The 21 Traitor MP’s Booted Out of The Tory Party For Their Disloyalty To Their Party & Country!

Twenty One Tory MP’s have been kicked out of the party and banned from standing for the Conservatives at the next General Election. Two former Chancellors Ken Clarke MP and Phillip Hammond Mp, Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve MP & Winston Churchill’s Grandson Sir Nicholas Soames have all been sacked by PM Boris Johnson for their disloyalty to their party and most importantly their country by rebelling against the government and the people of this country by voting to take ‘No Deal’ off the table.

The twenty one treacherous MP’s helped inflict defeat on the Prime Minister in his first major vote since he replaced Treasonous Theresa May. Mr Johnson’s government confirmed all 21 MP’s had the Tory whip removed, meaning they have been sacked from the Conservatives and will not be allowed to stand for the party at the next general election.

Philip Hammond

The second former chancellor to vote against the government led the charge against Mr Johnson’s no-deal plans. A dedicated Tory and MP for the Surrey constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge for 22 years, he has promised Mr Johnson the “fight of a lifetime” if he is not allowed to stand at the next election. Before having the whip removed, “Spreadsheet Phil”, as he was known while chancellor, said he would explore legal action should he be removed as a Conservative MP. I have no sympathy for Hammond, he’s spent the past 3 years actively working to subvert what 17.4 million people voted for back in June 2016.

Dominic Grieve

The former attorney general revealed before the vote he was going to rebel, and has previously said he would stop a no-deal Brexit even if it means Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister. He said he wanted to remain in the Conservative Party to “save” it from the likes of our PM Boris Johnson – whose rhetoric he blamed for receiving death threats. Before the vote he said he knew he could have have the whip removed but had not been directly threatened. Yet another traitor to the his party and the people of the country. It’s actually quite hard to believe Grieve and Mr Johnson are in the same party. Well not for much longer. It’s refreshing seeing a Prime Minister act in the interests of the people for once.

 

Ken Clarke

One of two former chancellors to vote against the government and the people that voted for the UK to leave in the biggest democratic exercise in British history, for the Father of the House and current longest-serving MP to risk losing the whip after 49 years was a momentous occasion. In a sarcasm-laden speech to parliament before the vote, he added on a serious note there was “no precedent” for a government “pursuing a policy which they know a majority in parliament is opposed to”. The staunch Europhile branded Mr Johnson a “rather knock-about character” with a “bizarre ‘crash it through’ philosophy”. He had already said he would not contest another election. You see Ken Clarke has hit the nail on the hand, our PM is being lambasted as a dictator because the majority of MP’s are against the UK leaving and they’ve been frantically working to prevent our orderly departure. Parliament may not want to leave, however the people do want to leave, we currently have a situation on our hands where our MP’s are working against the British people, even though there job is to serve the people and be their voice. I think a lot of these elitist traitors seem to have forgotten that.

The rest of the ‘Traitors’ that were sacked are as follows:

David Gauke MP South West Hertfordshire

Sir Oliver Letwin MP West Dorset

Justine Greening MP Putney

Rory Stewart MP Penrith & The Border

Alistair Burt MP NE Bedfordshire

Sir Nicholas Soames Mid Sussex

Dame Caroline Spelman Meriden

Greg Clarke MP: Tunbridge Wells

Sam Gyimah MP: East Surrey

Antoinette Sandbach MP: Eddisbury

Stephen Hammond MP: Wimbledon, Raynes Park, Morden and Motspur Park.

Margot James MP: Stourbridge

Richard Harrington MP: Watford

Guto Bebb MP: Aberconwy

Caroline Nokes MP: Romsey & Southampton North

Ed Vaizey MP: Wantage & Didcot

Steve Brine MP: Winchester

Anne Milton MP: Guildford

Richard Benyon MP: Newbury

All of the above names have chosen to side with a foreign power (EU) they are actively working to sabotage our orderly exit from The European Union. We must not forgive and certainly never forget their disloyalty not only to their party but most importantly their country which they claim to ‘Love’. History will remember them as ‘Traitors’ and rightly so. So really parties like The Brexit Party and UKIP are essentially forcing the Tories to act in the best interests of the British people. Thank God, we’ve replaced the awful, treasonous May with a fearless leader like Boris. Let’s just hope he sticks to his word and we leave on the 31st October 2019 with or without a deal, obviously the latter would be the most desirable.

Please Follow My Telegram Channel Here:https://t.me/jamesgoddard89

YouTube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGxFNMDlSqlWWCEYHQypruQ

3Speak Channel:https://3speak.online/user/jamesgoddard

To support my activism/citizen journalism:https://donorbox.org/silenced-no-more

2 Comments on "The 21 Traitor MP’s Booted Out of The Tory Party For Their Disloyalty To Their Party & Country!"

  1. Scottish Unionist | September 9, 2019 at 13:02 | Reply

    My research to prove why Scottish independence is a very complex issue.

