top of page
  • Writer's pictureWatch and Pray

Post Brexit: Misinformation and Disinformation

The saga of the UK leaving the European Union, I wrote about this in 2019, continues. I have to say that I don’t believe, as Boris and Brexiters celebrated in January, that we have left the EU fully, and the recognition by Boris to now submit a Bill to Parliament, in order to override the Withdrawal, is encouraging, though late in the day. Throughout the Referendum and Brexit process, the UK's political media bias, pro EU with a globalist worldview, has morphed into outright propaganda machine. It isn’t just coming from the left-wing news channels and newspaper but also conservatives who are largely pro big business, EU and international trades, which also includes the politicians from all parties. Consequently, there are no alternative debates and reporting; and because there are no platforms, other than social media, the biased news reporting continues.

It seems to me that we have left in name only, making the referendum and Brexit worthless and we may find ourselves accepting a compromising deal that ties us to the EU for a period or indefinitely. From the beginning, the Conservative Party's leadership and the Brexit negotiations team had done everything to stop and deliberately thwart the Brexit mandate of the people's decision to leave the EU. I believe Boris and his current team are just as complicit and by pushing the narrative that Brexit will be done, the people have been fooled by Boris’ PR machine. All this hard talk, press releases, media briefing about fighting and opposing the EU could be a ploy and the EU could be part of these shenanigans, that is my opinion. I hope I’m wrong.

Boris Johnson, drafted new text of the treaty which was published on 17 October 2019, it was a renegotiated version of the WA with the EU, without consulting the Northern Ireland team which was later rejected by them. The earlier version of the withdrawal agreement was rejected by the House of Commons on three occasions, leading to the resignation of Theresa May as Prime Minister. Many Brexiters felt that Boris’ attempt at fixing the Withdrawal Agreement was “basically a tweaked version of the May deal, which MPs on both sides of the Brexit divide said was so bad it would leave Britain worse off than being in the EU” and had compared it to putting “lipstick on the dead parrot.”

We were told repeatedly that the May deal was indeed so terrible it could not be renegotiated. It was more dead even than Monty Python’s deceased parrot. Yet Boris Johnson has renegotiated that deal. He has indeed achieved the impossible. He has produced the May deal mark four. He has put lipstick on the dead parrot.

After Boris Johnson's thumping general election victory and after comfortably passing its second reading by 358 votes to 234, the withdrawal agreement bill was on track to complete its passage through both houses of parliament in time to allow Brexit to happen at the end of January. Parliament then voted for the new WA, though much had not changed, it was signed on 24 January 2020, setting the terms of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and Euratom. According to Melanie Phillips, “the fear for Brexiteers must be that Johnson will obtain some kind of variation on Mrs May’s deal to enable him to go back to the Commons and pretend he’s sorted the difficulty (!!) and this time get it through with the assistance of Labour MPs.”

Boris is now rejecting the WA he has signed, even though it was clear from the beginning that the WA offers the EU access to Fishery, EU judicial oversight, and so on.

I was against Boris signing the Withdrawal Agreement in January. It is a huge mistake, and for me I felt that he was failing the people who elected him. The WA is totally one sided in favour of the EU. How, he can sign that agreement I never understood. I became even more suspicious when he gave peerage to the very people who fought against the Brexit, who took legal avenues to stop us leaving the EU.

If Boris and his team were serious, he would've repudiated the dreadful and traitorous Withdrawal Agreement (WA) drawn up by Theresa May, her "unofficial" Brexit Team, the EU and Angela Merkel (in secret talks without the knowledge of Parliament).

