Anti-Brexit Lords Surrender the UK to Brussels! - YouTube, 6.75 minutes | Published on Sep 6, 2019 by Jeff Taylor | Trancript:

In an act of national humiliation, our House of Lords has voted through a bill that hands ultimate power over the UK to Brussels.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING MAY NOT BE A FULL TRANSCRIPT!!

As sadly expected, our houses of Parliament have now voted by significant majorities to get a bill enacted that would strip the UK of virtually all power over its own destiny.

And they've done this without recourse to the people and have openly congratulated themselves in the process.

People should be aware that their bill, yes 'their's' not 'ours', when that bill is signed into law with Royal Assent, it allows the EU27 Council to impose an Article 50 extension of a length of their choosing on the UK.

Now before anyone points at clause 3(3) of the bill and says that MPs have two days to vote against it, I would point out two things.

The first is that if the EU chooses, yes chooses, to agree an extension to 11 pm on the 31st of January 2020, then the UK has to accept it.

And if the EU chooses to agree an extension of say one year, then that clause 3(3) applies one way. It says that the PM need not accept the offer of the extension if, within two calendar days of placing a motion to accept the extension, MPs vote against it. So Boris has to lay a motion asking for the Commons to vote for the extension to be able to argue to get them to vote against it. All, I think, designed to impose the maximum humiliation.

Now, if no motion is placed before the Commons to agree the extension, under the Act we automatically accept that extension. And, if a motion is tabled to agree it, then MPs only get two days to debate and decide on the repercussions. And if time runs out, we automatically accept the extension. And we all know those MPs will vote for absolutely any extension offered.

This is not democracy. It is a calculated Parliamentary coup.

Now, the Act gives no instruction that I can find in two very important areas.

The first, is that no reason is given for the extension.

If I were Boris, I would explain to the EU27 that this extension is designed so that UK politicians can keep chunterring on between themselves and get nowhere. After all, if they asked him what is the reason for the extension, Boris could just shrug his shoulders and say, "Search me."

Then he could ask the EU27 what they expect to get out of any extension. After all, they're the ones that have probably been talking to some of those involved in drafting this law - and Boris could say, "I can't promise or guarantee any of that."

How could the EU27 justify an extension under those circumstances? ... I reckon that there have been more Remain negotiations going on between the EU and the UK over the last three and a half years than Leave talks. ... Anyway, then there's the issue of demands.

What if the EU adds just one single thing other than a timeframe extension? Such as: you must agree to a permanent Irish border backstop before we give the extension, or: you must agree to give Spain some control over Gibraltar, or: you must appoint an EU Commissioner, or maybe: you must agree to allow our fishing vessels permanent access to UK fishing waters first. Etc., etc., etc.

What does Boris do then?

I reckon he would be entitled to refuse, come back and say - "they did not offer the extension exactly as I requested it in accordance with your instructions."

And he doesn't have to debate it with the EU, or try hard or anything else. He listens, declines and walks away.

This act, as far as I can see, only affects the Prime Minister's Royal Prerogative as regards to time frame. If the EU insists on conditions, I would think that he could completely reject those conditions and so reject the offer as a whole. No explanations - just walk away.

And the Act imposes no requirements on Boris to go back to the House and report on that particular matter or get instructions on what to do next.

So he doesn't even have to explain himself to them.

And there's one last question in my mind.

If Boris were to go to Brussels with such a request, he would in essence be going as a mere messenger from the UK Parliament.

He would not be empowered to act as Head of Government and be totally free to negotiate or not, as he chose.

And, as I understand it, treaties are meant to be made and amended by heads of government and heads of state only. Not emissaries of the legislature.

So, he would be attending as head of government in name only. So, doesn't this act nullify his powers as head of government to actually broker the deal in the first place?

Or, have those MPs and Lords actually brought the Queen, as head of state, into the battle by getting her to enact the law that will force Boris to go begging to Brussels - in reality, is it the Queen that is actually being forced to beg for this extension?

Just a thought.

#Brexit

#BorisJohnson

#HouseOfLords

Democracy! Hooray!

Actually, it's anti-democracy:

UK MPs made ‘significant step in anti-democratic direction’ - YouTube, 10 minutes | Published on Sep 4, 2019 by Sky News Australia

Spiked Editor Brendan O’Neill says British MPs have been aiming for three years to “thwart, dilute or destroy Brexit” and voting against a general election is “a significant step in that anti-democratic direction”.

Notes: seized power from the People ; Poltical Class v. the People ; a conspiracy against democracy, Ref. Representation of the People Act of 1918 - 17.4 million Brexit votes of the majority voided and overridden

A comment at the YouTube site: The Queen needs to dissolve this useless parliament.

Representation of the People Act 1918 - @ parliament.uk

A further Act to reform the electoral system was deemed necessary during the First World War as millions of returning soldiers were not entitled to the vote because of property and residential qualifications. ...

Representation of the People Act 1918 - Wikipedia

passed to reform the electoral system in Great Britain and Ireland. It is sometimes known as the Fourth Reform Act. The Act extended the franchise in parliamentary elections, also known as the right to vote, to men aged 21 and over, whether or not they owned property, and to women aged 30 and over who resided in the constituency or occupied land or premises with a rateable value above £5, or whose husbands did. As a result of the Act, the male electorate was extended by 5.2 million to 12.9 million. The female electorate was 8.5 million. ...

Actually, it's anti-democracy:

I know that! Don't you think I know that? That's so funny that you think I don't know that!

Is it time? :)

Getting closer there:

'Article 50 doesn't say anything about having deal' - YouTube, 8 minutes | Published on Sep 1, 2019 by Sky News

@ 1:24, "by the way, Article 50 explicitly says you leave on the set date [October 31, 2019]. It doesn't say anything about having a deal. And that's the end of it."

Notes: John Major prorogued Parliament over Cash for Questions issue ; protests engineered by the hard Left ; issues of Defense, etc.

Actually, it's anti-democracy

I know that! Don't you think I know that? That's so funny that you think I don't know that!

https://youtu.be/98MNisZJyFI

Well, I planned to post all of that info here anyway and it seemed the best place for it at the time -- in case, you know, others might not be sure if mob rule by Parliamentarians is considered "democracy" or not over in Britain and Europe. As it turned out, that video clip you posted was a good lesson in Hollywood's Pro-Communist tactics. I hadn't seen that movie at all until then but do remember seeing the move El Cid as a child. Don't recall much of it, though. On a sidenote, one of our impeached judges, Alcee Hastings, was elected president of the Parliamentary Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (among other post-impeachment seats of government power) so that's one indication of how messed up the political situation is over there and here too.