“One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” – 

That quote came to mind when I looked back at the presentation of the “Withdrawal agreement”. I was also reminded of the old footages of a nuclear explosion, after the mushroom cloud …

After the Cabinet meeting which lasted well into the night on Tuesday (13th Nov.); after the news trickled out that the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ was 568 pages long and that Cabinet ministers were only allowed to read it in 10 Downing Street, so having to make their decision ‘blind’; after it was released to the gasping public in the House of Commons; after the resignation of ministers and secretaries – we’re now watching the slow fall-out. It is not a pretty sight.

Any hope there was of a swift call for the Tories’ 1922 Committee to start proceedings for a no-confidence vote have vanished. 48 letters were needed to kick this off – and 48 letters have not been received according to the Committee chairman, Sir Graham Brady. Unsubstantiated rumours were swirling around that he may have ‘lost’ letters. More likely, some letters were withdrawn or even never written, the articles of Tory politicians in the MSm notwithstanding.

It seems that the mighty, principled Tory minds prefer to stick it out come what May, and not cause any disruption which might lead to a GE – keeping one’s seat being more important than the fate of the Party, than the fate of the Nation.

Watching Ms May present and defend this Brexit plan to the HoC was … illuminating. From the noise one could gain the impression that all the Remainer MPs were more interested in scoring points and out-shouting critics than actually engaging with the facts Ms May put before them. That she would not get the agreement of Parliament to this dogs’ dinner was obvious – but many, even in the Tory Party, used this occasion to clamour for a second referendum.

Now that more people have had time to take a look, the disaster that awaits us should this deal be accepted through skulduggery and plain expediency is becoming clear. I refer you to one excellent analysis which was published on Brexit Central on Thursday with the title There are some nasty surprises in the smallprint of Theresa May’s Brexit deal’. Nasty they are indeed. This point shows the extent of the sell-out:

“Now, a lot of eurosceptics could buy into this deal on the assumption, despite the flaws, that landfall is near. But this is predicated upon the assumption that a transition agreement does what it says on the label – it transits.That approach works for a time. Until you hit that most remarkable of paragraphs. It’s what you might call the Odysseus Clause. It’s Article 132 – where the drafters can barely commit to finally fully leaving the EU this century. Here’s what it says:

“Notwithstanding Article 126, the Joint Committee may, before 1 July 2020, adopt a single decision extending the transition period up to [31 December 20XX].”

That’s a bit of a variable.”

I should think so too! This is the passage which had several commentators declare that the EU didn’t even saw fit to limit the extension to 31 December 202X. It certainly looks like a ring to bind us forever and a day.

While the MSM are either loving this withdrawal Agreement because they think it will lead straight to a 2nd Referendum, business leaders are unhappy (see e.g. here and here). This quote from an article surveying the latest polls (here) is interesting:

When Survation and Sky Data asked voters which they preferred – no deal, Mrs May’s deal, or staying the EU – they both found that Mrs May’s deal is by far the least popular option. According to Survation, only 16 per cent would prefer the deal, while Sky put the figure at 14 per cent.”

Most of the MSM – under its new Remain Chief Editor, the Daily Mail has now nailed their colours to the Remain mast and the readers are outraged – and certainly the state broadcasting corporation are meanwhile doing their utmost to convince people that this Agreement either is wonderful or that we need a 2nd referendum, as e.g. promoted by a certain Tony Blair. 

Be in no doubt that in a 2nd Referendum Remain will likely win, not only because they are already strategising and because they have the money, but because we Brexiteers have splintered into too many small, competing groups. UKIP’s activists are doing their best out in the country, but when one reads how a call for a demo at 10 Downing Street (see the comment by Steve on this UKIP Daily article) fell flat as the proverbial pancake one may well become despondent.

The one item which is again buried under the avalanche of arguments about trade and customs, the economy and the City is the role the ECJ (European Court of Justice) will have on all of that and on all our future legislation. John Redwood gives it a brief mention (see here). I point you again to Lee Rotherham’s analysis on Brexit Central from which I quoted above. Scroll down to the part “Implementation” – and weep.

Napoleon called us a Nation of shopkeepers. Looking back on the last two years, culminating in this “Withdrawal Agreement”, I cannot help but think that he was right – our political caste have behaved like shopkeepers, eager to sell out and get a ‘good deal’ form themselves, trading away our assets to Leave in name only.

If we cannot now pull together and stop our infighting, get our UKIP grandees to stop aggrandising themselves and work with us grassroots; if we cannot make our argument against rejecting this horror for the sake of keeping our sovereignty then all our work since 2014 was for nothing.

That, dear friends, is the sad, stark reality on this grim November weekend. It’s not only because this agreement is a betrayal of the 17.4 million Leave voters, it’s also because this is a betrayal of us UKIP grassroots – of us who’ve given our all to get Brexit – if we don’t pull together now.

We’re in the Last Chance Saloon.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email