    > If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?
    >
    > Answer: The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence.
    >
    > It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent.

    https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20150120011925/https://www.scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-another-referendum-on-independence-at-a-later-date/

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/707757/Nicola-Sturgeon-signed-THIS-document-promising-NOT-to-push-for-second-referendum

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=3-hV_nPhzzs

    The legislation on Scotland’s permanence with the United Kingdom.

    > Scotland Act 1998
    >
    > PART 2A
    >
    > 63A – Permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
    >
    > (1) The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.
    >
    > (2) The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
    >
    > (3) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.

    > Part I – General reservations
    >
    > The Constitution
    >
    > The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
    >
    > (a) the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
    >
    > (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
    >
    > (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom,
    >
    > (d) the continued existence of the High Court of Justiciary as a criminal court of first instance and of appeal,
    >
    > (e) the continued existence of the Court of Session as a civil court of first instance and of appeal.
    >
    > 2 (1) Paragraph 1 does not reserve—
    >
    > (a) Her Majesty’s prerogative and other executive functions,
    >
    > (b) functions exercisable by any person acting on behalf of the Crown, or
    >
    > (c) any office in the Scottish Administration.

    The First Minister of Scotland is breaking the law by trying to force a referendum over Brexit.

    > Foreign affairs etc.
    >
    > 7 (1) International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations, regulation of international trade, and international development assistance and co-operation are reserved matters.
    >
    > (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not reserve—
    >
    > (a) observing and implementing international obligations, obligations under the Human Rights Convention and obligations under EU law,
    >
    > (b) assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which that sub-paragraph applies.

    > Treason
    >
    > Treason (including constructive treason), treason felony and misprision of treason are reserved matters.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents

    The UK government stated:

    > Now is not the time for another referendum. In 2014 people in Scotland voted decisively to remain part of the United Kingdom. That result should be respected.
    >
    > The UK Government has been clear that now is not the time for another referendum. Scotland had an independence referendum in 2014 on a promise that it would settle the issue for a generation. It was legal, fair and decisive and people in Scotland voted by a significant margin to remain part of the UK. The Edinburgh Agreement of 2012 committed both the UK and Scottish governments to respect the referendum’s outcome. The UK Government will continue to respect the result of the 2014 referendum.
    >
    > Scotland Office.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/259359

    The proposed bill on the Scottish independence referendum.

    https://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/111844.aspx

    More reasons why Scottish independence referendum is complex:

    > It’s tempting to assume that, if the Scottish parliament can’t hold a legal referendum, it could still opt for an “advisory” or “consultative” referendum with moral rather than legal force. But this is to confuse the legality of holding a referendum with the legal force of the result.
    >
    > If the Scottish parliament passed a referendum act along the same lines as last time, it wouldn’t be legally binding even if authorised by the UK parliament. A vote for independence wouldn’t by itself lead to an automatic change in the legal status of Scotland.
    >
    > This was acknowledged by the Scottish government in its consultation ahead of the last referendum:
    >
    > “Any changes to Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom will require negotiation with the UK government and legislation in the UK and Scottish parliaments.”
    >
    > It’s the same as for the EU referendum: the leave vote is an instruction to politicians, who would then have to pass the laws necessary to actually make it happen.
    >
    > So in that sense, any referendum in the UK is technically advisory.
    >
    > The exception is where the law setting it up makes the vote legally binding—as was the case with the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011. The law on the last Scottish referendum wasn’t like that, and the complexity of legislating for Scottish independence means that a future one is unlikely to be either.
    >
    > So, strictly speaking, any Scottish independence referendum—whether held with the agreement of Westminster or not—would be an “advisory” political instruction to Scottish and UK lawmakers to act upon.
    >
    > But if one were held without the UK parliament’s agreement, it may not feel the same political obligation to pass the laws necessary to actually implement the result.
    >
    > As we saw last week, the UK parliament felt obliged to act upon an EU referendum vote most members reportedly disagreed with—even though it could have refused in legal theory. Similarly, there’s little doubt that it would have passed the laws necessary to facilitate Scottish independence in the event of a “Yes” vote in 2014.
    >
    > Legally organised referendums “are not opinion polls”, in the words of the Constitution Committee.
    >
    > The constitutional situation would be much less clear if a second Scottish referendum vote hadn’t been authorised at UK level to begin with. The argument that the UK parliament should act on the result of an “informal” referendum wouldn’t have those constitutional precedents to rely upon. It would be uncharted political territory.

