Category Archives: birthright

Escaping the  European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.

Robert  Henderson  

The EU may  have  overreached themselves.  On  9th October the president of  the European parliament David Sassoli  suggested  that a n extension  under Article 50 should only be granted if  either a General Election  or  a second referendum  is  held during the extension period, viz:

 Mr Sassoli told the European Parliament: “I had a fruitful discussion with Speaker Bercow in which I set out my view that any request for an extension should allow the British people to give its views in a referendum or an election.”

‘France’s Europe Minister Amélie de Montchalin backed the plan and said: “If there are new elections or a new referendum, if there is a political shift leading us to believe we could have a different dialogue from the one we have today, then an extension can be discussed.”  ‘

If the EU  stick by the conditions  Sassoli wants to  see attached to an extension it raises the question of  what  exactly the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 can  force upon a Prime Minister .

The Act requires Mr Johnson to send  to the EU  this letter if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU:

“Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

Thus Mr  Johnson is certainly obligated to seek a simple  extension without conditions.  But there is nothing in the Act which obligates him to accept an offer of an extension with conditions for the question of conditions is not mentioned in the Act.

The   failure to mention conditions either generally or specifically  might well be sufficient to negate the need for Johnson to accept the offer of an extension which had conditions attached  such as those the EU had stipulated.    However, there  are  also the tests of irrationality and unreasonableness   in English law.

 Lord Greene MR said this in the Wednesbury case: “If a  decision on a competent matter  is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere, and this kind of case would require something overwhelming. “

Lord Diplock in a case involving GCHQ :  said  this: “By ‘irrationality’ I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’. This applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question  to be decided could have arrived at”

The idea that Johnson (or any Prime Minister) have to accept whatever conditions the EU place on an extension is clearly unreasonable because the EU could ask for anything no matter how absurd,  for example, the EU  might  demand £100  billion as a condition for agreeing to  an extension or   stipulated that the extension period be for   years?   Both irrationality and unreasonableness would surely  apply in such  instances.

If the EU back  the   stipulation that an extension will  only be granted if there was a general election or a second  referendum  is objectively damaging to our democracy because it  is a gross interference with UK politics and is specifically designed to further the EU’s interests and not those of the UK .

 To obey the Act    Mr  Johnson is required to do no more than seek an extension.

Is Boris Johnson walking into an EU trap?

Robert Henderson

The Daily Telegraph reports (3oth July) that Boris Johnson has said that the UK could stay in the customs union and single market for another two years.   This is potentially fatal for a true  Brexit.

Consider what Johnson is suggesting.:

He wants  the UK to be  to all intents and purposes a  part of the EU for another two years.

He has a tiny majority which is unlikely to  sustain his government for two years.

He is likely to have to call a general election before the two year period  is over either because his small majority  makes government impossible or as the consequence of a vote of No Confidence  being passed  which is not overturned by a vote of confidence within 14 days.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act  muddies  the waters because it either requires two thirds of MPs to vote (that is  two thirds of the 651  seats not  just sitting MPs) .   Labour , SNP and other smaller parties  may not want have been demanding a General Election they would, both collectively or individually,  find it difficult to  vote against an election being called.

In any event the  Fixed Term Parliaments Act means the next General Election has to be held  on 5 May 2022 regardless of the wishes of the House of Commons.

If a General Election  is held there is no guarantee that it will return a  House of Commons which  gives the Tories  a clear majority. We might  find ourselves with  a remainder majority for Labour or a coalition of remainer parties.  such governments would be able to stitch the UK firmly  back into the EU without much difficulty for two reasons, (1)  operationally we would still effectively be in the EU (albeit but with a  loss of privileges) and (2) the at least one senior EU officer has suggested that  reinstating the UK’s membership could be done  without   too much bother.

The recently departed European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker  said this in January 2018:

“Once the British have left under Article 50 there is still Article 49 which allows a return to membership and I would like that. ”

“His suggestion came a day after European Council President Donald Tusk suggested he was open to a “change of heart” from the U.K. on Brexit.

‘Juncker backed him up later Tuesday, saying, “I hope that will be heard clearly in London,” according to the Independent.’

Article 49

Article 49 says this:

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The

European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the

European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

On the face of it Article 49 does not look las though reapplying for EU membership would be a shoo-in , but the fact that someone as  powerful as  Junker raised the possibility  and was backed up by  another powerful EU apparatchik in   Donald Tusk suggests that  re-joining it would be more or a less a formality . To that reasonable conclusion  can added the facts that both economically  and politically the EU gains from the UK  being within the EU.

Economically the EU gains from both the annual net Dangeld  (around £9 billion) taken from the UK by Brussels), continental EU ‘s massive balance of trade  advantage with the UK (£64billion) and the general advantage of having the fifth largest economy in the world (the UK) as part of the EU.

Politically the great advantage of keeping the  UK in the EU  (probably with  worse terms than we have at present) would be the disincentive it would create for any other EU member  thinking of leaving to leave.

The UK remaining in the EU would  have  other advantages. For example,  having not one but two permanent members of the UN  Security Council (the UK and France)   would be a loss of prestige for the EU and  would  scupper for the foreseeable future the EU’s desire to have a permanent  Security Council seat  for itself. The UK also has some still very handy armed forces and much of UK foreign development Aid  is channelled through EU not allocated directly by the UK. The EU has much to lose and nothing to gain if the UK leaves with no deal.

The reality is that No Deal is really the only certain way of getting out of the clutches of the EU. Embrace it not as an unfortunate way of leaving the EU but the only certain way of leaving the EU because anything short of it will allow the remainer rats to keep on gnawing away at our regained freedom.

Is Boris Johnson walking into an EU trap?

Robert Henderson

The Daily Telegraph reports (3oth July) that Boris Johnson has said that the UK could stay in the customs union and single market for another two years.   This is potentially fatal for a true  Brexit.

Consider what Johnson is suggesting.:

He wants  the UK to be  to all intents and purposes a  part of the EU for another two years.

He has a tiny majority which is unlikely to  sustain his government for two years.

