web analytics

EVEN TORY MPs KNOW IT

By Pete Moore On December 5th, 2018

Forget the government having to release the legal advice it received from the Attorney General on May’s stitch-up deal. We know that the PM has lied to us repeatedly. The AG’s advice merely confirms those lie. Of greater significance is that a Remain Parliament has stolen Brexit.

May’s deal will be voted down. If she had an ounce of shame she will resign. Nevertheless, the Commons will then look to kill Brexit. Sometime in the new year, this will become an extremely angry country. They can’t say they weren’t warned as the the consequences of their actions. When you deny people their voice, negate their vote and overturn their decisions, some will decide that democratic politics is not the path to change.

41 Responses to “EVEN TORY MPs KNOW IT”

  1. “a Remain Parliament” elected by the British people.

  2. The problem is, she is at the epicentre of the problem and has only just found out, and anyone could have told her that years ago.

    What I am enjoying is the simple fact that this matter over our membership of the EU has raised public awareness to a whole new level. And not just our membership but, the way we are governed and who is actually in charge. For example. The government being found in contempt of parliament is the first time this has happened in our history which, when you think about it, is no small achievement.

    The Tories are being exposed for the scumbag party it is. So much so that even one of its own MP’s (above) is questioning it. Again, no small achievement. The government has lost two votes in the house and, is looking decidedly shaky.

    But there is some good news. Despite the ECJ stating that the UK can take back Article 50 I noticed a post from someone elsewhere who answered a question on the above:

    WTO Brexit shelters behind the triple bastions of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 and the Withdrawal Act 2018. To bypass any of them will demand a further Act of Parliament. The government has no effective majority for this.

    Many thanks to eeyore.

  3. FewsOrange

    A remain parliament elected by the British people because they, Labour and the Tories, stood on a BREXIT means BREXIT manifesto. Only the LibDems stood on a Remain ticket and lost most of their seats.

    So the MP’s are frauds.

  4. Mark B –

    Every Tory and Labour MP stood for election on manifestos which explicitly promised to get us wholly and completely out of the EU. And they have the cheek to complain that Leavers lied!

    When they kill Brexit they’ll think they’ve won. They have no idea of the damage they are doing to the country or how angry the people will be.

  5. “A remain parliament elected by the British people because they, Labour and the Tories, stood on a BREXIT means BREXIT manifesto.”

    Actually Labour’s manifesto committed to keeping the UK in both the Single Market and the Customs Union.

  6. “Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

    Edmund Burke

  7. Actually Labour’s manifesto committed to keeping the UK in both the Single Market and the Customs Union.

    No it didn’t. It said: “Scrap Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace with “fresh negotiating priorities” with strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the single market and customs union”

    That is not the same as a commitment to remain in both unchanged, as you imply.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39933116

  8. The EU would never have allowed the UK to retain the benefits of the single market and customs union without actually being in the single market and customs union.

    So the words are in fact an implication that Labour would commit to staying in both.

  9. Seamus

    Labour also promised to pay all student fees. Only after the election did they admit that such a promise was only aspirational. Something that seems quite common with Labour / Socialist promises as they said the same thing over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

  10. They actually never promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They promised a referendum on the EU Constitution. Now it could certainly be argued that the Lisbon Treaty was the EU Constitution repackaged.

  11. No, that would have meant an explicit commitment to remain in both, and no such commitment was given.

    For what it’s worth I regard Labour’s EU policy as despicable. The leadership pretended to support Remain but are pro-Brexit. At least 75% of the MPs are hardcore Remainers. But about 33% of their voters voted for Brexit. The Tories are also divided of course, but most of their MPs are pro-Brexit, which matches most of their voters.

    Today we saw Corbyn at PMQs and not a single question to May about Brexit, the day after she lost three crucial votes on it in the space of an hour. That is not leadership either by him or his party. They claim to want a general election. They should be careful what they wish for because the Tories will ditch May and Boris Johnson will lead them on a “real Brexit” manifesto which could hammer Labour in some of their heartlands and deliver a comfortable Tory majority to deliver just that.

  12. Except the Tories are losing some of their heartlands. Yes Labour are losing seats in old mining towns. But there is a Labour MP for Kensington, Portsmouth South, Enfield Southgate. The last time Labour won a seat like Enfield Southgate was in the Blair landslides.

    So it isn’t so much Labour losing its heartlands and being vulnerable to the Tories because of it. It is the entire electoral map is being redrawn due to a massive political shift.

  13. “No, that would have meant an explicit commitment to remain in both, and no such commitment was given.”

    Which is why I used to word implication ie it was an implicit commitment.

  14. It is the entire electoral map is being redrawn due to a massive political shift.

    Yes Seamus. Class voting loyalties are being replaced by identitarian loyalties on both right and left. This is a growing feature of western voting habits which manifests itself through race / nationalism / nativism and of course culture wars. In the short term the Tories under Johnson will wave the flag against an unpopular EU and a divided Labour party, and there can only be one outcome in my view. I would bet that Kensington will revert to the Tories and my uncle will stop turning in his grave.

