Treason May

This report contains what the media don’t want you to know in regards to the Withdrawal Technicality Draft (Nov 2018) – therefore, what’s been addressed below doesn’t involve the ‘backstop,’ which has been feverishly contested by media and parliamentarians alike. A separate unfiltered ‘backstop’ investigation is ongoing, till further notice.

Unplugging the plethora of legalities proves this isn’t an end game for political chaos, it’s the beginning. And this won’t be a surprise for those who’re proficient in EU Law for the general public have little knowledge of what the bureaucrat webs and laws portray, purely as the political idiocies have taken centre ground all thanks to a warped media coverage unfit for any voyeur wanting the best for their nation. To hide the truth, we’ve seen unprecedented scenes, i.e. contempt of parliament, failing to publish legal advice, and blackmailing civil servants into unnatural compromises that blight the UK’s democracy. Altogether, much of this facade is typical of May in the Home Office and as Prime Minister.

Publishing the legal advice in regards to the Withdrawal Agreement and the Future Arrangement Agreement will cause great constitutional rifts and as I’ve had a copy of such document for quite a while via OS I’ve concluded a seismic devolvement of national disregard and delusion from May and the her Cabinet who’re pushing to get this submissive servant Draft voted positively in the House of Commons in a bid to continue with Brexit Trade talks etc. Obviously what I’ve read isn’t for general distribution and been documented on November 26^th 2018; thus to even utter in the public domain it has no public interest defies the severity of the contempt by our dictatorial incumbency.

Odiously, May is now elongating the inevitable incumbent demise, a quest to cause national distrust and disdain far greater than what’s been acknowledged in the media - consider it an act of treachery, of Roundhead proportion. If anything, the Meaningful Vote fiasco highlights who / what has the nation’s interest at heart because fundamentally, the ‘backstop’ is merely the tip of the disenfranchise iceberg, to call it a travesty is an understatement, yes, legally all terms breaches the UK’s constitution, although these silent words of wisdom can’t be heard above the calamity of falsifying evidence. Notably, Sigmund Freud once muttered softly, the voice of reason is small but very persistent.  Modern day philosophers and theologians automatically misinterpret unheedingly what is regarded as ‘reason’? Thankfully, our fortified raison d'être uses the law as a compromise. It’s as steadfast as the demesne and is unpersuaded by politico motives; nor has any superstitious realms that shape thought. Why the law is the best means to unravel the current impasse that’s obsessed parliament.

Scenarios habitually fall into the reality gutter when the theory is exposed as self-inflictions that warrant no audience, let alone coverage. Regardless of macroeconomics or myopic white noise the conundrums derive in much of the Withdrawal Technicality under a series of ‘articles’ that require attention. In Article (7), the ‘right of residence’ harvests a hostile environment mentality of the magnitude of ‘Windrush’ enables EU union citizens’ rights to residence if they’re proven / able workers or self-employed. The burden remains away from the State (NHS) and if they fall ill there’s signatory sickness cover / insurance to cover the illness costs. Same goes if you’re a student, you could argue a discrimination case for educative institutes which depend on EU students to study in prestige centres of excellence. No actual EU resident of over three months is given unconditional status.  To tip the balance somewhat, Alexander Baumgarten discussed the issues of categorized judgement derives from error… what Article (7) specifies is exactly what Baumgarten warns of, equating to a targeted judgement prior to any subject assessment, under any democracy it is deemed inhuman and definitely breaches ECHR; this profoundly differs to the politics that the UK is open for business post-Brexit.

Initially, under the term: ‘Resolved,’ the questionable assertion is with the so-called orderly withdrawal through non-specific separation provisions, all devised to prevent disruption, by saying it provides legal certainty for citizens and economic operatives, the Draft’s bilateral terms stipulates the contrary – their futures and civil liberties left open-ended with zero time restriction - leaving ECHR out in the cold as the UK would’ve already left the EU. Brazen arrogance is exemplified on Article (9) that’s alien to a sovereign parliament to stomach, let alone a political system that’s not got a bona fide Federal State military, or is simply sovereign.

By instructing the UK to establish / maintain an operationally independent authority implies that the European Parliament doesn’t respect or recognise UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. This authority has to be impartial but the responsibility purely lies with the UK incumbency. I’ll denote it being an Independent Commission on what is to be on equal footing to the EU Commission. Another banana skin in regards to Trade negotiations, for the EU can reject the Impartial Body and delay the procedural Brexit at will; genuinely cannot see how Article (9) can be plausibly delivered. But to corner this piece of protocol in the directive of the UK Government to enact, questions the bilateral terms in its entirety.

Another area of worriment is language issues affiliated to Article (2) (129) – my main irk is there’s no legal scrubbing, a process of ironing out loose wordings and so forth. Any formal agreement prior to negotiation requires language that respects the withdrawal terms, this has been met and why I draw you to the direct stipulation the UK doesn’t automatically gain benefit from EU Trade terms internationally. Demonization is apparent, not due to the UK’s Member State status, alas due to the de facto the UK was one the Big Three who created the EU; inadvertently the UK has been a major factor of global trade relations over the last forty three years - automatically raises concerns of legality.

Vague activity exposed to ongoing international negotiations with emerging South American and Asian markets, how can the EU27 legally block UK contributions? It can due to self-acclaimed process, and Article (129) claims the union will notify other parties (international trading partners) to these agreements that only during the TIP the UK should be treated as a Member State merely for the purpose of these agreements. From a UK perspective Article 129 is far too verbose to point to clarity. Any party who agrees to this archetypal language is either condemning themselves or a nation, there’s an unscripted trust element that urgently requires legal scrubbing.

To conclude the Withdrawal Technicality Draft is deemed an extended arm into the unknown. For what it is worth, sovereignty is diluted to very uncomfortable levels and the current status, openly discussed bilateral injustices, the problem with parliamentarians siphoning off national sovereignty without knowing the true price of suchlike. Again the language is astoundingly anti-UK -- under the TIP epoch the UK ‘may’ be invited to participate (but not Vote / have a Veto) in comitology committees, meetings of export Groups of EU Bodies and Offices and Agencies. To evaluate, the UK’s presence is necessary for the sake and interest of the Union, engineering a myopic tone… rendering UK to a Vassal State. If any individual Votes for the Withdrawal Technicality Draft in the knowledge of the above, they’re acting not in the interest of the nation and under sixteenth century Laws this is treason.