He is likely to have to call a general election before the two year period  is over either because his small majority  makes government impossible or as the consequence of a vote of No Confidence  being passed  which is not overturned by a vote of confidence within 14 days.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act  muddies  the waters because it either requires two thirds of MPs to vote (that is  two thirds of the 651  seats not  just sitting MPs) .   Labour , SNP and other smaller parties  may not want have been demanding a General Election they would, both collectively or individually,  find it difficult to  vote against an election being called.

In any event the  Fixed Term Parliaments Act means the next General Election has to be held  on 5 May 2022 regardless of the wishes of the House of Commons.

If a General Election  is held there is no guarantee that it will return a  House of Commons which  gives the Tories  a clear majority. We might  find ourselves with  a remainder majority for Labour or a coalition of remainer parties.  such governments would be able to stitch the UK firmly  back into the EU without much difficulty for two reasons, (1)  operationally we would still effectively be in the EU (albeit but with a  loss of privileges) and (2) the at least one senior EU officer has suggested that  reinstating the UK’s membership could be done  without   too much bother.

The recently departed European Commission President Jean-Claude Junker  said this in January 2018:

“Once the British have left under Article 50 there is still Article 49 which allows a return to membership and I would like that. ”

“His suggestion came a day after European Council President Donald Tusk suggested he was open to a “change of heart” from the U.K. on Brexit.

‘Juncker backed him up later Tuesday, saying, “I hope that will be heard clearly in London,” according to the Independent.’

Article 49

Article 49 says this:

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The

European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the

European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account.

The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded which such admission entails shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

On the face of it Article 49 does not look las though reapplying for EU membership would be a shoo-in , but the fact that someone as  powerful as  Junker raised the possibility  and was backed up by  another powerful EU apparatchik in   Donald Tusk suggests that  re-joining it would be more or a less a formality . To that reasonable conclusion  can added the facts that both economically  and politically the EU gains from the UK  being within the EU.

Economically the EU gains from both the annual net Dangeld  (around £9 billion) taken from the UK by Brussels), continental EU ‘s massive balance of trade  advantage with the UK (£64billion) and the general advantage of having the fifth largest economy in the world (the UK) as part of the EU.

Politically the great advantage of keeping the  UK in the EU  (probably with  worse terms than we have at present) would be the disincentive it would create for any other EU member  thinking of leaving to leave.

The UK remaining in the EU would  have  other advantages. For example,  having not one but two permanent members of the UN  Security Council (the UK and France)   would be a loss of prestige for the EU and  would  scupper for the foreseeable future the EU’s desire to have a permanent  Security Council seat  for itself. The UK also has some still very handy armed forces and much of UK foreign development Aid  is channelled through EU not allocated directly by the UK. The EU has much to lose and nothing to gain if the UK leaves with no deal.

The reality is that No Deal is really the only certain way of getting out of the clutches of the EU. Embrace it not as an unfortunate way of leaving the EU but the only certain way of leaving the EU because anything short of it will allow the remainer rats to keep on gnawing away at our regained freedom.

Stand fast must be the order of the day for Leavers

Robert Henderson

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which” .(The last sentence of  Orwell’s Animal Farm )

This is precisely where Brexit is heading.  The leave voting public look from leaver politician to  remain politician and increasingly find it difficult to distinguish between most of  them. This trait is exemplified by media reports which suggest some grubby deal is being cooked up whereby May agrees to resign as PM and the wavering leave politicians agree to vote for her agreement with the EU.

This trade off  fails to address the questions  of what May’s agreement contains, the likely behaviour of remainer politician and public servants if  May’s agreement  is accepted by Parliament  and the EU’s attitude to the UK   if May’s agreement is turned into a legally enforceable document.

May’s agreement leaves the UK in the hands of the EU.

The Spectator magazine  recently listed what they called the top 40 horrors of the agreement. Apart from the Irish Backstop, these include the following :

  1. May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6)
  2. The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court (Art. 86) both citizens and resident companies can use it.
  3. The UK will remain under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
  4. The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
  5. Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – perhaps the most dangerous provision of all. (Article 168) Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)

These clauses of the agreement alone should make the agreement unacceptable to British politicians for they are the type of subordination required of a defeated enemy who has sued for peace.

The likely behaviour of remain politicians

The circumstances of a remainer  PM, a remainer dominated Cabinet and a remainer  dominated Parliament alone make it wildly improbable that  the  British Government  (of whatever complexion) after Theresa May’s agreement was  converted into a treaty will be any more robust in its dealing with the EU than May has been.  This is not merely a matter of weakness or inexperience by those calling the political shots in the  UK  Rather, it is the consequence of a remaner political elite which is determined to sabotage Brexit.

Nor  can we look to an early election to change matters. The House of Commons is probably 75% remainer. Hence, even if a General Election is held it is likely that a remainer  dominated Commons would be returned simply because it would require an almighty  and most unlikely throwing out of remainer  MPs.

The attitude of the EU

The  EU has given ample evidence since the Referendum that they  have no intention of treating the UK reasonably. Thieir behaviour has run the gamut of personal abuse to a rigid refusal to make any meaningful compromise with the UK or simply to accept the reality that the UK have voted to leave. The idea that they will behave more reasonably if the agreement made with May is enshrined into  a legally enforceable treaty is best described as ludicrous.

A taste  what the UK is likely to be confronted with if Parliament passes  May’s agreement  is demonstrated by the struggle which Switzerland is having with the EU.  They are meeting the same bone-headedly arrogant and unyielding EU attitude that the EU has presented to the UK since the Referendum, viz:

“All the terminology in this tiff will be uncomfortably familiar to the U.K. “Nothing is decided until everything is decided,” Commission officials say, and the Swiss can’t “cherry-pick” the benefits of the EU.. “

WTO terms is the only way to Brexit

All of these considerations make leaving to trade on  the WTO deal absolutely  necessary. Irreconcilable remainers have shown ever since the  Referendum that they were not willing to accept the result and are  demonstrating their resolution  in that intention  to prevent it happening as I write – a Sunday Express article   of 23 March  claims that the Government is already plotting to bind us fully back into the EU.  This is entirely plausible based on remainer behaviour since the Referendum.