Boris is now seeking, after months of failed EU-UK Trade Talks, through the Internal Market Bill, proposed this week, to empower ministers. The Bill allow ministers unilaterally to amend the EU Withdrawal Agreement and would allow ministers to override aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement, in particular in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

According to the Financial Times, the UK government was explicitly warned in January that Boris Johnson’s Brexit divorce deal would leave Brussels able to claim jurisdiction over “large amounts” of UK state aid policy after the end of the transition period, documents seen by the Financial Times have revealed. A 10-page official briefing document shows the civil service issued clear warnings that Mr Johnson’s deal to avoid the return of a trade border in Ireland would impact not just subsidy decisions relating to Northern Ireland but could also “reach back” into the rest of the UK. The briefing document, marked “official sensitive”, shows that ministers were told about the onerous state aid provisions within the withdrawal agreement relating to Northern Ireland, which they moved to legally override with the internal market bill. The move brought EU-UK trade talks to a standstill, with the EU issuing an ultimatum to the government to withdraw its legislation by the end of the month. Mr Johnson on Friday told Tory MPs that the controversial clauses in the internal market bill, were “necessary to stop a foreign power from breaking up our country”. “What we need to do is clear up what I think is a serious anomaly in the protocol and put a safety net under it. What we can’t have is the threat of a border down the Irish Sea and the threat of the breakup of the United Kingdom.” January’s civil service briefing document emerged after Downing Street this week moved to justify overriding sections of the withdrawal agreement that relate to Northern Ireland, with Mr Johnson’s spokesperson saying the withdrawal agreement had been “agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances”. Depending on how the scope of Article 10 is interpreted, there is a risk that aid granted in the rest of the UK will be caught by the EU State Aid rules in certain circumstances Civil service briefing document Mr Johnson’s spokesperson said on Friday that the government did not comment on leaked documents but said “some of the provisions in the protocol” were “broad-brush” and “explicitly left to be sorted out in further discussions between UK and EU”. The spokesman added: “We expect these issues to be agreed in good faith, with the solution respecting the integrity of both the UK and EU.” Under the Northern Ireland protocol, which was agreed to enable Brexit without creating a hard border on the island of Ireland, the UK agreed the region would follow EU state aid law for any matter that affected goods trade. However, civil servants warned ministers in the January briefing document that Article 10 of the Northern Irish protocol that covered state aid could give the EU power over state aid to UK companies operating outside Northern Ireland.
Mr Johnson has consistently said the EU is making unreasonable demands on the issue of state aid, despite the government’s internal advice warning the bloc would retain influence via the withdrawal agreement. In a speech in February, the prime minister said, “There is no need for a free trade agreement to involve accepting EU rules on competition policy, subsidies, social protection, the environment, or anything similar any more than the EU should be obliged to accept UK rules.”
The paper warned ministers that the test of “effect on trade” set out in the protocol in practice set “a very low bar” for the commission to argue that it had jurisdiction. For example, UK-wide measures adopted by the government after Brexit — such as a tax rebate for manufacturers — could fall within the scope of Brussels oversight.

I don’t believe Boris Johnson couldn’t foresee our current Brexit problems. It seems to me, therefore, that it follows that Boris Johnson signed the Withdrawal Agreement never intending to comply with it or else he did not care whether it was complied with or not. He always intended the UK to leave without a future trading agreement and he intends that outcome still.

The Brexit Deadlock – Northern Ireland Backstop

The Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, is a pair of agreements signed on 10 April 1998 that ended most of the violence of the Troubles, a political conflict in Northern Ireland that had been ongoing since the 1960s. It served as a major development in the Northern Ireland peace process of the 1990s. Northern Ireland's present devolved system of government is based on the agreement. The agreement also created a number of institutions between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

The agreement came after very many years of complex talks, proposals, and compromises. Many people made major contributions. Tony Blair and Bertie Aherne were leaders of the UK and the Republic of Ireland at the time. The US senator George J. Mitchell was sent to chair the talks between the parties and groups by the US president Bill Clinton.

The agreement reached was that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, and would remain so until a majority of the people both of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland wished otherwise. Should that happen, then the British and Irish governments are under "a binding obligation" to implement that choice.

Irrespective of Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom, or part of a united Ireland, the right of "the people of Northern Ireland" to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both" (as well as their right to hold British or Irish citizenship or both) was recognised. By the words "people of Northern Ireland" the Agreement meant "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence."

The reason why this agreement is crucial is because Northern Ireland is part of the UK but it shares a border with Ireland, an independent country separate to UK. The problem is Ireland is member country of the EU. So, UK leaving the EU is problematic because of the border: delivery of goods, transportation, logistics, legislation, and so on. This dilemma is known as the "backstop".

