• Agreeing with Alastair ?????????


    Last night on BBC 1’s “This Week”, Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell was rather grumpy. Understandable really. Article 50 had been served upon the EU and the UK appears heading towards Brexit!

    Mr Campbell wants to halt Brexit. He is quite open about it. He thinks Brexit will be a disaster and that the best thing to do is to call a halt.
    British Gazette comment: Mr Campbell MIGHT be on to something. Let us at this point however reassure readers that this organ and it’s editor have NOT “crossed the floor” and become Europhiles!

    Let us restate certain FACTS:

    The European Communities Act 1972 is unconstitutional as it breaches the Declaration of Rights 1688 ratified into law by the Bill of Rights 1689, causes Her Majesty the Queen to be put in breach of her Coronation Oath of June 1953 to govern us according to our laws and customs and not those of a foreign prince, potentate or power and also those Privy Councillors who facilitate such foreign entity having such precedence are therefore in breach of their oaths of office.

    The situation is very serious. This is because during the referendum, the Leave side sold a FALSE PROSPECTUS. Now it has to be said that most of those involved – including the thousands of hard working and dedicated UKIP activists – were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing or dishonesty. This is because they honestly and sincerely believed what they were saying and also in the veracity and accuracy of the statements contained in the literature they were handing out and distributing.

    Honestly believing that something is possible when in reality it is impossible does not make the impossible possible. The impossible remains impossible.

    In our article of the 27th (http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2017/03/27/jeremy-corbyn-je-proteste/) we described how the so-called “Great Repeal Bill” could work in relation to a transitional arrangement where the UK was outside the EU but the EU treaties continued to apply for a transitional period. This would not be an easy situation. Were the EU treaties not covering the UK the situation would even me more complex. An example of this complexity can be seen with the problem of the mutual recognition of standards in relation to the ECJ’s Cassis de Dijon ruling, described in today’s post on Dr. Richard North’s blog: http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86428
    It comes down to this: In terms of economics and practical politics the ONE doable practical Brexit pathway is Flexcit, aka the “Norway Option” which is EFTA+EEA.
    NB: What the UK government appears to be working towards is an inferior version which will cost more, bring fewer rewards and be far more complex to implement.
    As Mr Donald Tusk himself said: “There is no need for us [the EU] to punish Britain. They are punishing themselves.”

    Given the opportunity to question the government we should ask this: Quo vadis? (Where are you going?) or, Where are you taking the country?

    Now Mrs May if answering the question candidly could retort, “Where the Leave campaign directs.” This after all is why she has not pursued Flexcit.

    Thus Mrs May will present to Parliament the framework of an agreement for a relationship INFERIOR to Flexcit and also a pro forma invoice for £60 billion!

    She is in these circumstances likely also to present the British People with a second referendum!

    This is because she has a general election to face which we are assuming she wants her party to do well in.

    There are three possibilities here:
    1. Mrs May presents a framework bill, a pro forma invoice and a second referendum – to abandon Brexit.
    2. Mrs May presents a framework bill, a pro forma invoice but no second referendum.
    NB: An incomplete framework bill will have to be presented as it is IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate and agree a comprehensive trade deal ready to implement in the time available so a framework bill would have to be presented to Parliament and for the details to be inserted by statutory instrument subsequently and with the application of the EU treaties extended through a transitional or implementation stage.
    3. Mrs May presents nothing and ends up in a hard Brexit.

    Possibility 1 is bad as the likelihood will be that Mrs May will unlike the former PM decide to remain neutral on this issue leaving UKIP and some Tory back benchers to argue for Brexit. The vote will likely go the way of Remain.

    Possibility 2 is very bad as it will lead to an inferior (to what we have at present) Brexit and the likelihood of a re-entry into the EU (following a change of government) via Article 49 which will bring with it entry into the Eurozone.

    Possibility 3 is disastrous as it will lead to the economic chaos of a Hard Brexit and the near certainty of a re-entry into the EU (following a change of government) via Article 49 which will bring with it entry into the Eurozone.

    So this is the decision we have to make: Given that Flexcit (EFTA+EEA) is NOT on the table do we “agree with Alastair” OR continue down the Brexit path to a likely or inevitable EU re-entry and Eurozone entry.

    The British Gazette IS NOT going to make a decision now. After all, the negotiations have not got under-way! Depending on how they go we will make a decision later but IF Mrs May sticks to her present plan and does not change course and pursue Flexcit, we will – with sadness and a heavy heart – take the decision to state that Mr Campbell’s call is logical and acting in the material self interest of all concerned because it will be the case of the lesser of these two evils:
    1. Remaining in the EU but outside the Eurozone by abandoning Brexit.
    2. Leaving and then re-entering the EU and entering the Eurozone.
    This is because Mr Nuttall is NOT Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise and there is no Corbomite manoeuvre!
    GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corbomite_Maneuver
    PS: Were a second referendum to come about, rest assured that your editor WILL NOT vote to remain. This is because to do so is to endorse an unconstitutional situation and this is something I can never do.

    Write a comment