Leaving under WTO terms serves two purposes : it is  the most efficient and rapid way of leaving  and is the most difficult for situation for   remainers to subvert because it immediately provides  a general trading framework.

The Irish Question

The Irish Backstop has not been made unnecessary or modified in any way.

If the  UK leaves to trade on WTO terms there will be no legal constraint , other than the WTO rules,   on  how the UK engages with the EU generally or the Republic of Ireland (RoI) specifically.  The UK government could offer the RoI a deal, namely,  to come out of the EU and retain the common travel area and frictionless trade between and with the UK or remain in the  EU and lose those advantages.

Given the RoI’s fervently  EU stance this might seem impossible at first glance but less so when the present circumstances are seriously considered.  The  RoI only joined the  EU (or EEC as it then was) because the UK joined.  They  did so for exactly the same reason s that it would make sense for the RoI to leave now, the large  amount of UK-RoI trade and the ability to  travel freely between the UK and Ireland.

To the trade argument can be added the fact that RoI  in 2016 moved  from being a net recipient of EU money to being a net contributor to the EU.  Their contribution in 2018 was more than £2 billion. With the UK leaving and removing a great wad of money from EU coffers  net contributors to future EU budgets will have to pay even more to make up for the loss of the UK’s contribution.

Of course leaving would raise the difficult  problem of the RoI  being in the Euro,  but the UK could  help the RoI to resurrect the Punt by lending financial assistance and perhaps even underwriting the Punt for a period.

If the RoI did leave the EU the Backstop problem would evaporate.

What happens if the RoI remains in the EU?  That would leave the EU not the UK with the problem of erecting a border between Northern Ireland and the RoI. The UK will not place  a physical border between the two so the only authority who could do so would be the EU.  Would they dare? I doubt it.

We desperately  need a modern law of treason

The UKL does not have a functioning Treason Law. It is sorely to be missed because without it what would have been called treason in most times in our history passes without any action being taken.

A recent  first rate example was Tony Blair advising major players within the EU how they should in effect thwart Brexit – see here and here . That amounts to treating with a foreign power without the authorisation of the Government.

A new treason law should make any attempt to assist a foreign power to the detriment of the UK treason.  That would cover much of the behaviour of irreconcilable remainers including politicians.

Such a law should not interfere with the normal democratic process. For example it would allow renainers to work for the UK to  rejoin the EU after the UK has left by making it the policy of a party and standing for election on that platform.   (That incidentally was the only democratically acceptable way for remainers to attempt to reverse Brexit, namely, let it take place and then try to reverse it in the way I have described).

The post-referendum position

The only reason Brexit is in such a mess is because  remainer politicians from Theresa May downwards have made  it  so.

The constitutional position is simple: by passing the Referendum Act Parliament contracted out the question of whether  the UK should remain in the EU or leave. Once the country voted to leave  Parliament (Lords and Commons) were obligated to put that decision into effect.

The referendum question was beautifully clear, senior politicians said publicly that the result of the vote would be  honoured by implementing it and after the vote the major parties promised in the 2017 election manifestoes  carried the same promise.  Parliament also agreed to the activation of the Article 50 procedure putting the UK on the leaving path. In short, there is absolutely no excuse for the grossly anti-democratic misbehaviour of  remainer politicians. They are not people acting in good faith to do what is best for the country. Rather they are  simply trying to enforce their will.

If Parliament passes May’s surrender document of a deal it will not only create great uncertainty,  but will also leave the UK securely attached to the EU, an attachment which will be  progressively tightened by a remainer dominated government and remainer dominated Parliament until within a few years the UK will be a de facto member of the EU . Like the animals in Animal Farm the uK  shall be indistinguishable from a full blown member of the EU.

Speaker Bercow  may have  radically changed the rules of the Brexit game

Robert Henderson

Recently there has been a sense of resignation in the leave camp, a  feeling that we  were at the mercy of  our treacherous remainer politicians who appeared to hold all the best  cards because of their domination of Parliament. Singlehandedly the Speaker has changed the mood .

John Bercow’s  ruling (18 March) that May cannot put her deal with the EU to the Commons for a third time if it is “the same or substantially the same” .  This has undermined  utterly May’s entire strategy which is the democratically contemptible one of trying to force a thoroughly bad deal through by a war of attrition allied to Project Fear.

Even before Bercow spoke the situation was unsettled however much the remainers might have portrayed it as being a  clear choice between May’s deal   being passed by the Commons or May going off to the EU to ask for an extension (preferably a long one) which would allow the remainers more time to complete their sabotage of Brexit.

Nor, despite the remainers’ shrill, incessant claims, has a “no deal” departure been taken off the table. In fact a  “no deal” Brexit is  still the default position until and when  the 29 March date in the Withdrawal Act is amended.

Consequently, there was a  launching pad for greater resistance to the game May has been playing and the problems of dealing with a Remmainer dominated Parliament.  All that was needed was something to strike a serious blow at the status quo. Bercow provided that.

Before Bercow stated his position with regard to May’s deal, the Government had no inkling of what he was going to do before he spoke.   The very nasty shock he has administered has already born fruit. May has made a request  for the EU to sanction both a short  extension and a long extension,  The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier has  replied  smartly  that she cannot have both. He also made it clear than an extension should not be taken for granted and that May must come to the EU with a firm plan of action to justify any extension of Artic  50.    She will  find this very difficult to formulate.

The implications of extensions to Article 50

If May does obtain  a long extension this at the least would mean  during  the extension the UK paying  even more money than the £39 billion Danegeld May has already offered to the  ERU  with nothing in return , continuing free movement,  being subject to  any new EU laws and regulations (including quite probability a transaction tax which would hit the UK hard because so much of our economy is services based) and coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Those sort of impositions might not only strengthen the resolve of Brexiteers but be too much for many remainers,  especially those with leave majorities. Moreover, it is important to understand that though the Commons has authorised May  to seek an extension  it will need a vote in Parliament before it is adopted as law, presumably by amending the Withdrawal Act.

