Jacob Rees-Mogg: A new postponement of the Brexit would not have utility

One of the leaders of the Brexit hard turns in favor of the agreement of MayAsí is Rees-Mogg, the peculiar leader eurófobo that has been May against the cuerdas

Jacob Rees-Mogg: A new postponement of the Brexit would not have utility
One of the leaders of the Brexit hard turns in favor of the agreement of MayAsí is Rees-Mogg, the peculiar leader eurófobo that has been May against the cuerdasUno of the "brexiters" harder says that it raises to support the agreement of May

Although all identified the House of Commons, with their Speaker, John Bercow, placing order, who truly commands there is the Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg (London, 1969). He is a member of the Cabinet of Boris Johnson and bears his euroscepticism in the blood.

why it has not been possible Brexit fast that had been promised by the prime minister?

it Would have been possible, but the previous Government was stuck for endless details and things as the safeguarding irish were not the essential part of the Brexit. When Boris Johnson became prime minister he was bound by decisions that had already been taken.

Is it still possible to a Brexit agreed?

The history of the EU shows that it tends to agree to things at the last minute. So when you agreed to the bailouts for the value of 600,000 million euros did it in a weekend. The EU is normally very slow, but when there is real pressure can act incredibly fast. So yes, it is still possible, I believe that all sides really want an agreement, but it is not inevitable. Many say they don't want a Brexit, without agreement. What they mean is that they don't want Brexit at all. They want to thwart the Brexit, but they use this phrase encoded.

do you Think that could or should have another referendum?

No. I think that there should be none. The decision has already been taken and must be implemented. There have been three votes on this matter. The elections of 2015 that the manifesto of the Conservative Party said that there would be a referendum; the referendum itself in 2016 and the general election of 2017 in which the two main parties said they would that what they had voted in the referendum. The only ones who want a second referendum are those who lost because they want to reverse the result that they didn't like it. But I think that this is not how democracy works. You need to implement what is voted on in a referendum before proposing to another on the same subject matter.

why Should the EU accept a postponement of Brexit on the 31st of October? This Parliament has already voted three times, the agreement that was reached.

Because the new negotiations are not going to change anything. If we cannot reach an agreement on the 31st of October, we will not get any agreement that the Parliament may approve. A new deferment would not have any utility.

67 per cent of the british voted in favor of the European Communities in 1975. Do you think that is wrong?

That was a very different animal. When it was proposed to the European Constitution, which metamorphosed into the Lisbon Treaty, there was a promise to hold a referendum. And that was never fulfilled. We were never given the chance to say if we liked the European Union in which we had entered. That was a fundamental change in respect of 1975. What is wrong then? I think that the attractions of an area of trade were much larger than they are now, because trade barriers have disappeared in the greater part of the world.

likes to say that he wants the Conservative Party to be an open space, but 21 mps have been expelled from the parliamentary group. Instead you promoted, without consequences for you, a vote of censure to Theresa May when he was prime minister. Why is there so much difference between one and the other?

There is a technical difference important. The vote of censure in which I was involved was internal in the parliamentary group of the conservative. There was a vote in the House. All parties have in its rules of procedure means to replace its leader. I was using because he believed that the prime minister was not doing his job as well as it should. And it should not penalize anyone for using those procedures. This could be done anonymously, but I thought that that would have been very cowardly. And there is a second issue, not technical, which is why it voted against the Government. I voted against the Government May in a few european affairs. But none was a matter of trust. And none of them gave control of Commons to the opposition which is what led to the vote of those 21 deputies. Gave the opposition the ability to pass laws that are not promoted by the Government. There is No precedent for this. That's why it was legitimate to declare it a matter of confidence and once it is, everyone knows that the consequence of breaking the discipline of the vote is to quit the parliamentary group.

what Is threatened today is the unity of the United Kingdom? The conditions in which the scots said "no" to independence have changed dramatically.

I think that the unity of the United Kingdom will be much stronger when you leave the EU. One of the reasons that some scots was as supporters of the independence was because they believed that they could be independent within the EU. If we look at the fishing, when you are a member of the EU, if the scottish Government have an idea, you have to come to the british Government that he then has to go to Brussels. So what they said is we go directly to Brussels. If we get to Brussels on the stage, is reduced to a relationship between Edinburgh and London which I think is much more simple.

Except that they say that they want to be members of the EU and that was the reason they voted to stay in the Uk.

In it there is a twisted logic. Here is a proud scot who wants to be absolutely independent, to break out of being a part of the United Kingdom, and now being part of the EU and tell Brussels what it can do in fishing, agriculture and trade. If I were a scottish independence, the last thing you would want is to hand over everything to Brussels when I just got rid of them.

And how it will affect the unity of the country, the existence or non-existence of a safeguard irish?

The United Kingdom is not going to lift a border lasts between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. And if the EU insists on asking 13,000 million in taxes and doing away with the tax system of the Republic of Ireland can be made very obvious the disadvantages of belonging to the European Union.

Has presided over the "think tank" eurosceptic European Research Group until a month ago. What do you think is the greatest hoax of the EU towards its citizens?

The democracy. If I show up to the elections in the United Kingdom, my constituents have direct access to me to ask me to change any law. And, in theory, according to which vote may achieve the change of all the laws. When you get to the EU that is made by a qualified majority, and the laws can only be proposed by the commissioners, not members of the European Parliament. If you are a voter, in the Uk or in Spain, you don't have access to those who are making your laws in Europe. You have been removed. That is a barrier to democratic key.

Date Of Update: 22 September 2019, 13:01

Yorum yapabilmek için üye girişi yapmanız gerekmektedir.

Üye değilseniz hemen üye olun veya giriş yapın.