    https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/

    > The Union of Scotland and England is a reserved matter
    >
    > Holyrood is unable to legislate on ‘reserved matters,’ which are the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Paragraph 1(b) of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 states that “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” is a reserved matter. This means the Scottish Parliament cannot declare Scotland independent, as it does not have the legislative ability to do so.
    >
    > It is not clear as a matter of law, however, if the Scottish Parliament can unilaterally hold a referendum on independence. Only if it was judged that such a referendum ‘relates to’ the Union would it likely fall outside competence. Importantly, this debate has not been resolved, rather the Scottish and UK Governments reached an agreement which allowed the 2014 referendum to proceed.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-and-elections/devolution/whats-the-process-for-a-second-independence-referendum-in-scotland/

    > Can the Scottish Parliament hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster?
    >
    > Whether the Scottish Parliament can unilaterally hold an ‘advisory’ referendum on this issue has never been finally resolved. But it seems clear that the Scottish Government does not propose to test this issue; instead it will seek the consent of Westminster to a so-called s30 Order, thereby ensuring that the UK Government will have to accept the referendum result.
    >
    > A s.30 Order would involve a temporary transfer of power from the UK Parliament to the Scottish Parliament to allow the referendum to go ahead, along similar lines to the 2014 process. The Scottish Government indicated its intention to go down this route in its white paper, ‘Consultation on a Draft Referendum Bill’ published in October last year, and this was also confirmed by the First minister today when she stated that she will ask the Scottish Parliament next week for permission to request a Section 30 order.
    >
    > Will the UK Parliament grant such an order?
    >
    > It is of course under no legal obligation to do so. The issue is, as it was in 2012 when the Edinburgh Agreement was signed, essentially political. The UK Government does not need the distraction of a Scottish independence referendum during Brexit negotiations, particularly as it will find it very difficult to concentrate fully on saving the Anglo-Scottish union while engaged in what could be very fraught and complex talks with Brussels; but nor will it want to be presented as frustrating the will of the Scottish Parliament, thereby strengthening support for independence.
    >
    > In the end, it may well acquiesce in principle to a second referendum, but lay down requirements as to timing, insisting that the referendum only be held after an exit agreement with the EU has been achieved. One argument will be that Scots are unable to make an informed choice on independence until they know what the final terms of Brexit will be.
    >
    > Is a second independence referendum inevitable?
    >
    > The UK Parliament could of course refuse a s.30 Order. But this seems unlikely. It is also possible that the Scottish Government will, over time, withdraw its plan. The First Minister has indicated that there could be room for compromise with the UK Government if the latter is willing and able to negotiate a special status for Scotland in the Brexit negotiations. Even in the absence of this there are other factors that could frustrate the Scottish Government’s plans. For example, moves towards a good deal for the UK in Brexit negotiations and opinion polls showing support for independence diminishing, added to a commitment to further constitutional reform in a federal direction, could possibly combine to halt the process.
    >
    > But what seems clear is that the Scottish Government is not bluffing. If, as looks likely, it can gain a majority in the Scottish Parliament to request a s.30 Order, and can convince Westminster to grant this, then the path will be set for a referendum process that could see Scotland leave the UK just as the UK leaves the EU. The onus is now firmly upon the UK Government to take extremely seriously the distinctive priorities of the devolved territories – Northern Ireland and Wales, as much as Scotland – as it begins the Brexit process.

    https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/second-independence-referendum-scotland-legal-issues

    > A failure of politics: bad for the Supreme Court, bad for citizens
    >
    > If there is no agreement as to the timing of a referendum and hence no s.30 Order, it is not inconceivable that the Scottish Government might seek to hold a referendum either using its executive powers under the Scotland Acts or by way of legislation through the Scottish Parliament. If this happens we might envisage a legal challenge by the Law Officers with the matter coming before the Supreme Court. It would be left to our top judges to interpret whether the Scotland Act 1998 does allow for a consultative referendum.
    >
    > This would throw judges into a vexed and deeply political dispute. In the last year we have already seen the Supreme Court become embroiled in the decision to trigger Article 50. In the end this issue was not particularly controversial. Brexit is of course controversial, but the decision that Article 50 notification must be triggered by way of an act of parliament rather than prerogative power has done no more than hold things up briefly. Nonetheless, the invective aimed at the judges in the Supreme Court and the divisional court which first heard the case, and the claim that they were acting politically, has arguably done the status of these courts as neutral arbiters considerable damage.
    >
    > The decision on whether the Scottish Parliament can hold a referendum on independence, being made by the Supreme Court in London, could be far more politically explosive. Whichever way such a case was decided the Court would come under scrutiny like never before. There is also no guarantee that the result would be treated with respect. If it declared the holding of a consultative referendum to be a reserved matter, some Scottish nationalists could well accuse the court of being a biased arm of the UK state. A similar fate has befallen the Constitutional Court in Spain where Catalonia’s arguments for a right to hold an independence referendum have played out. On the other hand, if the Court declared that a referendum could go ahead on a consultative basis there would still be a risk of a boycott by those who would refuse to engage with a referendum that was not treated as binding (situations such as Northern Ireland in 1973 and Bosnia in 1992 have shown how disastrous for democracy a referendum can be when one side decides not even to participate). There would also be lingering uncertainty as to what, if any, respect the UK Government would give to the outcome of such a consultative process.

    https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/opinions/second-scottish-independence-referendum-without-s30-order-legal-question-demands-political

    https://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-7354

    As for independent Scotland trying to rejoin the EU.