If an extension is beyond the EU elections in June  the UK would have to hold elections for MEPs. That could well result in a phalanx of hard core  Brexiteers intent on making as much trouble as possible.  Neither the British remainer establishment nor the EU apparatchiks, elected or appointed, would welcome that.  Both or the EU alone might conclude that letting the UK leave without a deal was preferable and refuse an extension.

That leaves revoking Article 50 entirely.  The ECJ has ruled  that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 ) but I doubt whether Parliament would vote for that because individual remainer MPs in leave majority seats would be worried about losing their seats. . (Strictly speaking May could probably do it off her own bat using the Royal Prerogative, but I doubt whether even she would have the brass neck to do that. Moreover, in the new Parliament is  the executive power situation and mood I suspect that she would face and probably lose  a vote of no confidence if she did so)

On the EU side it would be rash to assume that an extension would be automatically granted. Each of the other 27 EU members have their own national axes to grind and it is possible that one or more might simply say no to along  extension.

Why May’s  Deal Does Not  Mean Leaving the EU.

Anyone who is under the illusion that May’s “deal”  is anything other than a a subordinating horror for the UK should read the  Spectator column The top 40 horrors  lurking in the small print of  Theresa May’s  Brexit deal and watch this excellent less than 4 minute summary of the content of  and the implications of  the  “deal” by the  Bruges Group.

Proroguing Parliament

The suggestion that  Parliament could be prorogued  and a new Parliamentary session started would hit the buffers of the Fixed Term Parliament Act.  This provides for five Parliamentary sessions  of 12 months. If the present session was ended  by proroguing Parliament that would mean the five year term would be shortened because the current Parliamentary Session would be reduced.  As things stand this would mean the end date of the Parliament would not be reached by the end of five Parliamentary sessions.

Short of voting for a General Election now,  to get round this problem either the  new  Parliamentary year would have to be lengthened  or the Commons would have to vote to amend the  Fixed Term Parliaments Ac to fit these distinctly peculiar circumstances.

If nothing is settled by 29th March

What is required now is as much disorder and confusion as possible amongst our political class to distract them from the  draining away of  the last ten days before the 29 March.

In the present complex and rapidly reshaping circumstances It is quite conceivable that  the UK may come to  and pass the 29th March with the withdrawal date intact. That would mean the UK has left the EU. There would be no legal way for  either our remainer politicians or the EU to re-establish UK membership simply by  passing retrospective legislation or by the making of Treaties.  The only way back would be for the UK to re-apply for membership of the EU. From scratch.

Brexiteers should not be unthinkingly optimistic, but the situation is undeniably considerably more favourable to the leave side than it was  on 17 March, not least because Bercow’s intervention has swept away much of the obfuscation and outright lying  which has tainted the Commons until now.

Of course it may be that there is a good deal  of playacting by Bercow,  the Government and the EU and come the crunch Bercow my  allow another vote on May’s deal, the Commons may vote for the deal and the EU will agree to a long  extension, but that scenario   looks a great deal less likely today that it did  48 hours ago.

Brexit: an object lesson in elite betrayal

Robert Henderson

On 15  January Theresa May suffered the  greatest defeat of any British Prime Minister  when she put the draft deal she has  struck with the EU to a vote in the House of Commons. The deal was  rejected by 432  votes  against to 202 votes for, a colossal majority against accepting the deal of 230.

The bald figures  are  terrible enough but they are even worse than they appear for the government’s “payroll vote” of MPs  holding  government office is around 140. These  would be expected to vote with the Government. Hence, May will have  only attracted around 60 backbenchers (who within reason can vote as they like) to support  her  draft deal.

This gives May and her government a tremendous problem because ever since she came back to Parliament with the draft deal she has been saying it is her way or the highway as she has stubbornly insisted that  no other deal is available and that a failure to accept it could mean no Brexit. As the draft deal she has agreed offers  Brexit in name only  (Brino)  and resembles the type of treaty a defeated enemy who had sued for peace might agree to   such is the subordination of the UK interests which according to many commentators would leave the UK as a vassal state. The Commons showed what they thought of the  goods on offer and chose   to reject them in the most spectacular fashion.

The problem is that May is still Prime Minister . The day after suffering the defeat over her deal a vote of No Confidence in the Government  was defeated by 325 votes to 306 .  This means that she stays as Prime Minister and the threat of an early General Election has receded.  Nor can she face another Tory  leadership challenge  for the better part of a year because she won a vote of No Confidence  in her leadership just before Christmas.

The defeat of May’s deal is  encouraging for Brexiteers inasmuch as  the overwhelming  result should have greatly lessened any  thoughts May had of coming back with a few insignificant cosmetic changes made to the deal  nearer the 29th March leaving date.  However, that is still a possibility  and there  are many other threats to thwart a true Brexit . If there is a serious breakdown of party discipline  there is nothing to stop remainer MPs  doing anything they  want because the house of Commons consists of a substantial majority of remainers.

There  is one bright light amongst this gloom for Brexiteers, namely the fact that the date for the UK’s leaving is fixed in an Acct of Parliament .

Section 20 of  the European Union (Withdrawal ) Act  2018  states ‘“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.’

To  change the date of the UK leaving the  EU requires either an amendment to or repeal of the Act.

While the Brexit leaving date remains unchanged it does not matter what else happens because it places a legal obligation on the UK to leave. Consequently, a  second referendum cannot be held, an extension of Article 50 cannot be sought by the UK or granted by the EU and  Article 50 cannot be revoked. In addition remainers, however aided and abetted by a remainer Speaker of the Commons,  cannot  ultimately stop the UK leaving the EU on 29 March.

However, the House of Commons is remainer dominated (around 6o%)   and  could vote to amend or repeal the leaving date, but  there are serious obstacles to that happening.

To begin with it would  nakedly expose their anti-democratic partisanship.  Ever since the referendum most remainers have constantly bleated the refrain that  they honour the result whilst making it perfectly clear that they want to sabotage Brexit.  If they alter the leaving date that pretence would be unsupportable because once the date was altered or removed completely from  the Act the remainers would be forced to commit themselves to going down one of these paths:

  1. Extend the two year Article 50 negotiating period, perhaps indefinitely.
  2. Revoke Article 50
  3. Announce that the UK is remaining in the EU.

