More Remain lies exposed

UK increasingly dominated by laws made in the EU

During the referendum campaign we became used to Remainers dismissing the idea that so many of our laws originated in Brussels.  Every time this subject came up, their tactic was to downplay the degree to which we had given up control of our legislation to unelected, unaccountable EU authorities.

Now, however, we hear nothing but screams from them about how many thousands upon thousands of EU laws there are in the UK covering everything from vegetables to nuclear power and how difficult it will be to convert them all into UK law.   And arch Remoaners like Gina Miller, Nicola Sturgeon and co are already saying that they intend to do all they can to make it as difficult as possible for the government to perform this exercise.   How patriotic of them.


There is much bleating from the Remoaners that the Government’s proposals for tackling this huge exercise will by-pass proper parliamentary scrutiny.  They profess to care how important such scrutiny is and to hide behind the notion as justifying their obstructive intentions.

But the simple truth is that such a stance – as with so many aspects of the whole Remoaner movement – displays rank hypocrisy.

The first and most obvious point is that when the UK was giving up its power to legislate in all those different areas and the EU was doing it for us, did they complain?  Of course not.

Secondly, there is a fundamental misconception in play here which the media clearly does not understand.

EU legislation – little or no role for parliament

EU legislation comes in two main forms: regulations and directives.  They are slightly different animals but have one thing in common – neither is susceptible to any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

Regulations are pieces of EU legislation that once issued by Brussels become directly binding in the UK and other member states – and do not pass through parliament at all.   Moreover, such regulations can be forced upon the UK through qualified majority voting.  Thus, an EU regulation can become law in our country without anyone in the UK having voted for it and without anyone in the UK having a meaningful say on what it contains.  Nor can anyone in the UK vote to repeal it.

Directives, as their name suggests, are pieces of law which amount in effect to an order by Brussels to member states to implement domestic legislation that accords with the terms of the directive.  A time limit is imposed for this to happen.  Thus, a Directive leads to the making of domestic legislation in the UK either in the form of an Act of Parliament or a “Statutory Instrument.    However, there is no meaningful scrutiny of that legislation in the true sense of the word for one simple reason: EU law is supreme.  This means that Member states cannot depart in their own legislation from what is required by the EU Directive.  To do so is illegal.

Thus, the implementation by domestic parliaments of EU directives amounts to little more than a rubber stamp.  So irrelevant is parliament in the whole process, that when the Courts deal with cases based on an EU directives, in many cases the judgments issued by the Court will not even bother to refer to the UK legislation at all, but just to the governing directive.  That is the only law that matters.

Thus, all EU-derived law in this country – whether in the form of an EU regulation or an Act of parliament or statutory instrument made to implement a directive, represents the UK doing as its masters in Brussels have ordered.  It follows that if such laws now need to be amended so they make sense in a post-EU country, why do the Remoaners think that parliamentary scrutiny is so important?






Sorry Gina. It didn’t work.

On 3 November 2016, a chill came over the millions of UK citizens who had voted to leave the EU in June’s referendum.  Having believed that the decision to leave was theirs to make, it felt as though the forces of the establishment were mobilising to deny them what they had voted for.  Three judges in the High Court had just handed down a ruling that stopped the Government implementing the referendum result without an Act of Parliament.

The referendum was barely mentioned in the judgment.

Watching Gina Miller touring the TV studios in the aftermath of her victory only compounded the sense of powerlessness felt by millions who had dared to dream that their votes might actually count for something.

Whatever the protestations of Miller and the other claimants who brought it, for many, it was impossible not to view their legal challenge on the Article 50 issue as anything but a cynical attempt to frustrate the result of the referendum.  By giving the decision back to Parliament, with its massive pro-EU majority, it seemed that the Court had set up a formidable roadblock to escaping the EU.   Worse, the Government itself had only a slim majority in the Commons.  So if only a few of its own MPs rebelled, the risk was that the referendum result would be overturned.

When the case came to be heard in the Supreme Court in December,  observing the obvious hostility of many of the judges to the Government’s arguments, it was little surprise that by a large majority, come judgment day in January, they upheld the earlier High Court ruling and dismissed the Government’s appeal.

So began the second battle for Brexit.

Remoaners outfoxed in Parliament

As it turned out, the Leavers need not have worried.  Showing a dexterity and guile so lacking in the previous administration, Theresa May and her lieutenants skilfully evaded their enemies in Parliament.  They comprehensively outmanoeuvred the anti-Brexit forces at every turn.  The Bill to trigger Article 50 was tightly drafted and all attempts to amend it, in both the Commons and in the Lords were ultimately  defeated.

Today’s votes in the Commons and Lords marked the successful conclusion of the second battle for Brexit.   The hopes of the Remoaners that the Gina Miller case would lead to Brexit being blocked or watered down by Parliament have been dashed.

