Written by David Blake
This article was first published in ‘Briefings for Brexit’ and we re-publish with their kind permission
~~~ *** ~~~
Remainers who want to block a ‘no-deal’ Brexit should be frank about their real intention. Their plan is for the UK to be subsumed into a United States of Europe with the most important laws determined by unelected officials in Brussels
So the Arch Remainer Philip Hammond resigns because he refuses to be part of a government that takes the UK out of the EU ‘without a deal’. He then tweets his ‘wholehearted support’ for the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, for his determination ‘to do a deal with Brussels’. Indeed, most of us want ‘to do a deal with Brussels’ since it will be less disruptive for the economy in the short term. Yet the Financial Times reports that 30 or more Tory MPs are threatening to block a ‘no-deal’ exit. We should be very clear about what they really mean.
Boris Johnson has confirmed that the UK will leave the EU by 31 October 2019.
This could involve leaving with what has been dubbed ‘no deal’. But this is a very devious misnomer invented by Remainers and constantly used by their friends in the media. There will inevitably be ‘a deal’. At the very minimum, we will trade with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. This is how we currently trade with most countries outside the EU and that trade has grown faster than trade with EU member states (at 2.88% p.a. v 1% p.a.). In addition, there are already many ‘mini deals’ agreed – covering visa-free travel, aircraft landing, rail and shipping agreements, road haulage licences, student exchanges, defence, and security, etc – so citizens and businesses of both the UK and EU can continue visiting and trading with each other with minimal disruption, as WTO rules require. Further, a sufficient number of the international trade deals negotiated by the EU have been novated that we can also continue trading on the same terms with many of these countries as we do now. A key example is Switzerland which accounts for more than a quarter of our trade under these EU-negotiated deals. So this can hardly be described as ‘no deal’.
The EU has also said that it does not want ‘no deal’. But the ‘deal’ that the EU wants and that Remainers like Hammond have voted for three times is the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and Political Declaration (PD).
But as I have pointed out in a previous Briefings for Brexit piece, the WA/PD is NOT a real Brexit. It is a Boomerang Brexit. It is a trap. It is a one-way ticket back into the EU – before 2025 and on far worse terms than we currently have. This is what Olly Robbins meant when he was overheard in that Brussels bar saying the backstop was always intended to be a bridge to the ‘final trading arrangement’.
Jean-Claude Juncker, in his 2017 State of the Union Address, advocates various steps towards greater EU centralisation including a stronger Commission President. Euro-fanatics like Martin Schulz, former President of the EU Parliament and ex-leader of the German SPD, have made it very clear that they want political union by 2025. This means that the Commission will become the unelected Executive (so Europe’s ‘President’ will be the Commission President – currently Jean-Claude Juncker), the European Council becomes the unelected Senate, and the European Parliament remains as it is with very limited powers to block legislation coming from the Commission. The direction of movement is towards a single foreign policy, a single fiscal and tax policy, and a single military command, etc. This is all allowed by the 2007 Lisbon Treaty which introduced a European constitution by the backdoor – after it was rejected in national referenda in 2005. Brussels also wants all EU states not in the euro to join by 2025. Any new members must join the euro.
The WA, much of which was drafted in the German Chancellor’s private office (according to John Petley’s anonymous informant), was designed in such a way that the UK could re-join the EU in full at some time after the next general election in 2022, or so Theresa May is reported to have suggested to Angela Merkel. Rejoining the EU would likely mean joining the euro and Schengen Agreement on free movement – and losing the rebate. In such a future scenario, our interest rates would be set, not by the Bank of England, but by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. Theresa May is also reported to have agreed to keep as many EU laws as she could on state aid, the environment, workers’ rights, etc. Much of this is included in the (supposedly non-binding) Political Declaration accompanying the WA which commits us to rejoin the EU’s Customs Union – and hence not have a free trade agreement with the EU along the lines of the deal with Canada that the government initially promised.
Now you can’t blame the EU for playing hard ball, especially when it observes how much of the British establishment wants to reverse Brexit. But it is time for Hammond and those 30 Tory MPs to acknowledge that by blocking a ‘no deal’ Brexit, the UK could be subsumed into a United States of Europe with the most important laws that we have to obey determined by unelected officials in Brussels. They also need to admit that they are quite content to ignore the result of this country’s biggest ever democratic mandate given in the Referendum in June 2016 and equally happy to sign up to the sham democracy of the future United States of Europe.
Hammond is now known as ‘Phil Guevara’ around Whitehall. Perhaps this nom de guerre is appropriate, since his hero Che helped to create one of the most undemocratic countries on the face of the planet.
I totally agree with David Blake’s article. How many times does it have to be said that there are already many deals in place, that the EU is intent on becoming a single state, that the so called withdrawal deal is in fact a keep you in deal? It also seems to me blatantly obvious that the whole Remain camp are purely self seekers.
The motivation of a great many Remainiacs seems to be more about hatred of their own country, especially England, than it is love or even understanding of the EU, soon to be the United State of Europe. The singular State is intentional.
To recap, the 496 (76%) MPs who voted to invoke Article 50, did NOT add a condition that it had to be WITH a deal.
TMay’s manifesto said that no deal would be chosen in preference to a bad deal – which she then proceeded to negotiate.
That leads automatically to a WTO exit. So why are those MPs still trying to block it? They have zero credibility.
Just keep playing this.
How right you are Jack, it’s only when it affects them that reality will dawn and then it will somebody’s fault for not telling them. Best to save your breath, as we all know if it’s not on the BBC or Sky then it’s not happening.
It is about time that all those who say we will ‘crash out’ of the EU with ‘no deal’ if a deal is not reached by October 31st were told that this is not true. As this article explains we will trade on WTO terms which is the way we trade with rest of the world. The Remainers and the MSM must be called out on this one, our MPs and their civil service lackeys should be reminded that they have to deliver our exit on the 31st October or face losing their jobs for not carrying out the will of the people.
Sadly the ignorant masses who wish to remain know nothing of the real intent of the EU and can’t be bothered to inform themselves. I have a close relative who is vehemently anti-Boris, anti-Trump, and clearly of that camp. There is no possibility of any rational discussion with them.
I have the same problem with some family and friends but I just smile and imagine the shock on their faces when we are proved right.