4, Legislate for another referendum on Brexit.

There is also be  the possibility  of a snap General Election if no one could command a majority in the Commons.

Having their true feelings and intentions towards Brexit exposed will be more than embarrassing for many MPs  because  there are many constituencies – and especially ones filled by Labour  MPs – which voted heavily to leave the EU  while their MP voted to remain and has consistently opposed Brexit by fair means or foul.  Consequently, leave voters might well punish remainer  MPs in leave constituencies.

Brexit  did not have to be  thought hideously complicated.

Much has been made of the complexity of the Brexit.  This claimed complexity  is largely down to having  remainer  PM and a remainer dominated cabinet which looked for  terrors where there were none. At best their heart isn’t in Brexit and at worst they are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit.

If  the process pf leaving the EU had  been conducted by a leaver PM and a leaver dominated Cabinet most of the complexity would have dissolved. There would still have been a potential problem with  remainer dominated Commons (and Lords) but with a government firmly committed to Brexit it is doubtful that remainers in Parliament would have been so blatant in their attempts to overthrow Brexit.

With a resolute  leaver as PM backed by a  leaver dominated cabinet the mere fact of their existence would have changed the language and progress of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.

Trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules

Leaving without a deal to trade under WTO rules is a real possibility because of both the fast approaching leave date and the inability of the House of Commons to come up with any plan which can command a majority.   Moreover, significant numbers of leave MPs have embraced the idea as being the best route out of the EU  for  of the  UK .

There are two reasons  for embracing  the idea of leaving to trade on WTO terms. The first is that it simplifies matters  because it is ready made system and allows business to plan . The second  is that it prevents, at least in the short to medium term,   remainder politicians trying to sabotage  Brexit after the UK has formally left the EU.     Nor of course does  WTO membership  mean that future bilateral trade deals cannot be struck.

The Deep State

The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact it is better thought of as a blind  sociological  event.  There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions  or at least saying they  do.

What has happened in the  UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions.  That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, mediafolk, teachers etc) who are  overwhelmingly politically correct internationalists  and its those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.

How did it it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s  Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the  policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones.  That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full  flower.

The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit  and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies,  traduce  the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious  totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism”  (in reality anti-white racism)  at its heart.  The last brick  in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who  refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.

That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.

The bad faith of the remainers

The vast majority of MPs have overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result  by promising  in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of  the legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for the

By doing so MPs forfeited their  right to do anything other honour the result of the referendum. That applies just as much to remainer MPs as  leave MPs because the leaver MPs were bound by both the democratic choice made by the Commons and the democratic choice made by the electorate.

Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed remainers with power and influence (including many MPs and peers in the house of Lords) has shattered  utterly the idea that the UK is a fully functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite, ideas  which go against the interests and wishes of most of  the electorate.

Noe of this should be a surprise. The sad truth is that the central political question in any society is this, how far will the masses be able to control the naturally abusive tendencies of the elite.

The logic of Brexit

Robert Henderson

Remainer  determination to subvert Brexit  is shamelessly alive and kicking. Since the referendum on 23rd June 2016 those who voted to remain in the EU have given a ceaseless display of antidemocratic and profoundly dishonest  behaviour in their attempt to overturn  overtly or covertly the result of the referendum.

The favourite tune of the Remainers is  “I respect the result of the referendum  but …”, the’ but’ being  variously that the “British did not vote to be poor”, the electors were suffering from  false consciousness , and the most absurd of all, that electors  made their decision to vote leave solely on  the leave side’s promise that £350 million a  week would be available to spend on the NHS. (This was a clumsy piece of leave information because the £350 million was what the UK as a whole paid as a net figure (after the rebate) to the EU each year and included money such as the subsidies to UK farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy.  Nonetheless, it was factually true in the sense that once  the money was not paid to the EU the British Government would be free to use it, with Parliament’s approval, in any way they saw fit.  What was a an outright and unambiguous lie  was the Remainer claim that the UK receives money from the EU each year.)

To give  substance to the Remainers wishes to stay in the EU  there has been calls for  a second  referendum once a deal with the EU is made (this is official LibDem policy); suggestions that if no deal is made after two years  the UK should remain in the EU (a surefire way to ensure that the EU will come to no agreement with the UK);   proposals to keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union (which would effectively mean no Brexit) either by direct treaty with the EU (SNP Leader’s policy) or through  the UK joining EFTA, and calls for Brexit to be simply  overturned, most notably by Tony Blair. Perhaps most dangerously  all the major UK parties now  have as their official policy a transitional period, including The Tories after Theresa May’s Florence speech.   This has real dangers  for Brexit because apart from committing the UK to at least another two years of paying into the EU, accepting free movement, being  bound by  new  EU  laws and being subject to the European Court of Justice,  thetransitional period could  turn into a permanent condition or at least be extended   so far into the future that a Remainer government might use to effectively  bind the UK  permanently into the EU.

To the domestic attempts to sabotage Brexit can be added the internationalist institutions which have  continued to fuel project fear with dire economic warnings, the most recent case being the  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD)  which urges a reversal of Brexit with a second referendum to improve the UK economy. .

More formally, there has been the legal case brought  by Gina Miller which  forced the Government to consult Parliament on the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There  has also been the  failed attempt  by  Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland  requesting the High  Court  to  in effect direct the Government to hold a Parliamentary debate and vote on leaving  European Economic Area on the grounds that that the issue  not  on the referendum ballot paper.  A third court case which sought to reverse the triggering of Article 50 was  started in the Republic of Ireland  with a view to getting a favourable judgement which would then provide a  basis for further action in European courts was started but stopped.  Doubtless there will be further legal attempts to interfere with what is a quintessentially political matter before Brexit is completed.

The   most serious current attempt  by Remainers to  delay and  sabotage Brexit  is to  try to amend the  EU Withdrawal Bill so that Parliament have the final say on whatever is the final outcome of the Brexit process.   There is also probably  something of the McCawberish principle of waiting for something to “turn up” in this attempt.

