The BREXIT ‘Divorce Bill’

The EU says we must pay a ‘Divorce bill’ before trade talks can commence.

I say ‘pay it’ – have I been on the sauce? But there are conditions….. watch to find out more

Advertisements

Theresa May and the Florence BREXIT speech

As I predicted, the Tories are selling us out on BREXIT

Theresa May is now talking of an extended ‘transitional’ period before leaving the EU with a £20bn ‘Divorce settlement’ and continued free movement of people and jurisdiction for the ECJ (European Court of Justice – an oxymoron if ever I saw one)

This blatant betrayal left me seething as I have my say on this video – the monotone delivery is down to me trying to keep a lid on my temper!

UKIP – Job done or only just started?

With the resignation of both Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless, many in the media are now saying that UKIP has achieved its goal and it is no longer relevant on the political landscape.

Indeed, the aforementioned Mr Carswell has been gloating on his Twitter feed about a council byelection in his area where the Tories have taken a seat from UKIP , claiming that many Kippers think ‘job done’.

So, what is the reality? With the triggering of Article 50 and the initial founding reason for UKIP (Leaving the EU) looking like a reality, what have UKIP got left to offer?

Continue reading

Why the Labour lies show UKIP can win in Stoke

Following the resignation of Labour MP Tristram Hunt in Stoke-on-Trent, UKIP announced yesterday (21st January) that new party leader, Paul Nuttall MEP, will be our candidate in the subsequent byelection.

paul-nuttall-stoke

The seat is historically a Labour stronghold but their majority was down to 5000 at the 2015 General Election and, significantly, it registered one of the highest Leave votes at last year’s referendum.

The poor turnout at the General Election (Just 49%) shows how disillusioned local voters are with the party that has represented them in the past.

If Labour lose this seat (Plus the other byelection in Copeland, another former stronghold with an even slimmer majority) then Labour could be consigned to a spot in a museum similar to the one that Mr Hunt has left his constituency to take up a post with.

With this in mind, it was no surprise to see Labour Shadow Chancellor and my old sparring partner, John McDonnell, go on the offensive during this morning’s Marr Show on the BBC. However, both his body language and his line of attack show why the Labour High Command are terrified of the UKIP challenge in the seat and must be contemplating the possibility of an embarrassing defeat.

Spin, smear and downright lies

Once again, McDonnell trotted out the standard lie about UKIP wanting to privatise the NHS – this has never been a part of any UKIP manifesto.

Paul Nuttall spoke a number of years ago about making the procurement arm of the NHS more competitive – common sense when we see some trusts paying £25 for a lightbulb and issuing costly prescriptions for painkillers that you can buy for as little as 30p at the pharmacy. Yet in Labour’s eyes, this is ‘privatisation’.

So, let us look at the reality.

Continue reading

BREXIT means Exit

The following is a guest post by UKIP London MEP and  BREXIT spokesman, Gerard Batten

gb-office-1

The 17.4 million people who voted to leave the European Union on 23rd June 2016 expected that to happen without delay.  But six months later Prime Minister Theresa May has done nothing to make it happen.  What is more she does not intend to do anything for another three months, and even then she will not commit to what Brexit actually means.

 

We have no reason to trust Theresa May.  She was a Remainer in the Referendum campaign, and had Remain won she would be telling us it was the right decision and in our best interests.  Having been on the losing side, she now finds herself in charge of implementing the winning sides decision.  But instead of outlining her EU exit strategy, she merely mouths the slogan ‘Brexit means Brexit’ without explaining what it means.

If Mrs May were serious she could have taken immediate action and triggered Article 50 the day after she was appointed Prime Minister, merely by writing a note to the European Council to that effect. Instead she did nothing, except to give the Remain camp the time to re-group and counter attack, which they duly did by taking their delaying tactics to the High Court.

