With a huge sigh of relief our MSM have given over their front pages and headlines to the news that the Duchess of Sussex has finally produced her long-awaited baby. Articles on Brexit and the PM were relegated to the inner pages, as were those on ‘ministers’ meeting with Labour yet again to ‘hammer out’ that deal which the Nation knows is a fudge and betrayal.
Our Remain MSM payed equal, scant attention to the rumblings inside the Tory Party where the 1922 Committee is apparently flexing their muscles again, meeting the PM this afternoon when they will be really really hard and demand a leaving date from her yet again. Not a leaving date for us to exit the EU, you understand, but for her to leave as PM. Non-paywalled reports are here and here, the paywalled ones are here and here.
It’s all so exciting, isn’t it, when we read about the verbal muscle-flexing going on, especially as this 1922 Committee meeting is tied to the result of those talks with Labour:
“Senior sources within the Conservative Party said on Monday that Mrs May will be “gone very quickly” if she moves towards Labour’s demands for a post-Brexit customs union with the EU.” (paywalled link)
In case you believe that this ‘deal’ with Labour is only about pushing the PM’s WA deal over the line, think again. The underlying reason is this – and it’s a reason which is of urgency for Labour as well, after the result in the local elections:
“Downing Street has said Mrs May wants the talks with Labour wrapped up by the end of this week because that would still allow time for a deal to be ratified by Parliament in time to avoid MEPs being sent to Brussels.” (paywalled link)
We’ve learned that Parliament – both Houses, that is – can move very fast indeed when it’s about legislating to keep us in. Remember the Letwin/Cooper amendment last month? Remember that both Houses are Remain to the core! Once you’re ‘in’ that club, it’s irrelevant what us peasants out here think or vote for. It’s even irrelevant what the footfolk in LabCon think, that both sides do not want such deal, for different reasons. Tim Stanley remarks in the (paywalled) DT:
“A few weeks ago Labour thought the answer was to oppose the Government’s Brexit plan in a bid to sink it, but this might prove to have been a mistake. History has called their bluff. They are now forced to take greater responsibility for Brexit at the very moment when options are narrowing and the public’s patience has run out. In politics it’s often stupid to try to be clever when you could just be honest. What we’re left with is a kind of unintelligent fraud […] Nigel Farage is right to warn that even if a customs union is a winner in Parliament, it could be a big loser in the country, precisely because it is the product of a grand bargain between political elites that most voters no longer trust.” (paywalled link)
A comment in RemainCentral, a.k.a. The Times, makes the same point:
“The last thing that is going to win back public trust is a Westminster stitch-up behind closed doors in what Nigel Farage has already characterised as a “coalition against the people”. (link, paywalled)
Still, the PM ploughs on. It looks as if she and her Remain colleagues, as if the Labour front bench, believe that a ‘deal’, now, must surely kill the Farage fox and send TBP scurrying back into their holes.
I repeat – this deal is not only about getting that abomination, the WA, across the finishing lines, it’s about preventing the EP Elections at all costs. They can read the polls as well as we do.
It is of course again the inimitable Sir John Redwood who not only warns about what the PM is likely to do but who has the simple solution for scuppering the EP Elections – not that the PM will take notice:
“She has hinted she would leave after getting the Withdrawal Treaty through the Commons, without precisely naming a date. I do not believe she would leave as soon as she passed the Treaty, were that to happen with Labour votes. It would be seen by her and the pro May parts of the press as a great triumph to have got it through against all the odds and against the overwhelming opposition of the voters. Why wouldn’t she then say she was needed to handle talks with the EU based on the Treaty? That is why my best option is she takes us out this month, cancelling the European election. If she fails to do so the pressures should become overwhelming for her to go.” (link)
Indeed so, but our ‘leaders’ believe firmly that a possible 2nd referendum can and will be managed their way because TBP, ‘damaged’ because their impetus will have vanished without EP elections, will surely have lost traction.
They assume that we out here will have given up. The Mark Sedwills and the power of Whitehell, combined with all the Remain NGOs, will surely see to that. Or so they hope.
There’s also a session in the HoC this afternoon but we don’t know if Mr Williamson will give his alleged speech at that time. For entertainment, read this hilarious but serious article by Richard Littlejohn in the DM (here, not paywalled!) – strewth, doesn’t Sir Mark Sedwill look exactly like Sir Humphrey Appleby …!
The PM ought to be extremely wary though because Dominic Grieve MP – remember him? – has intervened with a timely article in the DT. He happens to be the Chairman of the Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and is not conciliatory, as we all remember:
“In the current debate on the possible involvement of Huawei in our 5G network, we must not lose sight of what is really at stake: one of the UK’s greatest intelligence assets. […] if there is any reason to suspect that our intelligence-sharing relationship with our Five Eyes partners will be damaged, then that should automatically determine our decision on the future of our 5G network […] (paywalled link)
It certainly ought to – but will Mr Grieve call Sir Mark Sedwill to explain himself in front of the Intelligence and Security Committee? We might also ask why Mr Grieve hasn’t done so yet … More:
In the past we have seen governments on all sides of the Five Eyes partnership act swiftly to protect the relationship: legislation has been introduced to address concerns around vulnerabilities and leak Inquiries have been launched to regain trust. For us to consider taking action now which might in any way jeopardise such a critical partnership would be unconscionable – and unforgivable.” (paywalled link).