The remainers  attempt to  justify this behaviour on the spurious ground that the referendum  result was about returning sovereignty to Parliament. This is to ignore the logic of the referendum for the form of the referendum placed the will of the people over the will of Parliament and, indeed , of government.

Why Brexit is not like a business negotiation

A main plank of  Remainer cant is that the Brexit negotiation is just like any old  business  negotiation where the two sides come to the table hiding what their bottom lines are before agreeing to a compromise. But the  Brexit negotiation is very different because  the British people were offered a chance to vote to take us out of the EU by voting in a referendum.

That referendum was simple and   unequivocal : there were no caveats required   to make it valid such as requiring  a minimum percentage of the electorate voting about Brexit or a minimum percentage of those voting to vote to leave. It was a straightforward one-vote-is enough yes or no ballot.  The  question on the ballot  paper was  beautifully  straightforward : “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Consequently,  the  leave result was an unambiguous instruction to  the Government and  Parliament to take  the UK out of the EU, no ifs,  no buts. The  vote  did not mean  deciding during the course of  the post-Brexit negotiation with the EU how many  of the EU  shackles which  currently   emasculate the UK as a nation state  should be removed and how many retained .  In short it   was simply  a question of leave meaning  leave,  just  as leave means leave when someone cancels their membership  of a club.

That being so the Government  is bound to have red lines and  cannot  go into the negotiations with a free hand  to barter away things as they might do in a business negotiation. The Government has no authority to pursue anything other than a true Brexit,   which means  out of the customs union, out of the single market,  away from the jurisdiction of the court of the European Court of Justice, control of our borders ,  free to make our own trade deals   and  paying no money to the EU.  Anything less than this would be a  betrayal of the referendum result .

The referendum was binding on the Government and Parliament

Remainers have also  tried to pretend that the referendum was merely advisory. Amongst the  many  falsehoods and deceits attempted by Remainers this is arguably  the most shameless because the position is clear cut.

The fact that the referendum was intended to be binding on both Government and Parliament  rather than merely advisory  was repeatedly  made unambiguously clear from well  before the referendum .   The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015  Page 72 said this about the referendum: “We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”

In opening the second reading debate on the European  Union Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said “This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”

and

“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

In the light of this  MPs cannot have believed  that the referendum would  not be binding from the very beginning . Moreover, at the third reading of the  European Union Referendum Bill  the Commons voted 316 for and   53 against with 52 of those against being SNP Members.  Only one Labour MP voted against.  It was an overwhelming  acceptance, direct  or tacit,   by MPs of all parties barring the SNP  that the referendum was binding.

Finally, in the course of the referendum campaign the government spent £9.5million of taxpayers’ money on printing a leaflet and distributing it to all households in the United Kingdom.  It included these words:

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.” (Page 2)

And  it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic:

“This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide.” (Page 14)..

The problem with Brexit  is Remainer politicians  still holding  the levers of power

We have a Remainer PM, a Remainer dominated Cabinet, a Remainer dominated Government,  a Remainer dominated House of Commons (with remainers dominant in the Tory, Labour, LibDEms and the SNP parties) and a Remainer dominated House of Lords.

A recent  report by the Daily Telegraph  found that the Cabinet is overwhelmingly Remainer. They asked all Cabinet members  whether they would vote leave  if another referendum was held. The result was :

– 16 Cabinet members either  refused to say whether they would vote leave  now or failed to respond to the question.

– Two Cabinet ministers who backed Remain,   Elizabeth Truss, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury  and Jeremy Hunt, the Health secretary,  said they would now vote Leave.

– Five other Cabinet ministers who voted Leave – Priti Patel, David Davis, Andrea Leadsom, Liam Fox and Michael Gove –  said they would still vote to leave the EU.

– The PM Theresa May  has  repeatedly refused to say whether she would be a leave voter if a referendum was held.

The overwhelming Remainer sentiment of those occupying the leading roles in the Government  automatically undermines the Brexit negotiations because the politicians of the  other EU member states and  the politicised  EU bureaucracy will think that at  best the UK Government will be happy to concede a great  deal  of  ground to the EU  and at worst will not push for a true  Brexit because their hearts are simply not in it.

The only way to change matters is to have a committed leaver as PM and a  Cabinet comprised only  of committed leavers. Anything less and  serious Cabinet disunity will continue.

Such a Government should lay down  the redlines listed above and commence immediately and with all speed the  preparation  to trade if necessary under WTO rules . That  provides a ready made template for our trade with the EU  . More boldly we could walk away from the EU now by invoking the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which includes the provision to  throw aside a treaty where the other parties o the treaty are acting in bad faith. The fact that Article 50 exists means that the other EU members have to act in good faith over a member state’s withdrawal. Patently they are not honouring that obligation.  Bad faith is  shown amply by both Eurocrats and EU political leaders since the referendum decision.

Remainers need to think  about what  is likely to happen if a true Brexit is denied by the multifarious machinations which Remainers have attempted.  That would be saying to the British electorate it does not matter how you vote the only thing you will ever get is what the ruling elite wants. At best  British politics would be poisoned for a very long time  and at worst political violence  could result.

After more than half a century of internationalist politicians and their supporters in  the media, universities and the civil service  the concept of treason is out of fashion in  the UK.  But treason is a crime like theft or murder,  which always exists whether or not there is  a law on the Statute Book for it  is the ultimate betrayal. If Brexit is thwarted  the cry of  treason may  be on people’s lips again in earnest.

Brexit and surviving Mrs Maybe

Robert Henderson

The shamelessly   anti-democratic remainers are queuing up to cheat the British electorate of Brexit. Those in the media and the likes of Gina Miller  shriek that a hard Brexit is dead and it is already  reported that remainer MPs from both the Tory and Labour parties are plotting to overturn  Brexit and Theresa May knows about it but does nothing.  May’s Chancellor Philip Hammond openly defies her on Brexit by saying that no deal with the EU would be a “very bad outcome”.