    > 3. Myth: We’ll be an EU member (and inherit the same terms and conditions that the UK currently enjoys)
    >
    > Fact: We’d have to apply as a new state and negotiate entry – it’s hard to imagine it would be an easy process (look at how long it took Croatia to join – almost eight years), and even harder to imagine that we’d be given advantageous terms (like the UK rebate or opt-outs, including from the Euro).

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotland-the-uk-10-myths-10-facts

    > It’s correct that Scotland is very likely to be outside the EU one way or another, although it’s not technically impossible for an independent Scotland to remain a member.
    >
    > If Brexit happens and Scotland stays in the UK, there’s no issue. Scotland is out.
    >
    > If Brexit happens and Scotland meanwhile votes to leave the UK, things are more complicated. There’s no direct precedent for this situation.
    >
    > More likely, then, is that the consent of all the other 27 EU member countries would be needed for Scotland to remain in or rejoin the EU.
    >
    > As the EU is based on international treaties, and treaties can always be changed, it is technically possible for Scotland to be written in as an EU member before leaving the UK. But that seems unlikely given the stance of the central EU bodies and some members.
    >
    > So the most likely scenario would be a Scottish exit upon independence, followed by negotiations on joining as a new member. That would be done under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union—the article preceding the now famous Article 50.
    >
    > While it’s conceivable that Article 49 negotiations could take place before independence rather than after, to ensure that there’s no gap in Scottish EU membership, that might be vetoed by a country like Spain in the same way as a treaty change fix.

    https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-stay-in-eu/

    > The independence movement in Catalonia, a region of Spain, means that Madrid doesn’t like encouraging nationalist movements in other countries. That’s why it’s often assumed that the Spanish government is committed to vetoing an independent Scotland’s EU membership.
    >
    > But there’s a possible misunderstanding here. There’s a difference between staying in the EU and rejoining it.
    >
    > Essentially, Spain says that Scotland would have to exit the EU in the event of an independence vote, and then apply to join as a new member. (That’s also what the central EU bodies say.)
    >
    > “Were Scotland to become independent… the country would be treated as a third state and would have to get in line to join the EU.” That’s from Spanish newspaper El País, summarising the position taken by the country’s foreign minister this week.
    >
    > That’s not, however, a threat to veto an independent Scotland’s membership application. Spain’s Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, refused to get into that when pressed on it shortly after the referendum last summer. Various analysts say that Mr Rajoy would cross that bridge when he comes to it.

    https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-membership-spain-scotland/

    > Neither Spain nor France will permit the precedent of secessionists joining the EU. During the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, the European Commission said Scotland would not inherit the UK’s membership of the EU.
    >
    > Brussels instinctively backed Madrid against Catalonia, prompting famous Breton musician Alan Stivell to lament “Catalonia’s political prisoners represents the suicide of the idea of Europe”.

    https://brexitcentral.com/bad-news-for-scottish-and-welsh-nationalists-brexit-strengthens-the-union-of-the-united-kingdom/

    > Conditions for membership
    >
    > The EU operates comprehensive approval procedures that ensure new members are admitted only when they can demonstrate they will be able to play their part fully as members, namely by:
    >
    > complying with all the EU’s standards and rules
    >
    > having the consent of the EU institutions and EU member states
    >
    > having the consent of their citizens – as expressed through approval in their national parliament or by referendum.
    >
    > Membership criteria – Who can join?
    >
    > The Treaty on the European Union states that any European country may apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting them.

    https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en

    https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/glossary/terms/accession-eu_en

    The recent opinion polls show Scotland want to remain part of the UK.

    https://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/post/new-poll-shows-majority-back-remaining-in-uk

    http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask

    https://www.scotlandinunion.co.uk/nat-fact-will-of-the-people

    The realistic arrangement for Scotland is to have Crown dependency status.

    https://www.royal.uk/crown-dependencies

    https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/cabinet-office/external-relations/constitution/

  2. DIRTY VILE ANTI HUMAN SICK IN THE HEAD TRAITORS MY SON AT 14 BETRAYED ME IN 2005 I BIRTISED HIM NEVER SPOKE TO HIM SINCE I DETEST weak mushroom ducked CUCKOLD MEN AND FEMINAZIS RED PILL MGTOW BREXIT GROW A SPINE FOR GOD’S SAKE this libtard feminist led NONSENSE needs to be destroyed

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*