The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has told the Brussels Eurocrats that they should ignore Remainer politicians claiming they can stop Brexit.


According to an unnamed senior British official quoted by the BBC, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, made it clear to EU leaders at the G7 that the notion that Brexit could be stopped was 'incorrect'.

The PM has repeatedly said that the UK is leaving the EU at 11pm on the 31st of October come what may, deal or no deal.

And he's told the EU27 via the G7 meeting of the US, the UK, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Japan that they should not heed the "very wrong messages emerging from parliamentarians" who want to reverse Brexit.

And the official also said that Boris had been "repeatedly clear that parliamentarians and politicians don't get to choose which public votes they respect".

And if that, coupled with yesterday's prorogation revelations, isn't enough to get Remainer MP's blood pressure up to curdling levels, then by saying to the G7 in Biarritz France that the UK can easily handle a no-deal Brexit, Boris will have them steaming.

"I think we can get through this, this is a great, great country, the UK, we can easily cope with a no-deal scenario." He said.

And he went on to say that by increasing the level of no deal planning, it would ensure "… if and when we are forced by the obduracy by our European friends to come out on the 31st of October without a deal that things are as smooth as they can possibly be."

And the steam whistles just went off in the Remainer MP's heads!

So they've wheeled out that creaking old Remainer, Gordon Brown, who says that MPs must somehow order the PM to commission an no-deal Brexit impact report.

With the Independent saying that:

"The former Labour prime minister said MPs should seize control of the House of Commons agenda for a day to pass a law making Brexit conditional on the production of an impact report."

And it was Gordon Brown was it not that got his Foreign Secretary to sign the Lisbon Treaty off for him on the 13th of December 2007 and then snuck off later to sign it himself.

But get this, the impact assessment on the Lisbon Treaty was not published until the 13th of March the following year, 2008.

And in the report at para 1.8 it says:

"The Lisbon Treaty itself is complicated and inaccessible. This was perhaps unavoidable; but it is unsatisfactory, and has hindered public debate."

And the Remain campaigners want Brexiteers to listen to the guy who signed that off, before the impact assessment came out.

Now I know the Lisbon Treaty wasn't ratified until later, but the point is Brown was happy to get it signed off prior to any impact assessment.

Anyway, moving on.

Remember that there is a meeting at midday tomorrow, called by the leader of the Opposition and Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, to try and get MPs to back him as an interim PM to force a vote of no confidence in the Boris Johnson Government, followed by an Article 50 extension and a General Election.

But the Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, who wants a second EU referendum, says that Corbyn's insistence that he be in charge of the toy-shop, would put many MPs off from voting against the government.

In a letter to Corbyn, Swinson wrote:

"Insisting you lead that emergency government will therefore jeopardise the chances of a no confidence vote gaining enough support to pass in the first place.

"As you have said that you would do anything to avoid no deal, I hope you are open to a discussion about how conceding this point may open the door to a no-confidence vote succeeding. Its success must be the priority."

With talk like that, Corbyn might hold back from tabling an official motion of no confidence, until he can force them to support him.

More problems for the Remain campaign.

Now I just want to add a couple of extra little extra thoughts on all this talk about Boris Johnson shutting down parliament for five weeks from about the 9th of September to the 14th of October so as to severely cut down on the opportunities Remainer MPs have, to get in the way of Brexit Day in the lead up to the 31st of October.

And that is, that when parliament reconvenes after a period of prorogation, there is a state opening of parliament and it is customary for the Queen to make a speech outlining what Her Government will be getting up to over the next year or so.

The problem here is that the Queen's Speech is written by the government for her, so it is amendable by MPs and is voted on in both Houses of Parliament.

And back in 2013, Speaker John Bercow allowed three amendments to the Queen's speech to be debated and voted on, instead of the accepted limit of two under the Common's standing orders. One therefore supposes the scope for Remainer interventions could be quite considerable.

Especially as Bercow said back in 2013:

"….I believe that there is a need to interpret Standing Orders in way that facilitates the business of the House in a developing parliamentary context; conditions and expectations today are very different from those in October 1979 when that standing order was made."

And he went on to say that he had re-interpreted Standing Order 33 so that more amendments could be called forward.

And should the government lose the eventual vote on the Queen's Speech it is, as I understand it, considered to be a vote of no confidence.

But, if this all happens after the 14th of October, it would probably be nigh on impossible for the Remainers to do anything about it, other than moan and wail of course.


Comment Here!