Well, that surely carries some weight!
I don’t know which threat to her tenure as PM will turn out to be the more dangerous, but given the toothless tigers of the 1922 Committee I suspect that it might turn out to be the sacking of Mr Williamson over the Huawei affaire which will break her.
Now let’s have some bets on how long the arrival of the latest Royal Baby will dominate the headlines … ‘bread and circus’ has ever been the preferred way of the elites to keep us plebs controlled.
KBO!
“Remember the Letwin/Cooper amendment last month? ”
Given that the vote was 313-312 and the motion could be regarded as carried by Fiona Onasanya who has now been rejected by the voters of Peterborough, surely there is a case for bringing the question of taking ‘no deal’ off the table back to the Commons and having the resulting legislation potentially repealed.
If there can be demands for a second referendum following a clear result in the first, then there can be no grounds for just dismissing this.
Mrs. May is said to be considering a three way second referendum, WA, ‘no deal’ or remain in order to gain the support of Labour, so ‘no deal’ is effectively still on the table.
Unfortunately reason and logic do not seem to be important theses days, cultural marxism at work.
Methinks a 3-question referendum with the wording carefully crafted by someone for Mrs. May would be almost certain to lead to a remain-friendly result. If it leads to a deal (treaty) that lacks a get-out clause we could find ourselves just as badly off as staying in the EU.
I don’t think we need worry about this three-way option. It is so obvious that is designed to split the Leave vote. Since it is so clearly biased, it is unlikely to be agreed even by the deeply Remainer Electoral Commission – it would earn them opprobrium from across the developed democratic world and mire them in legal challenges.
That would be the intention, no doubt at all about it, they will not allow us again to upset their plans with democracy. Reason and logic says that now having a thrice defeated “deal”, we should have already gone to a WTO exit.
If it was felt (by the majority, a joke term now) that consideration of these three options was necessary, it should be done in a two stage process ie WA v WTO, then (winner stage one) v Remain.
Reason, logic, fairness, democracy? Sounds now like terms we used to use in a free Britain, and I feel very angry with myself that I did not notice them slipping away.
Although Gavin Williamson is a bit of a hero at the moment for standing up to May over his sacking, It is, I believe irrelevant, as he was also one of those treacherous MPs who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement the third time round. Many believe that anyone voting for such a surrender is a traitor. I would agree with that conclusion. There is of course a lot of smoke and mirrors and not many truly honest people left in the Conservative Parliamentary Group.
” …….. as he was also one of those treacherous MPs who voted for the Withdrawal Agreement the third time round.”
Brexit will collapse because of the intransigence of those who see Brexit as all or nothing. Politics does not work that way. And it is clear that Brexit is the first attempt to break up the EU and therefore will be strenuously resisted.
The approach to Brexit should be based therefore on what is possible. And the EU have agreed to Brexit based on Mrs May’s WA. Politics is never perfect especially where there is so much obvious opposition both at home and in Europe. Politics is also never static and therefore, once the door is open to British independence from the EU, it is up to the people of Britain to rule themselves.
To put it bluntly the Hard Brexit approach could be seen as arrogance in a climate where no other EU country has indicated it is going to follow suit.
I believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush!!
Dear Edward,
I hate to take issue with a fellow poster in a public forum, but I must say I and I imagine many of the nationwide Brexit LEAVE audience would not agree that we should capitulate in a negotiation to an adversary who is fighting solely to maintain the imposition of its totalitarian rule, the bonds of enslavement increasingly entangling and enfeebling our nation for over 40 years.
A referendum was offered to the British people and they voted massively to get this illegitimate (remember Ted Heath) brute of over 40 years duration off our back. It was a simple IN/OUT situation remain or LEAVE, there can be no construction placed on that question that didn`t imply TOTALITY IN ALL RESPECTS, we were indeed advised by our treacherous government that to LEAVE would involve leaving the SINGLE MARKET (No ifs, buts, whys, or wherefores and we expected to regain our TOTAL Sovereignty
We did it, we voted despite the fear campaign, in one of the largest national votes ever to do it, we in effect instructed our elected government to do it. TO get out Promptly, Expeditiously, Instantly, Immediately, our vote did not imply any permission for our negotiators to mess about, temporize, fudge. They had the opportunity to take the route one course of leaving without a deal (WTO terms) at the time and fatally selected the article 50 course.(Mr. Trump gave the a nswer at Davos “we didn`t go in hard enough – pity he wasn`t negotiating for us)
They have now reaped the whirlwind of trying to square the circle and take into account ALL/ANY of the stakeholders interests and ended up with a WA dictated by the evil empire who have never had our interests at heart, who have not only traduced our sovereignty but instigated the systematic rape of our industrial base and stolen our children ( (the poor devils are taught they are children of the EU)
I understand this WA is a base document, as I say dictated by the EU/Germans which has the effect of tying us to the rule of the EU forever. We have even learned just lately it includes provision for a UNELECTEDF JOINT COUNCIL to carry out DIRECT RULE from BRUSSELS.
