Ben Habib answers your Brexit questions HERE | Politics | News

When we go we will see good things coming from Brexit. Instead of all the nasty inconveniences? Please answer this question if you can.

I can certainly answer this question. First, we don’t have Brexit properly yet. Brexit is the departure of the country from the EU into a single United Kingdom. The Prime Minister was elected on that promise, but then broke it. Northern Ireland is left behind. A court case I am fighting has confirmed that the Act of Union was breached by its Brexit deal. Unless and until Northern Ireland is freed from the EU, we won’t really have had a Brexit.

Northern Ireland was left behind

In many other ways, the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal is BRINO (Brexit in name only). We left the EU institutions but remained very closely aligned with them. The Prime Minister promised that we would regain control of our laws, our borders, our money and our fish.

He broke all those promises. Following its Brexit deal, we entered on equal footing with the EU on state aid, employment, competition and environmental law. We are bound, for example, by its agreement to Net Zero by 2050.

He also handed out billions in cash and handed over our fishing waters to the EU for as long as the deal stands. We remain attached to a joint and several guarantee of the 500 billion euros in liabilities of the European Investment Bank. He even urged us to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Arrest Warrant – EU courts can order a Briton arrested and that person can be arrested in the UK with very little protection from our own courts.

The detail of these commitments is lost on almost all Conservative MPs and the public. The purpose of Brexit was to abandon the suffocating undemocratic and extremely bureaucratic EU. We haven’t done that. So we can’t deregulate like we should and we can’t cut taxes like we should.

We have regained certain freedoms and we seem to benefit greatly from them. Beating the EU at vaccines was one of those obvious huge advantages.

The city is free from EU regulatory shackles and, we are told, will soon benefit from deregulation. I hope that will happen.

But the very big gains we could and should have got from Brexit cannot be had while the Prime Minister’s deal is in place.

What is your opinion when you see EU states turning on their backs to get their bellies tickled, rather than acting directly against Putin. The fact that they continue to pay it leads me to believe that these countries concerned must be permanently excluded from NATO. I would like to know what are you thinking?

The EU is a mercantilist institution with self-proclaimed intentions to increase its geopolitical influence and military strength. It often acts outside and against US/UK foreign policy interests. He wants his own version of NATO, called PESCO, which would not include the United States. NATO has kept the peace in Europe since World War II and the EU’s goal of developing PESCO should be of great concern to all Europeans.

Its failure to properly impose sanctions on Russia is not surprising given Germany’s long-standing association and dependence on that country.

Why did you vote for the PIN as an MEP and then go to court to challenge it?

I voted for the Withdrawal Agreement for the reasons set out in this article I wrote at the time: -in-the-european-parliament/

If the Prime Minister had kept his election promises, he would have solved the problems of the WA and the NIP.

He nearly fixed the PIN in September 2020 with the Internal Market Bill, but failed again. Unfortunately, the PM cannot be trusted. He could go down in history as the prime minister who broke our country.

Hi Ben. Did you get the Brexit you voted for? You don’t look too happy.

I’m very unhappy with this as we don’t have Brexit – please see responses above.

Do you think it’s possible that the British public has changed their minds about Brexit after seeing its effects?

No – the British public saw the EU more and more clearly as we went through the Brexit process and are still going through it.

The British public has seen how terribly the EU treats Northern Ireland.

Could Ben explain in plain language to this old lady what the real implications would be for the UK if Article 16 were triggered and why the government is so reluctant to invoke it after so many months of threats?

Article 16 is not, as it is so often described, a nuclear button.

This is a legitimate safeguard measure under the Northern Ireland Protocol which allows the UK to suspend all or part of the Protocol if it causes societal, environmental or economic harm and/or there is trade diversion. The grounds for invoking it exist.

This is accepted by the government. That he does not invoke is an act of gross negligence and constitutional self-harm.

The government and our Prime Minister are intimidated by the (illegal) threat of EU sanctions if Article 16 is invoked. Our government and our Prime Minister lack the courage and understanding to properly handle this situation.

It’s a tragedy.

Can Ben tell us why the Brexit we have is not the Brexit anyone promised or wanted? Why did the government not go back to the people and explain to them why they would not actually get what they were promised?

Please read the answers above, but specifically on this question: the Prime Minister seeks more than anything. He will say and do whatever is necessary to gain and then retain power.

If he now honestly exposed the failures of his deal, he would be kicked out of Downing Street. But there was a time, when he had obtained his overwhelming majority (December 2019) and before signing the agreement (January 2020), to renegotiate it.

He had a golden opportunity. Instead, he went on an extended vacation to Mustique.

Why didn’t he act then is a question only he can answer.

Previous View: When British rule was almost nipped in the bud
Next Teacher recruitment and retention plans; salary increase for all employees