From the moment the spin started, it was clear that the FT had unearthed something rotten at the heart of the Government when it told the world that alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, driven ever onward by chief Downing Street polecat Dominic Cummings and his pals, was to bring forward legislation allowing it to renege on the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated last year with the EU.
The individual supposedly in charge ...
And while the spin has continued, with the latest line being that the Agreement has somehow been rushed and poor Bozo felt pressured to sign it, the publication of the legislation shows that what the FT told us is not even the half of it. What the UK Internal Market Bill does is to propose an alternate legal reality, where the Government’s actions may be both legal and illegal at the same time. Not even Orwell got that one.
... the individual actually driving the clown car ...
As Peter Foster of the FT put it, “The [UK Internal Market Bill] is out and it's everything it was billed to be - and more. A total bomb. You can see why Jonathan Jones quit”. Jones, formerly head of the Government’s legal department, had had a “significant disagreement” with the Attorney General, Suella “Cultural Marxism” Braverman.
Why this might be does not take long to discern, when one considers some of the Act’s content. Take, for instance, the last line of Paragraph 44, which says simply “Certain provisions to have effect notwithstanding inconsistency or incompatibility with international or other domestic law”. So it’s illegal? No problem - it’s now legal.
The scope of the proposed legislation should also give concern: it defines “relevant international or domestic law” very broadly indeed. Included here are “any provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol … any other provision of the EU withdrawal agreement … any other EU law or international law … any provision of the European Communities Act 1972 … any provision of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 … any retained EU law or relevant separation agreement law”. And then it goes further. Much further.
Here we proceed through the looking glass: “any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgment or decision of the European Court or of any court or tribunal”. It is possible that even the Enabling Act passed by the Nazis in 1933 was less blatant in its disregard of democracy.
... the warning from history ...
Lawyer and commentator David Allen Green cast his eye over this supremely malignant proposal and observed “The Conservatives, once the part of law and order, are going to deliberately break the law … on the issue of State Aid, a legal cornerstone of Thatcherite economics … because they agreed a border in the Irish sea, even though they are nominally a 'unionist' party. Weird”. And, talking of Mrs T, there was a warning from history.
... and where this is heading
This is what she told her own party conference in 1975: “The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it is inconvenient, if Government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe - not home, not liberty, not life itself”. And the Tories used to revere her every word.
Any MP who votes in favour of this Bill is not only not a democrat, but is unfit to serve. We have arrived at a dangerous moment. Britain is close to becoming a very dark place.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
I told you so.
I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO.
Could Johnson / Cummings / Leavers drag us even further into the gutter?
We did WARN people, but too many believed that Jeremy Corbyn was public enemy no 1.
Bit like a certain other famous gentleman from the Middle East with the same intials carrying the same message of love & tolerance was crucified and Barrabas was set free.
Jeremy Corbyn was public enemy no 1. Now it's Piers Corbyn.
Does anybody SERIOUSLY think the Starmer Quiff Gang would make an important policy difference?
They're simply hanging around waiting for the inevitable Bozo Circus implosion. They'll do nothing of substance now or in future. They're not "centrist"...they're right wing, some of them FAR right. Just another sickening betrayal of the Labour Party.
This country is profoundly morally corrupt and in deep trouble. Tinkering will not do in a socioeconomic system patently not fit for democratic purpose.
Excuses finally ran out in 2008. This year has merely accelerated the history process.
Anonymous Anonymous 20:54 said...
"Does anybody SERIOUSLY think the Starmer Quiff Gang would make an important policy difference?"
Well, I think that Starmer will have a policy to abide by international agreements that have been signed by HM Government.
So no difference to the status quo.
Anonymous at 13:11
It's foolish to think that there is only one difference.
So far the Quiff hasn't announced ANY policy differences with Bozo. quite the opposite.
It'sa choice between a blue tory gobshite and a red tory quisling.
Which is no choice at all.
The leader of the Labour Party does not decide on Labour Party policies. Labour Party policies are agreed at Conference.
Pity the same excuse was not considered tenable when made for Mr Corbyn. Indeed, it would be terribly embarrassing if Keeves himself had criticised the policies agreed upon at Conference rather than hold them in the same esteem as you seem to do. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/24/keir-starmer-mixed-feelings-jeremy-corbyn-neutral-brexit-stance-labour
To allude to your username for a moment, the Night King may be an existential threat to humanity but this does not make Cersei in any way appealing.
From the article that you link: -
"The party’s position is to stay neutral on Brexit in a general election, but pledge a second referendum. It would then want to renegotiate a deal with Brussels and give voters the option of choosing either that deal or remaining. It would then determine its position on how to campaign in that referendum after a one-day conference."
Labour lost the General Election later on so, sitting on the fence did a fat lot of good to the Party and country.
btw, my username alludes to a Bach cantata not GOT.
Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme BWV 140
Bit daft, that.
The Quiff doesn't need to wait for conference to make his preferences clear.
You know, as did the orchestrated quisling mass resignations before the election. Plus the activities of Benn, Hodge, Austin, Phillips, Mann, Nandy, Watson, Elleman, Eagle(s) - and any number of other PLP careerists at odds with the. party membership.
No, the Quiff is as trustworthy as a basement full of poisonous snakes coated in coconut oil. As are his fellow spivs and spivettes. Bliarites the lot of them. They'd betray founding principles at the drop of a hat...and they'd drop the hat themselves.
I take it that yours is the voice of the Dummkopf given the lack of substance to your arguments. Your point was: Keeves should not be criticised as he does not set policy. Mine was: Keeves did not offer the same consideration to Mr Corbyn. The relevant paragraph is: "The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has said he is disappointed Labour members rejected efforts to make the party one that formally backs remain and has 'mixed feelings' on Jeremy Corbyn staying neutral on the issue". The rights and wrongs of that policy was irrelevant to the discussion.
Since you have now changed your position, you will no doubt apologise to Anonymous who isn't me and admit that he was correct to complain that Keeves' sitting on the fence is doing a fat lot of good to the Party and country. Or, you can continue to demonstrate your embarrassment at the fact Keeves himself criticised the policies agreed upon at Conference rather than holding them in the same esteem as you pretended to do in order to make what has now been revealed as an argument in bad faith.
btw it is obvious that I knew the source of your username or I wouldn't have drawn a correspondence between the connotations of Catherine Winkworth's translation as 'night is flying' and 'winter is coming'.
I believe there's an 851 page report into the hypocrisy, bad faith and double standards of extreme centrists like Wachet auf, ruft uns die prätentiöser Fotze.
So, criticism is verboten and all must speak as one and Starmer must write policy on the hoof.
'Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme' translates as 'Wake up, if you hear the Voice'. My variations are pleas to all.
Criticism isn't forbidden.
But stupidity will be castigated.
@Wachet auf, ruft uns der Heuchler
Wasn't your initial post an attack upon @21:55 for criticising Keeves? Project much? Gnothi Seauton.
No, it wasn't.
Post a Comment