Latest from UKIP Daily

Theresa  May and the attempted murder of  Brexit – Part Five

 [Ed: This is the final part of this series by Robert Henderson.]

The future

If the negotiations continue as they have to date with May conceding ground time and time again the UK will probably be in a  Hotel California situation of booking out but never being able to leave. Politics is a fluid business and the longer the Brexit process continues the greater the opportunities for remainers to sabotage it. Labour might win the next election with a promise to hold a second referendum to keep the UK in the EU or even stand on a platform which promises the cancellation of Brexit. There may be some threat unrelated to Brexit such as another recession which might frighten enough of the electorate into backing such a  Labour promise and, in the case of a second referendum, voting to remain.

It might be thought that the Labour  Party is in such ideological disarray on Brexit  – with present or previous Shadow Cabinet members embracing everything from a true Brexit to cancelling Brexit – that electors would not take them seriously. But Labour are not the Government and it is a truism that governments are more often evicted because of what they are doing or not doing than because an opposing Party has more attractive policies or more impressive personnel.

What should the UK do? The only sane thing to do is to acknowledge what is obvious, namely, that the leading politicians and bureaucrats of  EU have absolutely no intention of behaving reasonably and that Theresa May is either incapable of withstanding the EU’s unreasonable demands or is secretly colluding with the EU to sabotage Brexit. Having done that, the way out is obvious, simply announce that the UK is walking away.

Can the UK do that legally under international law? Indeed they can for no treaty is unbreakable if one or more of the signatories to a treaty is seen to be failing to meet their obligations under the treaty. These obligations include acting in good faith when Article 50 is invoked. No such good faith on the EU side has been forthcoming. Instead the EU representatives have not only made unreasonable demands such as those over the jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK affairs after Brexit, and claims for huge amounts of money (some as high as 100 billion Euros), they have also  regularly been humiliating May until they thought they had disciplined her to their way of thinking and then made a public show of applauding her after that was accomplished.

Remainers rail against their description as traitors and Quislings. Those remainers who have sincerely accepted the result and have ceased to attempt to prevent Brexit certainly do not deserve such names, but what else can those remainers who will never accept Brexit and do everything they can to overturn the referendum result by stealth or frontal assault be reasonably called? They do everything they can to thwart Brexit by a mixture of interminable delay, calls for second referendums and wilfully perverse interpretations of the word leave such as claims that the UK could remain in the Single Market and the Customs Union and still achieve Brexit. That is a clear denial of democracy and what greater treason in a democracy is there than overthrowing a democratic vote? And when the overthrowing is done with the purpose of ensuring their country remains in the political grip of a supranational power, is that not the act of a Quisling?

There is a question remainers should ponder long and hard. It is this, if they manage to sabotage Brexit either by  emasculating the process so that it is Brexit only in name or by simply reversing the result of the referendum,  perhaps by standing on a general election platform  that one or more parties would annul the Article 50 activation, or by calling another referendum when the electorate are exhausted by the process of leaving (the favourite EU ploy to overthrow referenda which have the “wrong” result), where does that leave the democracy?

If the results of  referenda, the purest form of democracy, are to be ignored or manipulated  out of all recognition, what peaceful method of resolving political disputes is there where the politicians of any party with a reasonable chance of forming a government are largely of one opinion and a majority of the electorate are of another?

 [Ed: You can catch p on the earlier parts of this article by following these links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4]
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Robert Henderson (108 Articles)
Robert is a retired civil servant with a history and politics degree. He lives in London and runs the England Calling Blog amongst others

8 Comments on Theresa  May and the attempted murder of  Brexit – Part Five

  1. I understand that there is a petition requesting Mrs May to abandon Article 50 and walk away immediately, which has gained more than enough support to trigger a debate in Parliament.
    Can one of you bright boffins who contribute to UKIP Daily tell me whether the abandonment of Article 50 automatically stops Brexit, or would it offer the Government a chance to exit the EU via a different route?

    • To my knowledge walking away from Article 50 would not stop Brexit but would allow us to exit the EU far more quickly and without penalties. It wasn’t necessary to use Article 50 in the first place. Example, as I said on a different comments thread….

