The state of Brexit

Yesterday, the Minister responsible for negotiating with the EU, and when I say responsible I mean he's not really responsible enough to be out on his own but is the best of a useless bunch, made a statement to a COmmons Select Committee that was either factually incorrect or displayed a shocking lack of understanding in the A50 process that David Davis is supposed to be steering through with the EU.

He stated that negotiations with the EU could be still under way on the 29th March 2019, therefore any vote by Parliament would come after Britain had left the EU. THis would mean the promise of a "meaningful" vote would have been a false promise. Readers of these words and Brexit posts will know that any deal struck between Britain and the EU has to be ratified on both sides, or at least by the EU. And the EU has allocated 6 months out of the 2 year A50 process for the ratification. Meaning that all negotiations should be completed by the end of October 2018.

Did DD not know this, or just lied. The implication is either he is a liar or stupid. Probably both.

Later that day, his Department put of a statement correcting the statement of it's own Minister stating that the talks will have to end in a year's time. It does not instil confidence on the process within Parliament, nor in businesses who are already accelerating plans to relocate, GlaxoSmithKline being the big name yesterday to do so.

It is likely now that a clause will be written into the once great repeal bill to ensure that Parliament does have such a vote. Which comes a day after Donald Tusk suggests that Britain has the power to stop Brexit if it wanted. It is up to Britain to have a soft, hard or no Brexit he sais. What is not said on Britain making such a decision how, or if, the EU would accept that, or whether they would impose conditions (hard remain), like not being able to trigger A50 again for a period of time, or at all.

It now emerges that no one at the DExEU has not read the Impact Assessments, nor know if anyone else has or if they are reports at all. DD suggested in his evidence yesterday that the basis of the reports, that he himself decided upon, might not have been correct therefore the reports might not be accurate. If truth, another example of how he did not understand the task he had been given.

Yesterday, Tory Whip (don't ask) it emerged had sent letters to all vice-chancellors at UK universities asking for details on who was teaching Brexit-related material, and for that material to be sent to him. This was written on official House of Commons paper, which is important. Later, when many universities published scans of the letter, the Government tried to make out that Chris Heaton Harris was in fact researching for a book. IN which case he would be guilty of misusing his position for this, and why did he se official stationary?

All this would be OK, but today's Daily "Hate" Mail lead with Remainer Universities, a two page splash on "Leftie" chancellors, Brexit material being distributed by lecturers and so on, and the cherry on top an e mail address people can report suspect universities to name and shame them.

Of course this is the thought police from 1984 made real, and the fact that Brexit is based almost purely on belief in Brexit and Brexit alone. Where there is something wrong, it must be someone else's fault: The EU, Remoaners, The Press, the Judiciary the BBC, foreigners or reality. If no debate on the massive holes on "preoject Brexit" is to be allowed, then what? If truth is not to be taught, then history is to be rewritten as it happens. A new shift.

How soon before the book burning begins, and remainers sent to "camps" for "reeducation"?

When reality itself is seen as an issue for the Brexiteers, then what now for Britain, and how ever is this ever going to be resolved when the wheels really do come off the Brexit bus, emblazoned by lies as to Brexit benefits, and the role of the press, other media and Parliament itself have all failed to due their duty to hold Government policy to scrutiny.