Well, just over ten months ago, the whole of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum and made a historic decision at last to leave the EU – the first country EVER to do so. One of the biggest drivers for that was the glaring fact that that democracy challenged outfit could not be persuaded to alter course and make essential fundamental change, don’t you think?
Our deluded prime Minister of the time, Conservative David Cameron, knew quite well what the British people wanted ‘reformed’, and thought he could get it done but he was wrong, wasn’t he? He was given short shrift by the powerful unelected EU bureaucrats, and they sent him off with a flea in his ear, didn’t they?
So, he came back from Europe with his tail between his legs, but braved-out lying to the voters here, that he had been ‘successful’ in his negotiations, when country-wide they saw through that subterfuge, didn’t they? [Much like Neville Chamberlain‘s “Peace for our time” declaration to the nation on returning from Germany clutching an agreement signed by Adolf Hitler – war was declared in less than a year, wasn’t it?].
Not only that, but while the bulk of his government (the personal career conscience, eh?), went along with his trick, there were a few significant figureheads amongst those who put ‘Country first’, so told the Country that “the Emperor had no clothes”. Actually then, HE was the one ‘unfit for his position, stupid, & incompetent’, and he has paid the price with his job and reputation, hasn’t he? Certainly, and good riddance, perhaps?
However, there was a long 9-month delay in our new PM Theresa May being able to ‘formally’ inform the EU that the UK was leaving, which has to be done on giving “notice” by triggering the Lisbon Treaty’s Article 50, as notification to the European Council of our intention to withdraw, and so negotiate an agreement on our future ‘relationship’ with the EU.
The sole reason for that of course was down to the overriding arrogance, unbelievable irresponsibility, and utter incompetence of one man, the said ‘David Cameron’, who had naively convinced himself that he was omnipotent with IRRESISTABLE persuasive power over the people, so stupidly had instructed ALL others (Government Ministers & Civil Service alike) NOT to have ANY action plans or contingency ‘fall-back’ processes, to deal with the consequences of a Referendum vote in favour of BREXIT – but that happened, didn’t it? [some would have it that when it happened that “it wos Facebook that won it”].
That whole scenario is precisely why May has had to spend all those months since, simply to create the necessary plans, procedures and structure to be able to START the required negotiations with the EU, isn’t it? Meanwhile THEY who are at the heart of the EU bureaucratic machine have been plotting to ‘make the UK pay’ for our impudence, haven’t they?
Similarly to Cameron, the other major political parties, like Labour, LibDems and SNP have sleepwalked into it all, and had ignored the possibility of a Leave vote so got caught out, hence they now want to ignore the will of the people, and maintain as far as possible the ‘existing relationship’ with the EU, don’t they?
Yep, for a start they want Britain to retain membership of the Single Market. That would mean of course that we would continue to be ‘governed’ by the EU, doesn’t it? Yes, but wasn’t that exactly what the people have voted against, eh?
You see, being in that Market would mean we have to continue to accept EU law and regulations (including ALL new ones), we would not be allowed to make trade deals with other countries (like America or China), our courts would remain subservient to the European Court, the level of immigration would stay put at ‘uncontrolled’ (as free movement would have to continue), and additionally the UK would still have to pay a substantial membership fee to the EU for the privilege, eh? (when we import MORE from them that they take as exports from us). All that then, so actually the only difference would be that Britain could no longer have a say in anything about those regulatory matters – now, that is what they are calling ‘soft BREXIT’ but it isn’t in reality leaving the EU is it, which is what we voted for, isn’t it?
Their fallback position is to make sure that the negations go badly, thereby enforce another ‘second chance’ referendum to get the deal rejected by the public, and so halt in its tracks our departure, no less?
That division and discord amongst the British politicians with their spoiling tactics is gruel to the mill of the EU powerful elite bureaucrats, isn’t it? Oh yes, so they started early to try to take this Country to the cleaners and rip us off financially, commencing with abusive rhetoric threatening harsh punishment for our wilfulness in wanting to flee their nest.
