PA photo
By
Hazel Speed
How embarrassing, not only in front of European Countries, but now in respect of the whole world.
First, the British people are ‘promised’ by their then Prime Minister, (Mr Cameron), at the dispatch box in Parliament that he would trigger Article 50 the day after the EU Referendum if the people wanted to leave Europe.
Then that doesn’t happen and he resigns. Nice buck-pass.
Mrs May is then elected from within the Conservative Party, (still in power post-Cameron), as our new Prime Minister, and following that we learn, guess what, we cannot leave straight away after all, in fact Brexit cannot even be triggered until March 2017 and even after that the various procedures to uncouple the UK from Europe may take 18 months or 2 years.
No ‘real reason’ is given for this surprising delay other than she has to secure the best deal for the UK before triggering Article 50. Out should mean out which is all the Referendum question asked – in or out/Remain or Leave. Even the preference of billing on the voting paper was a little sneaky. The Government may have thought a favourable visible flin-flan of sorts may have prevailed but the ordinary voters were looking for tricks.
This storyline farce continues.
The poor losers of the Referendum come up with playground bullying tactics to try one devious route or another to overturn democracy. It is euphemistically referred to as “throwing their toys out of the pram”.
In 1972 and 1975 people who voted not to go into ‘the Common Market‘ as it was known then, lost their vote and were mature so like adults did not moan and drone on, nor did they throw the tantrums we are now experiencing by the Remainers in the UK (independent of which side any of us voted for, by the way).
Then some ‘bright sparks’ decide we were not told (1) what Brexit meant, and saying Brexit means Brexit did not mean anything to them; (2) are we having soft or hard Brexit; and (3) those who voted to Leave Europe did not understand what they were voting for – a dreadful insult and taunt against those who voted to Leave especially when it is said on the radio by someone whose voice age sounded 15! Many commentators on this subject were never even born in 1972 and are now teaching their grandmothers how to suck eggs.
Let us consider matters up to this point before looking at the recent turn of events.
First of all, I think it is fair to say that the whole nation was fed up of the subject and campaigning leading up to the Referendum regardless of ‘sides’.
Not one person, (at least headline wise) said the majority of the nation would not realise what it all meant, Brexit means Brexit was understood and again there were no issues regarding the aspects of exceptions (apart from SNP of course with their orders being shouted by Ms Sturgeon).
Nobody asked if geographical voting structures post-vote would mean that areas of the UK had to be separate bearing in mind this was a Referendum about Leaving Europe and, as the whole of the UK went in, then the whole of the UK should come out if that was the wish of the people.
I have never heard of any UK vote or referendum which was geographically independent to the whole result. At this rate each county will have to declare independence, and England too by the way, not just other constituent UK countries.
Post vote we also then began to hear pleadings that Scotland definitely wants to stay in, Central London – Banker territory, wants a waiver to stay in as do car manufacturers.
It is not the people who voted to Leave Europe who didn’t and don’t understand the issue(s), but Scotland (now possibly Wales and Northern Ireland too – the latter having required security border caveats of course), all want to change the rules of cricket it would seem.
The Speaker of the House of Commons did not challenge anyone in Parliament that the Referendum was un-Parliamentary in any way, nor did he challenge Mr Cameron on his original promise to trigger Brexit the day after the vote be that the will of the people, nor did he remind anyone either that it had not been done.
Following all of the above, Mrs May, it is said/rumoured, has indeed agreed separate deals with some of these groups and that is contrary right there to the vote. The people did not vote for that.
The voting papers did not say ‘If the people vote to Leave Europe are you ok for all the following exemptions, yes or no.’
The voting paper did not say ‘contrary to promise by Mr Cameron Article 50 might not be triggered the next day – are you ok to that, tick yes or no.’
Now we learn that a legal challenge has been successful that Parliament should have its say as the matter is a point of legislation as to procedures.
