EU.

As a result Britain would cease to be a nation state. Instead it would become nothing more than an offshore colony of an EU superstate.

This is so extreme that the other 27 members of the EU are not even sure they want to be a superstate. Let alone one that annexes neighbouring islands just off the mainland.

Throughout the Brexit debate one of the main issues has been that of taking back control. Reclaiming the powers that Britain has already ceded to the EU.

As I've said that as a member of the EU the process of Britain passing new laws doesn't really involve British MP's at all.

The EU Parliament suggests a new law. The EU Council adopts that law. It then automatically becomes British law under the 1972 European Communities Act.

As such it might be difficult, on the surface at least, to see how Benn's Bill is different from the large amount of powers that have already been placed in the EU's hands.

The fact of the matter though is that British voters are represented in the EU Parliament.

The issue is that in the British Parliament British voters are represented by 650 MP's. British voters have 100% control over all of those 650 MP's.

In the EU Parliament British voters are represented by just 73 MEP's. Giving them less than 10% control over the 751 member chamber.

Also the EU Parliament doesn't actually have the power to pass laws. Instead it merely makes recommendations to the EU Council. Britain is one member of the 28 member EU Council.

Decisions of the EU Council are made by consensus. Meaning that, in theory at least, Britain has a veto over any proposed  new law.

It is not actually an EU requirement that new EU laws are passed automatically. Through a mechanism such as the 1972 European Communities Act. That is something Britain chooses to do.

This means that if Britain fails to veto a controversial new law at the EU Council it always has the option of repealing the 1972 Act. Meaning that Parliament would have to debate and pass or reject that new law. A refusal to pass would block the law going into effect across the EU.

Prior to Brexit one of the biggest things the EU did was the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The free trade deal with Canada.

CETA was adopted by the EU Council in October 2016. However CETA has still not gone into force. It has been blocked not by the national Parliament of Belgium but by one of the sub-national Parliaments of one of Belgium's regions.

Finally, if all else fails, Britain has always had the option of Leaving the EU to avoid adopting a controversial new law.

As part of the Brexit process Britain has been forced to give up its seat on the EU Council, except for matters relating to Brexit. Along with its seat Britain has given up its veto over proposed new laws.

For example Brexit was delayed at the EU Council summit in April 2019. Britain then left the summit.

However the EU Council then went on to adopt the European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The so-called Meme Law.

If Benn's Bill allows the EU to force Britain to remain a member until 2021 then Britain will have to adopt this EU Meme Law. Despite not being involved in its passing.

Repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act is now tied up with Brexit. It will only be repealed once Britain has exited the EU.

So Benn's Bill not only forces Britain to give up its veto over new EU laws. It also forces Britain to automatically adopt any and all new EU laws.

Benn's Bill of course also removes that final power Britain has to reject EU laws. Leaving the EU.

So Benn's Bill does not merely maintain the status quo of Britain's relationship with the EU. It forces Britain in to a substantially closer relationship with the EU. A relationship in which Britain is totally subservient.

It is akin to the Commons rushing through a bill which makes Britain America's 51st state. In defiance of a public referendum on the issue.

I don't think there would be even the slightest suggestion that such a bill would be granted Royal Assent and become law.

Likewise I don't think there is any suggestion that Benn's Bill will receive Royal Assent and become law.

Instead it should rejected and sent back to Hilary Benn.

To see if, having had his error pointed out, he can come up with language to avoid his unintended consequences.

Or at least what I hope are his unintended consequences.

11:02 on 9/9/19 (UK date).