  15. Except that there is as much chance of the Tories uniting behind one banner as there is of Labour uniting behind one banner. In fact in the last election campaign Labour should a tremendous amount of unity considering everything that has happened before and since.

  16. Here is an interesting pro-Brexit comment, from the left:

    “This intergovernmental process means that European governments are more accountable to each other than they are to their domestic legislatures. The capitalist nation states of Europe have been transformed by EU membership into capitalist member states. Brexit represents a serious blow to this form of remote and unaccountable government, the one by which we are actually ruled. This blow is experienced as such by the British state’s political, bureaucratic and academic cadres who have as a result been relentlessly negative about the vote to Leave, and the prospect of implementing it. And it is why the support of so much of the left for Remain is profoundly conservative…

    The old Tory Eurosceptic right is disoriented by the disappearance of the world in which it belongs. In its confusion, it finds itself doing the work of the left by disrupting the careful efforts of the ruling class, work that most of the left refuses to do. What is truly depressing is just how many leftists are committed to the project of maintaining Britain’s interfering global role through participation in supranational capitalist organisations.

    If neo-colonial Global Britain is unrealistic, it is also at odds with UKIP-style populism, which again is only awkwardly related to English nationalism. Critically the well-attested rise of English national feeling is an expression of the weakening of British national identity. Where the far right of the 1970s adopted the Empire’s Union Jack as its symbol, today’s far right has increasingly adopted the St George’s cross. The changed symbolism is significant. Far from English nationalism presaging a return to an assertive imperial Britain, it is further evidence of the fragmenting and decline of the old national loyalties.

    That left wingers should mistake these morbid symptoms as signs of the right’s strength only indicates the left’s own overwhelming sense of weakness, and its isolation from the mass of the population…”

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/10/19/long-read-how-eu-membership-undermines-the-left/

  17. And here is a counter-punch to Maria Caulfield MP and the “Brexit stabbed in the back” brigade:

    “Note how artfully she plays the innocent who came to Westminster with high ideals, like a modern Candide, only to see them crushed by the machinations of the ruling class. This is the authentic language of counter revolution. For if democracy is mocked and subverted by the machinations of sinister figures – and the most sinister among them, Arron Banks’ Leave.EU immediately suggested with a nod to Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America, was the Jewish financier George Soros – any measures are justified to seize back the power the elite has wrested from its rightful owners.

    Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)

    It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue…

    Nothing of the sort is likely to happen. Which only goes to show that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’. Instead we have a fractured and increasingly mendacious government and official opposition, which are both committed to taking Britain out of the European Union…

    Incidentally, we could have had a hard Brexit political elite. In 2016, many assumed we would get one. All Boris Johnson, David Davis, Dominic Raab and Steve Baker would have needed was a coherent and workable plan for Britain’s future. That they did not and cannot deliver one tells you all you need to know about their frivolity. In the Commons yesterday Sir Roger Gale encapsulated an entire irresponsible and self-pitying culture perfectly when he said to Johnson that he seems to ‘prefer the grievance to the solution’.

    Let that stand as the epitaph for the entire Brexit movement. They had grievances, including justifiable grievances. But when they were first asked for a solution in the 2016 referendum campaign they misled the public and shouted that we could have our cake and eat it. Then in government they shouted at foreigners, believing that all they needed to do was bellow and the EU would tear up its rule book to make a special case for Britain. Now they have resigned, as politicians who do not want to take responsibility always do, they shout of betrayal and of a stab-in-the-back by a mocking all-powerful elite, and prove in the process that shouting, not governing, is all they are good for.

    I could mock myself. But I have always feared where the right’s rhetoric will take it. Brexit was always going to produce a stab-in-the-back myth because no one could make the impossible possible. The real world was always going to betray the Brexit right, as it had betrayed the communist left. As anyone who knows the histories of Germany and Russia will realise, dishonest politicians never accept the ruin of their fantasies. Anything is better than admitting their errors. They talk instead of the people betrayed and march their followers, and their country, towards a dark future.”

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-betrayal-of-the-brexit-bunch/

  18. Seamus

    They promised a referendum on the EU Constitution.

    Same thing, different name. And you know it !

  19. Here are the words on the EU referendum paper…….

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

    Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

    Remain a member of the European Union [ ]
    Leave the European Union [ ]

    Does anybody not understand this? And yet, if the result had been Remain, would there have been such questions as ‘remain in what’? Did the people vote to remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union etc……..? Obviously not – because institutional leftists don’t have such ideas as reciprocity, for example.

  20. Yes Allan

    I believe that Cameron made it clear that a vote for Leave was a vote to leave the EU, the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union. And that the government would implement the result.

  21. Peter – those are the very words of the referendum paper and I understand them, you understand them, but some on this thread clearly do not understand them which would be at the level of an imbecile. Perhaps Seamus would do his position at ATW less harm by admitting that he just wants the result ignored because it’s not what he wanted rather than not understanding (apparently) the question put and the answer received

  22. Pete Moore

    “When you deny people their voice, negate their vote and overturn their decisions, some will decide that democratic politics is not the path to change.”. What do you expect them to do that is other than democratic politics? Will there be a Brit Yellow Vests uprising?

