Simultaneously celebrating the UK's 'independence' & 'sovereignty', made possible only by legislation enacted by an independent & sovereign UK Parliament, while insisting the UK's independence & sovereignty had been lost to a "foreign power".
The time to "reach out" was immediately after the Referendum, so all parties could influence the shape Brexit was to take, IF it was to be successfully implemented.
- "You lost. Get over it"
- Confrontational Party division on a BLATANTLY cross-party issue.
- What 'Leave' in "Leave means leave" means, is for ME alone to decide & I'll make it up as I go. (T May)
- I have unilaterally decided a legally & Constitutionally NON-binding, narrow vote of principle, is in fact an "emphatic" & irreversible mandate for self-harm. (T May)
- Instead of acting responsibly to defend Parliamentary sovereignty & Judicial independence, my Government will seize the opportunity to set Leave voters vs Parliament & the rest, for political gain. (T May)
- We will take advantage of a hapless Opposition, to manipulate
A key motivation for Brexit, we're told, is a fab new Trade Agreement with Trump's America, despite Trump having already threatened, several times, to refuse to negotiate an FTA unless the UK complied with certain other unconnected US policies, on which the UK diverged.
A National Audit Office report in May 2019, warned:
"Negotiating trade deals is a new competence for government. The Department for International Trade will be relying on relatively inexperienced staff."
The White House published its key objectives in February 2019
Since June 2016, both the Government & Leavers have been fixated on the idea of "respecting the result", which in their eyes means leaving the EU come what may, even though Leavers themselves cannot agree how this should be achieved.
This must happen, they say, in order to
prevent "the people" from losing 'trust' in the democratic process.
But what does 'trust' mean in this context?
The Government decided the narrow mandate resulting from Ref16 effectively meant 'the end' (leaving the EU) justified whatever means it decided necessary to
make it happen, at whatever cost, even if 'the end' they delivered, bore little resemblance to the outcome voters were originally sold.
But is failing to achieve 'the end' really the reason for the loss of public trust?
Part 2 of my look back at Vote Leave's campaign "case".
VL - The former head of Interpol, Ronald K Noble, has said that: “Europe’s open-border arrangement… is effectively an international passport-free zone for terrorists” like “hanging a sign welcoming terrorists to Europe”
False: Vote Leave's own Facebook page on 27th December 2015 confirms Noble was specifically referring to the Schengen system countries.
The UK is NOT part of Schengen.
VL - We need to take back control of our borders so we decide who can come here – and who can’t.
False: The same Ron Noble, during the same speech said:
“Among the European countries that are not parties to the Schengen Agreement is the United Kingdom, which began screening
If we're going to do that financial comparison however, let's consider what's likely to happen should we leave the SM/CU, using the calculations of a committed Brexiter & former Special Advisor to Downing St.