European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 – Now Law!

If you have been following the progress of the Brexit bill through parliament you probably already know that it has passed its last hurdle in the House of Commons, and now parliament.uk are reporting that it has received it Royal Assent.

The British Government website now shows that the bill has passed all of it sections.

Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the Bill, it received Royal Assent on 26 June. The Bill is now an Act of Parliament (law).

Summary of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

A Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

Countdown to Brexit

[waiting name=”Brexit”]

 

Theresa May Brexit Speech 2nd March 2018.

Today Theresa May gave another speech on her view of what we want from Brexit.

I have read and listened to the full speech and here are some of my first impressions. Do let me know what you think in the comment below. You can read the full text here, or watch it below.

May’s Five Tests

  1. “Must respect the referendum.” NO! It should implement it
  2. OK
  3. “While the means may change our shared goals surely have not.” That depends on what you think of as our shared goals. Much of Europe, well much of the bureaucracy of the EU is seeking an “ever closer union” and an EU Army etc. NO, We do not share these goals and it is to be out from under this vision of Europe, a United States of Europe that many of us voted for Brexit.
  4. “Tolerant” a much miss used word. I am often reminded by a clip I play at the beginning of our Podcasts that, “Tolerance is not a word we find in the Bible.” We must not tolerate Crime, FGM, the oppression of women, the indoctrination of our children in liberal schools and colleges. The ‘tolerant left’ are intolerant of Christian moral standards. Theresa, we need to speak more clearly of what you think you are putting forward to us. Diversity to is not always a good thing. Yes, diversity in varieties of apples, but diversity of aims for a business will often lead to strife. Is one group seeks to impose sharia law and the others do not want it, we will not have harmony but strife.
  5. Not easy while some political parties are trying to divide the Union. Like I said in ‘4’ above, diversity is not always helpful.

“The implementation period must be time-limited and can not become a permanent solution.” Very good. In fact, it should be as short as possible, maybe even no time at all.

No to free movement – good.

If WTO means a “significant reduction in our access to each others markets,” that would cut both ways and increase the opportunities for homegrown industry to meet the shortfall in the UK.

The idea that we can do away with customs and regulatory checks is a pipe dream Mrs May. If we are to have a secure border, we must secure it. We can not take it on trust that everyone will be a gentleman and obey the law.

It may not be possible to uphold the Belfast Agreement. Ireland is a real problem, and where it not for the animosity between groups could be fixed either by a united Ireland or by not hating and killing people who live in a divided Ireland. However, hoping that we can have one side of Ireland fully integrated into the EU and the other half-fully part of the United Kingdom with no border, is probably not possible. We must face it, deal with it and stop pretending that we can wish it away.

“I am not going to let our departure from the European Union do anything to set back the historic progress that we have made in Northern Ireland – nor will I allow anything that would damage the integrity of our precious Union.” This just may not be possible.

We may have to offer a second referendum to the people of Ireland, or at least Northen Ireland.

  1. Northern Ireland joins the south in the EU.
  2. We have a hard border.
  3. The south joins the north in the United Kingdom.

I think the vote would be for a heard border.

May’s Hard Facts

“We are leaving the single market.” Good

The European Court of Justice may have an effect on what the EU do, and it may have a say about goods that we send to Europe, but it must NEVER have authority over UK citizens or businesses. And we must be very careful just how far our courts bring ECJ judgment into their consideration of UK law and judgments. We have seen recently just how obstructive US judges can be.

“If, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes an identical law to an EU law, it may make sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments so that we both interpret those laws consistently. This is worrying. UK law will presumably be in English and should be interpreted in the light of the whole of the UK jurisprudence, case law etc. UK business and individuals should not have to be constantly looking over their shoulders to see who and what the courts in the EU are doing.

“We may choose to commit some areas of our regulations like state aid and competition to remaining in step with the EU’s.” If we do, we MUST be very careful. Careful not to end up on another binding treaty that put us at a disadvantage with the rest of the world for example.

“We share the same set of fundamental beliefs” This is not really true. France, for example, is an atheist country, we despite all that has gone on over the last few decades have a Christian background and foundation for our values. We have the Magna Carta, France has the revolution.