A key part of the Brexit negotiations has been this border that separates Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The border is a matter of great political, security and diplomatic sensitivity in Ireland. Therefore the UK and EU agreed that whatever happens as a result of Brexit there should be no new physical checks or infrastructure at the frontier. This is where the controversial "backstop" comes in. This is what the EU originally proposed. It would involve Northern Ireland alone remaining in the EU's single market and customs union, leaving Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) free to strike trade deals. But the DUP - a Northern Ireland unionist party that propped up Theresa May's minority Conservative government - objected to this. It said it would see Northern Ireland treated differently and could threaten the union. Boris Johnson has also specifically ruled this out.

Point of Law – Sovereignty over EU Law

Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis caused outrage when he said in the House of Commons that the government’s Internal Market Bill would break international law in a ‘very specific and limited way’. In an extraordinary meeting with the UK, the EU has called for aspects of the Internal Market Bill to be scrapped by the end of the month. Time is running out. Britain doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Given that the nature of the talks at the moment is rather confrontational, there is a rationale for the government introducing the Internal Market Bill. One of the things that's giving Boris the legal basis, Internal Market Bill, for what he's doing, is Clause 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020. Clause 38, states “It is recognised that the Parliament of the UK is sovereign. In particular its sovereignty exists notwithstanding…” this means that the UK parliament is sovereign and that, within the UK, it overrides EU law. Brexiteer Tory MP and former Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC, has come out against Boris and is therefore getting lot of attention. He has said it would be “unconscionable” for the UK to tear up an international agreement, following on from comments by Justice Secretary Robert Buckland that he would resign if the rule of law was broken in because it will be "unacceptable".

The EU Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020 contained the all important Clause 38 to reassure people like me that the UK is going to be an independent sovereign state from the date of exit. That Clause as enacted says “It is recognised that the Parliament of the UK is sovereign. In particular its sovereignty exists notwithstanding…” the provisions of the 2018 Withdrawal Act that had reimported EU powers. “Accordingly nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the UK”
This was a crucial reassurance, reflected in the Political declaration which committed both parties to negotiating a future relationship that reflected this UK sovereignty. No-one reading either document could be in any doubt that the UK was not signing up then or now to anything which meant the European Court of Justice would decide our fate, nor to anything that meant we had to follow EU laws. The UK did not offer up its fish as some further concession. The Political Declaration said “It must also ensure the sovereignty of the UK and the protection of its internal market, whilst respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and UK”. It went on to explain a Free Trade Agreement with no tariffs would be at the heart of the new relationship. UK sovereignty by John Redwood MP. Further reading: I voted for the Clause 38 override when I voted for the Withdrawal Act, The UK’s international reputation as a trade partner needs this UK Single market Bill and Why I support the UK Single market Bill

Alternative view of Boris pursuing the Internal Market Bill to supersede the Withdrawal Agreement is presented here.

Treaties are renegotiated all the time; Trump backed out of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and threw North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the bin then renegotiated it, deceptively, to United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

The Withdrawal Agreement should never have been signed because it didn't have the interests of the UK at heart and the government is right to correct that mistake but we will never get the EU to agree to the changes. We must walk away; the EU are simply revealing the tyrannical nature of their agenda.

The issue is now what to do about the Post-Brexit agreements with the EU in relation to the ICJ:

Additional EU demands for a continuing role for the ECJ in post-Brexit Britain are simply extraordinary. As of 30th March 2019 the ECJ will convert from being a joint court in which the UK plays an equal part, into being a wholly foreign court over which the UK will no longer have any degree of control. Nor will the UK have any say in the appointment of the judges of the court. It is extremely rare for any sovereign state to submit in an international treaty to adjudication of disputes by the courts of the other party to the treaty. The reasons are obvious: such acceptance of a party to a treaty of the jurisdiction of the domestic court of the other treaty party is i. demeaning and degrading to its status as a sovereign state, and ii. carries with it the very real risk that such a court will be biased and partial in its rulings…… Because the UK will leave both the EU single market and the customs union, neither the EU-Turkey/Moldova customs union agreements nor the EEA Agreement can serve as a model for the UK. The UK Government should therefore unequivocally reject any suggestion for continued ECJ jurisdiction further and beyond the phase I accord. Not even tiny Andorra or San Marino accept ECJ jurisdiction. The European Court of Justice should not adjudicate Treaty rights in post-Brexit Britain