Surely even the most blinkered and docile / corrupt Parliament cannot claim a mandate from its electorate for passing such a document and the Government should immediately withdraw their objection to the EDL case submitted by Tillotson and revert to March 29th as Brexit completion day and put an end to this stultifying condition UNCERTAINTY..
Edward, whilst your post holds some merit, you seem to agree that the WA is the work of Mrs May.
I must disagree with that assumption ! The WA, being almost entirely in favour of the EU and it’s objectives, is almost certainly the work of someone else (from the language, it is most likely a German person). It is also very strange that a person of Mrs May’s limited intellect could swiftly produce such a complicated document given the extremely short time that was available. Almost six hundred pages of a binding document, written in legal propensity, would appear to be nigh impossible for even a highly qualified barrister, never mind the awkward Mrs May !
Of course the EU agreed to Brexit on May’s ‘WA deal’ because they are the ones who dictated it ! Why would they not agree to their own document???
Edward, I wrote a reply and found it was way over the word count for a comment. I probably disagreed with every sentence of your comment. This is a very crude precis and a chronological response.
The Referendum was a binary.
Our politicians are our servants.
The British want their sovereignty returned, nothing more.
What is possible is that we leave the EU immediately.
May’s WA is clearly not a Withdrawal Agreement and is not Mays. See Bill Walsh.
Whether politics is simple or complicated depends on whether you are decisive or devious.
After the Referendum the word opposition is irrelevant.
The will of the British is being denied with a merry-go-round of obfuscation, obstruction and deceit.
Arrogance is a subjective and irrelevant emotion. Trade is a hard necessity of life.
Many on the Continent are waiting and hoping for us to succeed so that they have a chance too.
The ‘bird in the hand is an emerging superpower with all the dangers to Peace, Democracy.
The sooner we get off this sinking ship of The Fourth Reich the better.
I don’t like using this quote as it always seems a sledge hammer to crack a nut but ‘The Tigers of Wrath are Wiser than the Horses of Instruction’.
Those who signed that so called WA most certainly are Traitors, in my opinion, and I know I am not alone.
Now you can have a chuckle and think me a Philistine.
Ooow Kim, I wish I`d said that, you`ve virtually echoed every word I`ve written above and mirrored every one of my thoughts that went behind every word you have penned.
It`s a tour de force.
I hope someone, somewhere amongst the pseudo elite read this and understand this WA is a stitch up (as I have just seen it described on Sky Adam Bolton show) that the Emperor has indeed NO CLOTHES and we the grass root peasants have wised up to the con and are just not prepared to buy it.
Please keep hammering Kim!
Is our PM so out of touch with the electorate that she really believes forcing her WA over the line and cancelling the Euro elections will ‘kill the Farage fox and send TBP scurrying back into their holes.’? Does she not realise that this course of action will only attract voters to the Brexit Party and cause more unhappiness within her Tories?
If this is her opinion she has underestimated us and doesn’t deserve to be our Prime Minister.
It is quite clear now that Theresa May and her sycophants are holed up in the No 10 Bunker still believing the WA can be passed.
That May now beleives. is advised that a joint Tory/Labour stitch up can deliver a deal that has thrice been rejected shows the ‘bunker mentality’ is alive and well.
Apropos the closing item: https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-1345
Given the current gender fluidity situation, this might actually be news.
Spon I assume this is the “Woman has baby” bit.
I`m sorry it didn`t even raise a smile in me – hasn`t Hislop done this bit before, I`m becoming bored with his snide humour particularly on “Have I got news for you”.
But I am also getting fed up with the pseudo republicanism generated when anything personal attaches to the Crown.
Perhaps its “just me” revealing my deep xenophobia, but to me, the Crown is the essence of my Britishness. The underlying reason behind my support for Brexit was that I resented and refused to have traded on my behalf of that of being born a “subject” of the crown to being subsumed into a citizen of the EU.
I am xenophobic enough to believe in my country “right or wrong” (not blind to its faults – but deserving of my full support, mainly because divided we fall) I exclude elected governments that act contrary to the will of the people.
I know we are only talking about “another” Royal baby here, but I believe there is no reason for its emergence to be sneered at and associated with republican thinking, particularly as the event has been greeted with delight around the world. in fact I resent this implied intrusion.
He did it once, I just looked up the original headline.
Yeah! I suppose repetition isn`t all that clever, a bit like sniggering at your own jokes.
I suppose he set a pattern for other boring apes to ape – any record of how many others have used similar?
My thoughts entirely, I wonder if we will have flag waving and street parties to mark such an event!
I hope it’s OK to post this Viv but here is a little ditty from David Craig this morning; Ode to Brexit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=209&v=5YM73IwXxYI.
Well worth watching, Norman’. Shame about the sad ending, but it may be prophetic.