  23. “I believe that Cameron made it clear that a vote for Leave was a vote to leave the EU, the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union.”

    And many of the Leave campaigners made it less clear – and accused those who said the EU would have to leave things like the Single Market of engaging in Project Fear.

    Many of the Leave campaigners stated during the campaign that the UK could be like Norway, and waxed lyrically about how successful Norway was outside the EU.

  24. “Same thing, different name. And you know it !”

    Broadly speaking it was. It did have some minor differences – and there is a distinction, symbolically, between amending the Treaties of the European Union, and the establishment of a Constitution of the European Union.

    Either way the idea of holding a referendum on it or any other matter is pretty insane.

  25. When you deny people their voice, negate their vote and overturn their decisions, some will decide that democratic politics is not the path to change.

    So the IRA believed.

  26. A lot of us oppose violence in all cases, except when it suits them

    The French government knuckled under to a mob of violent criminals. You want that for Britain?

  27. // When you deny people their voice, negate their vote and overturn their decisions, some will decide that democratic politics is not the path to change.

    So the IRA believed.//

    LOL. !!!

  28. Superlative McG

    🙂

  29. When you deny people their voice, negate their vote and overturn their decisions, some will decide that democratic politics is not the path to change.

    So the IRA believed

    So, they murder civilians and children.

  30. The French protesters were responsible for the death of civilians

    Yes some here admire them

  31. I came across this earlier on the interweb Phantom:

    To all my international friends who are not sure what’s happening in France these days :
    I see a bunch of crap on international media about the protests. It did start with the fuel prices hike, but it’s not what the protests are about. They are about the french government having taken too many reforms that take from the poor to give to the richest in this country.

    It’s a grassroot movement supported by about 70% of the population. It concerns all the working classes and people with lower incomes: retirees, self-employed, ambulance-workers, nurses, students, farmers… Even part of the police and fire-fighters support the movement and protest.
    The past years, we have seen all the public services funding being drastically cut, to the point that there’s no public hospitals, schools or transportation left in towns and rural areas. For some, having a car is the only way to survive. So when the people leading our country, who have chauffeurs, cars and fuel paid by our taxes, ask the people to “make an effort” it feels like a bitter joke.

    A little reminder : the past few months, we’ve seen the wealth tax (and other taxes the rich used to pay) being scrapped (saving the 1% wealthiest people in the country 5.2 billion euros per year, according to Oxfam) and the biggest companies in France still pay 4 times less taxes (or no tax for Amazon / Google, and such) than a self-employed person or artisan.

    So no, it’s not about french people not wanting to make efforts for the environment, it’s about fighting a government that crushes the majority of its people and that doesn’t give a single fuck about the environment or social/fiscal justice

    https://www.facebook.com/oriane.duboz/posts/10156909228780984

    Whod’a thunk some here would have so strongly supported such Commie SJW’s?

  32. So, they murder civilians and children.

    They certainly did, despicable acts. But they are only amateurs compared to those that sanctioned the bombing of Dresden and many other instances.

  33. But they are only amateurs

    Indeed, considering that the ‘security services’ death toll comprised of almost 52% of civilian killings while Republican’s death tol consisted of 35% of civilian killings.

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/cgi-bin/tab2.pl

  34. By “security services”

    Are you by some chance referring to the RAF?.

  35. I only ask, because you mentioned Dresden.

  36. smcgiff mentioned Dresden.

    My comment was in relation to his ‘only amatuers’ comment and the British ‘security services’ civilian death toll. Those ‘security services’ included the RAF:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-35232369

  37. Those ‘security services’ included the RAF:

    Indeed, considering that the ‘security services’ death toll comprised of almost 52% of civilian killings while Republican’s death tol consisted of 35% of civilian killings.

    Phew, thank heavens the Republican’s didn’t have access to thousands of Lancaster bombers then.

  38. Phew, thank heavens the Republican’s didn’t have access to thousands of Lancaster bombers then.

    There’s a joke there that I’m rather impressed with myself that I won’t stoop to it ! 🙂

  39. Indeed, considering that the ‘security services’ death toll comprised of almost 52% of civilian killings while Republican’s death tol consisted of 35% of civilian killings.

    Given the capabilities of those services, and the venal, evil nature of Irish republican terrorists, it’s astonishing that the toll was so low. Irish republicans know this too. They relied on the rule of law, the rules of war, and the decency soaked into those services because they knew those services would not go too far.

    In very many other countries, the IRA and the community in which is swims would have been pulverised within weeks with many thousands dead. They knew that the British state would never do such a thing.

  40. Yes, the ‘security services’ had an almost 52% civilian kill rate and Pete thinks this low and that it should have been more but for the ‘decency’ of the ‘security forces’

    Hurrah for the ‘security forces’ and their ‘decency’

    They were anything but decent to me, and thousands like me, in my formative years

  41. Were the IRA “decent” to all those murdered innocent men, women & children?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.