BBC: Brexit: How can Article 50 be extended?
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.
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.
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.