According to Brexit Facts4EU.Org, the “EU breached Withdrawal Agreement, UK must revise or revoke,”. In the most comprehensive analysis ever published about the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, 15 experts in international, UK constitutional and EU law, economics and financial structures, customs and border procedures, Northern Ireland, fishing, and defence and security, spent three months producing the Centre for Brexit Policy’s (CBP) 100-page report on Sovereignty, concluding that replacing the Withdrawal Agreement was the only way to ensure the UK takes back control on exiting the transition period.

Furthermore, Dominic Raab, Foreign Secretary and a former lawyer, tweeted that “the ICJ only hears cases from State parties. The EU is not a state party so it can’t sue the UK there. Hope that reassures you.” Even if the Hague Court, International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes known as the World Court, pursues legal action, it has no powers of enforcement. Additionally, the UK has left the EU and no longer a member state, and will therefore revert back to UK law as a sovereign nation.

In a series of messages on Twitter, the PM's chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost suggested under the EU's proposed arrangements, British firms risked not being able to export food from the mainland to Northern Ireland either.

The EU has confirmed it could bring in a blockade of food goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain under the current terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, says Downing Street.

Boris Johnson accused the EU of putting “a revolver on the table” ahead of tonight's vote on his controversial Brexit bill.

Asked why it had taken “several days” for the possible blockade to be listed as a reason for changes to the Brexit deal, the PM's spokesman told reporters: “While the negotiations were ongoing, we sought to avoid discussing the content of those – but the fact of this particular matter was put into the public domain by the EU in a statement on Thursday evening.”

He added: “You already have a series of comments on social media from Lord Frost… which clearly urge the EU to think better of this because it obviously doesn't make it easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and a solid future relationship which we all want.”

Speaking in the Commons as he opened the debate, the PM claimed Brussels had made an “extraordinary threat” to block food imports between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland.

It was the “most glaring example” of the EU's bid to “exert leverage against the UK” by using “extreme and unreasonable lengths” Mr Johnson claimed.

Boris Johnson has urged Conservative MPs to back his Plan to Override Part of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement. In a Zoom call with about 250 of them, he said the party must not return to "miserable squabbling" over Europe. The EU has warned the UK it could face legal action if it does not ditch controversial elements of the Internal Market Bill by the end of the month. And a Tory MP has proposed an amendment to the bill, which would affect trade between Britain and Northern Ireland.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament has threatened to scupper any UK-EU trade deal if the bill becomes UK law.

Internal Market Bill – It’s Deja Vu All Over Again

The current saga is that Boris will now cancel or revise some of the points in the Withdrawal Agreement and is planning new legislation, Internal Market Bill, which would materially dilute part of last year’s Withdrawal Agreement, which should be a good news. Boris Johnson said the Bill “means that the UK can come out of the EU as one United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, together". However, his intention, like Theresa May is the false narrative that we can have trade deal with the EU by revising the WA, that has failed spectacularly in the last four years. When the WA was signed, they stated that it was not a Treaty. Nigel Farage kept referring to it as a Treaty, because a Treaty is binding, if signed by all parties, and he was vilified by the mainstream media and politicians. Now remainers, world leaders and the EU are voicing their outrage over breaking an "International Agreement." It is why Trump didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement because it wasn’t some little piece of paper but it will require the US by law to implement the UN Climate directives.