Now many of us in this Country believe that the EU is going down the pan anyway – and in Brussels they innately fear the same thing as well, don’t they? Hence, they want to deter other counties from jumping ship, by ensuring the UK doesn’t leave on good terms – even if that is actually very damaging to others in the EU and indeed the EU itself.
Well, PM Theresa May is up to their game, and that is why she has called a snap General Election, isn’t it? She well knows that Labour and the minor parties are in disarray, so she fully expects to get a landslide victory (which she will because the BREXIT favouring majority (including even traditionally Non-Tory voters) will vote Conservative simply because they trust her alone to deal firmly with the EU in negotiations and prevent us being stitched-up – even having an ‘unwanted’ Conservative government for the next five years, is for many a price worth paying for the future of their children and grandchildren, outside of the EU , isn’t it?
The European autocrats set their stall out when they started out by saying that the UK would have to financially pay some €50 BILLION in a “divorce’ settlement BEFORE any other matter was even discussed (like say a trade agreement or residency rights). That has subsequently been escalate by leaks (?) to €75 billion, and most lately €100 billion, hasn’t it? Yes, because they imagine that is a good ploy to demand a lot and to then negotiate down to a substantial sum.
What they don’t seem to understand is the Britain is NOT and never has been MARRIED to the EU, whatever analogy is in place. For a start in this Country marrying another 27 others would be ILLEGAL and is called bigamy, isn’t it? Moreover, the EU, which is simply a members CLUB, is NOT a dependant of the UK – who has ever heard of having a financial liability to one’s football supporters club, golf club, political party, sports club, book club, or anything else for that matter (to cover future staff salaries, pension, or developments, eh?). All the EU’s liabilities, like ALL business liabilities, have to be funded out of annual current incomes , and not on potential future income (otherwise a company or organisation is declared “bankrupt”. isn’t it?
The procedure to leave the EU is quite simple and set-out by treaty in Article 50 in 5 short paragraphs and there is absolutely NO PROVISION for ANY financial settlement whatsoever, is here? [Although, it also mentions another article (Article 218 (3), but that solely concerns the negotiation process and doesn’t invoke any financial implications]
May has already said that “no deal is better than a bad deal” and she is absolutely right, don’t you think? Most of us hopes that she sticks with that, and doesn’t let the Country down, as her predecessor did.
From the outset, she has to make it plain that while we will pay our dues while we remain a member of the EU, that we will not pay them a penny afterwards. Of course we want to remain a free trading partner with a special relationship and friendly ally of the EU, but NOT be part of it, nor CONTROLLED by it in any manner, or way.
There is certainly NO legal basis for the EU demanding a financial settlement from the UK simply because we have told them we are leaving (as permitted in the Treaty), and the powers that be there, know that full well – so it is even more surprising then that they publically are trying to pull that stunt, isn’t it?
The opinion voiced here in these blogs before, is that the EU (consisting of twenty-seven other countries) will be incapable of agreeing any kind of ‘acceptable’ deal with Britain on our departure, so we need to accept that at the outset, and prepare ourselves to continue with our same trading links under World Trade Organisation rules (just remember that many many small UK companies already have long standing ‘strong’ relationships with customers in the EU and they fully expect that to continue, don’t they?). That WTO trading arrangement (dating from 1994 and embracing most of the World – consisting of some 164 member states and including the EU countries), will cost the European companies MORE to import their stuff to us, than it will cost OUR companies to export our goods to them, won’t it? So that is no disaster as the BREXIT deniers would have, is it? Meanwhile, in the absence with a free trade agreement with the EU, we can get into other major expanding markets to replace a progressively shrinking one, can’t we, eh? That’s a double whammy, surely?
[However much it might stick in their craw, many people now will be switching their vote to the Conservative candidate on June 8th General Election to get a clean FULL BREXIT, it would seem?]