“We want the freedom to negotiate trade agreements with other countries around the world.” YES.

“We want to take back control of our laws.” YES.

“We also want as frictionless a border as possible between us and the EU – so that we don’t damage the integrated supply chains our industries depend” If possible.

“Don’t have a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.” I think this is a dream.

“We both need to face the fact that this is a negotiation and neither of us can have exactly what we want.” The UK government needs to face that fact that the UK population is not looking for a new treaty that will tie our hands and put us back under the jackboot of Germany.

Future Economic Partnership

” I want the broadest and deepest possible partnership – covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any Free Trade Agreement anywhere in the world today.” This must not put us back three quarters into the EU again.

Free trade – YES, Partnership… Not so sure about this.

Five Foundations

  1. “Reciprocal binding commitments” This must be very carefully watched.
  2. “Arbitration mechanism” Humm. I am very unsure about this. Why can not deals just be made in one country or another and be covered by the laws of that country? i.e. If I order a widget from Spain, the laws of Spain cover that contract. If a Greman buys a bike from the UK the UK laws cover this contract. If the Greman want the bike to be green or blue or to meet EU standards, this should be specified in any order placed, but the contract is made under UK law.
  3. I am not sure why we need synchronised regulations for drugs. The EU can specify a drugs makeup, we can make it for them, and they can buy it if they wish. They should not be able to specify how we make it, but what it should consist of.
  4. “An arrangement for data protection” Why? Do we have such an agreement with Zimbabwe or the USA or the other 100+nations of the world?
  5. “As we leave the EU, free movement of people will come to an end and we will control the number of people who come to live in our country.” Praise God! And about time. Yesterday, a local factory’s workers had trouble getting past our house because of the snow. we whet out to help push them etc. almost non-spoke English. Many did not appear to have even one word of English.

Goods

“A strong commitment that its regulatory standards” While we should be prepared to manufacture good for export to the EU to EU standards, that should be the end of it. There is more than reasonable opportunity to have goods made to more than one standard. UK cars have the steering wheel on the right, Cars for export to the EU on the left. No big deal. We do not need to commit to applying EU standards to our goods.

“businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets.” We should be free to have a single set of regulatory standards or to just meet the EU standards for goods we are going to export into the EU.

“the UK could remain part of EU agencies” five points…. not bad.

Agrifood and Fisheries

“We are leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and will want to take the opportunity that brings to reform our agriculture and fisheries management.” Fantastic!

“We are also leaving the Common Fisheries Policy.” Great!

Services

Generally, this seems good… but what is this about broadcasting? Don’t you just put in the URL and the programme pops up… on your screen. The internet should not know borders unless you are in China.

Post-Brexit Britain

“The approach I have set out today would: implement the referendum result” That is better than the “must respect the referendum” that we had at the beginning of this speech.

Conclusion.

Well, this is not a bad as some have said, not terrible and many of my comments are minor and really just a plea for us to be clear that we are not under Europe anymore.

Forget Russia, what about George Soros!

For at least the last year we have heard almost nothing but, “The Russians… this that or the other.”

The Russian collaboration investigation in the States has come up with nothing so far and there is little more than hearsay here in the UK. There is the odd talk of Russian bots, or of Ukrainian hackers, but we are more than aware that any good hacker would be covering their tracks very well.

What we know very well is that George Soros IS definitely doing his best to interfere with the democratic proses here in the UK, just as he often does in the USA, and in many other countries around the world.

While we should be wary of Russian or any other foreign countries interfering with our or other countries democrat prosses, we must not overlook the open and declared interference of a foreign national, just because he is a billionaire.

Iain Duncan Smith demanded Best for Britain, hand back the £400,000 (that Soros has funneled to them). He told the Sun: “He’s not a British citizen and therefore can’t even vote. Therefore I expect by tomorrow all decency demands they hand the money back and say ‘No thank you’.”

I think that the government should call George Soros before something like a select committee or the like and reprimand him for this interference and tell him that if there are more attempts at manipulating the British political system, we will put sanctions on him.

