Revelation Time: What I think Theresa May Thinks Brexit actually means.

I've said here and elsewhere a lot of words about the Chequers proposal and how it doesn't deliver Brexit. But in a moment of revelation I think I know what Theresa May is thinking in her dealings with the EU over Brexit.

And I've come to the conclusion it isn't Brexit.

She's using the referendum vote as a bargaining chip to reform the EU itself and therefore allow us to stay within the EU. There is no other explaination as to how she thinks the Chequers proposal is an exit from the EU in any way, shape or from.

It can only be the explaination, because last Sunday she said the Chequers deal was one of two options. Chequers or staying in the EU. There was no fully out option in her mind.

I think she has deluded herself into thinking she is Margaret Thatcher Mk2, that she can go to the EU and demand concessions and refom the EU from within, to make it more acceptable to UK pallettes. By leveraging the threat to leave and remove our budget contribution or partially leave and reduce the money flow she thinks the EU will roll over and play ball. But the EU ain't like that. They will bend for a while, but then snap back later once they have an agreement.

She thinks she can use the referendum to go one better than David Cameron and force the whole EU to capitulate and change fundamental policy. She thinks she can get concessions on immigration, payments, and all the other things that previous PMs have failed to extract from the EU.

That I think is her plan in a nutshell: gain concessions from the EU and stay in a reformed EU, or just stay in without concessions.

She's renegotiating the terms of being inside the EU, rather than negotiating our exit.

Brexit it ain't. Not by a long chalk.

Dear Prime Minister.....Why I Voted for Brexit and WHAT I voted for.

Dear Theresa May,

I would like this opportunity to explain to you why I have decided to in future elections vote for UKIP at every opportunity and for the first time ever in my life, have become a member of a political party; UKIP.

First let me explain that on the 26th of June 2016 I voted to leave the EU.

I voted to leave the EU because it is undemocratic: I cannot vote for or against members of the EU commission, they are appointed.

I voted to leave because if we are to hand over more power to the EU in the future such as budget oversight, taxation, control of Armed Forces, etc. then by the same token the EU comission should become more open and democratic and allow the election of its members.  But there are no plans to do this in tandem with increased power.

I voted to leave because we cannot control our own economy and public services. How can we plan future spending on the NHS, Housing and welfare if we have no control over the numbers of people using those services?

I voted to leave because when David Cameron went to the EU and explained the risk of the UK leaving the EU was high all the concessions he asked for were rejected. Our own democratically elected leader was overruled and refused by an undemocratic elite.

I voted leave because on the balance of probabilities, I decided that we would be more free to make decisions that affect our lives out of the EU than in it. That we would have the freedom to make deals around the globe on our own terms, without having to drag the other countries of the EU along with us.

I voted leave because I believe that any short-term financial losses will be recouped several times over once we are free to make our own way in the world.

I voted leave to end free movement of people and regain control of immigration. Without control over the number of people entering the country, how can a government project future expenditure on public services?

Having set out why I voted to leave, please let me explain why I will not now vote for your party in future, despite having voted Conservative many times before.

I believe the proposal in the Chequers White paper does not deliver an exit from the EU apparatus. Although you can spin it as leaving the EU (which in essence we will do as we leave the EU Parliament and the EU Council etc.) it is not leaving the influence of the EU political elite.

The EU Council, Comission and Parliament will all continue to make laws, rules and regulations that we would be mandated by the Chequers agreement to comply with.

Being forced into regulatory alignment (sticking to the EU's rules) is not leaving.the EU.

Regulatory alignment forces us to produce goods to EU specifications regardless of whether they are destined for sale in the EU. Only 15% of our economy is reliant on trade with the EU, the rest is generated internally and by trade with the rest of the world. So why should 15% of the economy dictate how the other 85% trades, effectively adding a tariff to trade within the UK.

Regulatory Alignment also assumes that we will accept EU tariffs on goods imported, so as not to undermine imports into the EU. I would think that the EU would take a dim view if we imported goods into the UK at lower tariff rates and then shipped those goods into the rest of the EU.

Such restrictions prevent us setting our own tariff rates and agreeing deals on imports with other countries. Such restrictions on imports and international trade can only damage our prosperity after March 2019.

Collecting tarriffs set by the EU on behalf of the EU is not leaving the EU.

Not allowing the freedom to trade on our own terms with other countries  is not leaving the EU.

This one critical restriction within the Chequers proposal is enough to prevent me from supporting your party or any other party that votes in favour of it.

Another is border control. One of the key promises from yourself when you took power was to take control of our borders. However, the chequers proposal is actually the opposite. It works to keep an open border between the UK and the EU. I can understand the thony issue of the border in Ireland was forefront in your mind regarding this issue, but teh Chequers propoal does not address how the transfer of people as opposed to goods across the border can be controlled.

Regulatory alignment assumes an open border. An open border assumes free movement of people. Free movement of people and uncontrolled immigration was supposed to be a red line. It has been crossed, so therfore I cannot vote for a party that supports it.

In essence I suppose I wanted a more dynamic and refreshing approach to the issues caused by Brexit
and a harder and more pragmatic approach to the negotiations. I can see that I have been let down.

My own preference would be for the 15% of the economy that needs to trade with the EU countries and requires regulatory alignment, to have an independent regulatory verification system funded by themselves to allow frictionless trade. The form the regulatory body takes and its remit to be agreed by negotiation with the EU.

That way 85% of the economy is free to trade without encumbrance from the EU and we have the best chance of prosperity.

But the Chequers proposal crosses several supposed red lines as outlined in several speeches you had made previously. Exssentially you have gone back on every one of those speeches and red lines. You have broken promises made to the electorate and the wider world.

Brexit Reality Emerging.

Okay, so Theresa May says that Brexiters thought with their hearts and she has to think with her head to come up with a Brexit that is good for business.

Basically keeping as close to Europe as she possibly can get away with.

To support 15% of the economy the other 85% will have no say on the rules that govern how it does business. Importers will have to import EU-spec goods exclusively. Businesses will have to manufacture EU-spec goods exclusively. There can be no divergence from EU specifications, rules and regulations.

Later we had another government minister spinning for all he's worth essentially saying "but we've had input into the rules, we adhere to the rules at the moment... so what's the problem.

The problem dickhead, is that we lose the ability to have influence on those rules as of March next year. yet we will be tied to them ad infinitum. The worst of all deals.

I did love it when he couldn't say that he knew about the chequers proposal in advance: just shows that the cabinet was ambushed with an entirely different proposal than the one proposed by DexEU. This was the elite telling the cabinet through Theresa may what they demand, not a democratically elected cabinet coming up with a proposal at all.

It's like the government is spinning that black is white. This is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. These people can't really believe what they're saying, surely? I know May thinks she knows best and the 52% of the country that voted to leave will just have to lump the BRINO. Sorry Theresa, we are not children, we knew exactly what we were voting for and we knew the consequences. Now deliver it or get out.

There's a Tory meeting tomorrow evening at 10pm, Jacob Rees-Mogg is attending amongst others. That should be the meeting that seals the end of May. I can't see any other way for the Tories to deliver a real, proper separation from the EU.

The BRINO proposal she came up with is acceptable to no-one except large corporations and the rich elite that own and run them.

It will see the end of the Tories as a political party. They will be cast into the political wilderness just like the EU-loving liberals.

Jeezus Fucking H...

Did I just hear on the news that Theresa may says stick with her version of Brexit or it may not happen at all?

Is that the plan then? Accept this BRINO piece of shit or the only alternative is to remain? To ignore the democratic vote to leave|?

We've triggered article 50, the alternative is to exit from the EU without a deal.