The Globalists’ Last Stand: Part 1
As the Article 50 process nears its end, which is on the 29th March 2019, the globalists are still doing all they can to make sure that Brexit is overturned.
As the Article 50 process nears its end, which is on the 29th March 2019, the globalists are still doing all they can to make sure that Brexit is overturned as they make excuse after excuse. The attempts to overturn the vote came as soon as the EU referendum result was announced, in the form of protests. In my book The Occupation of Britain I wrote that since the vote, many of the younger generation protested, wanting dictatorship and censorship. A petition was created to call for another EU referendum until the Remain side got the result they wanted. We would have heard on mainstream media that the number of signatories reached 3-4 million. However, that number turned out to be a fraud as it was found out that a lot of them were not British citizens, whilst some of those non-existent signatures used one particular postcode. The fraudulent signatures included 30,000 North Koreans, who have no access, or very restricted access to the Internet. Another had over 1,000 signatures from Antarctica, which only has 250 people, most of which are in Britain’s base in the Antarctic. That petition has since dissipated, meaning that the fraudulent cause had disappeared.
Remain turned out to be sore losers. On the 26th June 2016, the mainstream, fake news media howled in shock at their defeat because of their clear arrogance. The media invented a new narrative of Brexiteers causing a rise in hate crime, which Essex police would come out and say was a fraud. Take Adam Boulton from Sky News, who claimed he saw he and his family witnessing the slurs of ‘when are you going home’ three times. He complained that racist attacks were aimed at EU citizens in Britain. On the 30th June, hundreds of people who supported globalism gathered outside Parliament and there was another mob in Trafalgar Square, wanting to ignore the result. As a result, they made fools of themselves and their cause by hurling abuse at patriots who supported Brexit. There were even individuals such as Labour MP David Lammy and Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, who wanted to clearly ignore the result and bury their heads in the sand. Tony ‘Bliar’ also wanted a second EU referendum in the belief that we were stupid.
This was just the first. There was literally a petition for another vote just because of the result that they didn’t like. Imagine what would have happened had Britain voted to Remain and the Leave side protested. It would have been presented as a riot.
There was also the 9 months of dithering before Article 50 was even triggered. That led to a debate on who can trigger it and how it can be triggered. This is where the court case came into play. This was an attempt by the globalist forces to derail the Brexit vote and make sure it did not happen. Concisely, the High Court decided that Parliament must be able to vote on whether to trigger Article 50. Gina Miller who thought that Brexit made her physically sick, triggered the case. This sparked outcry by the Leave side whilst giving the Remain side an opportunity to try to ignore the vote and once more bury their heads in the sand.
On the 3rd December 2016, the Attorney General issued a blistering warning to judges ahead of the following week’s Article 50 hearing. In a document outlining ministers’ arguments, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the High Court had been wrong to relegate, almost to a footnote, the outcome of the referendum. Mr Wright, the Government’s top legal officer, said the case could not be resolved in a vacuum, without regard to the outcome of the referendum. He said that by arguing that Parliamentary sanction was needed to start the process of withdrawing from a treaty, the High Court was divorced from the reality of how modern states operate. On the week commencing on the 5th December 2016, 11 unaccountable judges considered the case that could result in ignoring the will of the British people on Brexit.
This was all before Article 50 was actually triggered on the 29th March 2017. Even when the Brexit talks between Britain and the EU started, at the same time, there was the Queen’s Speech in which the Queen would say what a British Prime Minister wanted to do. In my book The Liberation of Britain Part 1, I wrote that the attempts to overturn Brexit would only get more numerous. Although the patriots have won, many more battles followed if Britain was to become an independent and self-governing nation once again. Ruth Cadbury, Catherine West and Andy Slaughter were removed as Shadow Ministers by Jeremy Corbyn whilst Daniel Zeichner quit his frontbench role after they voted for an amendment aimed at blocking Brexit. Both Gareth Thomas and Rupa Huq reportedly resigned from their roles beforehand in order to back the amendment. The move specifically aimed to keep Britain in the Customs Union and Single Market. This was overwhelmingly rejected by MPs by 322 votes to 101. Significantly, 21 fewer MPs backed the anti-Brexit move and this was compared with the 122 MPs who voted in February 2017 at Third Reading against the Bill, which triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Given the change in parliamentary arithmetic since the 2017 general election, at first glance it certainly appears to be encouraging news for Brexiteers that the hard-core of arch-Remainers in the Parliament would seem to be fewer in number. Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who tabled the amendment, claims that he accepts the referendum result. However, his amendment suggested that he does not accept the terms of Brexit as understood by most of the rest of the country. The amendment backed by some Labour backbenchers as well as MPs from the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green Party regretted that the Queen’s Speech did not do any of the following:
- Rule out withdrawal from the EU without a deal
- Guarantee a Parliamentary vote on any final outcome to negotiations
- Set out transitional arrangements to maintain jobs, trade and certainty for business
- Set out proposals to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market
- Set out clear measures to respect the competencies of the devolved administrations
- Include clear protections for EU nationals living in the UK now, including retaining their right to remain in the UK, and reciprocal rights for UK citizens
The most significant of these six points was that explicit statement expressing a desire to remain within the Customs Union and Single Market thereby wanting to ignore the Brexit vote. As many Brexit Central authors have made clear time and again, any Brexit deal that entailed membership of either of these bodies doesn’t involve taking back control of Britain’s borders, laws, money and trade policy and is therefore not a Brexit at all and certainly not what was voted for in the 2016 EU referendum. Some might insist on calling it a so-called soft Brexit. It should call it non-Brexit, because that is what it basically is.
The Occupation of Britain: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1973391686
Restoring Britain post-Brexit: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/197697030X
The Liberation of Britain Part 1: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1982917032
The Liberation of Britain Part 2: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1983300659