The bill, published on Wednesday, will require the approval of the House of Lords as well as MPs before it can become law. It addresses the Northern Ireland Protocol - an element of the withdrawal agreement designed to prevent a hard border returning to the island of Ireland. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement signed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in January, the UK must resolve differences over border arrangements with the EU through a special joint committee. But the new bill would give UK ministers the power to modify or "disapply" rules relating to the movement of goods due to apply in Northern Ireland from 1 January. The government has accepted the bill breaches the withdrawal agreement, but says the powers are required to ensure that trade across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - the UK internal market - is protected in all circumstances. Right now, the UK is part of the European single market, with jointly agreed regulations and standards right across the continent. Post-Brexit, the UK government wants to continue to have a joint market across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - the "internal market". But instead of the rules and regulations around things like food and air quality and animal welfare being set in Brussels, now they have to be set closer to home - and there is a row over who should have the final say.
Many powers are set to be directly controlled by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish administrations, in fields including food labelling, energy efficiency and support for farmers. However, the UK government has said the devolved administrations will still have to accept goods and services from all other parts of the UK - even if they have set different standards locally. This means there would be a level playing field for companies across the "internal market" - so Welsh farmers could sell their lamb in Belfast, Scottish whisky distilleries could buy barley from English farmers, and so on. UK ministers warn that not having this kind of system could cause "serious problems". The devolved governments are happy to have common frameworks of such rules - and work is continuing to try and agree them - but say the legislation tabled effectively undermines this by giving Westminster a veto.

Boris Johnson has been warned he will struggle to get controversial legislation - which seeks to override the Brexit withdrawal deal - through the House of Lords It is exactly the same process that Mrs May took and look at where we are now. No, if Boris really wants the UK to be a sovereign state then he needs to opt for no deal and making the Withdrawal Agreement null and void. No deal will not be acceptable to the UK as long as the WA is used as a basis for negotiations; although it will not be acceptable to EU without the WA. It's time to completely walk away from the EU and their trade offers. The people voted on 23 June 2016 to quit the EU completely and unfortunately we will still be subservient to the EU if we continue with these processes. The only way is no trade deal with the EU unless we can trade as a sovereign nation without strings attached, which is what the EU doesn’t want their motto has been throughout these negotiations "fair playing field", which is ludicrous, because business is about competition.

The controversy over the government’s Internal Market Bill might look like a discussion about the ins and outs of international law, but in reality it is the last gasp of Remoanerism, another attempted coup by the pro-EU elites against the sovereignty of the UK, its parliament and its people. It confirms that Remainerism is still a threat to our democratic way of life. And it shows that for all the cynicism and bad deal-making of the EU elites in Brussels, the greatest menace to British democracy comes from within Britain itself – from armies of lawyers, from the business world, from sections of the political class who still don’t accept the result of the 2016 referendum, and from that keenest enemy of democracy, the House of Lords, reported to be determined to hold up the Internal Market Bill.

The eerie silence of the Government on UK-EU Policy

As mentioned above, the UK and EU agreed on revised Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. It sits alongside the revised text of the Withdrawal Agreement, agreed at a European Council summit on 17 October 2019. This declaration is not legally binding but will set the direction of the future relationship negotiations, which are expected to begin once the UK has formally left the EU. However, there has been a complete silence from government on addressing Political Declaration and UK Defence. Ann Widdecombe of the Brexit Party and Frederick Forsyth, best-selling author, journalist, former spy; have written number of articles questioning the governments silence over UK Defence policy:

Most people think defence is not part of the EU negotiations, but it is very much in the frame due to several lines in the Political Declaration, the text which guides the talks over the future relationship. These lines contain a proposal for the UK to remain under the EU’s defence bodies (and even to join a new one to which we did not belong as an EU member). The main problem is that these lines are rarely mentioned and few people in the UK truly understand the EU’s defence bodies.

UK attachment to EU defence industrial bodies is not an advantage to UK industry but rather an impediment because of the rules, benchmarks and strategies the EU imposes. These bodies and their associated rules work to remove UK industry’s advantage in respect to the UK Government defence equipment budget (the largest in Europe), in order to create a ‘domestic’ EU-wide defence procurement market. Under this arrangement, purchasing authorities (e.g. the UK Ministry of Defence) must pursue an EU definition of ‘best value’ which is not allowed to include national taxpayer best value or national interest. Therefore, the national advantages derived from retaining a contract domestically (such as preserving jobs, investment or essential skills) cannot be a decisive factor in awarding the contract. It is through this EU mechanism that the UK has seen many of its large defence contracts lost to overseas (including non-EU) shipbuilders, manufacturers and suppliers. British industry would continue to lose opportunities in this way if it is compelled to stay in EU mechanisms by the three defence bodies named in the Political Declaration. In fact the situation would become worse as the industrial rules and strategies of the EU defence architecture are growing in scope and power.

