Tag Archives: Lancaster House

April reminder

After the unprecedented and extraordinary events in the House of Commons in the last few weeks, it was hard to keep track of what Brexit may or may not be. As a ‘backstop’ (intended use of words) consider the Conservative manifesto 2017. Mrs May had made her view of Brexit unambiguously clear at that point (via the Lancaster House speech) so voters could reject that approach at the time of the election – this WAS the second referendum on Brit.

Here are some excerpts from the two referenced texts.

  • “So we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And those laws will be interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg but in courts across this country. Because we will not have truly left the European Union if we are not in control of our own laws. “
  • “But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.   … a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. “
  • “But the message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe. And that is what we will deliver. “
  • “So we do not seek membership of the single market … And because we will no longer be members of the single market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget. “
  • “A Global Britain must be free to strike trade agreements with countries from outside the European Union too …  And I want Britain to be free to establish our own tariff schedules at the World Trade Organisation, meaning we can reach new trade agreements not just with the European Union but with old friends and new allies from outside Europe too. “

How can anyone not have been clear about the intended goals of Brexit ? Those goals had implications, which have been becoming apparent as the agreements progressed, but they were NEVER to be part of the Customs Union or the Single Market.

Those in parliament seeking to sabotage Brexit – as defined by Mrs May and clear to all since January 2017 – could never be satisfied by any way by the targets she set herself. Grumpy’s off expressed irritation about Mrs May has never been about her policies ; rather it has been about her abject failure to deliver an agreement which was in accord with the very goals she set herself.

May’s Brexit promises checklist

An issue with politicians is that they seek to shift goal posts gradually. We all remember Tony Blair trying to avoid humiliation by changing his Iraq words from ‘WMD’ to ‘WMD programs’, and thinking the populace would not notice the upcoming admission of failure.

Brxiteers have of course noticed the slow drip of wording change by May, Hammond , Gove, Rudd and others and seen the inevitable capitulation transpire.

It is often repeated by Remainers that the populace didn’t know what they were voting for when they ticked ‘leave’, and ipso facto that “they didn’t vote for <insert some guess words here presented as a fact>”. Grumpy did indeed vote in the 1975 referendum, and (for youngsters) the this was not about the EU – that didn’t exist then. It was about the ‘common market’, which was generally felt to be a good notion, but of course the Heath government had already joined the European Economic Community, so it was about whether to stay rather than join. The government of the day, however, deliberately sought to obscure the political integration goals, which were in fact well known to them, since it was a goal by European politicians from about 1946.

The fact is the citizens of the UK never ever voted to join what is now a political institution, the EU, and it was foisted on them; they probably would not have done so had they known what was to come. The obfuscation continued serially (Remember Keith Vaz and the “Beano” Lisbon Treaty ? – Brexiteers need no lessons from Remainers about lies and misrepresentations.)

However, the populace eventually got a comprehensive statement of the current politicians view of what Brexit would mean (other then being ‘Brexit’) when Theresa may set this out in detail in the Lancaster House speech. Grumpy has extracted a few snippets, as shown below, so to as to keep a track of how she does with this benchmark by the end of March. Grumpy harbours hopes, but fears there will not be many ticks in the right hand column cone exit day.