Ironic, isn’t it that three Judges know more than The Speaker or The Prime Minister and all the scribes in Parliament whose jurisdiction of such knowledge should be superior in all these areas?What about both Houses in Parliament? What about the executive privileges of any sitting Prime Minister?
We are told that Parliament/The Prime Ministers, were relying on an ancient piece of existing legislation.
If it takes one Act of Legislation to overturn Another Act of Legislation are we sure Parliamentarians (as those who doubted Brexit means Brexit was clear enough for the rest of us) will know what the Legislation tautology is, whether soft or hard, and will exemptions be required by the various groups within all that next, or this time, can the presumed ignorance of Brexiteers ask for exemptions of their choice?
Mrs May managed to avoid the normally required application for Leave to Appeal and go straight for an Appeal at the Supreme Court with possibly eleven Judges sitting to study the same. This is just like the rights which ordinary people have of course regarding access to the Judiciary, we all know that (grin).
This article is separate but complementary to the results of the above Appeal so the outcome of that will feature in another article, this is merely an analysis of what brought us to this ongoing dilemma.
Let us consider some crucial points herein.
People in Power would do well to visit The English Civil War History – everyone boasts about our rights but cringes as it was because of those times we have most of them, i.e. Parliament was to be elected by the people and for the people. Parliament only exists due to the Will of the people and the same could be said about the Monarchy (another key issue which precipitated the English Civil War).
MPs have a duty to represent the will of the people. The Mother of all Parliaments has become a source of derision with this entire matter.
If other Countries were to have democratic votes treated and manipulated in this way with a view to overturning the same, then we would probably be sending representatives to oversee matters and report findings to the rest of the world. We may even recommend an embargo to stop any trade agreements with the defaulting country. Can we call on independent overseers to do the same here, if so, they should be here now!
England and its associate alliances became strong during Oliver Cromwell’s time and was revered (and feared) by the rest of the world. Education and rights of ordinary people were greatly improved and it was a successful period of history in every area of commerce, shipping and military services. It was also known as a God-fearing and fair Nation. It only failed following Oliver Cromwell’s death when his Son Richard could not manage to replicate the same management skills of the country as those of his Late Father. After that the restoration of the monarchy took place and Charles II became King.
History repeats itself, never moreso than these current times.
Should Mr Cameron not be brought to Parliament and asked if he checked Parliamentary Legislation, did he consult with The Speaker and the legal scribes who advise them all?
Did he know what he meant by Brexit and while we are at it, did the Speaker?
Mrs May said Brexit means Brexit and that is an acceptable tautology. Did she think the millions who voted to Leave Europe may think the word too big? Of course not. Or did she accept that the people of our great nations within the UK knew simply it meant Leave – with a tacit pdq therein (which is what I think the Leavers actually thought and voted for that specifically)?
The soft, hard or final rinse with conditioner is irrelevant and a manipulative tool – best of all worlds is not going to happen – just as Europe who are rightly sick of us with the yapping and begging emerging from the UK. Let us show some self respect. Abide by the vote of the majority in all things – that is democracy.
Even Europe is embarrassed for us, the media goading and stirring the pot by interviewing the despondent trouble-makers constantly, knowing full well what they are doing, so some responsibility is theirs for this mess too.
It is one thing to obtain genuine opposing views but the media are feeding new trouble-making ideas into the mix also – just for ratings.
Do we keep voting then until we achieve someone else’s idea of the right answer?
I would wager if another referendum were to be taken then the Leave vote would be massive this time out of anger but who accepts the responsibility for riots and serious civil unrest or worse.
If Sir/Mr Green of BHS scenario can lose his Knighthood, be called back to Parliament and ordered to pay hundreds of millions to replenish missing Pension Fund monies owed to now unemployed staff (and it is right that he should) then how much more should be done to Mr Cameron for all this mess and misleading Parliament and the people, breaking his Parliamentary promise and taking us all to the brink of some type of civil war?
Why is nothing being said and done about that?
Hazel Speed
Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine
No Comments Yet!
You can be first to comment this post!