Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

May’s third big defeat on her Brexit deal. It’s dead and buried. Is Brexit?

Friday, 29 March 2019 2 Comments by Claire

Yet another big defeat… her third. She must now sure face the fact that her deal is dead and buried.

The legal position is unfortunately, still that we Brexit with no deal on April 12th (moved from today), but most MPs are opposed to no deal, fortunately.. so Mrs May now must make the case for a long extension in order to revoke A50 and hold another referendum.

The tide of opinion in the country appears to be shifting and it should have been done months ago.

Time at last to be responsible and act in the country’s interest. Finally.

Here’s the Huffington Post’s report…


1. At 07:55 am on 31th Mar Chris Wakefield wrote:

Unbelievably, the Maybot, according to the latest reports, is aiming to try for a FOURTH time to get her pox-ridden deal through Parliament. Is there no end to the shame that this woman will endure to secure a ‘legacy’ other than that of the Conservative PM who razor slashed the economic and social fabric of this country to appease to uglier side of her increasingly irrelevant and nasty Party? Oh yes - it’s nasty alright - study thoroughly the treatment that one time Tory Attorney-General Dominic Grieve MP has now endured at the hands of his local Conservative Association - a vote of no confidence. This is because he had the temerity to express in measured, intelligent and persuasive terms, why he was of the view that a Brexit mess of this magnitude could only be solved by reference back to a new plebiscite. Agree with him or not, it is a cogent and rational view, but as such, clearly not welcome in the modern Tory party, whose passions are a country mile (or several) off to the right from the comfortable Toryism older generations would recognise. To spot the difference: check out Tarzan’s emotional speech to remainers at the 23rd March rally against Brexit: a barnstormer by an old Tory grandee on the security implications of European disintegration. Seldom mentioned in the daily Brexit crossfire.

The hapless Grieve can expect little support form our local MP whose new best buddy (and, perhaps he hopes, potential meal ticket) is another Dominic - the Raab variety this time - an unsavoury zealot from the giddy right wing of modern Toryism. You need little more convincing that the Raab is a bad idea than reading his ‘Britannia Unchained’ (free online) in which he castigates those who do not equip themselves with adequate employment, or do not contribute the output demanded, as feckless and lazy and undeserving of support, even the pittance from what’s left of an emaciated state welfare apparatus. Food Banks? - pish - they’re just namby-pamby Church-inspired lefty do-gooders inhibiting and undermining the salving benefits of a proper free market in poverty.

Elsewhere in the same volume, similar apologies for the failures of the free market abound - only a few of which might not scare the crap out of you if held by a leader of our country. Oh - and the the intro and endorsement at the front is from Boris - which sets the tone perfectly wouldn’t you agree?

Hugo is clearly mixing with the wrong sort of people, and his voting record of late shows that his loyalties to Remain, for which he campaigned in the run up to 23rd June 2016, have now almost entirely melted away and he had changed his mind about Brexit - along with almost everyone else in the government and parliament. This is a privilege he is desperately keen to retain for himself and his colleagues. The rest of us can just suck it up - no support from Hugo for any public expression of how WE might feel about the terminal cock-up he has helped craft for us.

A general election is increasingly in the offing, and if or when it arises, there will be a good chance of ditching our ineffectual MP. For heaven’s sake, how much more evidence is needed to convince us that we need a change, and we need it urgently.

2. At 11:06 am on 03th Apr Chris Wakefield wrote:

And just in case Hugo stumbles upon this blog, and is tempted to fall back on the proposition that his actions spring from an unequivocal mandate from the British People about membership of the European Union, I would remind him that his argument is entirely specious - it lacks any credible evidence. And as it is the keystone of the current Tory Brexit edifice, it really ought to be studied with more care. Such evidence as can be assembled about public perceptions of the questions thrust in front of us on June 23rd 2016 points in almost every direction except to the claim that we knew what we were voting for. David Cameron’s promise to reap what he had sown, lasted only as long as it took him to realise he had no idea precisely what he had sown, which quickly made the reaping element look a tad tricky and best left to someone else.  Leaving that behind might well engender a little light humming as you leave office as briskly as possible.

Mrs May, confident that while all about her were losing their heads, she, almost alone among humanity, knew what Brexit meant. It meant ‘Brexit’ - and with this corruscating insight, she launched into the vacuum of unrealistic and unrealisable expectations put about by the referendum campaign to save the Tory party from itself. It is hardly surprising then that it has taken two years for her to discover that the Tories are two parties - One Nation vs Conservukip - and they are different as chalk and cheese.

Of the greatest importance is that this country is not sacrificed on the altar of Tory mythologies about what constitutes freedom in a democratic society. The problem of freedom is much more complex than that - and it is beyond reason that we should accept what is on offer from the current government to change to our fundamental conditions of freedom according to a plan cooked up on the back of an envelope in just a few days in March/April this year. If this is to be dealt with in a sane way, a very long extension of article 50 is essential. There is no harm in debating and developing our personal and international relationships, but only after lengthy reasoned debate and with clear consent for changing the status quo. Which does not exist at the moment.

Submit A Comment