Eugen Weber begins his book Varieties of Fascism by saying: ‘The 19th century had seen the heyday of liberalism, the rise of parliamentary and democratic institutions, the affirmation of private enterprise and individual liberty. The 20th century would be dominated by tendencies – collectivist, authoritarian, anti parliamentary and anti democratic – which stressed elitism against equality, activism and irrationalism against reason and contract, the organic community against the constitutional society.’ We are soon to enter this brave new world. If MPs vote for May’s EU plan the Conservative Party will seal their long-term aim of terminating the UK as a sovereign democratic nation state.

Remainer Conservative MPs and Peers have successfully inverted the vote for Brexit as clearly articulated by the Cameron leaflet to all households. Brexit was poison to the Remainers, who voted Theresa May into power for fear of a cultural conservative resurgence. ‘Are we really sure that the membership will not vote for a fresh face who shares their attitudes to much of modern life? Like they did with IDS?’ asked Nick Boles. Remainers regard the correct attitudes to modern life as synchronised with membership of the EU, and the enforcement of cultural mores by that Leviathan, and indeed the eradication of dissent. The Remainer Conservative governments have become radically statist, putting the chill of the law on to opinions no longer acceptable or ‘appropriate’. From policing to the eco-dogma, to hate crime, to the removal of local power in planning applications, to brainwashing very young children, to colluding with the suppression of free speech on campus and so on, we find ourselves more and more bullied by a semi-hostile state. The EU strengthens this cultural domination.

Remainer MPs all know very well what the trajectory for the UK is under its EU membership as disclosed in FCO 30/1048. That agenda is long-term, never-ending ceding of national sovereignty to the Brussels management team, and with no escape clause. Democratic government was always intended to be faded out ever so gradually to Brussels and its undemocratic management model of administrative government by officialdom, under careful disguise, elbowing out the elected politicians. The nation state with its democratic institutions, in particular the power to vote out a government the people did not like, was to be gradually melted into the vast Brussels caliphate. This was grown-up politics, and the British people would put up with it like a naughty child needing education and maturing. The brave new world of Blair-Cameron-May social and political ethics was the future, and not only were traditional conscientious objectors to be defeated but eradicated, the change was to be irreversible. Heath himself predicted that by this century it would be too late for the UK to get out.

This was and is an astonishing rejection of democracy and the nation state. It was born very probably of German militarism in 1914 and 1939, the blame being placed on the nation state. The Germans had voted in Hitler, so democracy was not enough, in fact it was dangerous and needed to be displaced by . . . an unelected massive power bloc of officialdom. This narrative conveniently omits that 1914 Germany was a monarchical dictatorship, not a constitutional monarchy, and that Hitler burned down the Reichstag, destroying the democratic institutions – I imagine Mrs May might possibly be tempted towards something similar to obviate that inconvenient House of Commons, citing a public crisis in the face of the Armageddon of No Deal and claiming Emergency powers for ‘her deal’. The Conservatives did put FCO 30/1048 under the Official Secrets Act and hid it till very recently, and even did the same for a critical Cabinet Office analysis of HS2, in principle anyway not far from the tactics of the Fuehrer in smashing through the niceties of transparent democratic government. Remainer argument is that they lost the referendum on the back of the ignorance of the voters, so their win could not be accepted and needed to be inverted by all means, foul and foul. The Waitrose class lost to the Aldi and Lidl class, the Anywheres to the Somewheres, the liberated middle classes of Bolesian type to the traditionalist social mores which also espoused the right to dissent from the Cameron/Rudd/May catechism. Brave New EU World crushes dissent, it is an administration model of management and they who by definition know best: the 1870 doctrine of global papal infallibility and indefectibility translated into secular mode.

To get the radically forensic truth of what the May ‘permission to leave’ plan legally commits the UK to, I suggest The Seven Deadly Sins in the draft Withdrawal Agreement by Caroline Bell. She really does deconstruct the May plan and reveals the horrors we are now signed up to by ‘her’ plan ready to be ratified by MPs who will be signing themselves into redundancy – all to support Theresa and the Remainer ideology. I quote a section which reveals the foreign Joint Committee which will be ruling much of the UK when we remain but under Vichy conditions.

7. The PM said in her Chequers White Paper that Parliament could veto EU laws it didn’t like (and take the consequences). She still says we will ‘take back control’. The analysis above proves the contrary. But the Withdrawal Agreement also contains the time bomb which destroys parliamentary sovereignty and puts the UK in a quasi-colonial position. As usual with EU documents, it is very cleverly disguised in the small print of the seemingly innocuous governing procedure for the entire agreement, which covers separation issues, the transition period and the backstop (Arts. 164-179 and pages 560 – 585).

The WA specifically removes all control from the elected members of the UK Parliament and hands it to a ‘Joint Committee’ (Arts. 164-169). Annex VIII (p. 560) provides the committee’s ‘procedural rules’, stating that ‘the Joint Committee shall be co-chaired by a Member of the European Commission and a representative of the Government of the United Kingdom at ministerial level [NB: a UK government minister need not be elected], or by high-level officials designated to act as their alternates.’

The Joint Committee will have the exclusive right to implement the Agreement, interpret the Agreement and amend the terms of the Agreement ‘for up to four years after the end of the transition period’ and make decisions enforceable in the United Kingdom. It will also have the exclusive right to settle disputes. No dispute may be taken to the International Court, as is customary under treaty law (Art. 168).

If disputes cannot be settled by the Committee, then it may convene an international arbitration panel. However, where the dispute concerns ‘a concept of Union law, a question of interpretation of a provision of Union law referred to in this Agreement or a question of whether the United Kingdom has complied with its obligations under Article 89(2) the arbitration panel shall not decide on any such question. In such case, it shall request the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a ruling on the question. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel’.

So this Joint Committee can be given the Palace of Westminster and our MPs can go home to enjoy their brave new world of being managed by a Chinese model of governance, a small gang of all-powerful administrators along with ‘the party’ of Remainer true believers, keen to repress any dissent to the ‘modern’ view of life and nasty nationalist traditionalists who weirdly still want the right to disagree and who like democratic governance.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Our contributors and editors are unpaid but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We receive no independent funding and depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.