      “Vienna Convention today, wake up a free country tomorrow and the EU will be on its knees begging for a deal the day after”.

      The whole point of the petition you mention is not to stop Brexit, it is to pressure the government to use a different route to get us out swiftly and cleanly.


  2. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me that no matter what either side says, the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is already known (only to those who really know) and both sides are simply going through the motions and playing the long-game.
    The referendum result was a shock to the establishment (as it was not the result they were either expecting or plotting to obtain) so they will patiently keep playing the ‘ordinary’ voting folk for fools, and pitting them against each other, in an effort to break their resolve and get them to think and act the way ‘they’ want them to.
    Luckily it seems that the ‘ordinary’ voting folk are becoming increasingly aware of the true nature of the Establishment, and we need to keep up our resolve and continue to expose ‘them’ for the self-serving trough-swillers that they are.
    Something big is going to happen next year, I have a feeling that 2018 is going to be a very dark year, where everything changes; whether it is through war, or an economic crash, or even a combination of both.
    Either way, it will be us ‘ordinary’ voting folk who end up suffering, not the Establishment.

  3. I have great sympathy for your point of view Flyer. However, there might be another way to solve the problem. If representative democracy is broken because voters have a choice between two unacceptable parties, neither of which takes the slightest notice of the majority, we might try JRE’s answer. We need a movement to return our parliament to the people by more frequent use of referendums and better participation in running the country. As the Queen is reported to have said ” it is the politicians who run the government, but the people run the country”.
    This could be the case again. The alternative does not bear thinking about. UKIP management had the chance to embrace this option but turned it down, both from Banks and JRE. Now UKIP is broken and bust, so we must hope Affinity can get it together. At least they appear to have considerable finance and organisation.

    • Yes that would be a much better solution. If we were to achieve this, by that time we’d most likely have been completely sold out to the EU again.

      Things are getting desperate and time is short. I don’t hold out much hope for Direct Democracy as nice as it would be.

  4. Robert, thank you for shining your bright light on all of this.

    As I see it, the EU is, at its core, undemocratic. It is controlled by commissioners (although commissars would be a more accurate label) that cannot be voted out and are the ones with the final say on things that matter.

    So anyone against leaving is against democracy. It is that simple.

    Having said that, to be fair, it could be argued that many individuals who voted to remain were either unaware or did not understand this. But I think it safe to assume that experienced politicians that were, like Mrs. May, opposed to leaving, understood this only too well. For me that was the true beauty of Brexit. There many of them were, across the political spectrum, exposed for all to see.

    I fully agree that within the country we either have democracy or torches and pitchforks, but there is another level to this.

    History shows that democracies are, generally speaking, slow to war and when political entities within them who are anti-democratic or corrupt (same thing in my opinion) gain ascendancy and start warmongering they are voted out (which is why we now have Trump in the Whitehouse).

    With no one to stop them what will the EU do next? Anyone up for a nice little war with Russia?

    • Michael – With the UK out of the way the EU will probably overreach itself with its imperialist intentions. Indeed, it may do so before the UK formally leaves. There is a heap of trouble brewing up over the East Europeans effectively telling the EU to take a running jump especially over immigration and the Catalonia escapade is likely to engender outright occupation by the central Spanish politicians which would put the EU ion an impossible position. If successful the Catalan example would almost certainly lead the likes of the Basques, the Northern League in Italy and the Dutch speaking part of Belgium to seek independence.

      Such upheavals would aid Brexit because the EU would need to seek a rapid settlement with the UK so they could fight the other political fires that are burning.

      Lenin’s maxim “The worse the better” applies from the point of view of Brexit. RH

  5. “If the results of referenda, the purest form of democracy, are to be ignored or manipulated out of all recognition, what peaceful method of resolving political disputes is there where the politicians of any party with a reasonable chance of forming a government are largely of one opinion and a majority of the electorate are of another?”

    Exactly! That’s why I’ve given up writing and would prefer to spend my days at the firing range or on the mats.

    I didn’t want this, but you’ve said it for me.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.