One thing I have against Donalds Trump’s State of the Union address.

As part of Trump’s immigration policy, he said,

“It is time to begin moving towards a merit-based immigration system — one that admits people who are skilled, who want to work, who will contribute to our society, and who will love and respect our country.”

On the whole, fantastic, I am just a little cautious about three words, “who are skilled”.

It has been the way of powerful and prosperous societies for, well probably almost all time. Strong armies and nations have been taking property, land, people and even ideas.

In Daniel chapter one verses 3-4 we read, “And the king, [Nebuchadnezzar], spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

And it is far more than just Donald Trump or even Americans. Many, many UK politicians have said something very similar. Even Nigel Farage said,

“This is why UKIP wants to see a Migration Control Commission – with a remit to bring down net immigration while assuring the right number of highly skilled workers from across the globe are able to enter.”

“Highly skilled workers from across the globe!”

So what do I have against highly skilled workers coming to Britain or going into America?

Well in many ways nothing, it sounds great, just what we want! But if you give it some thought…

Unintended Consequences

When you take an action like this, such a big and powerful action as, the first world sucking skills gifts and determination from what we used to be permitted to call the third world, then there are going to be consequences.

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended.

Short-term consequences.

There may well be some positive short-term consequences that may look like they would be good for our countries.

  • Increased skilled worker bass that employers can recruit from.
  • Companies, (generally the better off of society), able to reduce employment costs and make bigger profits and even, maybe pass savings on to customers.
  • Our economy may grow and become more competitive against those of other nations.

Longer-term consequences.

As well as these positive short-term consequences, there are other knock-on outcomes that we should think about. The increase of skill for our country is the depletion of skills for other poorer countries.

The depletion of skill and motivated educated people from poorer countries is likely to lead to these poor countries becoming even poorer and their population becoming even more desperate.

The motivated, skilled and educated people who we are thinking of taking from poor countries are the people who are more likely to:

  • Improve their own society.
  • Create employment for others.
  • Be motivated to bring political improvement/reform to their own countries.
  • Raise the economic state of their own countries, and thereby raise the stability of their countries but also provide a market for our good and services.
  • The creation of employment within their county is likely to motivate the population of that country to seek an education, employment, political reform and the like. In other words, we might say that this country is likely to move towards a middle-class lifestyle. Employed, middle-class people are less likely to get involved in crime or to become radicalised.

On top of this, there is the effect on our country.

  • Depression of wages.
  • The demotivation of our young people.
  • Resentment of migrants and immigrants legal and illegal.
  • Loss of a possible market for our goods, by the depression of the economy of the counties that we take skilled migrant from.
  • Increased economic migration because their counties had been impoverished by us taking their skilled people.

Please add to these lists in the comments.

Nigel Farage calls for a 2nd EU referendum???

I think this is very interesting and brave if not… foolhardy.

I hope that Nigel is right in his confident belief that a very large majority would now vote for Brexit. If people are right-minded that would be the case… but anti-Brexit propaganda and lies would be very powerfully deployed.

Keep praying for a full Brexit.

Hagmann Report

Welcome Hagman Report listeners.

I don’t know about you… but I had a really fun time on the Hagmann Report on Thursday night/Friday morning. Doug and Joe are two great guys to hang out with and from what I saw of the chat room, the listeners and viewers are great too.

For those who following my Hagman appearance have signed up to receive The Red Pill Report Newsletter, it comes out either daily or weekly depending on what you signed up for.

I used to write quite a bit for the website, but internet access is somewhat harder at work now, so I am not able to research and post like I used to be able to in my free time. Given time, I do hope that I will be able to give more time to building The Red Pill Report. To be able to go half-time it would only take sponsorship of around £250/week.

For any that did not see the appearance on the Hagman Report here, it is from youtube.

Thanks.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Full Brexit Speech at Bruges Group, Manchester 2017

This is an excellent speech. Full of great arguments and truth… why do the mainstream media try to cloud great speech and argument, media made divisions and manipulated arguments?

Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke to a packed hall at a Bruges Group meeting at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester. Thanks Westmonster for bringing it to us in full.