Swire continues to plot … but for whom? and why?

Daily Express article today – heck that fence must be pretty uncomfortable!

“Under the terms of the deal Mrs May agreed with the EU that the UK will automatically fall into a ‘backstop’ EU customs union should the Government fail to agree a new trading relationship with Brussels during the transition period. The transition period is currently set at 21 months, though Mrs May has hinted it could be extended. Should the UK enter a customs union with Brussels it would struggle to sign comprehensive trade deals with third parties, and will still have to obey a significant proportion of EU legislation.

Tory loyalists Sir Hugo Swire and Richard Graham have tabled the amendment, which would give MPs a vote on whether the UK joins the customs union backstop or extends the transition period if a new trading relationship with the EU can’t be agreed.

It also requires the Government to push for “further assurances from the EU that the backstop would only be a temporary arrangement”.

Should the UK enter a customs union the amendment requires the Government to make plans to exit within a year.

Nikki da Costa, formerly the Prime Minister’s director of legislative affairs, suggested Ministers could be behind the move.

He told the Daily Mail: “I know a Government amendment when I see one”.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1055563/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-EU-exit-deal-Parliament-amendment-Conservative-MP

Swire and Rudd – a marriage made in …

Multiple sightings of our esteemed MP lurking in the background – almost seeming to try to duck out of shot – of early TV news items featuring Amber Rudd spouting today’s riff on Brexit.

Swire has already been described as “a state sanctioned dissident” and Rudd is known to be quite prepared to do May’s dirty work:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/12/07/swire-state-sanctioned-dissident/

So, are they dirty working today WITH May or AGAINST her?

Be careful Mrs May – keeping your friends close but your enemies even closer has its failings. And Owl thinks he has never forgiven you for ousting him from his “job” at the Foreign Office, cosying up to the sheiks of the Saudi Arabian peninsula and his favourite islands, The Maldives. Which he still does but in the very much less prestigious ‘job” of Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.

Swire: “state-sanctioned dissident”!

Owl loves the description of Swire!

“The plain fact is that the Brexiteers and the DUP are unbiddable, unshakeable and unpersuadeable. The usual tricks of last minute concessions just aren’t working. Last night was a case in point, as the new amendment to give Stormont and MPs a say over the customs ‘backstop’ was tabled by state-sanctioned dissidents Hugo Swire, Richard Graham and Bob Neill. …”

Source: WUgh Zone, Huffington Post

Swire and Parish – more on those votes

A comment on the original post:

“Let’s make sure that everyone is clear what this was all about and why Swire’s & Parish’s votes were fundamentally important.

The issues that these votes related to were as follows:

1. Should the government keep the Attorney General’s legal advice secret so that MPs debate and vote about Brexit could not be an informed vote, but instead would be based on a political interpretation of this legal advice by the Government, in other words an interpretation by government politicians with all the bias towards the outcome they want to see rather than an independent assessment? [Swire and Parish voted to keep the advice secret]

2. Should the Government be allowed to ignore a decision by Parliament that the legal advice should be published in full? In other words, is Government the servant of our MPs or the other way around? Remember, that the only group able to hold the Government to account between general elections is Parliament i.e. MPs – and if Government doesn’t need to be accountable to them, then they are effectively an absolute autocracy, without needing to be accountable to anyone. Scared yet? [Yes, said Swire and Parish – it should ignore the vote]

3. Should the Government – and specifically Mrs May – be allowed to control the Brexit debate in order to give MPs only two choices – a very bad one or an even worse one, and not allow them to debate or vote on the other legally available choices? And to do this to the detriment not only of Parliament but also the people of the UK who have to live with the consequences for at a minimum several decades? [Yes, they voted: only Mrs May and her cabinet of cronies should be allowed to decide what happens next]

In other words, these three votes were not about some minor technicality relating to publication of a specific letter from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister – instead they were about THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEMOCRACY – that the Government should be able to be held accountable by MPs, and that in the end it is our MPs who take the decisions on behalf of us. [Remember “sovereignty”!]

And that is why both Neil Parish and Hugo Swire’s votes against these motions are so important and so wrong. By now we are all pretty used to Swire and Parish putting Party before People – just look at the awful laws they have voted for which have it the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the hardest. Is it any wonder that the Conservative Party is called “The Nasty Party” by a large proportion of the population?

But these votes were different – they were about putting Party before Democracy itself. Swire and Parish effectively voted for the Government to be unaccountable, and for an absolute autocracy where the Government can do absolutely what they like, regardless of whether MPs agree with it or not. These votes were simply anti-democracy. PERIOD.

Remember, power corrupts – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So I ask you – yes you, the person reading this comment – do you really want your MP to be voting to give Government ministers absolute power, because that is the first step towards a tyrannical government? Or do you think that above all else, your MP should be voting to preserve democracy? In other words, which is more important to you in the long run – today’s vote or having a genuine democracy? I certainly know my own priority on this.”

Both East Devon MPs voted three times against transparency and parliamentary sovereignty yesterday

Swire and Parish:

Voted that May was NOT in contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish full Brexit legal advice.

Voted AGAINST allowing full publication instead referring the matter to a committee.

And voted AGAINST allowing Parliament a say if May’s deal falls through.

Moral of this story: use your vote wisely next time these men stand for Parliament.

Swire – right place, right time …?

“City lawyers told to target emerging economies in developing countries post Brexit”

City lawyers should sell their services to emerging economic powers such as Nigeria and Kazakhstan to generate “vital” earnings for the UK after Brexit, the Justice Secretary has told legal chiefs. …”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/city-lawyers-told-to-target-emerging-economies-in-developing-countries-post-brexit-a4004466.html

What does this have to do with East Devon? Nothing.

What does it have to do with our MP, Hugo Swire? Everything.

The (currently non-trading) company he took such a long while to put on his Register of Interests (co-director, ex-Energy Minister and spokesperson for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska) has been set up to get involved with …..
drumroll ….. emerging economies!

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2018/06/24/swires-mate-and-co-director-continues-to-court-the-wrong-kind-of-controversy/