In Scotland the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon beats the same drum and the leader of the Tories in Scotland Ruth Davidson talks of legally detaching the Scottish Conservatives  from  the UK  Party whilst  insisting that a hard Brexit should be watered down and stating baldly that  the  13 MPs from Scotland who are now sitting in the Commons should vote according to their consciences not to the dictates of Tory Party whip.

There is also another possible legal challenge brewing with a  claim that the Act passed to allow the letter to be sent to the EU triggering Article 50 did not such thing because it did not  address the question of the legality of the UK leaving the EU.

More immediately worrying  is the proposed supply and confidence arrangement   with the Democratic Unionists (DUP)  of Northern Ireland  and the  concessions the  DUP will insist on and the knock-on effects with Scotland and Wales which will undoubtedly want  for themselves  whatever  the DUP gets or something of similar political value.    The terms of the arrangement have yet to be agreed,  but we can be sure that the DUP will insist on not having a hard border between the  Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland . Anything other than a hard border would utterly undermine one of the primary objects of Brexit, namely, control of the UK’s borders.  Nor is it certain that any deal will be made.

All in all a very pretty political mess with no risk free way of escaping.  Calling another election soon  would probably   result in  a Labour win or at least a Labour led coalition government.  At best it is unlikely that it would leave  the Tories in a better position than they are in.  Moreover, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is still in place. To call an election before the end of the five year Parliament stipulated in the Act  requires a two-thirds majority of   the  full complement of MPs  (currently 650) whether  or not a constituency has an MP at the time of voting or whether an MP abstains.   In short at least 417 MPs  must vote for an election.   There is a good chance that neither  the Parties with seats  in the Commons nor many individual MPs with smallish majorities would want another election soon: the Parties because of the cost (if an election was held this year it would mean  funding three elections in two years) and   individual MPs for  the fear of losing their seats.

There is one way the Tories might be able to cut this Gordian knot because  they are so close to a majority in the Commons the Government is in a much stronger position than might be thought  from the media and general political  response following the failure of May to gain a majority .  May  or a successor could  try governing  without a majority.

The  number of MPs  needed for a Commons majority is pedantically 326. But this is misleading because the  seven Sinn Fein MPs will not  take their seats as a matter of principle (they refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown)and the Speaker only votes in the event of a tie (when by convention he votes for the status quo). Hence, the figure in practice for a Commons majority is  322. This means the Tories are a  mere 4 MPs short of a majority.

The Tories  could probably govern as a minority government without any support most of the time, because any defeat of  government legislation would require almost every non-Tory MP  to vote against the government. That is not easy to organise day in day out, week in week out.  Moreover, it is most unlikely that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to hold up many of the  money Bills because that would mean their countries  would not get their  part of the money .  In addition, it is likely that the DUP would support the Tories on most occasions simply because they agreed with Tory policies and for the fear of something worse, that is, a Corbyn government. .

The main danger for the Tories  would be a  vote for a motion of No Confidence.   But it would not be easy to marshal the disparate MPs who make up the opposition.  It is possible that some Tories might abstain or even vote against on individual Tory policies , but improbable  that they would vote for a motion of No Confidence.

It is conceivable that a few  Tory remainers might cross the floor of the House of Commons and join a Corbyn  government. This idea  is unlikely  but  not absurd because Brexit is one of those rare defining issues which could cause remainer  Tory MPs to defect.  More probable would  be Tory remainers being willing to vote on  Bills put forward  by a Corbyn government which relate to Brexit.

But let us assume that a motion of No Confidence was passed, what then?  Could Corbyn form a government with a majority? He might well struggle because he  would have to take all the Ulster  Unionist MPs with him. Given Corbyn’s  record of  enthusiastically consorting with Irish Republicans of dubious provenance  it is unlikely he would be able to bring them on board even on the basis of confidence and supply. But even if he could cobble together a government of all MPs other than Tory ones,  it would be hopelessly  unstable because of the vast  spread of political opinions it would have to encompass and the fact that the Labour Party is nowhere near to being able to form a government on its own.   The proposed hook-up between the Tories and the DUP has a much better chance of surviving.

It is possible that no government could be formed which could command  the confidence of the Commons. That would create an interesting constitutional problem because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act  would mean that Parliament could not be dissolved unless two thirds of the Commons voted for it. That would mean that any new election could not be painted as the responsibility of the Tory Party as many MPs other than Tory ones would have to vote for it. That would remove part of the toxicity  of an early election for the Tories.

If May (or a Tory successor) could get through another 18  months in power that might be enough for the public to turn against Corbyn and/or simply get bored with his antics and those of the likes of McDonnell. It would also allow enough to time get the negotiations  for Brexit so well entrenched that it would be difficult to overturn them even if a different government took office. The fly in the ointment is of course the likely attempts at betrayal by the present Government or any successor government  headed by a Tory other than Theresa May.

If the Tory government does survive it must operate  for the foreseeable political future on the basis that Brexit comes before everything else apart from maintaining  the functions of the state and civil order. Any legislation in policy areas other than Brexit which is contentious should be shelved until Brexit is completed.

There must also be red lines drawn. One of the primary problems with May was her refusal or inability to spell out what she would and would not accept when negotiating with the EU.  The government whether led by May or someone else must make clear the following:

That there is no hard and soft Brexit there is simply Brexit

That the UK will leave the single  market.

That the UK will leave the customs union .

That the UK will have full control over her borders for people, goods and services.

That the UK will have full control of her territorial waters including those relating to the 200 mile limit.

That after leaving the UK will not be subject to the European Court of Justice or any other judicial body  linked to the EU or the EEA.

That the UK will not pay any leaving fee.

That the UK will be paid a proportionate share of the EU’s assets.

That would both reassure the majority who voted of Brexit and make any backsliding by the government very difficult.

What would be the effects  of a radical reduction in immigration to the UK?

Robert Henderson

Ukip has embraced a nil  net  immigration policy based on a one in one out to leave the population unchanged by immigration. In the year ending Sept 2016   596,000 people came to the UK  and 323,000 left giving a  net migration figure of  273,000 more coming than going.  That is the number of  people  who were not  British citizens  would have been  refused residence under   the scheme proposed by Ukip.

