Today’s letters address two different and important aspects of Brexit. The first is by our contributor ‘A Roving Reporter’ who casts a critical eye on the Government White Paper which was published on Thursday. (Please find the link to this at the bottom of this page.)
David Davis has at last revealed an apparent reason for wanting to go into the Article 50 negotiations unarmed:
“We hope that in the upcoming talks, the EU will be guided by the principles set out in the EU Treaties concerning a high degree of international cooperation and good neighbourliness.”
This beautifully naïve sentiment comes from his introduction to the White Paper. Laudable though this vision of sweet harmony might look in a vacuum, it has to be seen instead in the cold light of actual reality. That reality is best exemplified just now by the warmest of assurances from the EU that it will present the UK with a wholly unjustified invoice for 60 billion euros as a bill for exiting the EU. There is absolutely no legal basis whatsoever for paying any money at all as a price for exiting the EU; so much for “international cooperation and good neighbourliness”!
There is no change in the plan for a Great Repeal Bill:
” Providing legal certainty
1.1 To provide legal certainty over our exit from the EU, we will introduce the Great Repeal Bill to remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book and convert the ‘acquis’ – the body of existing EU law – into domestic law. This means that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before.”
Westminster thus continues to labour under the illusion that repealing the ECA 1972 repeals the “acquis” as well, even though the Supreme Court has confirmed that the statute can be repealed “like any other statute”. There is also now a third limb providing for simple amendments to tie up loose ends. Nevertheless, this illusion would not matter if the idea was to get the Great Repeal Bill passed now. It is common ground that nothing would change, so it remains the case that it can only be that old civil service poison which is preventing Parliament from doing the sensible thing.
Respectfully, A Roving Reporter
While the Government and Parliament debate the White Paper (link at the bottom), with Article 50 still not triggered, there is one extremely worrying aspect to this prevarication, as our reader and contributor Jack Russell argues in his letter:
While “the World”, that is all the well-meaning Western Elites, are up in arms about the so-called “Muslim Travel Ban” which President Trump enacted last week, and while our own luvvies are still screaming to let all those ‘poor refugees’ into our countries, there was a terrorist attack yesterday – in Paris. Our papers reported on it – here for example – but if you lived in the USA, you wouldn’t know. Their ‘Paper of Record’, the New York Times, didn’t have anything that was easily found. This is not surprising because it runs counter to their tale that muslim refugees are all peaceful. So the report in the Daily Telegraph, that the terrorist was a “refugee” who had entered France only last month, with an Egyptian passport, is rather ‘interesting’. We all can be grateful that the French soldiers were able to act so quickly and prevent worse from happening.
The point I wish to make is that this incident shows that the ‘extreme vetting’ President Trump’s so-called (by the International MSM) “Muslim Travel Ban” demands is indeed necessary. While Egypt was not on the list of the seven countries to which that applies, we do not know if that passport was a fake. It is significant that this attack is being played down – nothing to see here, move on, all ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’, as London’s Mayor has recently said.
We in the UK are so vulnerable because we still do not have full control of our borders. Our metropolitan elite still wants us to take in all who call themselves ‘refugees’. Why should we the people have to wait for full Brexit before our government does something about our Border Control? It would seem that they prefer to ‘look good’ and ‘compassionate’ rather than protect us, the people. And make no mistake – our MSM are fully complicit in preferring to ‘protect’ those fakefugees rather than us.
Respectfully, Jack Russell
Here is the link to the Government’s “White Paper”