Article 50: Goodbye

Language is the most important territory to control during times such as these. The federast remainiacs have certainly controlled the language-territory during the brexit ‘process’.

All ‘mainstream’ media have been asking the same question: what happens if / when the UK ‘crashes-out’ of the EU? The answers don’t matter because the real answer is ‘not much’.

The point is the word ‘crash’. Such a word connotes twisted metal and broken glass; blood, pain and sirens. The effect of making this expression psychological ‘background-noise’ shouldn’t be underestimated.

The presuppositions used in language can be powerful, too – so can what is left out of one’s language.

Now that revoking Article 50 is ‘on the table’ with additional options, Laura Kuenssberg, on the BBC website, concludes:

‘Ministers are therefore today not just wondering about how to manage one last heave for the prime minister’s deal, but what they should do next, when – odds on – the whole issue is in the hands of the Commons, not Number 10.’

How terribly odd of her not to mention that leaving the EU on the 29th March is the default legal position – with or without a deal.

MPs should do nothing next.

They have already voted FOR the Withdrawal Act. They have already voted against Mrs May’s horrid deal – twice.

Hardly am I surprised that MPs have been said to be ‘angry’ with Mrs May for saying they need to make up their minds.

In asking them to make up their minds, Mrs May is actually asking them to CHANGE their minds. No doubt, behind their sincere anger, they will be happy to oblige.

The default legal position seems to have vanished from the ‘narrative’. Perhaps everyone will forget it was ever there to begin with.

This is, obviously, brexit-betrayal in action – live before our eyes.

Related image

The Mogg Anomaly

I was always sceptical that the country would ever leave the EU. The contempt the political class have for us is obvious

Hardly is it worth dwelling on.

The Withdrawal Act clearly states that we leave on 29 March – with or without a ‘deal’, so Mrs May had no business holding a vote to take no-deal ‘off the table’. Not least because it was those same MPs who voted for the Withdrawal Act.

I think the announcements from the EU, that any extension needs to have a solid reason for it, and that the ‘deal is the deal’ and cannot be changed are bluffs.

The EU really do not want the UK to leave. Their ‘hard-ball’ act is just that. Ultimately they will do anything to keep the UK in the EU.

Their insane utopian dream must continue.

My prediction is this:

The government – headed by Theresa May or her replacement – will declare, with the necessary expressions of ‘heavy-heart’ sorrow from whichever lizard says it, that Article 50 needs to be repealed because the ‘risk’ to the UK economy is too great.

The blame for this will be placed onto the MPs collectively – so that not one person can be said to be targeted for reprisal. Doing this will make it harder for the murderous hatred from the ignored 17.4 to be directed effectively.

But then there is the Mogg anomaly.

Mr Rees-Mogg is a splendid fellow. He has a fine mind, solid principles and exquisite manners. He should be Prime Minister.

He has stated many times that his preference is to leave with a good deal – but that ‘no deal’ is nothing to be scared of. This is where things get strange.

He has also stated that, given a choice between Mrs May’s ‘deal’ – the hideous Withdrawal Agreement – and no brexit at all, he would vote for Mrs May’s deal.

How can this be true? The deal is hideous. It keeps us in the EU, but with fewer rights and significantly reduced influence. The deal is worse than our current position.

Yet Mr Rees-Mogg is too intelligent not to know this.

Could Mr Rees-Mogg’s declaration that he would take Mrs May’s deal over no brexit be a tactical move designed to convince the government that, ultimately, the ERG would fold in the face of such a choice, therebye reducing the government’s motivation for superficial ‘changes’ to the deal and any need for longer ‘extensions’?

And when the time came for the ERG to fall at the feet of Mrs May’s ‘deal’ they would not do so – thus getting the objective they (and I) want – a no-deal brexit on WTO terms.

Could it be the case that Mr Rees-Mogg’s ERG suspect that article 50 could be repealed and, obviously, need to try to convince the government there’s no need to do that because they would take Mrs May’s deal over no-brexit?

I do know this is all speculation, but the question still stands:

Why would Mr Rees-Mogg say Mrs May’s deal is better than no brexit when the deal is so obviously awful?

Then again – I’m probably missing something.

Image result for brexit betrayal

Dark Forces

What is needed is a lightning-rod for mass public opinion. There is a massive gap between what the political / media London class think and what the majority of the country think.

The goldfish always thinks the bowl is the universe.

Once a figure appears who represents the majority view then ordinary persons can coalesce around him. Ordinary persons can see the extent of the popularity of their views thanks to social media. They see the disconnect between that level and the narrative of the ‘mainstream’.

May is a liar. The AG humiliated the May creature by stating his advice remained the same. This so-called “Christian” should have exiled her horrible self to Siberia right then.

By allowing a vote to take no-deal ‘off the table’ she has betrayed 17.4 million voters.

She is a federast remainiac like the rest of them. No-deal is default. The political class voted for the Withdrawal Act. It states we leave on 29 March with a deal or not.

These lizards can’t keep up the pretence forever. There must come a time when they actually perform their planned act of treachery. This has now happened. I suspect this is why May allowed the EU lizards to write her such an awful deal.

Who in the EU, government, or the majority of parliament wanted a good one? A good one would deliver Brexit. That was never part of the plan. This is how the EU and political class behave: if they get the wrong answer we either vote again or they ignore the result.

We all know this. May’s plan was to do the latter.

No deal is better than a bad deal?

Brexit means Brexit?

We leave on the 29th March?

Her plan was to prevent Brexit while trying to avoid blame for doing so. She is a disgusting creature who deserves to have her career end in painful humiliation. The contempt shown to the voters is staggering: but nothing must ever be allowed to de-rail the European project.

My only interest is in the possible consequences of betraying the 17.4.

Political violence must sometimes be justified otherwise ‘authority’ can do whatever it likes. I’m sorry to say this is logically obvious.

The history of democracy in this country is based on conflict – not signing soppy petitions.

What amazes me is that there exist humans who – even given the brexit-betrayal from May and our parliament of federasts – continue to believe that ‘protests’ can change things. This is forehead-slappingly naive.

There is no point in ‘telling the truth to power’ when power already knows the truth.

On another blog, a human said this to me recently on the question of MPs:

‘….should public feeling move against them they will be ejected in the next election which happens sufficiently often to keep them somewhat circumspect. That and not people with placards and tannoys is the real check on abuse of power.’

Really? Their replacemnets will always be party place-men and women, obedient to the party-machine which selected them.

This problem in underpinned by the stupidity of the plebmass which votes on moronic, tribal lines, and would vote for a disabled donkey with downs syndrome if it wore the correct coloured rosette.

I agree with his second sentence, however. Posters, placards, protests and petitions do not scare persons in positions of power. Especially not when those humans in power are protected within their little Westminster bubble.

The truth, I’m sorry to say – once the obvious facts about human nature are acknowledged – is a little darker.

They – humans in positions of power, MPs –  need to be made to fear for their safety if they contemptuously ignore the will of the largest majority ever given for anything in this country’s history.

If a mob tipped over Anna Soubry’s car, dragged her out and hanged her from a tree, then the rest of the ‘honourable’ members might think twice about treating the electorate with sniffy contempt.

Image result for politicians contempt for the public