The  internationalists   tell   us  that   the woes  of  the  world will   come upon  us  should we radically  curtail immigration,  although,  like  Lear threatening retribution, (“I will do such things–What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”)   they are unable  to  say  exactly what the woes  will be.  In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen an article in the British media which goes beyond lazy generalisation about “competing in a global market” or  “driving private enterprise abroad”.    The reality is rather different.

The effects on the British labour market of a radical reduction of immigrants

There would be greatly improved employment  opportunities for the British.  The  labour market would tighten and wages would rise. That would place extra costs on employers but they could be offset by a reduction in taxation due to millions of people being employed who are currently unemployed or underemployed and receiving in work benefits. Nor would  wages rise uniformly. Labour   would  move    into  those   occupations  which  are essential   and  which   cannot  be provided  at    a   distance,   for  example     healthcare     and  education.  We  would   discover    how  occupations   rank in terms of  utility.  Wages  would  rise  in  those occupations which had most utility to  attract  staff from elsewhere. This could have surprising results. We might find that vital jobs considered menial now would pay much more once cheap labour could no longer be brought in.   This would be justice for the many who have seen their jobs undervalued  because of the ability of employers to use cheap immigrant labour.

Employers  would  respond  to labour  tightening   by   using    labour  more  efficiently.   Automation  would increase  and  employers   would  change their attitude  to  the employment of the long-term unemployed,  older  people  and  the disabled. Both  employers and government would  take vocational   training   more seriously.   Government  would  provide  incentives   to  employers  to train  their staff and  increase  the  training  of    public   service   professionals such as doctors and  dentists.

Employers  who could not find the labour to run their business in  this country would have to accept they could not do so.   No one has a right to engage in an enterprise regardless of the effects on the welfare  of the community as a whole which is effectively the present position. Capital which cannot be used in this country can be invested  abroad and the profits from that brought to the UK.  The UK balance of payments would be improved by  a reduction in the  money being remitted abroad by immigrants.

The increase in employment of Britons would  be an immense social good beyond  reducing  the cost to the Exchequer  of  the  unemployed,  for people are generally happier and more  responsible  when employed .

The  pressure  on  public services,  transport   and housing would be lessened making  access  to them  easier  for Britons. An ending of mass immigration would also curtail  the substantial cost of providing  the benefits of the welfare state to immigrants as soon as they gain the right to legal long term residence in Britain.

Fewer legal  immigrants would allow much greater supervision of visitors to Britain – a significant minority of whom are health tourists  or who are here for criminal purposes – and a proper control and investigation of illegal immigrants. No more sending suspected illegals to the Croydon reception office under their own speed or leaving ports and airfields with an inadequate or completely absent Borders Agency  presence.  We could then not only refuse new immigrants but  start removing the  illegal immigrants who are already here.

Would there be an unmanageable  labour shortage?

The  idea  that  Britain  is  short of  labour  for  most  purposes  is   absurd.   The official figure  for those of working  age  ((16-64) who are economically inactive in the UK is  just under 9 million, or nearly a quarter of the age group.  Clearly not all of those would be able or willing to work,  but equally clearly  a large proportion would be able and willing to work  if  the conditions  were  right, for example,   wages  rose,   employers  became  more accommodating  and the benefits system was tightened as the  number  of opportunities for work rose.

The   claim  that  the   indigenous   population   will  not   do   the jobs  immigrants take  is  demonstrably false for in areas of the country with  few  immigrants  native  Britons  do  them  willingly.   In addition, vast swathes of work have been effectively denied to the native population  by collusion between employers and those who supply labour.  This happens both within the indigenous ethnic minorities who only employ from their own ethnic group and within immigrant labour which commonly works through gangmasters who are immigrants themselves. This does not just occur in areas such as fruit picking  and factory assembly work but in areas such as the NHS where we have the absurdity of doctors and nurses trained in Britain having to go abroad to find jobs because immigrants are employed here.

It is also important to understand  that the menial  jobs immigrants  take are worth far more to them than a native Briton because wages are so much higher in the UK than they are in the country from which the immigrant hails.  Take the example of an immigrant who earnings are taxed properly and   who earns the minimum UK wage.  Even if  they earn the UK minimum wage  of £7.20 ph for those over 24 years of age  that is an annual wage for a 40 hour week of £14,976.  The minimum wage in for example Poland is worth around £400 pm (£5,000 pa) , despite the fact that Poland is one of the larger and  better developed economies of the Eastern European countries which supply so many of the immigrants to the UK.  Immigrants coming from less developed countries will find  the differential between wages here and their country of origin much larger, for example,

Many  immigrants live  in  accommodation   either   supplied and subsidised   by  an  employer  or   in  crowded accommodation which works out at  very little per head  rent.   Substantial numbers   work in the black market and pay no income  tax or national insurance.  Quite a few  draw in work benefits such as Child Benefit even if their children are not in this country.  In these circumstances migrants  from the poorer  member states should be able  to save  a few thousand pounds a year from their wages .  If the money is remitted back to the immigrant’s home country or the immigrant returns home  a few thousand sterling will be worth in purchasing power in the home country  multiples of what it is worth in the UK.

As for skilled workers,  most jobs are as they have always been unskilled or low skilled. For those occupations which  are skilled but non-essential , the work can be done by people working abroad, for example, most IT work falls into that category. The skilled occupations with indispensable skills  which  could not be sourced from our own people if training was provided, for example, doctors and nurses.  There are presently  far more applicants for medical training places than are currently filled.

Do Britons want an end to mass immigration?

Concern about immigration has been at the top of issues concerning the British for years; this despite the fact that every mainstream British political party has with the willing collusion of the British media, doing   everything they can to suppress unfettered  public debate about the issue.

In 2014 The think-tank British Future  published  their  report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov.  One finding  is truly startling. Faced with the question  “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally”  the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report).  In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive  immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of  falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is  stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report).  The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

Anyone who believes that the British people welcomed the post-war immigration and want more of it is self-deluding to the point of imbecility.

Petition on Number 10 website : The UK to use the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to leave the EU now

Message body