Continue reading

The Supreme Court Case on Article 50

Today is the fourth and final day of the Supreme Court hearing over whether or not the Government has the ability to Trigger Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty to start the procedure to leave the European Union or whether it has to go to a Parliamentary vote.

Royal Courts of Justice

The Government argue that they do not need to have a vote and can use The UK Royal Prerogative in light of the Leave vote at the referendum on 23rd June, a position that the High Court has already rejected.

The case, brought by Gina Miller, argues that Parliamentary Democracy needs to be upheld and as such the Government should be accountable – indeed, she has painted herself as somebody who is fighting for our democracy.

With that in mind, it is worth both Ms Miller and the judges looking at the following instances pertaining to the European Union –

1972 – UK Prime Minister Edward Heath used the RP to sign the treaty for the UK to join the European Economic Community (Common Market) without prior UK Parliament approval

1987 – UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used RP to sign the Single European Act without prior UK Parliament Approval

1992 – Prime Minister John Major used the RP to sign the Maastricht Treaty without prior UK Parliament approval

1997 – Prime Minister Tony Blair used the RP to sign the Amsterdam Treaty without prior UK Parliament approval

2007 – Prime Minister Gordon Brown used the RP to sign the Lisbon Treaty without UK Parliament approval

2016 – November 3rd – UK High Court decides that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot use the RP to enact Article 50 – withdrawal from the European Union – without prior approval of the UK Parliament

Surely, ‘Stare Decisis’ should come in to play – the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. Indeed, many find it puzzling that the High Court did not come to this conclusion during the original case although , as highly qualified and respected Judges, they must have had their reasons.

It also begs the question – why are these ‘Champions of Democracy’ only acting now when Parliament has been bypassed using the legislation on previous occasions pertaining to the EU? Is it because this time they do not like the potential outcome?

However, last night saw a Parliamentary vote on the Government’s timetable for activation of Article 50 and came down heavily on the side of the motion by 461 votes to 89 – irrespective of the outcome of the case they now have the Parliamentary approval to push ahead, although worryingly they accepted a Labour amendment to the motion saying that Parliament would need to be informed of the details, effectively tipping our hand in negotiations with Brussels.

brexit-demo-nov-2016

The Charade of Article 50

Whilst the High Court and Supreme Court cases, plus the Parliamentary vote itself, have produced hours of media coverage and masses of newsprint, this whole charade misses a major essential point.

Article 50 was put in to The Lisbon Treaty as a mechanism that was never supposed to be used. The Government only need to send a quick fax or letter to Brussels informing them that they wish to leave to trigger the proposed 2 year ‘negotiation’ period. During this ‘negotiation’, the remaining 27 member states decide what terms they wish to trade with us under upon departure – our own team can make suggestions but will not be involved in those negotiations. Effectively, we will be twiddling our thumbs waiting for what the EU deign to come back and give us.

If the Government do get their ‘deal or no deal’ at the end of the two years then it has to come back to Parliament to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act which took us in to the ‘Common Market’ (as it was then) in the first place.

If the Government genuinely want us to Leave with the best deal possible, they could impose a three line whip to repeal the Act now and negotiate afterwards from a position of strength. After all, in the worst case scenario we go back to WTO rules immediately which would cost the country half of what our EU membership does at the moment even if maximum legal tariffs were imposed – those tariffs, as a net importer from the EU, would harm them far more than they would harm a globally trading, outward looking and independent Britain.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by ignoring Article 50 and triggering repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. The question is, does this Conservative Government really want to give the people what they voted for or do they wish to fudge and delay either to a watered down version where we remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) with continued payments to and regulation from the EU or even, dare I say it, a second referendum? If so, history and the ballot box will not be kind.

The Road to Freedom

GB 2 7th July 2010

If you would like further information on how we should leave the EU, we would highly recommend Gerard Batten MEP’s book, ‘The Road to Freedom’ – this can be purchased via the following link

http://www.bretwaldabooks.com/book.php?p=221