• Brexit: RIP – Not!


    The above, converted to B&W to conjure up an impression, is an image of a Border Inspection Post on the Norway-Sweden border. Below, is an informative account of how it works.
    GOTO: https://www.lifeinnorway.net/norway-sweden-border/
    When the history is written of “Brexit”, those writing it will have to decide on a date to start their account from and also a date on which to finish. Of course these are to a great extent arbitrary and artificial for it can be argued that history is a seamless stream of ultimately connected events. But life and publishers demand a Beginning, a Middle and an End!

    The British Gazette is of the opinion that future historians will choose Thursday 28th May 2015 as the starting date for their tomes, for it was on that day Philip Hammond, then Foreign Secretary introduced The European Union Referendum Bill to the House of Commons which became The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) upon receiving the Royal assent on Thursday 17th December 2015. Another date would be the morning of Saturday 20th February 2016 when a special cabinet meeting decided that the referendum would be held on Thursday 23rd June 2016.

    As to the end date?

    Well, were a “Hard Brexit” AKA “No Deal Brexit” to take place at 23:01 HRS on Friday 29th March 2019, that would not mark the end of their writings for they would go on to detail the chaos that followed. Were this to happen they would be recording a series of historic events as momentous, or even more so than the crisis of the bursting of the South Sea Company “bubble” in August 1721.

    However, the British Gazette is of the opinion that these historians may very well choose 23:01 HRS on Friday 29th March 2019 to mark the end of Brexit – because “The End” would have been called before then!

    This is because as of today, there is an increasing likelihood that the Second Referendum demanded by the Liberal Democrats will be called. The Lib-Dems and others are calling for the voters to decide on the deal HMG reaches with the EU. The logic of their argument is that if there is no deal then surely the voters should decide whether or not to reverse Article 50.

    Of course the problem for Sad Vince of That Cable is that the ONE authority that has the power to declare Article 50 reverses lies not in the UK but in Belgium! It is the European Court of Justice, which as every member of UKIP knows is not a court and does not dispense justice. It is a committee that dispenses political decisions!

    Having said that, were a second referendum to be held and the result was the opposite of the first referendum the chances of the ECJ deciding to interpret the text of Article 50 as meaning there can be no revocation is as about as likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury declaring he is an atheist!

    What is certain is that the ECJ will NOT allow the revocation to be without cost to the UK! There will be a price to pay!

    What is also certain is that this farce will be seen (rightly) as the greatest humiliation of a British Government since Suez!

    Madame Mayhem may well carry on to May 2022 but IF the Tories do not suffer a defeat it will be due to a failure on the part of the Labour Party.
    The series of events that would precipitate a second referendum have been described earlier:
    GOTO: http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2018/06/22/brexit-youve-ordered-it-now-youll-pay-for-it/
    The task of the historian however is not just to act as a scribe recording happenings but to explain and suggest why and how such happenings came about. In this historians have access to a vital resource: hindsight!

    Not for nothing is hindsight described as the wisdom of fools!

    The British Gazette is of the opinion that one word will sum up the cause of Brexit’s failure and why HMG and the Leave campaign adopt Flexcit as the Brexit strategy – which is of course the only practical “Brexit pathway.”
    This word being: Ireland
    Essentially, Flexcit is an improved “Norway Option” which comprises remaining in the EEA and rejoining EFTA. Notwithstanding Doctor North’s understanding that the Irish border would not present unmanageable issues, the British Gazette is of a different opinion (to Dr. North).

    The British Gazette is of the opinion that there are THREE options for a post Brexit UK and the Irish Republic insofar as a border is concerned:

    #1: No hard border with the UK being inside the EU’s Customs Union and the EEA under the aegis of a “Transition Agreement” renewable with the consent of all parties.

    #2: A hard border with the UK outside the EU’s Customs Union being inside the EEA under the aegis of EFTA.

    #3: A hard border with the UK outside the EEA under the aegis of a “Free Trade Agreement” between the UK and the EU.

    The British Gazette is of the opinion that there are TWO options for the location of a hard border between a post Brexit UK and the Irish Republic:

    #1: The land border between the Irish Republic and the province of Northern Ireland.

    #2: An internal boarder in the Irish Sea between the Irish Republic and the province of Northern Ireland on one side and mainland Great Britain on the other side.

    NB: BOTH these two options are unacceptable to the DUP!

    In other words, the ONLY Brexit that would satisfy the DUP is that of vassalage. That is to say the UK in a perpetual transition agreement subject to all EU laws but unable to influence any.

    It is against this backdrop that the thoughts of HMG have been concentrated.

    This probably explains why Madame Mayhem went to the country on Thursday 8th June 2017 – an attempt to increase her majority in order to strengthen her hand. The result was the reverse. The next general election is scheduled for Thursday 5th May 2022.

    Brexit won’t be the last political project to get smashed on the rocks of Irish sectarianism.

    This probably explains why Madame Mayhem and her “Three Monkeys” – Boris the Buffoon, Dimwit Davis and Foolish Fox – have not seriously begun negotiating with the EU. They are waiting for the markets to react in order to provide the market turmoil to provoke Parliament into demanding a second referendum. In the gazette of EU nomenclature, this strategy has a name: An engineered beneficial crisis. For the Tories it has the advantage of enabling them and their friends in “The City” to make a killing selling short and buying stocks at depressed prices then selling them later realising a huge capital gain – which of course will be laundered through an offshore company registered in somewhere like the Cayman Islands!

    Write a comment