Tag Archives: Article 50

Brexit: How the Pretentious Political Puppets could delay Brexit

BBC: Brexit: How can Article 50 be extended?

brexit_flowchart_extending_article50_640-nc
BRINO: Brexit In Name Only.
Note: As the previous posts points out, time is against them to either delay or cancel Brexit
Update @19:43: BBC: MPs have voted by 312 to 308 to reject leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement
This means Theresa May must get 27 EU countries to agree an extension and then pass legislation in both houses (Commons & Lords) to change the 29th March 2019 date.

Disclosure: The image obtained from the BBC site has been edited to add the green ticks for my preferred outcome and the BRINO tag.

Advertisements

Brexit: Deal or no deal, here’s why Brexit cannot be stopped

An excellent article on the options before our pretentious political puppets concerning Brexit.
https://brexitcentral.com/deal-no-deal-heres-brexit-cannot-stopped/
Brexit Decision flow
The red boxes in the image above show the path to the default/pending outcome: No Deal. They have already rejected WA&PD!

…if the UK is still in the EU (or has BRINO) after 29th March. In that circumstance, the DUP might depart, if they had not already and the Government would either fall or require a new Prime Minister who had not supported the WA
…If the Government brings back the same deal without an exit to the backstop, it will be defeated. If it is defeated, there will be no second referendum or prolonged stay in the EU. The UK will leave. In short, don’t panic: if MPs hold their nerve, we are leaving the EU on 29th March without a permanent backstop.

Note: The ongoing military unification is not addressed by this article or MSM. You could argue that there was a certain expectation that the political class would deliver REMAIN or BRINO (Brexit In Name Only)!

Questions for the “sovereign” parliamentarians

After Brexit’s turmoil within the political bubble, we see a return to the usual obfuscations.
Theresa May stated, Brexit means Brexit. A meaningless phrase. In our desperation to see the statists acknowledge the dissent of 17.4 million brits, we assumed it was her promise.

However, we begin to wonder about the disconnect between the electorate, party members and the Westminster parliamentarians. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and even the Scottish Nationalists  leant towards staying in the EU.

Chart showing MPs backing the leave or remain camps

Direct questioning of these elected representative is now essential preferably in person. To that end here are some questions to size up their integrity:

  • Why do we borrow money with interest from the Bank of England when alternatives like the Bradbury pound exists?
  • Why are the allegations of child abuse and satanic ritual abuse not fully investigated and prosecuted? UK Column links and Zurich Insurance Behind Child Sex Abuse Investigation Shutdown?
  • If the Queen has no discretion in consenting to statutes passed by the parliament, why do we still need this ceremonial consent?
  • Why does the Crown Corporation (City of London) have a permanent unelected “Remembrancer” in the Houses of Parliament?
  • Would they resign having lost the backing of their constituency especially in relation to Brexit?
  • Will they vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972?
  • Does the existence of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 disprove that vaccines are safe?
  • The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been caught twice lying about its data (Swine flu data scrubbed and MMR study distorted). Does the MMR fraud not warrant a criminal prosecution of the officers of Merck, the makers of the MMR vaccine?
  • Is it ethical and lawful to impose an agreement like the TTIP, arrived at in secrecy upon the public?
  • Is it ethical and lawful to impose a private, corporate court upon a nation state as envisaged in the ISDS?
  • Is it ethical or lawful to grant statutory immunity to the Bank of International Settlements, the IMF, Bank of England and the Federal Reserve? Are these bodies above the “law”?  Where is the equality before the “law”?
  • Are there any rights that cannot be violated by the state? If there are none, then what rights do states claim to protect?
  • If the nation state does not serve the common man/woman, whom does it serve and why are we compelled to honour or consent to their interests?

Let’s call them litmus test questions. The MPs squirming, blathering will clearly show their affiliations. 17.4 Million Brexiteers have questions for their local MPs.
Updated:  14/08/2016

BREXIT: UK Column Exposes the psyop

Published on Jul 14, 2016

Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson with today’s UK Column News, including:

START Orgiastic political bloodlust : a reshuffle for a rebranded Fascism
03:56 Newspapers ridicule PM & new Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
05:02 Further unsavory characters to disgrace the British establishment
11:34 Smart Meters & the First Utility organisation : corporate intrigue
13:28 Big Society lies tied into origins of the deceptive ‘living wage’ con
14:37 Hillary “is like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital…” : says Boris
16:41 Farewell to Oliver Letwin : the financier slave with a task finished
17:52 Brexit Minister David Davis proclaims relentless transnationalism
19:45 European Union : a totalitarian schematic to destroy real Nations
22:51 The full repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act is essential
24:32 An Enemy of Jeremy : the Ambitions of one devious Tom Watson
32:15 The Church of England apologises for sadistic Kendall House ring
35:23 Systematic child abuse blackmail throughout British halls of power
36:04 Role of Home Secretary May in State persecution of abuse victims
38:14 Transhumanism Rising : sinister developments in tech & contracts