At some point over the next few weeks, notice will be delivered under Article 50 and the UK can finally start the long overdue process of extricating itself from the tentacles of the EU and into a brighter, more democratic future.

The right stuff?

Whether our political leaders are up to the job of steering the country to a successful Brexit  remains open to question.  Yesterday’s  contradictory statements on television by Boris Johnson and Liam Fox about the consequences of  a “no deal” exit do not exactly inspire confidence.   The ridiculous manouverings of the SNP are another unwelcome distraction.

It is to be hoped that Theresa May and Co are up to the task ahead.  We shall be watching.

Budget disgrace. Cut aid now.

When the Conservatives won a majority in the 2015 election, many Tory voters believed that they would at long last see some genuine conservative policies being implemented – like lower taxes and cuts in public spending.   Having thrown off the millstone of having to share government with the awful  LibDems, now Cameron and Osborne could show their true colours.  Or so we thought.

Instead, we reacted in disbelief as George Osborne inflicted more pain (and damage) on natural conservative supporters than even Gordon Brown had managed when he was chancellor.

Policy after policy that could have come straight from the socialist handbook spewed out of No.11 while Osborne held the role.  Huge rises in stamp duty, attacks on by-to-let landlords (with mortgages), huge cuts in pension relief for higher earners, a continuation of refusing to allow higher earners a tax-free allowance.  Even his changes to inheritance tax reeked of clumsy social engineering.  The extra inheritance tax relief was only available on the value of the family home (only up to a certain value) and only to direct descendants.

With Osborne mercifully gone, Philip Hammond had a golden opportunity to break with his predecessors’ nonsense and do what conservative chancellors are supposed to do – support the hard-working citizen, encourage achievement and thrift, whilst avoiding profligacy in the public sector.

Instead, under the guise of that old chestnut “fairness” he’s hiked taxes again – this time on the self-employed.

Whenever politicians ask for “fairness” it usually means that a group of people are about to be fleeced with higher taxes, most of which are anything but fair.

Of course the national debt is horrendous and the budget deficit unsustainable.  But why is the Government raising taxes on the thrifty when it has such an obvious means of saving billions staring it right in the face?

Overseas aid – time for a rethink

The solution of course is simple: take an axe to the ridiculous overseas aid budget.

Quite why, when the country is borrowing a billion pounds a week, we are still sloshing over £12 billion away in overseas aid is a total mystery to the vast majority of the electorate.  And this sum is set to rise even further as the economy grows.  Never mind that policing and prisons are in crisis, social care and healthcare continue to be a nightmare for many, our armed forces are emaciated by years of cuts and our transport infrastructure creaks along.  Don’t even mention housing….

There is a saying that charity begins at home.  So it does.  Of all the crazy Osborne legacy policies that litter the statute book,  the commitment to spend these vast sums on overseas aid is the most stupid of them all.   It’s pure insanity to ring-fence the aid budget and target an increase in expenditure for its own sake, rather than looking at the merits of what the money is to be spent on.

What is even more puzzling is that there are no votes in overseas aid.  The only people who think it is a good idea won’t vote Tory anyway.

The Government has been rightly criticised for breaking a manifesto pledge not to raise national insurance.  But there’s one manifesto pledge which 90% of the country would be delighted to see broken – the commitment to overseas aid spending.  Come on Theresa, you know it makes sense.

The Lords: Enemies of the people

The arrogance of the Remoaner peers in the House of Lords is breathtaking.  One after the other, they have taken to their feet to spout the usual Remoaner drivel about Brexit (i.e. those who voted out didn’t know what they were voting for, no one voted to leave the single market, no one voted to be made poorer blah blah blah).

Every time they vote through an idiotic amendment to the Article 50 bill, they stab the UK in the back.  All they are doing is weakening our negotiating position with Brussels.   By contrast, for such a divided  group of countries, the EU has so far shown commendable self-discipline in ruling out any discussions with the UK ahead of our triggering Article 50.  They must be pleased to see the Remoaners doing their dirty work for them and undermining the UK from within.

By doing what they are doing, the Lords are signalling encouragement to the EU to strike an intransigent tone in negotiations in the hope that the UK may yet be bullied into stepping back from the brink and choose to stay in.

The referendum result was decisive.  The huge majority in the House of Commons in favour of the unamended Article 50 bill was another sign of UK resolve.  It was a clear message to Brussels that the country -despite propaganda to the contrary – remains united.  What a shame that their Lordships and Ladyships couldn’t do the decent thing and vote the bill through without further ado.

The House of Commons has a democratic and national duty to strike down the Lords wrecking amendments and demand that the Article 50 bill be passed unamended and without further delay.  Anything less than that would be an affront to our democracy.

The cronies and placemen who inhabit the Lords must be put back in their box.  It is time to strip the upper house of its ability to force changes to legislation and to reduce it to an advisory capacity only.  The performance of the Lords in the context of Brexit has proved that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing for their country.

The conduct of those voting in favour of these amendments is a disgrace.