The battle for the sovereignty of the UK is being taken away from the people. It appears that the Referendum was our finest hour. Now it will be the MPs who will decide. What a difficult time they have had dealing with the legacy of the Referendum result. Now it appears they may have cracked it. At least now the Government doesn’t have to deal with the hearts and minds of the riff-raff.

If they can just bend, coerce, bribe, manipulate and subvert the opinions of those who would stand up for their country then they may get there WA through. Not that many of the MPs need much persuasion, it is, of course, for egoists, a game of political self-interest, not just on a personal level but on a party level — same thing I suppose as many survive in their own bubbles and tribal groups.

It would be wrong to believe that all MPs are going to light up the world with their intellect and so control of their votes may not be as difficult as one thinks.

The reason I am writing this article is my concerns about a report I have recently read and my want to have any subversion exposed.

An email was forwarded to me by my local UKIP Chairman. It was from the local MP and was an update of the Brexit process dated 13th December.  Here is a small extract,

 

If the Withdrawal Agreement does not pass, as things stand, we will leave the EU next March and our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world will default to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. I’m providing the following link to a helpful briefing about WTO and what it means for the UK. http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/What-would-trading-on-WTO-terms-mean-Long-Guide.pdf

The briefing comes from a group called ‘The UK in a Changing Europe’ which is funded by the ‘Economic and Social Research Council’. In the foreword, it is explained that, ‘This report is written by experts in the field of WTO law but who want to explain WTO rules in terms accessible to non-experts.’

 

Unfortunately, they begin the Foreword with a quote from a leading Brexiteer talking about using WTO rules and terms. This is clearly setting the scene for the report to prove otherwise. In itself, this does not bode well for what purports to be a professional and independent report.

There were a number of other points I did not like, here are just three of them taken from page 10,

On top of that, the UK would lose the benefit of free trade agreements it now has with countries such as South Korea and Canada as a member of the EU. Therefore, more British imports and exports would face tariffs.

 As we will see below, this means import duties and various controls will be imposed on trade between the UK and the EU, with impacts concentrated in agriculture and industries that depend on products which repeatedly cross between the UK and the rest of the EU, such as components to make cars or ingredients for processing food.

 And it means UK services, which can now access the whole of the EU’s single market (i.e., currently, the 28 member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) relatively freely, would only be allowed the much more restricted access of the EU and UK’s commitments in the WTO.

 

If my suspicions are justified, then this report should be exposed.

A number of issues are raised.

  • On this occasion, the target audience is not the electorate but Members of Parliament.
  • The report can be viewed as subversion and propaganda.
  • The funding agency is the Government organisation ‘The Economic and Social Research Council.’ Therefore it is reasonable to accept that a civil service department is actively involved in undermining democracy.
  • Tax payer’s money is being misused.
  • The process of leaving the EU is not transparent.

Although some of these issues may already be established as the present reality in British Politics, any new evidence of the lack of transparency and corruption must be exposed.

I would cite two cases relevant to the issues outlined

  • The circular to every home in the UK outlining the Government case for the Referendum prior to that vote.
  • The initial refusal to publicise the legal advice given to the Government with regard to the Withdrawal Agreement.

I do accept that we have a perspective of wanting to leave the EU, so it may be information that I do not want to hear. On the other hand, it must also be accepted that it is possible to write a report of this type with a biased slant.

Keeping in touch with the Chairman who forwarded me this information and on the basis that I might be guilty of being subjective, I decided to see if there was someone who could help clarify the report. Who better than William Dartmouth MEP ex-UKIP spokesman for International Trade a person who has been brilliant at putting forward the benefits of Free Trade.

His office informed me that my concerns would be put forward to the European Parliament Office but that it is closed for recess until the 7th of January.

My point is that May is reopening the WA debate on the 7th January and a vote is I believe now scheduled for the 14th January.

Could someone tell me I am wrong to be concerned? If not, shouldn’t this taxpayer-funded propaganda be exposed?  Shouldn’t we be lobbying every MP in the country, like now!  Shouldn’t we be providing MPs with pragmatic and positive information about the common sense of ‘falling back on WTO’ and the benefits of global free trade?  The clock is ticking.

OK that’s it Christmas is cancelled!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email