Britain’s role and how the policy of Defence Union is not simply about defence, but is a key pillar of a fully federal EU, alongside Monetary Union, Fiscal Union, Banking Union, Energy Union and, critically, a Tax Union. This is about single point command and control, and the ability of the EU, for the first time, to express an interventionist foreign policy of its own, with Africa firmly in the crosshairs. The deal, the whole deal, and nothing but the deal is EU Defence Union.

For the last 20 years, member states of the EU, have gradually reduced their defence budgets and military capabilities. This is a clear agenda to make way for the unification of all nations' in-house defence capabilities to create the EU Defence Union. To quote one commentator, "European Union Defence plans are associated with the eventual formation of a European Federal State. Under the current system of unaccountable governance, this means they will be run by an unelected oligarchy. A nation state that contracts out its defence has ceased to be." What lot of people are not aware of is that the UK and NATO are now part of the EU Defence Union. That's right, NATO. This is why the current UK government and previous administrations have refused to speak about the UK defence integration with the EU Defence Union even after documented proof of military teams wearing EU labels on their uniforms even after we supposedly left the EU. Please watch the YT talk given by David Ellis called "David Ellis EU Defence Union-A Precursor to Global Governance" and see how the British people have been deceived.

Personally, as I previously wrote, I do not believe Boris' "rhetoric" and I don’t think he is being honest about his intentions. The biggest clue as to why I think Brexit, leaving the EU, is fake is the refusal by the government to address the European Defence Union (EDU), in that the government is unifying British Military and UK Defence industry into EDU. This is the key to understanding the EU’s and the UK Government’s version of “leaving” the EU — Brexit.


The UK Internal Market Bill has sent shockwaves, with the European Commission saying it would constitute an "extremely serious violation" of the withdrawal agreement. The EU has threatened legal action against UK unless it rewrites Internal Market Bill. Up to 30 Tory MPs threaten to revolt over the Bill including the House of Commons, House of Lords, opposition parties, the globalist, and all the usual suspects.

The media and the remainers are again restarting the same hysteria and "fake news" that has been the mantra for the last 4 years. After two days of constant media attention about the WA, the government decided at 10pm yesterday that a nationwide restrictions on Covid-19 was needed, like vultures to corpse, the media followed. Unfortunately, this has been the case of this government, to use whatever manufactured crisis to deflect from negative attention. Even Nancy Pelosi has restated her opposition to the UK government’s internal market bill. Pelosi, like other Democrats in the US and the EU, believes the legislation would undermine the Good Friday agreement by increasing the chances of there being a hard border in Ireland. Her stance is important because leading Democrats have said that, if the UK undermined the Good Friday agreement, they would seek to block a UK-US trade deal.

Former Prime Ministers are doing their usual media circus, “British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is under fire from two of his predecessors over his plan to renege on parts of his Brexit Withdrawal Agreement with the EU”. Tony Blair, the former Labour leader, and John Major, of Johnson's own Conservatives, published a joint op-ed attacking the decision in the Sunday Times."

What Boris should've done from the beginning was to reject the Withdrawal Agreement and go for a hard Brexit (no deal with the EU), opting for World Trade Organisation Agreement; and giving the EU the option to pursue a bilateral agreement, the same way the government negotiated and signed a Trade Deal with Japan. If Boris continues to proceed with the new Bill, Parliament may reject it, which means that we will end up with the riotous process we've had for the last 4 years.

The Conservatives meanwhile will undoubtedly be campaigning in May to keep the UK - and its internal market - intact.

The UK may be exiting the transition period on 31 December, but the rows over Brexit and powers look set to rumble on for some time to come.



Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page